Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Rachael Slick question.
Collapse
X
-
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostVerse 30 also suggests a certain manner and attitude, that of "defiantly ... blaspheming the Lord", and even then the proscribed punishment was that the offender be "cut off from among his people". It would seem that simply violating the law in and of itself was not necessarily worthy of death.
NORMWhen the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThat is actually a very critical difference. You're right that they're ultimately commands from God, but not all of God's commands are unconditional. For instance, the command that husbands are to love their wives obviously doesn't apply to someone who isn't married. Similiarly, Old Covenant ceremonial laws don't apply to those under the New Covenant. Moral laws, on the other hand, apply to everybody without condition.
Now if you want to discuss which laws are moral and which are ceremonial, that's fine, but suggesting that there's no distinction between the two is ignorant.
I would love to see how you determine which laws are moral and which are ceremonial. Let us start with worshiping other gods and keeping the sabbath. Are these moral or ceremonial? How do you decide?My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by NormATive View PostNo. In the context of his time, Hillel was controversial. Actually, he still is among the ultra-orthodox. But, they are the minority. Reformed Jews actually think Hillel a bit stodgy.
NORMβλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostHillel was surprisingly wise, funny or shocking even in his use of the golden rule to teach the Torah to a convert while standing on one leg, willing to compromise, but do you have any other references for considering him to be or rebellious? I really don't see how you can deny that he and his followers, along with the lesser role played by the House of Shammai, were the founders of rabbinic Judaism. Hillel founded the dominant rabbinic school which coninued a Davidic dynasty of perennial leaders of the House of Justice/Sanhedrin over some 15 generations for nearly 400 years. I agree he
NORMWhen the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu
Comment
-
Originally posted by NormATive View PostThe story you just related (summing up the Law and Prophets while standing on one leg) is an example. It was quite cheeky at the time. Again: context. I said AT THE TIME. By today's standards he is ultra orthodox.
NORM
Now you say he is ultra orthodox by today's standards, but earlier you seemed to place him at the start of the tradition (along with Reformed Judaism) that 'many in the Orthodoxy consider breaking away' and said that he is still controversial among the ultra-orthodox. Do you have any references to orthodox Jews considering Hillel controversial today? I am not doubting that some might, but I would like to be aware of who they are and what exactly they are saying.Last edited by robrecht; 11-14-2014, 08:53 AM.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostAs I read that I see nothing except an assertion that there is a distinction, with the added retort that anyone who doubts you is ignorant. Is that what passes for an argument in your head?
I would love to see how you determine which laws are moral and which are ceremonial. Let us start with worshiping other gods and keeping the sabbath. Are these moral or ceremonial? How do you decide?
To answer your specific questions, we can look at how Jesus interpreted and practiced the law to help us understand what is binding on us today and how it is binding. For instance, Jesus affirmed that we are to worship God alone (Matthew 4:10; Mark 12:30), and he challenged the Jewish understanding of Sabbath observances (Matthew 12; Luke 6).Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI did not argue by assertion. I provided you a logical reason for accepting that not all of God's commands are unconditional (i.e. God's commands to married people obviously do not apply to those who are not married).
More importantly, in what way can this be extended to suddenly ignoring a law, even if the condition is now true. You fail to say, and thus your post comes down to a mere assertion.
The Bible also makes an explicit distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, so this isn't something I'm inventing. Jeremiah 31 tells the people of Israel to expect a new covenant, and the Apostle Paul wrote at length about the Old Covenant under the law versus the New Covenant under grace.
And that does not mean it actually makes sense. The issue is why God changed his mind about what his laws are. It was a sin to eat pork at one time. Now it is not.
I would love to see how you determine which laws are moral and which are ceremonial. Let us start with worshiping other gods and keeping the sabbath. Are these moral or ceremonial? How do you decide?
Let us throw in eating pork. I am glad you specified Jesus here. How did Jesus interprete and practice that law?My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostYou might as well say a prohibition to shoot people only applies to people with guns. Or speed limits only apply to people driving cars. Well, yes, in sense, it is only applicable in that situation, but the rule applies to everyone. Keeping the Sabbath only applies one day a week. Is it not God's law on a Thursday? He does not expect anyone to keep the Sabbath on the Thursday, right? Only on the Sabbath. So is it only a conditional law, the condition being what day of the week it is?
More importantly, in what way can this be extended to suddenly ignoring a law, even if the condition is now true. You fail to say, and thus your post comes down to a mere assertion.
As I said to someone else, I know the Paul would agree with you. That does not mean that Jesus would. He specifically said he had not come to change the laws.
And that does not mean it actually makes sense. The issue is why God changed his mind about what his laws are. It was a sin to eat pork at one time. Now it is not.
So are those ceremonial laws or morals laws? A simple question, I am sure you can tell me the answer, and tell me how you can be confident you are right.
Let us throw in eating pork. I am glad you specified Jesus here. How did Jesus interprete and practice that law?
