It's a shame they didn't include the answers at the back of the book.

(August 12, 2015 at 8:59 am)robvalue Wrote: It's a shame they didn't include the answers at the back of the book.

Yeah, just about every major point mentioned in the New Testament, or what the early Christians defined as their sacred writings, invited the creation of a new sect and a new One True Church. As Christianity became a formidable social and political force in the Roman Empire, you can imagine why book burnings and persecutions - by the One True and now State Church - became so important.

Kingpho Wrote:Jesus came to live the sinless life, following God's law, to be the perfect sacrifice for the punishment of all sin. The verse said the law was in effect until it was accomplished. The last words uttered by Jesus on the cross were "It is finished." or "It is accomplished".

Before the cross, before it was "finished." Jesus was constantly breaking the law and teaching his disciples to break it. He stood up in the temple and said not one iota of the law would pass away, but while the law said people who broke the Sabbath were to be put to death, he taught through example that the Sabbath was just a suggestion to be followed when it was convenient. He set the precedent for Christians today to give lip service to honoring god's word yet whatever the Bible says do, they have an airtight excuse for doing the opposite.

(August 12, 2015 at 6:37 am)robvalue Wrote: Jesus wasn't sinless. He killed a kid. They just removed that book from the canon so now it "didn't happen".

(August 12, 2015 at 11:04 am)Rhondazvous Wrote:

Kingpho Wrote:Jesus came to live the sinless life, following God's law, to be the perfect sacrifice for the punishment of all sin.  The verse said the law was in effect until it was accomplished.  The last words uttered by Jesus on the cross were "It is finished." or "It is accomplished".  

Before the cross, before it was "finished." Jesus was constantly breaking the law and teaching his disciples to break it. He stood up in the temple and said not one iota of the law would pass away, but while the law said people who broke the Sabbath were to be put to death, he taught through example that the Sabbath was just a suggestion to be followed when it was convenient.  He set the precedent for Christians today to give lip service to honoring god's word yet whatever the Bible says do, they have an airtight excuse for doing the opposite.

Care to cite and discuss?

(August 10, 2015 at 1:29 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: @abaris

If you reject lkingpinl's answers, then:

What does it mean when Jesus said he did not come to "abolish but to fulfill" the law?

What is the purpose of the law?

Did god tell Moses to tell the people that the day would come when they would no longer have to obey the Law? If such a day were not foretold, how could Jesus be fulfilling the law when he taught his disciples to break it?

(August 12, 2015 at 8:52 am)abaris Wrote: In my book it means the Old Covenant is still very much to be taken as law. But I'm no christian, so I got no horse in the race anyway.

It's only that I find it amazing that some christians take parts of both books literally and interpret the hell out of certain passages to make ends meet. That's the classic case of cherry picking.

Do I have this right?

Your answer to the question of what Jesus meant when he said "I have not come to abolish but to fulfill the law" is that the Old Covenant is still very much to be taken as law.

If I do have this right, I don't understand your answer.  In what way did Jesus fulfill the law so that the Old covenant is still very much to be taken as law?  What does it mean to fulfill something?

You haven't answered the question: what is the purpose of the law?

(August 12, 2015 at 8:59 am)robvalue Wrote: It's a shame they didn't include the answers at the back of the book.

Not at the back, but throughout.

(August 12, 2015 at 8:57 am)Nestor Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 8:42 am)orangebox21 Wrote: It would only matter what Jesus meant when he said that he did not come to "abolish but to fulfill" the law.

How would a Nazarene, a Catholic, or a gnostic answer these questions?

Well, as I understand their doctrines, Nazarenes would say that the law absolutely still applies because it was clearly delivered by God in established scriptures and nowhere specifically does he announce, through the proclamations of the prophets or his son, that the law would be abolished during man's continuance on earth.

If that's true then what does it mean in Romans 7:6, "6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that [the law] by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter?"

(August 12, 2015 at 8:57 am)Nestor Wrote: Catholics would say the law is no longer relevant because what the covenant pointed towards in its requirements for faithful obedience has been fulfilled through Christ and replaced by his perfect example of selflessness and gift of salvation.

If that is true then how can we find salvation?  " 19Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:19-20)

(August 12, 2015 at 8:57 am)Nestor Wrote:  
Gnostics would say the Old Testament, in general, was a period of ignorance in which an evil despotic bastard named Jehovah kept men enslaved by superstition and fear, and the revelation of Christ has thrust open the gates of enlightenment. Or, something like that anyway.

