Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

One Verse At A Time...


Guest sub_zer0

Recommended Posts

"Run subby, RUN!"

1trac_run_med.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 815
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    81

  • thunderbolt

    73

  • SkepticOfBible

    58

  • Open_Minded

    55

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.

 

 

Where does it say that the messiah would fulfill the law?

 

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.

 

And therefore the laws itself were sufficent. There was no requirement for Jesus. And you could still acquire salvation, because they part of the ETERNAL AND PERFECT LAW

 

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:

 

How do everlasting and perfect laws change? and why?

 

What is righteousness? The absence of sin!

 

and therefore you observe the torah(which defines righteousness)

 

 

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.

 

And so that people could live a moral and righteousness life. You say that you have repented of your sins, but how are repenting your sins if you keep sinning all the time.

 

I guess according to you Homosexuality will ok too, since christ has fulfilled those laws too. No......... wait those laws will obviously apply since you like them. (Cherry picking)

 

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

 

Nope as it says, it is quite easy. Just obey ALL the rules and you will be righteous. Not ignoring some

 

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.

 

Once again you do not have OT verses for your claims. There is nothing in the OT about the messiah fulfilling the law and becoming a new law. That is a NT invention.

 

You are basically saying that God lied when he said his moral and absolute laws are ETERNAL and PERFECT?

 

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.

 

Quoting Paul won't get you anywhere. You can't use the NT verse to prove the NT is right. It's like a Muslim who tries to prove that quran is true by using the verses from the quran.

 

So what you basically trying to say that laws of the OT did not extend to the Gentiles and they could join God's fold? If this is the case, I guess didn't read my previous post regarding this

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=6613&st=120#

 

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 new covenant as defined by God in the Old Testament(Jer 31:28-34) says absolutely nothing about belief and faith in a human sacrifice replacing obedience to his laws as the vehicle for salvation.

 

The OT doesn't even the support about the idea that messiah would be worshipped.

 

You claim that you have the holy spirit right, well this is what the Ezekiel had to say about those who have the holy spirit.

 

Ezekiel 11:19-20 RSV

"And I will give them one heart, and PUT A NEW SPIRIT WITHIN THEM; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, THAT THEY MAY WALK IN MY STATUTES AND KEEP MY ORDINANCES AND OBEY THEM; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God."

 

Ezekiel 36:26-27 RSV

" A new heart I will give you, and A NEW SPIRIT I WILL PUT WITHIN YOU and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I WILL PUT _MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU_ AND CAUSE YOU TO WALK IN MY STATUTES and BE CAREFUL TO OBSERVE MY ORDINANCES."

I guess since you don't want to follow God's law, for whatever reason, you definately don't have the holy spirit.

 

Deuteronomy 26:17

"...YOU WILL walk in his ways, and keep his STATUTES and his COMMANDMENTS and his ORDINANCES, and will obey his voice..."

 

As the verse says those who claim to have the holy spirit will WALK IN ALL HIS COMMANDMENTS. Not just some BUT ALL.

 

I guess you are just one of those phony christian who claim who have the holy spirit, but just don't display the signs of it.

 

How isn't it progressive revelation?

 

Ahem, Debating 101, it is not the job of skeptic to prove a negative.

 

The NT is definately not the a progressive because

 

1)There is a conflict in theology. Many assertions that the NT makes are balantly contradicted by the OT. As I shown

 

2)The NT makes a quite a lot mistakes in the understanding of the OT theology

 

3)The NT writers take verse out of context from the OT, twist them to further their theological agenda. eg they make prophecies out of verses which are not even prophecies at all.

 

4)Speaking of prophecies there are tons of prophecies in the NT which don't exist in the OT.

 

A very good example of point 3 is the book of Hebrews

 

Here is a post of mine where I discuss one example

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4151&st=40#

Verse Twisting in the Books of Hebrews

Verse Twisting in the Books of Acts

 

(Do read them, atleast that will help you understand my Point of view)

 

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

 

That is your assertion. The OT shows that you not need Christ. I am sorry but your christ died in vain. There was nothing wrong in the OT, there was no change required.

 

God's revelation could just as easily have been complete with the "Old Testament", and both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon could be deceptions. The Hebrew scriptures repeatedly warn the people not to be fooled by false teachers that attempt to redefine God and turn people away from him to follow false gods(Deut 13, Deut 18).

 

The whole idea about a faith in human sacrifice(which is illegal by the OT laws) replacing God's law is a good example of a false teaching if the Hebrew scriptures are to be taken seriously.

 

 

No you are tightly closing your eyes to the purpose of the Law, REVEAL SIN,

 

And it also "reveals" that you do not need christ.

 

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

 

In other words you are talking about revisionism. Yup the NT is great at fitting Jesus in whatever verses they could. However this like trying to fit a Square Peg through a round hole.

 

Even the Muslims try to do the same thing with Muhammed, but you will outright those same arguements. Check out the thread "Prophecies In the Quran".

 

None of the claims you made are even remotely implied in the OT. On the other hand you are ignoring the OT verses which outright exposes the flaws in your theology.

 

You just make up your rules and then pretend that God agrees with you.

 

"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).

 

Obviously Jesus did not fulfill many of the messianic prophecy. Just because the NT says that he is messiah, doesn't makes him.

 

The covenant of Jer 31 has not come to pass.

 

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.

The Jews are still waiting for their messiah to come. The messiah was never supposed to fulfill the LAW.

 

Messiah Wanted

 

PS:Have you ever visited a counter missionary website?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Ad hoc. Making excuses for your God failing to act is not an answer.

 

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

 

Ad hoc. Once again making excuses for your God's failing to act.

 

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

 

Why's that? That's like saying a girl deserves rape because she dressed like she wanted it, and then punishing every single woman for that one girl being raped.

 

Good job.

 

If animals are culpable when used as instruments of sin, then why punish not only the entire species, but every other species of snake around? It seems more like support of racism, where a small group of people who do bad things are suddenly representative of all people in a vast generalization of supposed wrong-doing.

 

Am I getting my point across? Let's kill all black people because OJ killed his woman. Is that distinct enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :thanks:
I got dis, Wolfy! :woohoo:

 

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. :HaHa:

 

:grin:Hi Fwee! I didn't read the whole thread over there! :phew: It did list Deuteronomy 22:28,29... however I am using the KJV with Strong Numbers from Crosswalk.com. Tell me what you think. :shrug:

 

Deuteronomy

22:25

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

22:26

But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth (8804) him, even so is this matter:

22:27

For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

22:28

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

22:29

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

 

It seems to me that the part in blue is a guy molesting the lady betrothed to someone else. Further, it says she was crying, she is clearly an unwilling participant! He was killed, she is clearly spared. IF two people decide to have sex willingly, as is the case in red, for there is no mention of force by the man, nor crying or resisting by the lady... then the guy must pay her father and marry her for all these days of his life. I guess it was suppose to stop hit and run relationships by these guys then? Do you guys have a problem with that? :Hmm:

 

Of course the whole thing seems to be hinging on "if they be found", yet clearly they would have enough integrity to marry any way, right? :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22:28

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

22:29

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

 

IF two people decide to have sex willingly, as is the case in red,

Willingly? :Hmm: Where exactly does it show where she is showing any type of consent? She doesn't.

 

Now, since we're sticking within "context" here, (and since this is a story) one can only logically assume (through the "context" of the former verse) that both passages are talking about rape.

 

for there is no mention of force by the man, nor crying or resisting by the lady...

Read 22:28 again. Are you sure you don't read any mention of force?

 

 

Also, while we're on the subject, would you care to discuss how the WOMEN in either of these verses benefit at all? You did notice that, didn't you? You know, how both verses are written in favor of the man. (first scenario - betrothed dude benefits) (second scenario - the dude who "laid hold on her" benefits)

 

Regardless of how you decide to spin it, both women are getting screwed - and more ways than one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how you decide to spin it, both women are getting screwed - and more ways than one!

 

I guess it depends on the exact meaning/translation of 'and lay hold on her'. That phrase is pretty vague - could mean a lot of things.

 

Either way, you're right Fweetie - the women still come off as chattel. :ugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how you decide to spin it, both women are getting screwed - and more ways than one!
I guess it depends on the exact meaning/translation of 'and lay hold on her'. That phrase is pretty vague - could mean a lot of things.
It's only vague if you don't take into consideration what is said in the previous verse. Since the first verse mentions taking by force, the only way one could conclude that the second verse is consensual is by ignoring what was said previously.
Either way, you're right Fweetie - the women still come off as chattel. :ugh:
Exactly! So, what exactly is the moral lesson(s) being taught here? :Hmm:

 

MORAL LESSON ONE:

If you're a man engaged to be married,

and someone rapes your wife-to-be - we'll put him death.

But don't worry, she didn't commit a sin worthy of death,

so we'll just leave her alone.

 

NOTE: the guilt still being place upon the woman. :ugh:

 

MORAL LESSON TWO:

If you're a single girl and a man "lays hold on" you,

and "lies with" you, and IF someone just so

happens to "find" you doinkin', he owes your dad

a few bucks and you will marry him.

 

NOTE: Free-for-all on the single girls! Come one, come all!

If you know of one that you want forever -

find'er fuck'er and be found.

(don't worry 'bout what she thinks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having some trouble understanding a passage in the Bible? Perhaps I can help. Just list ONE passage and explain what the problem is you see. I will then post back what the passage means hopefully eliminating the problem you see.

 

oh really

 

Here is one once you are done with

 

Here is declaration God's laws are perfect, trustworthy, and eternal.

Psa 19:7

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

 

Psa 119:160

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

 

According to Paul, God's laws have ended, were canceled, and stood against people.

 

Rom 10:4

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

 

Col 2:13-14

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances(laws) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

 

Please resolve

 

'in whos understanding is this from? from the carnality of the flesh or of God's un-failing knowledge and Wisdom'?

 

Rom 10:4

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

 

Christ came to fulfill the law (Matt 5:17) that He might terminae the law and replace it (8:3-4). Thus every one who believes in Him recieves God's righteousness, which is Christ Himself.

 

Christ came to fulfill and not cancel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pritish was asking about what is the OT basis for certain NT theology, and Levi you are using NT theology “Jesus fulfilled the law” to affirm and explain NT theology.

 

This will never get resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Where does it say that the messiah would fulfill the law?

Even better, what does fulfill mean?

1: To bring into actuality; effect.

2: To carry out (an order, for example).

3: To measure up to; satisfy.

4: To bring to an end; complete.

Now, Sub_zer0 wants it to be #4... but since Jesus does state that you still have to follow them to get into heaven, the Bible shows it cannot be #4.

Could it be #1? Nope, since they were already in effect.

How about #2? Did Jesus carry them out? Nope... he broke quite a few of them.

Must be #3 then... since it's the only one left. Oh dear... he broke some of them, so it isn't #3 either.

 

So, none of the meanings fit what the Bible says... which means only one thing. Christ failed to fulfill the law.

 

 

 

Now that it's shown that Jesus didn't fulfill the law at all, what reason can be given for not following it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even better, what does fulfill mean?

1: To bring into actuality; effect.

2: To carry out (an order, for example).

3: To measure up to; satisfy.

4: To bring to an end; complete.

:)Crazy Tiger, I don't understand why the new understanding of holding the meaning and purpose of the law over the strict adherence to words on the paper doesn't fill all those creiteria you listed. If I am in the city at 5:00 am, and there is no one out, and not one single car, so I jaywalk. Should I get a ticket? Did I break the law? Technically, yes. Did I break the intent of the law? No. If I do this every morning at 5:00 am with empty streets, should I walk all the way to the corner, wait for the light to cross the empty street every time?

 

If I did it at 8:00 am rush hour, there is a problem then... and I UNDERSTAND that jaywalking is now inappropriate. Certainly I should walk to the corner and wait for the light to cross the street! I think the message is to use REASON. It was to open the limits to living life in a more positive way. :shrug:

 

So now, either way, I am carrying out the intent of the law and have satisfied the end effect it was meant to have in the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how you decide to spin it, both women are getting screwed - and more ways than one!
I guess it depends on the exact meaning/translation of 'and lay hold on her'. That phrase is pretty vague - could mean a lot of things.
It's only vague if you don't take into consideration what is said in the previous verse. Since the first verse mentions taking by force, the only way one could conclude that the second verse is consensual is by ignoring what was said previously.

 

Ok, I got you - yeah, it does pretty much infer non-consent.

 

The whole business just baffles me, tho - why do women ever become xtians? It is so obviously a patriarchal, male-oriented belief system with very little to offer females. :shrug:

 

One would almost think the writers of the bible were all men...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even better, what does fulfill mean?

1: To bring into actuality; effect.

2: To carry out (an order, for example).

3: To measure up to; satisfy.

4: To bring to an end; complete.

:)Crazy Tiger, I don't understand why the new understanding of holding the meaning and purpose of the law over the strict adherence to words on the paper doesn't fill all those creiteria you listed. If I am in the city at 5:00 am, and there is no one out, and not one single car, so I jaywalk. Should I get a ticket? Did I break the law? Technically, yes. Did I break the intent of the law? No. If I do this every morning at 5:00 am with empty streets, should I walk all the way to the corner, wait for the light to cross the empty street every time?

 

If I did it at 8:00 am rush hour, there is a problem then... and I UNDERSTAND that jaywalking is now inappropriate. Certainly I should walk to the corner and wait for the light to cross the street! I think the message is to use REASON. It was to open the limits to living life in a more positive way. :shrug:

 

So now, either way, I am carrying out the intent of the law and have satisfied the end effect it was meant to have in the city.

But are you carrying out the intent of the law? AFAIK it's designed to protect pedestrians from injury and/or death. (please bear in mind we don't have this law in the UK, so I'm not 100% sure about it...)

By wilfully breaking the law, you are going against the intent of the law and are only satisfying the intended effect if you don't get hit. (and before you say "well, it's 5am... there's no-one around" there is always the chance that, one day, you will be wrong.)

 

 

Of course, this is all using meanings of "fulfill" that are different to what Sub_zer0 wants it to be, so is this particular tangent really relevent? (he want's the law to have been removed completely... which goes so much against the letter and intent of the law, and what Jesus said :shrug: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, this is all using meanings of "fulfill" that are different to what Sub_zer0 wants it to be, so is this particular tangent really relevent? (he want's the law to have been removed completely... which goes so much against the letter and intent of the law, and what Jesus said :shrug: )

 

:)Crazy Tiger, I do understand there is a difficult to find 'fine line' in determining if the 'intent' is upheld or not... however, there is probably a safe area to recognize within reasonable considerations of all the risks.

 

Now, to just disregard all these laws entirely... well I certainly don't understand the logic of that! :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, to just disregard all these laws entirely... well I certainly don't understand the logic of that! :eek:

 

Do you think that human morality is based on the bible? Those are the only laws in the bible I can think of that you would be concerned with.

 

Pitching the bible doesn't mean we're going to go steal, murder, or even obligate us to treat our elders like crap.

 

We aren't saying the bible is absent of goodness, or warm fuzzies. But we do want you to recognize that the goody warm fuzzies make up a very tiny portion of the book compaired to beliefs and behaviors that dominate it.

 

Christians are really good at making it seem as though the goody warm fuzzies is what the bible is ALL about. It's not.

 

Here's a pretty good breakdown of the bible in terms of "modern" (1894!!!) relevance.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...holy_bible.html

 

Do you think the intrinsic value of this book has magically increased in the last 112 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see Amanda like that.