Second, explain to me how a conditional command can be unconditionally binding? If someone is not married, is he somehow sinning when he doesn't follow God's command to "love your wife as Christ loved the church"? Does a single woman commit a sin when she doesn't honor her husband? To insist that these commands apply to all people unconditionally is nonsense. Similarly, a command issued under the Old Covenant is not binding on those under the New Covenant. This is spelled out explicitly in scripture. There is zero disagreement between Jesus and Paul.
Besides, you're slightly misquoting Jesus through omission. He said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). When the purpose of something is fulfilled then it is no longer in effect (the word fulfill means "bring to completion"). If you're under contract to perform a service for a company, and the terms of the contract are fulfilled, the contract is no longer binding. Jesus fulfilled the old contract and established a new contract through his death and resurrection. This is all spelled out clearly in scripture.
So why did God "change his mind" regarding pork? He didn't, actually. It's just that the conditions and purpose for which that particular command existed are no longer in effect, and per Jeremiah 31, God always knew that it was a temporary prohibition.
Again, this is all explained clearly in the Bible. Maybe you should try actually reading it some time instead of ignorantly criticizing it.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by NormATive View PostThe story you just related (summing up the Law and Prophets while standing on one leg) is an example. It was quite cheeky at the time. Again: context. I said AT THE TIME. By today's standards he is ultra orthodox.My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
So you cannot answer the question. And do not have the integrity to just admit it. Fine.
Let us see what you do have...
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostFirst things first, Matthew 15:11, "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
No idea how that is relevant. If you want to explain, please do, but given you seem to like dodging questions, I will not hold my breath.
Second, explain to me how a conditional command can be unconditionally binding? If someone is not married, is he somehow sinning when he doesn't follow God's command to "love your wife as Christ loved the church"? Does a single woman commit a sin when she doesn't honor her husband? To insist that these commands apply to all people unconditionally is nonsense. Similarly, a command issued under the Old Covenant is not binding on those under the New Covenant. This is spelled out explicitly in scripture. There is zero disagreement between Jesus and Paul.
When God commands "love your wife as Christ loved the church" it is implicit right there in the command that if you do not have a wife, you are not obliged to love her. Are you claiming that when God said do not eat pork there was something in the text that made it clear that this was conditional? Do please point it out. You do say "This is spelled out explicitly in scripture." so I am sure you will have chapter and verse, right...
Besides, you're slightly misquoting Jesus through omission. He said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). When the purpose of something is fulfilled then it is no longer in effect (the word fulfill means "bring to completion"). If you're under contract to perform a service for a company, and the terms of the contract are fulfilled, the contract is no longer binding. Jesus fulfilled the old contract and established a new contract through his death and resurrection. This is all spelled out clearly in scripture.
Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [h]the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
My interpretation: Do not think I have come to abolish the Old Testament, rather I have come to fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament. Truly I tell you that not one bit of the Old Testament can be discarded until God's kingdom has come.
Your interpretation (apparently): Do not think I have come to abolish the laws, rather I have come to fulfill the laws. Truly I tell you that not one bit of the laws can be discarded until God's kingdom has come. They just do not apply any more becasiuse they were only conditional. The ritual ones anyway.
So why did God "change his mind" regarding pork? He didn't, actually. It's just that the conditions and purpose for which that particular command existed are no longer in effect, and per Jeremiah 31, God always knew that it was a temporary prohibition.
Again, this is all explained clearly in the Bible. Maybe you should try actually reading it some time instead of ignorantly criticizing it.
Hey, if you can quote the verses in Jeremiah 31 that saying eating pork was a "temporary prohibition" I might think you had a point.My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostJeremiah says nothing about it being a temporary prohibition. It says there will be a new covenent, but there are no details, nothing to suggest a change to God's dietry commands.
If you can tell me if keeping the Sabbath is a ritual or moral command and how you can be sure, I might think you had a point.
Hey, if you can quote the verses in Jeremiah 31 that saying eating pork was a "temporary prohibition" I might think you had a point.
The same is reflected here in not requiring Gentiles to fully convert to become Jews bound to the whole Law:
Some Jewish entities like like Chabad even say that Gentiles can be killed for observing Sabbath: you either have to observe a limited form of Torah, or convert to be a Jew if you want to observe all of it:
So even though that view may be extreme, you can see it isn't just a Christian idea that Gentiles aren't obligated to observe all Torah.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostMy understanding is "the Law and Prophets" refers to two section of what Christians consider the OT, and the Law specifically means the first five books. It does not refer to a set of laws as such (though the five books do include laws), as Christians seem to hold. Would you agree?Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostEr, Christians recognize those distinctions too. Words can have more than one meaning, after all.My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostMy understanding is "the Law and Prophets" refers to two section of what Christians consider the OT, and the Law specifically means the first five books. It does not refer to a set of laws as such (though the five books do include laws), as Christians seem to hold. Would you agree?
It really is that simple. Notice that all the Christian apologists are quoting the Christian Testament when justifying their arbitrary disobedience to G-d's Law. And the references in the Tanakh that they suppose are referring to the so-called New Covenant, are merely referring to a hoped-for unification of a divided kingdom.
I really struggle with this obsession of Christians to prove that they are just as Jewish as anyone in the Kosher community. They have their own religion. Why do they need to take over Judaism as well?
NORMWhen the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
186 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,517 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment