One Verse At A Time...

[Amanda]

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

 

Could it be that there needed to be a revision of this code system?

 

Perhaps it could be that there needed to be an understanding of the intent of the law, moreso than the exact literal wording?

Thiis would then uphold the fact that the woman was too afraid to scream, yet still consider primary her desire was to resist!

 

Maybe someone had to come along and assert the value that ALL are to be humble, ALL regarded equal... no one is better than, no one is less than another, including men and women?

 

Remember, this is an evolution of basically barbarians coming out of the last ice age and just recently starting stabilized communities, and trying to identify a code of ethics for this civilization. Since machines, guns, and such were not invented yet, men clearly held their position of power over women due to their shear brute strength. All cultures seemed to regard sons over daughters. They still do it to a great degree today in many cultures! Even the west does this to a great degree, due to women most often choosing to be the one to sacrifice her career to focus on the children/family. Why do women take the last name of a man when marrying? How easy is it to prove rape today, even with DNA? Look at Koby Bryan and William Kennedy Smith. It does seem like we are still struggling to better these things, even today, though.

[Eponymic]

Still waiting for SubZeros new earth shattering thread.

 

Tick tock tick tock....

[Guest sub_zer0]

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.

 

I am following the fulfilled Old Law through Christ or the New Covenant that was made by God to replace the conditional Mosaic Law that is spoken about in Jeremiah 31! You cannot base what I believe in and the Law/Covenant I follow on OT, it is taught in the NT.

 

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

 

The Sabbath had provisions were are mentioned in Deut and Ruth.

 

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.

 

No it is hard to live up to God's expectations.

 

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

 

Oh wow, what is the point of debating here...

 

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?

 

No.

 

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

 

No it doesn't...

 

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

 

How so?

[Eponymic]

That's it?

 

All that waiting for that?

 

Where's the miraculous new thread?

Where's your responses to anything but thin arguments that are already moot?

Come on man, are you just too embarrassed now to bring the cheese?

[scotter]

Pritish be careful, if you are reply to cold_temperature this time.

 

Cold_temp replied with stunningly short one or two words answers, and you would again cite and load details of your additional arguments, because you do know the Biblical verses and evangelical theology well.

 

And s/he probably would reply with 'How's that?' 'No' 'Why?' And you again load more heavy-duty points. This tactic, intentional or unintentional, meant to consume you.

 

In your loads of details of wordings and writings, if you just have 1 or 2 slips (it can happen because of your loads of works), cold_temp can pick on these and attack. If this is not a tactic, then it indicates cold_temp is not holding up.

 

No offence, cold_temp. You just counter-replied "What is the point of debate?" Yes, what is the point of debate if you simply replied with 'No' and 'How So?"

 

---

 

My personal point to cold_temp: I don't think you believe in the Book of Mormon. If a Mormon argues with you that you have to look at the OT/NT and the Book of Mormon as a whole during an apologetics session, would you take that point?

[crazy-tiger]

I am following the fulfilled Old Law through Christ or the New Covenant that was made by God to replace the conditional Mosaic Law that is spoken about in Jeremiah 31! You cannot base what I believe in and the Law/Covenant I follow on OT, it is taught in the NT.

Dude... what part of "Eternal", "Neverchanging" and "Perfect" don't you understand?

 

 

Perfect... they couldn't be any better.

Neverchanging... they were never going to be altered in any way, shape or form.

Eternal... everlasting, never removed or replaced.

 

Jeremiah 31 talks about Gods Law... His Law. Now, you can argue against it being the same law, but since Jesus said you have to follow Mosaic Law, since God said you have to follow Mosaic Law, and since Paul spoke of Mosaic Law and how you don't need to follow it anymore, you'd have one hell of a job trying to show that it was a different God's Law.

 

In other words... Different covenant, same Law.

 

 

Maybe you've made the same mistake I once did... assuming that Covenant=Law. If you have, that would explain why you feel it's a new Law that you're following.

covenant

 

n.

1. a solemn agreement. • (Theology) an agreement held to be the basis of a relationship of commitment with God.

2. (Law) a formal agreement or contract in writing, especially one undertaking to make regular payments to a charity.

See...? New agreement, same old Law.

[thunderbolt]

Alrighty then, what a collosal waste of time that was.

[crazy-tiger]

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

 

Oh wow, what is the point of debating here...

Yeah... what's the point?

 

I mean, if we're not going to let you get away with blatant logic fallacies like that, then there's no point debating 'cos you'll never win.

 

 

 

Of course, maybe the point would be to learn something...?

[SkepticOfBible]

I am following the fulfilled Old Law through Christ or the New Covenant that was made by God to replace the conditional Mosaic Law that is spoken about in Jeremiah 31!

So once again you are lying about the New Covenant in Jer 31

 

Here is the New Covenant in Jer 31

 

Jer 31:27-36

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.

In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.[

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

 

 

Note the key items of the new covenant:

** A covenant is a contract.

Under the new covenant, God will reaffirm his existing laws with the house of Israel and Judah under a new contract. Nowhere does it states that if the House of Isreal and Judah reject it, the Gentiles are free to take up the covenant.

 

** In the days of the new covenant, each person will die for their own sin.

This is confirmed by Ezek 18:20-28, where God declares that each man will die for his own sin and will redeem himself through his own actions and faithful obedience to God's Law.

 

** Unlike the old covenant, God will put his existing Law directly inside people and will write it on their hearts so that they follow it without fail. Each person will be in direct contact with God's will.

 

** No longer will people need to be taught by others about God, for each person will know God personally and directly without the need for any intermediary.

 

** God will remember the people's sin no more, as their sins will be forgiven.

 

 

Also note the following:

There is no mention of any type of human sacrifice needed to die for the sins of others.

There is no mention of God's existing laws being replaced, canceled, or done away with.

 

The new covenant described by God in Jer 31:27-36 obviously hasn't arrived yet.

If it had already arrived, people would be following God's Law completely because it would be written in their hearts and minds so that they would not disobey it.

If it had already arrived, people would not need to be taught through Bible study or preached to, for every person would know God, just as he promised.

If the new covenant had already arrived there would be no need for missionaries to spread the word, for everyone would already have it directly from God.

 

The new covenant which the New Testament defines, and which Christians claim is the "real" new covenant doesn't even come close to conforming with what God described in the Old Testament.

 

The New revised Covenant Of Christianity

 

I told you to read those articles. I read every link you give me, and I expect the same from you.

 

JESUS DID NOT EVEN THE FULFILL THE SACRIFICIAL REQUIREMENT OF THE OT LAW.

 

The book of Hebrew delibrately misquotes the Jer 31 covenant, and doesn't even the mention it completely.

 

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

 

The Sabbath had provisions were are mentioned in Deut and Ruth.

 

Don't lie.Those verses say NOTHING about the Sabbath. Once again you are demonstrating that you are cherry picking

 

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.

No it is hard to live up to God's expectations.

 

Not according to god. The God of the OT clearly says it is easy to follow the law.

 

In other words you too lazy. Those expectation about the sabbath, dietary prohibition and celebration of pagan holidays are NOT hard.

 

You know in the bible there are numerous people who have lived upto god's expectation. Even the NT confirms that. The OT was about rewarding people according to their WORKS.

 

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

 

Oh wow, what is the point of debating here...

 

I don't think you want to debate. You don't even read what I post

 

Would you accept the quotes from the Book of Mormon to confirm it's validity?.... Oh wait, I did....... And you did not accept that arguement. This shows that you also have DOUBLE STANDARD

 

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?

 

No.

Oh really

 

Prove the following by just using the OT

 

1)God is a trinity

2)The Messiah will come twice

3)The messiah would be worshipped and would be God himself.

4)People would not have to follow laws because the messiah would fulfill it.

5)The OT laws would be supersceded by the blood of the messiah.

6)The messiah would die for the sin of others.(Before you quote Is 53, make sure you read the previous passages. The servant is clearly identified as Isreal)

 

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

 

No it doesn't...

