(June 29, 2015 at 4:25 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Since it is in effect "Till heaven and earth pass," we can be pretty sure it is still in effect.  Of course, I expect you to pretend that Jesus meant nothing by those words, that it is just extra verbiage to be ignored.  That is the way of most Christians, to ignore bits they don't like and pretend that things mean something other than what they plainly say.  Great job trying to weasel out of it so quickly!  I knew it would not be long for someone to do that, and you have not disappointed.

So, it is your opinion that looking for context across all of Jesus' teaching and actions and Paul's teachings to help understand a 2 sentence teaching is somehow wrong or disingenuous? 

You also have to delineate between the different laws. You have the basic commandments and the ancillary moral laws, you have the ceremonial laws, and you have the judicial laws set up for a theocracy. Which one was he talking about? 

Christ's purpose was to fulfill the law, --provide the final sacrifice that satisfied the requirement for atonement. The law still serves the purpose for which it was created: to show that we fall short. If you take it the way you want to, then Jesus' life and atonement does not make sense--sacrifices are still necessary. Paul has a whole bunch of versus that clarify--but perhaps you will claim they are contradictory--which is nonsense--since doctrine is developed by incorporating all we know on 1) the subject matter from all recognized authorities, 2) harmonizing it with the nature of God and the obvious plan of redemption, and 3) harmonizing it with other doctrines that affect it. It is not done lightly and we now have 2000 years of thinking on the various subjects. There is an answer to ever objection you can think of. You might even get more that one variation to choose from depending on xyz interpretation on a given subject.

"Harmonizing" is a polite word for twisting and contorting the meaning of statements beyond all recognition from what the words actually mean.

If the Bible were the word of God, he could have dictated a much clearer document.  Either that is the best that God can do, which means that God is an imbecile, or he willfully had it written in a manner to deceive and confuse people, which means that God is evil.

(June 30, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 7:41 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The Bible didn't exist until the English wrote it.  There was no "book" until they created it.

The English, huh?

The Canon and the Councils

Council of Rome (382 A.D.)

Convoked by Pope Damasus, this council produced the Roman Code.  The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to canon that would be defined by the Council of Trent. Pope Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation.

Council of Hippo (AD 393)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

First Council of Carthage (AD 397)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and also affirmed the Decree of Damasus issued in 382 A.D. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification.

Pope Innocent I (AD 405)

In a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome.

Second Council of Carthage (AD 419)

This council, presided over by Augustine, reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and notified Pope Boniface of its action.

Pope Boniface (ca. AD 420)

Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision of the Council of Carthage and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. Boniface also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.

Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)

This council formally ratified the African Code which contained the same list of books that Trent would name “canonical”.

Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)

This council defined a list of inspired books identical to those defined by the African Code and the Second Council of Nicaea.

Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)

On April 8, 1546, this council produced a decree, Sacrosancta, which was the first, formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament scripture. This was the third formal affirmation of the list by an ecumenical council and at least the eighth overall.

There's a major difference between a heap of scrolls and a real book.  Those early characters, before the year 700 AD, just played around with a bunch of various scrolls.  They didn't have a single comprehensive book that contained the fairy tale.  The English took all of that junk and organized it into a single BOOK.  

Do you think those early con men had their fairy tale organized in the current format of stories by titles?  Do you think those early con men had their fairy tale organized into chapters and verses?

(June 29, 2015 at 12:20 pm)Nope Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Lek Wrote: You're right.  Reading helps.  The only one on your list that applies to you is #4.  Read the whole bible, including the new testament.  Do the things you suggested if you want to live as a Jew under the old covenant, which no longer applies to anyone.

Most of us have read the bible and yes, it does have those rules. Please stop trying to piss on such a light hearted thread.

I thought about what I said. I shouldn't have been snippy with you, Lek. Sorry about that

(July 1, 2015 at 2:41 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The English, huh?

The Canon and the Councils

Council of Rome (382 A.D.)

Convoked by Pope Damasus, this council produced the Roman Code.  The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to canon that would be defined by the Council of Trent. Pope Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation.

Council of Hippo (AD 393)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

First Council of Carthage (AD 397)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and also affirmed the Decree of Damasus issued in 382 A.D. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification.

Pope Innocent I (AD 405)

In a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome.

Second Council of Carthage (AD 419)

This council, presided over by Augustine, reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and notified Pope Boniface of its action.

Pope Boniface (ca. AD 420)

Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision of the Council of Carthage and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. Boniface also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.

Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)

This council formally ratified the African Code which contained the same list of books that Trent would name “canonical”.

Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)

This council defined a list of inspired books identical to those defined by the African Code and the Second Council of Nicaea.

Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)

On April 8, 1546, this council produced a decree, Sacrosancta, which was the first, formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament scripture. This was the third formal affirmation of the list by an ecumenical council and at least the eighth overall.

There's a major difference between a heap of scrolls and a real book.  Those early characters, before the year 700 AD, just played around with a bunch of various scrolls.  They didn't have a single comprehensive book that contained the fairy tale.  The English took all of that junk and organized it into a single BOOK.  

Do you think those early con men had their fairy tale organized in the current format of stories by titles?  Do you think those early con men had their fairy tale organized into chapters and verses?

Wow. What a coincidence!

The book that the English put together in (insert year here) just HAPPENS to be identical in contents to the "heap of scrolls" that were considered to be the Word of God as early as the middle of the fourth century?

Geez, how did THAT happen?