 

I think the understanding has increased over the years which would make the intrinsic value increase as well. When one can understand the history of the book and know that it is just a myth, then one can place value on the parts that give insight. I think it is much more valuable to me now than it was when I literally believed it. I makes a hell of lot more sense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that human morality is based on the bible? Those are the only laws in the bible I can think of that you would be concerned with.

 

Pitching the bible doesn't mean we're going to go steal, murder, or even obligate us to treat our elders like crap.

:)Hello White Raven!

 

I have come to think the OT is a collection by people coming out of the last ice age... initial community dwellers from nomadic lifestyles... as in Maslow's Hierarchy of needs suggests, they are just now experiencing the self actualization level of altruistic thinking. They probably think these new inner thoughts come from God. Their efforts seem to contribute to these sparks of civilization, in how to treat each other appropriately as they live together, intermingled with perpetuated mythology. Remember, they had probably recently came from, and still amongst barbaric mentality of those times, and search to be determining what is considered sacred with this new altruistic thinking.

 

The NT seems to be refining their OT efforts through a new higher level of altruistic reasoning. IMO, it represents the needed revolution for those times' situations. I'm sure mythology is intermixed, and an evolved added enhancement to emphasize the original teachings, done to a point that the original story has become difficult to discern.

We aren't saying the bible is absent of goodness, or warm fuzzies. But we do want you to recognize that the goody warm fuzzies make up a very tiny portion of the book compaired to beliefs and behaviors that dominate it.

 

Christians are really good at making it seem as though the goody warm fuzzies is what the bible is ALL about. It's not.

:) White Raven, I respect your opinion of this book, and know everyone interprets it in different ways. Labeling people in a general manner can often be disengenuious to a specific individual though. I personally receive, IMO, beneficial enlightening messages that make my life seem more enriched and tolerant through these teachings of Christ. Does everyone? Absolutely not, and people don't have to go by this philosophy to find enlightened messages. It is an individual's option, hopefully done in complete freedom. Should I insist you live by it, or should anyone insist I abandon it? Maybe we are to be judged by our actions and interactions, instead of what someone wants to label our personal beliefs? I certainly judge everyone on this site as really rather wonderful! :grin:

 

NBBTB, I just saw your post added. Thanks. You seemed to summarize me better than I can explain myself. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sub_zer0

Where does it say that the messiah would fulfill the law?

 

And therefore the laws itself were sufficent. There was no requirement for Jesus. And you could still acquire salvation, because they part of the ETERNAL AND PERFECT LAW

 

They are only eternal and perfect through Christ.

 

How do everlasting and perfect laws change? and why?

 

Allow myself to clarify. I shouldn’t use the word change, instead Christ ended the Law along the lines of fulfilling it!

 

and therefore you observe the torah(which defines righteousness)

 

It did for Israel during those times. But there were Gentiles as well who needed salvation especially for them! With the Jews the Law ended with Christ’s fulfillment, and for the Gentiles they no longer had to aspire to be like Israel (believing and keeping Gods commandments) they had Christ now who died for ALL peoples sins!

 

And so that people could live a moral and righteousness life. You say that you have repented of your sins, but how are repenting your sins if you keep sinning all the time.

 

Because you continually have to ask for forgiveness, but really if you repent whole-heartedly -- like is expected when you ask for forgiveness for that specific sin from Christ -- you won’t do that specific sin that you need forgiveness for. You see the whole point of redemption through forgiveness, per say, is that when you repent you turn away from that sin, you change your mind regarding it and decide to follow Gods way!

 

You cannot escape sin, but if you truly are asking for forgiveness you would truly want to repent and you will truly escape that sin you are asking forgiveness for. Granted we cannot always completely repent, but we always strive to do so through Christ’s forgiveness.

 

I guess according to you Homosexuality will ok too, since christ has fulfilled those laws too. No......... wait those laws will obviously apply since you like them. (Cherry picking)

 

No, Homosexuality in the OT and NT is bad, not good and marriage between a male and female is shown in a respectable light and should be the doctrine you get when studying the Bible.

 

Nope as it says, it is quite easy. Just obey ALL the rules and you will be righteous. Not ignoring some

 

Yes I know that is what it says. But you are willfully becoming blind. You are to follow the rules and commandments but through diligence! This means through painstaking effort, it isn’t easy to live up to God’s standards, but we always constantly try.

 

Once again you do not have OT verses for your claims. There is nothing in the OT about the messiah fulfilling the law and becoming a new law. That is a NT invention.

 

You are basically saying that God lied when he said his moral and absolute laws are ETERNAL and PERFECT?

 

I will start a topic...

 

Quoting Paul won't get you anywhere. You can't use the NT verse to prove the NT is right. It's like a Muslim who tries to prove that quran is true by using the verses from the quran.

 

So what you basically trying to say that laws of the OT did not extend to the Gentiles and they could join God's fold? If this is the case, I guess didn't read my previous post regarding this

 

Wait a minute; I can’t use a NT verse to prove the NT is right? I think what you mean is I can’t use a NT verse to prove that Christ was right or that the OT talked about Christ. The Bible is its own best explanation on a multitude of questions that arise in it! Again, you cannot say I can use some of the Bible or just pin me down to only the OT. It will become impossible for me to prove a point about Jesus, which I think was your goal in mind. You see we are dealing with the BIBLE, not just the OT, not just the NT. But the OT/NT put together. You have debate me with that in mind!

 

The new covenant as defined by God in the Old Testament(Jer 31:28-34) says absolutely nothing about belief and faith in a human sacrifice replacing obedience to his laws as the vehicle for salvation.

 

It doesn’t leave it out either. It speaks of a NEW covenant. That is all that needs to be said. The NT and Christ Himself, being the New Covenant, can only shine the appropriate light on that when He speaks and declares it. Or if you draw comparisons between the OT and its theme of the need for salvation and the NT with Jesus.

 

Ahem, Debating 101, it is not the job of skeptic to prove a negative.

 

The NT is definately not the a progressive because

 

1)There is a conflict in theology. Many assertions that the NT makes are balantly contradicted by the OT. As I shown

 

2)The NT makes a quite a lot mistakes in the understanding of the OT theology

 

3)The NT writers take verse out of context from the OT, twist them to further their theological agenda. eg they make prophecies out of verses which are not even prophecies at all.

 

4)Speaking of prophecies there are tons of prophecies in the NT which don't exist in the OT.

 

LOL, exactly debating 101. You are the skeptic, so prove it...

 

1.)You have not shown anything. I will start a topic and address issues there regarding the OT and NT.

2.)No it doesn’t, it corrects the mistake you get when just reading the OT.

3.)No, the Bible is about ¼ prophecy and they are all quoted and put into proper context.

4.)I know, but you cannot understand those NT prophecies without reading the OT prophecies! The NT and OT prophecies have been uttered yet not fulfilled, but they are happening and hundreds have been literally fulfilled.

 

That is your assertion. The OT shows that you not need Christ. I am sorry but your christ died in vain. There was nothing wrong in the OT, there was no change required.

 

God's revelation could just as easily have been complete with the "Old Testament", and both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon could be deceptions. The Hebrew scriptures repeatedly warn the people not to be fooled by false teachers that attempt to redefine God and turn people away from him to follow false gods(Deut 13, Deut 18).

 

The whole idea about a faith in human sacrifice(which is illegal by the OT laws) replacing God's law is a good example of a false teaching if the Hebrew scriptures are to be taken seriously.

 

We can discuss this in more detail with the new topic in how the OT shows the need of NO Christ.

 

God’s revelation could just as easily have been completed with the Old Testament. Jesus wasn’t a false teacher but was spoken about in the OT.

 

No, Jesus was the ultimate SACRIFICIAL LAMB OF GOD! Jesus wasn’t just human to begin with, He was God!

 

In other words you are talking about revisionism. Yup the NT is great at fitting Jesus in whatever verses they could. However this like trying to fit a Square Peg through a round hole.

 

Even the Muslims try to do the same thing with Muhammed, but you will outright those same arguements. Check out the thread "Prophecies In the Quran".

 

None of the claims you made are even remotely implied in the OT. On the other hand you are ignoring the OT verses which outright exposes the flaws in your theology.

 

You just make up your rules and then pretend that God agrees with you.

 

"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).

 

Obviously Jesus did not fulfill many of the messianic prophecy. Just because the NT says that he is messiah, doesn't makes him.

 

I will make a topic about the OT and NT flow and progressiveness as well as prophecies in both in a new topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally receive, IMO, beneficial enlightening messages that make my life seem more enriched and tolerant through these teachings of Christ. Does everyone? Absolutely not, and people don't have to go by this philosophy to find enlightened messages. It is an individual's option, hopefully done in complete freedom. Should I insist you live by it, or should anyone insist I abandon it? Maybe we are to be judged by our actions and interactions, instead of what someone wants to label our personal beliefs? I certainly judge everyone on this site as really rather wonderful! :grin:

 

It's all good! I just wanted to be sure you weren't mistaking the bible as the source of all important laws of civilization (such laws have existed for longer than the bible).

 

If you find enlightenment here and there within it, it's all good! Enlightenment is a wonderful sensation.

 

Have you ever read from the Tao Teh Ching?

 

I occasionally find replenishment of the spirit from that. Check it out if you already haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever read from the Tao Teh Ching?

 

I occasionally find replenishment of the spirit from that. Check it out if you already haven't.

:)White Raven, I think the far east teachings are ahead of the middle east and west. IMO, Christ was attempting to infiltrate these concepts into the middle east... and I think gave higher credit to it than anything that was going on where he was. It seems to me, Christ was more a Buddhist than anything.

 

I personally find these far east teachings extremely enlightening, yet demand more focused concentration on what the intended meaning is suppose to be. Once, I've heard, a whole Buddhist's presentation was that he stood there quiet... then handed someone a Locus flower... and that was all of it, and the people were amazed at his brilliance. I know they are extremely enlightened... so much so... they're often way above my head! :HaHa:

 

I'll look into your suggestion. It would be wonderful if we had a thread devoted to these other perspectives at least from time to time. There are so many knowledgeable people here sharing these wonderful insights!

 

 

 

 

:grin:Hi Sub Zero! I'll share with you what someone had to share with me too...

 

that if you have more than ten quotes, the quote functions don't work. Maybe you can combine quotes, or pick a different color to associate with each poster. It will make your posts easier to follow for people who have problems, like me. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does it say that the messiah would fulfill the law?

 

And therefore the laws itself were sufficent. There was no requirement for Jesus. And you could still acquire salvation, because they part of the ETERNAL AND PERFECT LAW

 

They are only eternal and perfect through Christ.

 

How do everlasting and perfect laws change? and why?

 

Allow myself to clarify. I shouldn’t use the word change, instead Christ ended the Law along the lines of fulfilling it!

So... even though the law is eternal (never-ending, for those interested...) and Jesus said that all men are still subject to the law and should follow it, you claim that Jesus ENDED the law? (no longer in effect)

 

 

 

Lets get this as clear as possible...

 

The law is eternal. Therefore, it's still going.

Jesus ended the law. Therefore, it's stopped.

 

Which is it? Is it still there, with us supposed to be following it... or is it ended, with us no longer subject to it?

 

 

If, as you say, Jesus ended it, then why did Jesus say that we are still subject to it and that we should follow it?

If, as Jesus said, it hasn't been ended, (since it's eternal) then why are you insisting that it has?

 

You are contradicting Jesus and God and the Bible... a strange thing for a christian to do. :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even better, what does fulfill mean?

 

"Fulfill" can mean whatever they want it to be.

 

You don't fulfill the law by ignoring it. christ didn''t even fulfill the sacrifical laws of the OT. They were all ignored and bypassed.

 

Christian like Sub_zero because they love the authoritative language he uses. Off course they use circular reasoning for his authority

 

This is the same St Paul who misunderstood the reason behind the passover lamb, and wrote down that "the law was obsolete".

 

Ironically christians like Sub_Zero say that we love to sin according to the OT and that we should repent from our sins. However christians like him continue to sin according to the same law, and will give hundreds of excuses of why they can't follow those laws.

 

They have become what Jesus had accused the pharisees of - hypocrates

 

Christians have done exactly what Yahweh told them not to do, which is to cast his statutes aside in favor of a new type of God and salvation. Mainstream Christians follow Paul, not God..

 

They have no more sincerity about serving the Bible God than a skeptic does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are only eternal and perfect through Christ.

A assertion that is made up by NT.

 

In other words you refuse to follow God's law?and then you call us stubborn.

 

Allow myself to clarify. I shouldn’t use the word change, instead Christ ended the Law along the lines of fulfilling it!

 

If the laws end/change/fulfull, then that means they are not eternal

 

It did for Israel during those times.

 

So in other words God moral law remain valid during a certain period of time, ie they are relative to the time. Thank for reducing god's perfect and eternal laws to moral relativism

 

There is nothing in the in the OT which says that laws will be end/fulfill/change

 

But there were Gentiles as well who needed salvation especially for them!

 

So you agree that people were getting saved by following god's law?

 

I think it is highly rude that you don't bother to read the my post that. I have alread addressed the above point.

 

God's law had always applied to the world. (Otherwise if they didn't apply then how can accuse that the Caanites, Midinites and all the neighbouring races were sinning)

 

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

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

 

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.' "

 

 

 

because you continually have to ask for forgiveness, but really if you repent whole-heartedly -- like is expected when you ask for forgiveness for that specific sin from Christ -- you won’t do that specific sin that you need forgiveness for. You see the whole point of redemption through forgiveness, per say, is that when you repent you turn away from that sin, you change your mind regarding it and decide to follow Gods way!

 

Which obviously you are not doing.

 

You claim that you have the holy spirit.

 

Ezekiel 11:19-20 and Ezekiel 36:26-27 says those who have the holy spirit will follow ALL of God's laws, which you don't

 

Because your actions do not match your claims, therefore you do not have the God's holy spirit.

 

You cannot escape sin, but if you truly are asking for forgiveness you would truly want to repent and you will truly escape that sin you are asking forgiveness for. Granted we cannot always completely repent, but we always strive to do so through Christ’s forgiveness.

 

the OT had provision for repenting and forgiveness. No need of Jesus

 

No, Homosexuality in the OT and NT is bad, not good and marriage between a male and female is shown in a respectable light and should be the doctrine you get when studying the Bible.

 

So Homosexuality is a sin and breaking the sabbath is not.

Yes I know that is what it says. But you are willfully becoming blind. You are to follow the rules and commandments but through diligence! This means through painstaking effort, it isn’t easy to live up to God’s standards, but we always constantly try.

 

Nope, once again the bible proves you wrong(and I have already shown the verses). God's moral law were easy to follow.

 

So you are saying it's tough to observe the sabbath, and tough to abstain from eating prohibited food/celebrating christmas.

 

I will start a topic...

 

Please do so

 

Wait a minute; I can’t use a NT verse to prove the NT is right?

 

Yup, just because the NT says that it is progressive revalation from OT, doesn't make it so, and similarly quoting Paul to establish that Paul's teaching are valid is again circular

 

just pin me down to only the OT.

 

No I am not. It is you who is claiming that the NT was all part of God's plan, and that plan was in the OT. I am asking you to show me that plan.

 

You have pinned yourself there? Do you agree then that you cannot prove about the need for Jesus without the NT?

 

It will become impossible for me to prove a point about Jesus, which I think was your goal in mind. You see we are dealing with the BIBLE, not just the OT, not just the NT. But the OT/NT put together. You have debate me with that in mind!

 

Dude, I am putting the NT and OT together, and they contradict each other.

 

It doesn’t leave it out either.