 

I gave you two examples already, and you haven't responded to that. Just saying no would not cut it.

 

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

 

How so?

 

Jeeez, now I have to explain English and logic to you. If each would die for his own sins, then that means no other person can die for you and take away your punishment. Which is the thing Jesus tried to do.

 

That is like saying if you are sentenced to death for a crime, then no other person can claim that he should be put to death, so that you are set free.

 

Moses tried to pull that stunt in Exodus 32:30-35.

 

Moses tries to offer himself as an atonement for the sins of the people. To be written out of God's book, means to be written out of the Book of Life, which means Moses was asking to die for the sins of the People. God's response was "No, it does not work that way, each man dies for his own sin:"

..............

The whole of chapter 18 of the book of Ezekiel is about this idea, that no one can die for someone else's sin. Further, this chapter of Ezekiel teaches us that all we have to do for God's forgiveness is to stop doing the Bad and start doing the Good, and God will forgive us. Nowhere in this chapter does it say that we have to have a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins

one person cannot die for the sins of another person.

 

If all the laws are obeyed, then that means righteousness could be obtained without the need for belief in JC. Paul repeated say that those who are following the OT laws are commiting a sin.(remember the verses where Paul uses the example of Adultery)

 

 

Pritish be careful, if you are reply to cold_temperature this time.

 

Cold_temp replied with stunningly short one or two words answers, and you would again cite and load details of your additional arguments, because you do know the Biblical verses and evangelical theology well.

 

And s/he probably would reply with 'How's that?' 'No' 'Why?' And you again load more heavy-duty points. This tactic, intentional or unintentional, meant to consume you.

 

In your loads of details of wordings and writings, if you just have 1 or 2 slips (it can happen because of your loads of works), cold_temp can pick on these and attack. If this is not a tactic, then it indicates cold_temp is not holding up.

 

No offence, cold_temp. You just counter-replied "What is the point of debate?" Yes, what is the point of debate if you simply replied with 'No' and 'How So?"

 

 

That's ok, if he wants to be dishonest, he is only fooling himself. He certainly will not "win" any souls for christ with dishonest debating. Rather if some christians read this post, they will most likely give up their faith.

 

People can see who is being true to the word of God, and who is not.

 

Well, they take their lead from Paul, cause he did say even "if I lie for christ, I will do it". Just like Paul, sub_zero and other christian expect a grand prize from God, even if means being intellectually dishonest about their beliefs.

[Guest sub_zer0]

So once again you are lying about the New Covenant in the Jer 31

 

Here is New Covenant in Jer 31

 

Jer 31:27-36

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.

In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

 

Note the key items of the new covenant:

** A covenant is a contract.

Under the new covenant, God will reaffirm his existing laws with the house of Israel(not Gentiles) under a new contract.

 

Of course God will reaffirm with just the house of Israel. You see the house of Israel already has a Covenant with God. The Gentiles do not. That is why it is “reaffirming” it with Israel and not Gentiles.

 

** In the days of the new covenant, each person will die for their own sin.

This is confirmed by Ezek 18:20-28, where God declares that each man will die for his own sin and will redeem himself through his own actions and faithful obedience to God's Law.

 

Indeed, through sin death entered into the world. Tthis reaffirmation of the law through Christ, each man can redeem himself through his own actions and obedience to not just God but through Christ the mediator of man to God.

 

** Unlike the old covenant, God will put his existing Law directly inside people and will write it on their hearts so that they follow it without fail. Each person will be in direct contact with God's will.

 

** No longer will people need to be taught by others about God, for each person will know God personally and directly without the need for any intermediary.

 

** God will remember the people's sin no more, as their sins will be forgiven.

 

Number your points from now on; it will make it easier to respond to you.

 

1.) Indeed the application of this new Covenant is within mans heart and mind now.

2.) You are summarizing the passage wrong. It means that through this new covenant all people will know Him (God). Through Christ, since it is for Gentiles and Jews now, the whole world will know. It is not that people won’t need to be taught, it is that people, all people, will be taught about God because of this New Covenant.