You're almost correct.  Gnostics view the serpent, the light bearer, Lucifer as the one who has thrust open the gates of enlightenment, not Jesus.  They deny that Jesus came in the flesh, and "2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." (1 John 4:2)

(August 12, 2015 at 11:20 am)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 1:29 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: @abaris

If you reject lkingpinl's answers, then:

What does it mean when Jesus said he did not come to "abolish but to fulfill" the law?

What is the purpose of the law?

Did god tell Moses to tell the people that the day would come when they would no longer have to obey the Law? If such a day were not foretold, how could Jesus be fulfilling the law when he taught his disciples to break it?

Your claim is a non-sequitur:

Moses didn't tell the people that the day would come when they would no longer have to obey the Law, therefore Jesus couldn't be fulfilling the law when he taught his disciples to break it.

(August 10, 2015 at 10:16 am)orangebox21 Wrote:

---

(August 7, 2015 at 4:23 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Fornication is legal, as is idolatry, adultery, being effeminate, "abusers of themselves with mankind," coveting, drunkenness, and reviling.  So you have not explained at all why homosexuality is what is so talked about.

The only things on the list that should be illegal are theft and extortion.

That's true those items are legal today, however they were made legal in the past.  I cannot comment on the culture at the time the law against adultery was changed from illegal to legal.  I don't know how vocal or not the Christian community was at the time the law was changed.  

Another differentiation is that no one is forcing Christian churches, or individual Christians to engage in or participate in the acts relating to idolatry, adultery, being effeminate, etc.

(August 7, 2015 at 5:30 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Why should I explain anything to you? Your very comments evince  your inability to profit from explanations. I leave you to your ignorance. Interpret that any way you want.

You don't have to.  Although what's the point of coming to a forum, for the sake of a discussion, and then refusing to have a discussion?

Wyrd of Gawd[/hide Wrote:pid='1016536' dateline='1438983097']

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:"Born of a virgin."  How can you rightly accuse a virgin of fornication?      

[hide]What does it mean when Jesus said he did not come to "abolish but to fulfill" the law?

What is the purpose of the law?

---

There are three holes.  Just because one isn't used it doesn't mean that the other two stay vacant.  Besides, Mary was supposedly engaged to the dummy Joseph so if she came up pregnant she committed adultery.  Don't you know anything about human sexuality?

The story is a variation on the hypocrite Judah and Tamar (Genesis chapter 38) but with a slightly better ending.

Quote:In Thomas' version of events, later that same day as Jesus was casually strolling around town, running divine errands, another boy accidentally bumped into him on the street. So what would Jesus do? He'd probably use his divine presence to heal the boy of being friggin' clumsy, right? Let's see:

Jesus was provoked and said unto him, "Thou shalt not finish thy course." And immediately he fell down and died.

Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1

http://www.cracked.com/article_18948_5-r...e-ass.html

(August 12, 2015 at 11:57 am)robvalue Wrote:

Quote:In Thomas' version of events, later that same day as Jesus was casually strolling around town, running divine errands, another boy accidentally bumped into him on the street. So what would Jesus do? He'd probably use his divine presence to heal the boy of being friggin' clumsy, right? Let's see:

Jesus was provoked and said unto him, "Thou shalt not finish thy course." And immediately he fell down and died.

Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1

http://www.cracked.com/article_18948_5-r...e-ass.html

Apologetics prediction: "That doesn't count, not canon!" or "Oh no, Jesus didn't cause the boy to die, he was simply coincidentally in a position to prophesy his imminent death of totally unrelated causes!"

(August 12, 2015 at 11:18 am)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 11:04 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: Before the cross, before it was "finished." Jesus was constantly breaking the law and teaching his disciples to break it. He stood up in the temple and said not one iota of the law would pass away, but while the law said people who broke the Sabbath were to be put to death, he taught through example that the Sabbath was just a suggestion to be followed when it was convenient.  He set the precedent for Christians today to give lip service to honoring god's word yet whatever the Bible says do, they have an airtight excuse for doing the opposite.

Care to cite and discuss?

I not only care to, I'd be happy to.

This is just one of many, but how many do you need?

Matthew 12: 1, 2
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

Jesus goes on in the next few verses to remind the Pharisees that King David and even the priest did things that weren’t lawful whenever keeping the law posed an inconvenience.

God said those who break the law shall be put to death. Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Where in the Mosaic Law does it say only the sinless can cast stones? It simply said to stone those people with no stipulation as to the character of the executioners. If they hadn’t caught you, you didn’t do it. Why then would god impose the death sentence for violating a law that was only meant to be followed when convenient?

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. The Church makes abolish and fulfill mean the same thing.

So Jesus and the Church have their own special definitions of words like “change,” “add” and “pass away.”