 

Yes it does, because it says "Each Man Would Die for his own sins". It also says all laws will be obeyed. Both of these undermine Jesus and NT

 

It speaks of a NEW covenant.

 

So explain to me what are the terms of the New Convenant

That is all that needs to be said. The NT and Christ Himself, being the New Covenant, can only shine the appropriate light on that when He speaks and declares it. Or if you draw comparisons between the OT and its theme of the need for salvation and the NT with Jesus.

 

Well if you follow the OT laws, you don't need Jesus

 

 

LOL, exactly debating 101. You are the skeptic, so prove it...

 

Oh really, so you agree that the Book of Mormon is the progressive revelaton from God.

 

2.)No it doesn’t, it corrects the mistake you get when just reading the OT.

You mean like "without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins". You do know that animal sacrifices wasn't the only thing that could forgive you. Flour, Jewellary and Prayer could do the same.

 

Paul said that righteousness could not be achieved through the law(Gal 2:16). You know that is also a false statement. There are numerous example in the OT and NT that people were righteous and were justified by the law.

 

Please read the links that I gave you. That would save a lot of our debate.

 

 

 

No, the Bible is about ¼ prophecy and they are all quoted and put into proper context.

 

Oh really here is one example where a verse is taken out of context.

 

Matthew 2:14-15

When he(Joseph) arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

 

Hosea 1:11 is not even a prophecy. There is nothing to be fulfilled. It is actually a historical fact about the nation of Isreal.

 

It has been taken out of it context to fit in Jesus.

 

You also know about the tale of jesus riding the two donkeys. How many did he ride?One or two. Read the original "prophecy". How many donkeys did you need to fulfill the prophecy?

 

Do you read a book backwards?That's exactly what you are doing.

 

4.)I know, but you cannot understand those NT prophecies without reading the OT prophecies! The NT and OT prophecies have been uttered yet not fulfilled, but they are happening and hundreds have been literally fulfilled.

 

Wait a sec, if the prophecy doesn't exist in the OT, then how is it fulfilled. That means the NT writers are making it up, hence lying.

 

This is the sort of the thing the book of Mormon does. So by that reasoning even the book of mormon is correct.

 

The Christian claim of authenticity relies to a large extent on the validity of Old Testament prophecy. It is claimed by Christian apologists that these prophecies, said to have been given by God to selected men long before the birth of Jesus, foretell not only his coming but also many important events which took place during his brief lifetime. So, it’s all a part of God’s grand plan. But what about the prophecies of other holy books and their fulfillment? Are they legitimate? Do they have any claim on authenticity? In that regard, let us take a brief look at one example in the Book of Mormon.

 

In the Book of Mormon there is a very interesting prophecy foretelling its coming. The prediction is spelled out in language far more explicit and conclusive than can be found anywhere in Bible prophecies. In 2nd Nephi 11 verse 125 of the Revised Authorized Version*, it reads as follows:

 

And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall bring forth to you the words of a book, and they shall be the words of them that have slumbered.

 

The book is described in the next seven verses. But, in Nephi 133 we are told:

 

Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered to the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hidden from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it, save it be that three witnesses shall behold it by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

Sure enough, in the front of every Book of Mormon in a section appropriately titled "The Testimony of Three Witnesses" is a statement signed by Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris swearing in the name of God that they had seen the actual plates with the engravings on them from which the book came. Prophecy made; prophecy fulfilled.

 

As if that weren’t enough, on the facing page is the testimony of eight additional witnesses who swear, also in the name of God, that they not only saw the golden plates but actually handled them. I understand that at the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah they still have the official signed affidavits of all of these witnesses. They are there for anyone and everyone to see.

 

Now, here is an example of a prophecy made and fulfilled with confirming witnesses. Yet I’m sure that most non-Mormons, particularly fundamentalist Christians, will put no credence what so ever in any of it. In fact, they might even scoff at it. When confronted with this evidence they quickly switch their demeanor from that of a true believer to that of a bonafide skeptic. Yet the evidence here is many times more convincing than anything they can come up with from the Bible. In fact, if Bible believers had anything even close to this confirming evidence they would be shouting it from the roof tops.

 

In reality, however, the Mormon claims of prophecy fulfillment are just as open to question as are any others. The reason is obvious. It is the common sense principal declaring that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. In the matter of a prophetic claim like this one, mere human testimony is inadequate. We are going to demand something far more convincing than a few words written in a book, particularly a book of dubious origin like the Bible. We are sensible enough to realize that there are more reasonable explanations than the one offered. We understand that men can be sincere but honestly mistaken. We understand also that men can deliberately lie.

 

So, I would suggest to those hinging their faith on the claim of Old Testament prophecy fulfillment that they apply the same common sense judgment to their beliefs that they so readily apply to similar claims cited in the holy books of other religions. Just ask yourself, "Why should I believe a thing simply because it is written in a book?"

 

So try to see the bible from a point of view of skeptic. Are you afraid that if you beliefs is turned out to be false, then you will lose the value of your existance?

 

Book of Mormon

 

We can discuss this in more detail with the new topic in how the OT shows the need of NO Christ.

 

Please do so.

 

No, Jesus was the ultimate SACRIFICIAL LAMB OF GOD! Jesus wasn’t just human to begin with, He was God!