3.) Indeed, through this New Covenant--i.e., Christ-- God will forgive our sins. But not like with the Old Covenant through ritualistic sacrifices. Through Christ, the ultimate sacrifice, our sins are forgiven once and for all.

 

Also note the following:

There is no mention of any type of human sacrifice needed to die for the sins of others.

There is no mention of God's existing laws being replaced, canceled, or done away with.

 

Jeremiah 31 is all about replacing the Old Laws with a New Covenant! That is all that needs to be said, other places speak of the Messiah that is to come in the OT. Who will purge evil and setup an everlasting kingdom, etc, etc…

 

The new covenant described by God in Jer 31:27-36 obviously hasn't arrived yet.

If it had already arrived, people would be following God's Law completely because it would be written in their hearts and minds so that they would not disobey it.

If it had already arrived, people would not need to be taught through Bible study or preached to, for every person would know God, just as he promised.

If the new covenant had already arrived there would be no need for missionaries to spread the word, for everyone would already have it directly from God.

 

The new covenant which the New Testament defines, and which Christians claim is the "real" new covenant doesn't even come close to conforming with what God described in the Old Testament.

 

Again, I am going to have to repeat myself!

 

Jeremiah 31 when it speaks of the New Covenant, it is speaking of Christ! No, because it arrived ALL peoples can know God--which I have described in more detail in a response earlier in this post. And the promise of the Covenant is being fulfilled because now more than ever MORE people on earth know about Christ (the New Covenant) than ever before. The point of the New Covenant is to make it possible to spread the word all over the earth.

 

Don't lie.Those verses say NOTHING about the Sabbath. Once again you are demonstrating that you are cherry picking

 

I hope I don’t have to remind you that Jesus never broke the Law, Jesus is actually violating the "tradition of the elders" - part of the Pharisaic oral law, or code of interpretation, not the actual law. Jesus' own reply points out that his accusers are guilty of a greater offense, which is a violation of the clear law (to honor one's parents) for the sake of a lesser interpretation of the law (Corban).

 

“Once again, however, he is violating a Pharasaic interpretation of what constituted "work", not an actual OT law, and his picking of corn from the fields of the others is allowed in the OT (Lev. 19:9-10) and is not considered to be stealing.”

 

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesusignorelaw.html

 

You know in the bible there are numerous people who have lived upto god's expectation. Even the NT confirms that. The OT was about rewarding people according to their WORKS.

 

Yes their works, which is the result of faith in God! But just because they had “good works” does not mean they lived up to God’s expectations. They were truly righteous people, but Jesus is the only one to live up to God’s expectations fully.

 

I don't think you want to debate. You don't even read what I post

 

Would you accept the quotes from the Book of Mormon to confirm it's validity?.... Oh wait, I did....... And you did not accept that arguement. This shows that you also have DOUBLE STANDARD

 

I am using the Bible in its full context to prove that Jesus didn’t violate the Law, etc. Of course if you select a topic and the Book of Mormon speaks on it, it is not false and no contradiction is there, than it is true! Granted not all of the Book of Mormon is true!

 

[quoteOh really

 

Prove the following by just using the OT

 

1)God is a trinity

2)The Messiah will come twice

3)The messiah would be worshipped and would be God himself.

4)People would not have to follow laws because the messiah would fulfill it.

5)The OT laws would be supersceded by the blood of the messiah.

6)The messiah would die for the sin of others.(Before you quote Is 53, make sure you read the previous passages. The servant is clearly identified as Isreal)

 

It isn’t as easy as just saying, grab a verse to prove that this and this is true. It requires study and multiple parallels that one can find within the Old and New as that constitutes the whole Bible. The concept of Jesus is only implicitly stated in the Old, the New however explicitly supports the concept of Jesus.

 

1.) God isn’t the Trinity to begin with. God is part of the Trinity. It is like this. Godhead = God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. Since you have pointed out passages in the OT about the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) in Ezekiel and so forth, I will show you where it speaks of God and His Son or the “Son of Man” in the same passage, proving that there is a concept of God and Son and Holy Spirit!

 

Isaiah 9 NASB: 6”For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;

And the government will rest on His shoulders;

And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. “

 

**A child will be born and will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace”**

 

Proverbs 30:4 NASB: “Who has ascended into heaven and descended?

Who has gathered the wind in His fists?

Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?

Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is His name or His son's name?

Surely you know!”

 

**Obviously speaking of God and “His son” **

 

Daniel 7 NASB:13"I kept looking in the night visions,

And behold, with the clouds of heaven

One like a Son of Man was coming,

And He came up to the Ancient of Days

And was presented before Him.

14"And to Him was given dominion,

Glory and a kingdom,

That all the peoples, nations and men of every language

Might serve Him

His dominion is an everlasting dominion

Which will not pass away;

And His kingdom is one

Which will not be destroyed.”

 

**The “Ancient of Days” is God and the “Son of Man” is Jesus coming to God to receive ownership, dominion of “all the peoples”**

 

There you have it, in those verses it clearly speaks of God and the Son, coupled with your quotes about the Spirit of God, you have the Trinity in the OT.

 

2.) It takes much more than a verse. Start a topic!

3.) Daniel 9:14

4.) Why does it need to say that for you to believe that Christ did fulfill it? It speaks of Him fulfilling it in the NT.

5.) The Mosaic law was conditional and the sacrifices were to be spotless. Continued offering of sacrifices is needed. The only way it can be is by the ultimate or the fulfilling of those sacrifices. The spotless sacrifice that is Jesus.

6.) Isaiah 53:6All of us like sheep have gone astray,

Each of us has turned to his own way;

But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all

To fall on Him.

 

**Obvious reference to the Messiah.**

[Guest sub_zer0]

LMAO...Wow Sub_Zero, you really pulled some major stuff out from your butt. You see, there is a slight problem with Jeremiah 31....It doesn't go in effect until AFTER Israel and Judah accept it.

 

And where does it say that God will wait for Israel's acceptance of this New Covenant in Jeremiah 31?

[Guest sub_zer0]

You really are making a valiant effort to TWIST the bible to your favor...it isn't going to fly here.... It says it will happen AFTER when they are brought back from captivity

 

Isaiah 31:

 

23 This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: "When I bring them back from captivity, [c] the people in the land of Judah and in its towns will once again use these words: 'The LORD bless you, O righteous dwelling, O sacred mountain.' 24 People will live together in Judah and all its towns—farmers and those who move about with their flocks. 25 I will refresh the weary and satisfy the faint."

 

26 At this I awoke and looked around. My sleep had been pleasant to me.

 

27 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD. 29 "In those days people will no longer say,

'The fathers have eaten sour grapes,

and the children's teeth are set on edge.'

 

30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.

 

31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,

"when I will make a new covenant

with the house of Israel

and with the house of Judah.

 

32 It will not be like the covenant

I made with their forefathers

when I took them by the hand

to lead them out of Egypt,

because they broke my covenant,

though I was a husband to [d] them, [e] "

declares the LORD.

 

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel

AFTER THAT TIME," declares the LORD.

"I will put my law in their minds

and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God,

and they will be my people

 

And, um, Einstein...by saying that this is only referring to Israel totally axes the gentiles and if you try to twist and say, it means everyone...it still is NOT in effect until AFTER THAT TIME.

 

I am not sure why you are saying Isaiah, I think you mean Jeremiah.

 

And the quote of "AFTER THAT TIME" is actually referring to this passage. Remember context is important!

 

31: "The time is coming," declares the LORD,

"when I will make a new covenant

with the house of Israel

and with the house of Judah. "

 

So, in verse 33, "AFTER THAT TIME" means after the establishment of the Covenant (Jesus' death) "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."

 

The verses you quoted before Jeremiah 31:27 is only referencing "Israel's Mourning Turned to Joy" which is the name of Jeremiah 31:1-26.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Holy ratfuckingmoosebsalls...