 

God sacrificed himself to himself so he could change rules which he set up in the first place, and he also changed his mind about people having to follow his perfect(Psa 19:7) and eternal(Psa 119:152,160) laws and replaced them with a new system of faith in a human sacrifice.

 

In short he killed himself so that people could have a relationship with him.... But wait a minute they people before Jesus were having relationship with God.

 

Jesus did not even fulfill the requirement for OT animal sacrfice..

 

The messiah was never supposed to be a God. He was mortal human just like any other jews.

 

I will make a topic about the OT and NT flow and progressiveness as well as prophecies in both in a new topic.

 

There no need to make a new topic on prophecies. There is already one

 

To Pug, newbie Christians, Christians

 

BTW I am still waiting for you reply on the baptism issue in the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow myself to clarify. I shouldn’t use the word change, instead Christ ended the Law along the lines of fulfilling it!

 

What's with the exclamation points eh? People are going to start thinking you're getting paranoid, nervous or agitated.

 

It did for Israel during those times. But there were Gentiles as well who needed salvation especially for them! With the Jews the Law ended with Christ’s fulfillment, and for the Gentiles they no longer had to aspire to be like Israel (believing and keeping Gods commandments) they had Christ now who died for ALL peoples sins!

 

Oy. More exclamations!!! You do realie that when you use them repeatedly like that it just makes you look like a raving fundie & not a rational person. At least I hope you realize that.

 

Because you continually have to ask for forgiveness, but really if you repent whole-heartedly -- like is expected when you ask for forgiveness for that specific sin from Christ -- you won’t do that specific sin that you need forgiveness for. You see the whole point of redemption through forgiveness, per say, is that when you repent you turn away from that sin, you change your mind regarding it and decide to follow Gods way!

 

You cannot escape sin, but if you truly are asking for forgiveness you would truly want to repent and you will truly escape that sin you are asking forgiveness for. Granted we cannot always completely repent, but we always strive to do so through Christ’s forgiveness.

 

Of course, you're most unfortunately right about escaping sin. Though it's not for the reasons you think. It's because the Bible has many natural human processes, instincts, and processes that it deems as sins when they are in fact biological imperatives.

 

No, Homosexuality in the OT and NT is bad, not good and marriage between a male and female is shown in a respectable light and should be the doctrine you get when studying the Bible.

 

Homosexuality in the Bible is subjective. The Bible sways on both sides of the fence, so you can support it or deny it. But it's not firmly upheld or naysayed. It's only what the individual reads into it.

 

Yes I know that is what it says. But you are willfully becoming blind. You are to follow the rules and commandments but through diligence! This means through painstaking effort, it isn’t easy to live up to God’s standards, but we always constantly try.

 

The Bible says it's easy to uphold those standards if you try (and it also says it's hard in ways, go figure).

 

But you say it isn't easy (and/or your preacher & church says it's not easy). You're the one reading in the painstaking part of the effort.

Diligence is easy if you make a habit of it.

 

Wait a minute; I can’t use a NT verse to prove the NT is right? I think what you mean is I can’t use a NT verse to prove that Christ was right or that the OT talked about Christ. The Bible is its own best explanation on a multitude of questions that arise in it! Again, you cannot say I can use some of the Bible or just pin me down to only the OT. It will become impossible for me to prove a point about Jesus, which I think was your goal in mind. You see we are dealing with the BIBLE, not just the OT, not just the NT. But the OT/NT put together. You have debate me with that in mind!

 

Actually you have to debate us with this in mind. That you can't prove that the whole Bible is legitimate using historical references outside of the Bible itself. So really debating this Bible is just a fun tryst for those of us who like playing around with the scriptures.

 

LOL, exactly debating 101. You are the skeptic, so prove it...

 

Golly, plenty of proofs have come and gone on this thread, but you only address the easy ones. Funny how you skipped over the hardcore proofs.

 

1.)You have not shown anything. I will start a topic and address issues there regarding the OT and NT.

2.)No it doesn’t, it corrects the mistake you get when just reading the OT.

3.)No, the Bible is about ¼ prophecy and they are all quoted and put into proper context.

4.)I know, but you cannot understand those NT prophecies without reading the OT prophecies! The NT and OT prophecies have been uttered yet not fulfilled, but they are happening and hundreds have been literally fulfilled.

 

1,2,3,4 come on baby say you love me. 5,6,7 ti-himes. Sorry just made me launch into a Gloria Estefan song.

 

God’s revelation could just as easily have been completed with the Old Testament. Jesus wasn’t a false teacher but was spoken about in the OT.

 

Only because that's what you read into it, or what was inserted into the old testament by editing scribes who were trying to link the OT & NT, years after both were written.

 

No, Jesus was the ultimate SACRIFICIAL LAMB OF GOD! Jesus wasn’t just human to begin with, He was God!

 

Here we go again. There's no proof here, just opinion. And all capitalizing & exclaiming does is add the raving fundie tag to your forehead. Chill, debate rationally, and bring some evidence in a handy bag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, while we're on the subject, would you care to discuss how the WOMEN in either of these verses benefit at all? You did notice that, didn't you? You know, how both verses are written in favor of the man. (first scenario - betrothed dude benefits) (second scenario - the dude who "laid hold on her" benefits)

 

here is point someone raised in the testimony section

 

you would think God would know that many rape victims are threatened with violence, so out of fear for their lives they don't scream for help
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.