 

WTF is going on with these entire pages of quotes and quotes?

 

I, a fairly simple minded fool, have ability to read up the posts prior.

 

When it takes three pages of my hugeassed monitor to wade through the damn posts for a few sentence reply, I get pissed.

 

Adds nothing to the frackin' argument to continue a "whole quote" when the refered to post is above one or three posts above.

 

Use some consideration for those who aren't on the slickly fast DSL/cable/T-1/OC 100000 connections..

 

If you cannot learn to summarize, find a Strunks Style maual and fake doing so.

 

Please

 

kL

[Guest sub_zer0]

Holy ratfuckingmoosebsalls...

 

WTF is going on with these entire pages of quotes and quotes?

 

I, a fairly simple minded fool, have ability to read up the posts prior.

 

When it takes three pages of my hugeassed monitor to wade through the damn posts for a few sentence reply, I get pissed.

 

Adds nothing to the frackin' argument to continue a "whole quote" when the refered to post is above one or three posts above.

 

Use some consideration for those who aren't on the slickly fast DSL/cable/T-1/OC 100000 connections..

 

If you cannot learn to summarize, find a Strunks Style maual and fake doing so.

 

Please

 

kL

 

 

Now you know why I wanted to start a new topic. But your old age and attitude got in the way of it...

[white_raven23]

Now you know why I wanted to start a new topic. But your old age and attitude got in the way of it...

 

Insulting a mod? Nice.

 

The act of a desperate coward. Hoping to get banned so you can consider this thread a stalemate.

 

There are a lot of things you still haven't addressed. From what I understand, you never touched Open Minded's original question.

 

And you still haven't touched the bronze snake issue I brought up.

 

You know......god makes a law forbidding cast idols.......then turns around and commissions Moses to make a bronze snake with magic powers.

 

Laws that are not respected by the one creating them sets a piss poor example for the people the law is given to.

 

Anyone else?

[Asimov]

Now you know why I wanted to start a new topic. But your old age and attitude got in the way of it...

 

What the hell does that have to do with it?

 

He's telling you not to be an ass and waste bandwidth by summarizing other peoples posts. It's easy to do.

[Open_Minded]

Now you know why I wanted to start a new topic. But your old age and attitude got in the way of it...

 

Hey... Nivek... Thanks for not letting the boy start a new thread. Keeping him here until he answers all the original requests, will keep the rest of the board clear of his prattling......

 

There are a lot of things you still haven't addressed. From what I understand, you never touched Open Minded's original question.

 

You're right there White_Raven, I'm still waiting to learn:

 

1. How Moses could write about his own death?

2. And how Noah was able to round up, load, carry and feed a pair of every single type of animal on the Ark - without the Ark drowning &/or animals dying?

 

But, Hey Sub_Zero don't sweat it. I'm having fun watching Pritishd run you through the paces. I was new to this board about 24 hours and made a firm decision never to put myself on the opposite side of the table of Pritishd (and many other people on this board). They know the Bible too well.. Sub... they've actually studied it.

 

Hey Pritishd, did you change your name? If so, it fits you well

[Ouroboros]

Okay, okay, now I'm going to answer those questions for you OM.

 

First, Moses could write about his own death, because he had a ghost writer.

 

Second, Noah was able to put all the animals on the ark by using a shrink ray, this I've told you guys before.

 

*sigh* You evil non-fundamentalists, you never learn...

 

(I'm writing this under influence of the Guinness Beer God, so he must exist. )

[Open_Minded]

Okay, okay, now I'm going to answer those questions for you OM.

 

First, Moses could write about his own death, because he had a ghost writer.

 

Second, Noah was able to put all the animals on the ark by using a shrink ray, this I've told you guys before.

 

Oh... Cute Bunny.... you're right ... I'd forgotten. On second thought... don't worry about answering my questions, Sub. HanSolo has your back covered.

 

 

*sigh* You evil non-fundamentalists, you never learn...

 

(I'm writing this under influence of the Guinness Beer God, so he must exist. )

 

May the Lord Scotty strike you down for worshipping a false god

[Ouroboros]

Well, my post was "inspired" (or in-spirited)

 

One interesting thing about Noah and his ark, is that the same story exists in many cultures. Even the natives on Hawaii have a "noah" story, only the names, gods, reasons etc are different, and they landed on ... *drumroll* on Hawaii of course. So let's see, when was Hawaii populated? I think a few hundred years BCE? Or was it much later? Anyway, it was not 3-4000 years ago. So we can conclude that Noah was a TIME TRAVELLER, and he made the ark, and God sent the flood (under different god names) at different times! I bet Noah's true name was Kirk, and the Ark was the Starship Enterprise.

[SkepticOfBible]

2.) You are summarizing the passage wrong. It means that through this new covenant all people will know Him (God). Through Christ, since it is for Gentiles and Jews now, the whole world will know. It is not that people won’t need to be taught, it is that people, all people, will be taught about God because of this New Covenant.

 

Once again I don't think you can read

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD

 

What part of "they teach no more" and "for they shall all know me", do you not understand. No one need to be taught about God, since he is gonna be in personal contact with everybody?

 

Please explain to me how the NC has come to pass if the House of Isreal and House of Judah has not accepted it?

 

3.) Indeed, through this New Covenant--i.e., Christ-- God will forgive our sins. But not like with the Old Covenant through ritualistic sacrifices. Through Christ, the ultimate sacrifice, our sins are forgiven once and for all.

 

What verse are you talking about. It doesn't even talk about a sacrifice. Humans are not even valid sin sacrifice.

 

Jeremiah 31 is all about replacing the Old Laws with a New Covenant!

Show me the verse in Jer.

 

Again, I am going to have to repeat myself!

 

You think that repeating will change the verse in Jer 31

 

Jeremiah 31 when it speaks of the New Covenant, it is speaking of Christ!

Which part of it is talking about Messiah?

 

No, because it arrived ALL peoples can know God--which I have described in more detail in a response earlier in this post. And the promise of the Covenant is being fulfilled because now more than ever MORE people on earth know about Christ (the New Covenant) than ever before.

 

Once again the verse doesn't say that "MORE PEOPLE" will know about God. It says all will know him.

 

The point of the New Covenant is to make it possible to spread the word all over the earth.

The convenant makes no mention of such a thing

I hope I don’t have to remind you that Jesus never broke the Law, Jesus is actually violating the "tradition of the elders" - part of the Pharisaic oral law, or code of interpretation, not the actual law. Jesus' own reply points out that his accusers are guilty of a greater offense, which is a violation of the clear law (to honor one's parents) for the sake of a lesser interpretation of the law (Corban).

I wasn't even talking about Jesus. I was talking about you. If Jesus did not break the Sabbath then neither should you, or do you just want to ignore that part.

 

“Once again, however, he is violating a Pharasaic interpretation of what constituted "work", not an actual OT law, and his picking of corn from the fields of the others is allowed in the OT (Lev. 19:9-10) and is not considered to be stealing.”

Once again no accused anyone of stealing.

 

Lev 19:9-10, makes no mention of such about you working with sabbath. The Disciples were Jewish and they were not picking up corns from the ground.

 

Leviticus 19:9-10 (New International Version)

 

9 " 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

 

BTW, what nice morals, let the poor and aliens eat the crap from the ground

 

Yes their works, which is the result of faith in God! But just because they had “good works” does not mean they lived up to God’s expectations.

 

So if you have faith you should do the "works", right?I don't see you doing any "works", does that mean you lack faith

 

Luke 1:5-6

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Job 1

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

 

So you were saying something about men not living up to God's expection.

 

They were truly righteous people, but Jesus is the only one to live up to God’s expectations fully.

You mean to say God lived up to his own expectations fully?

 

Jesus did not live upto the full expection, and we were discussing this another thread. Please answer the question about baptism which is illegal to do according to the OT.

 

I am using the Bible in its full context to prove that Jesus didn’t violate the Law, etc. Of course if you select a topic and the Book of Mormon speaks on it, it is not false and no contradiction is there, than it is true! Granted not all of the Book of Mormon is true!

 

And I am saying the saying, not all of the NT is true.

 

 

The concept of Jesus is only implicitly stated in the Old, the New however explicitly supports the concept of Jesus.

 

If by imply you mean taking things out of context, then sure. By that reasoning the OT also implied about Mohammed.

 

Regarding your trinity verses, I will get back to you later.

 

2.)It takes much more than a verse. Start a topic!

 

In short there are no verses in the OT.

 

4.) Why does it need to say that for you to believe that Christ did fulfill it? It speaks of Him fulfilling it in the NT.

 

once again you have verse from the OT for this

 

5.) The Mosaic law was conditional and the sacrifices were to be spotless. Continued offering of sacrifices is needed. The only way it can be is by the ultimate or the fulfilling of those sacrifices. The spotless sacrifice that is Jesus.

 

Apart from the fact that sacrifices had to be free of blemish, it was also an animal, and it was supposed to sacrifced at the altar.

 

Jesus did not fulfill any of the requirement, on the other hand he was bruised and beaten up, so that outright diqualifies to be valid sacrifice.

 

6.) Isaiah 53:6All of us like sheep have gone astray,

Each of us has turned to his own way;

But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all

To fall on Him.

 

**Obvious reference to the Messiah.**

 

No it is not, the servant is clearly identified as a nation of Isreal in Is 52.

[Open_Minded]

Well, my post was "inspired" (or in-spirited)

 

One interesting thing about Noah and his ark, is that the same story exists in many cultures. Even the natives on Hawaii have a "noah" story, only the names, gods, reasons etc are different, and they landed on ... *drumroll* on Hawaii of course. So let's see, when was Hawaii populated? I think a few hundred years BCE? Or was it much later? Anyway, it was not 3-4000 years ago. So we can conclude that Noah was a TIME TRAVELLER, and he made the ark, and God sent the flood (under different god names) at different times! I bet Noah's true name was Kirk, and the Ark was the Starship Enterprise.

 

By George.... I think you've got it.

 

And the dilemma about getting the animals on the "ark" has now gone away because all Noah/Kirk had to do was say..... (Drumb roll please...... altogether now.....) "Beam them up Scotty".

 

 

AARGGGG.... Bad joke .... I know... couldn't resist

[scotter]

Readers who have an anthrological interests in the universality of myths and folklores can refer to:

 

James George Frazer "Folklore in the Old Testament". The stories of great flood are heard from at least twenty different cultures.

 

James Frazer's other works is the classic "The Golden Bough."

[Ouroboros]

AARGGGG.... Bad joke .... I know... couldn't resist

I'm bad influence.

 

But it's still interesting that the Noah story is so widespread, it's very much like urban legends like the "cat in the microwave" etc. Everyone knows the story, but know one really knows when/where/who, and we could give the lady and the cat a name to make the story more believable, but still it's just a legend.

[Open_Minded]

But it's still interesting that the Noah story is so widespread, it's very much like urban legends like the "cat in the microwave" etc. Everyone knows the story, but know one really knows when/where/who, and we could give the lady and the cat a name to make the story more believable, but still it's just a legend.

 

Not only widespread, but the similarities between the Gilgamesh flood story (written around 2700 BC if memory serves me correctly) and Noah are indisputable.

 

From Religious Tollerance.org

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm

 

In both the Genesis and Galgamesh stories:

 

The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.

The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.

The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.

The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).

The hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat

The ark would be sealed with pitch.

The ark would have with many internal compartments

It would have a single door

It would have at least one window.

The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.

A great rain covered the land with water.

The mountains were initially covered with water.

The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.

The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.

The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.

The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.

God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.

The hero was blessed.

The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

 

And this doesn't even begin to address conflicts in the Noah story between the YAHWIST and Priestly verses.....

 

But... I'm sure Sub has a good explanation for it all