Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..

[Minimalist]

Pretty much all of them.

Give me facts not one liners, you're not a comedian.

With creationists serving up straight lines it is very hard not to be.

So, let's see how nutty you are.

Do you think:

a) the world is 6,000 years old.

b) Adam and Eve is literally true

c) Noah's flood is literally true

d) The Exodus/Conquest stories are literally true.


We'll see what facts you need and go from there.

[solja247]

Did I miss something? So we are now only talking about the 10 commandments or the entirety of OT law? And what do you mean the law has been fulfilled in love? So the whole of the OT law can be dismissed as we now have a law of love?

Ok, then you better get preaching to some of those fundie preachers who seem to preach intolerance and hatred to gays and others they don't agree with. I'm sure most athiests would subscribe to a policy of love and respect... but some christians seem to have problems with this.

Fundies dont know what they are arguing, they have their KJV bible and try to argue nonsense. Just to let you know Godschild is not a fundamentalist, he is a conservative.

It has never been about being a deontologist of the law, but of love. The OT is beautiful, the more I look at it, the more beautiful it becomes.
The law is summed up in these two verses:
Deuteronomy 6:5
Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
Leviticus 19:18
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Go through the torah and you will see compassion.
My mate summed it up well:

Paul speaks likewise in Romans 13:8-10. “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.” He then goes on to list part of the 10 Commandments and then says, “and if there is any other commandment, they are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.”

http://bjreynolds.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/the-law/ (You may be interested in the article)

Correct if you refer to the Christian devil. However, look at the historical evidence about the early Hebrews, for example the Canaanites.

I'll give you some text from wikipedia (yes, i know, its not perfect and lacking citations):

We shouldnt look at Canaanite mythology to understand Jewish theology, but the Torah. They have their similarities and differences.

Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

How can we justify the communion, which is the drinking of the blood of the "lamb of God" when the OT strictly forbids the practice?

Is it grape juice or blood?

[Godscreated]

Pretty much all of them.

Give me facts not one liners, you're not a comedian.

With creationists serving up straight lines it is very hard not to be.

So, let's see how nutty you are.

Do you think:

a) the world is 6,000 years old.

b) Adam and Eve is literally true

c) Noah's flood is literally true

d) The Exodus/Conquest stories are literally true.


We'll see what facts you need and go from there.

a) no it could be as much as 50,000
b) yes
c) yes
d) yes
You already knew how I would answer I've stated that I'm a fundie.

[Godscreated]

@DP Exodus 21:22-25 give the penalties for one who causes a unborn baby to suffer or die. You sure did not search very hard.

Those verses would seem to support the idea that the unborn isn't alive. Let's study it closely, shall we?
Bold emphasis mine.

Ex 21:22-25 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This first bold part is important. The verses suggest the scenario where men hit a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry. This is what "her fruit depart from her" means. A miscarriage is a natural abortion that occurs due to injury, illness or complications. So by the time we hit that comma after the phrase "fruit depart from her", we've established that the fetus is dead due to the men hitting the mother. Are you with me so far?

After the comma, and this is the important part here, we have the phrase "and yet no mischief follow". This, in more modern translations, comes out to mean "but no further harm is done".

So far, here's the scenario:

1. Men beat woman.
2. Woman miscarries. Fetus dead.
3. No further harm is done.

Under these conditions, what is the prescribed penalty? He pays a fine to the husband, presumably for his troubles and the assault on his property. Hm, pretty mild for murder, wouldn't you say? But wait, there's more. Read on.

"And if mischief follow" is another important milestone in this passage. It prescribes what is to happen IF further harm is done. Here, it suggests how her injuries are to be repaid in kind. If you burn her, you get burned. If you take her eye out in the process of beating, you get your eye taken out. If you kill her, and this is the important part, you get the death penalty.

Let me repeat that, the Bible says in this verse that murder is to be punished with the death penalty. Ergo, if the fetus were a living being, causing the miscarriage would be punished with death. No need for "eye for eye, burn for burn, stripe for stripe."

So let's review:

1. Men beat a pregnant woman who miscarries. Fetus is dead.
2. If no further harm is done, apart from the miscarriage that is, men pay fine to husband.
3. But if further harm is done, the men are punished in kind. Any death is punished by execution.
4. Evidently, contrasting 2 and 3, the fetus doesn't count as a living being, since its death warranted only a fine.
5. Ergo, the Bible does not recognize a fetus as a living being.

But wait, so many conservatives object at this point, the penalties prescribed are in reference to the damaged fetus. Eye for eye? Foot for foot? Stripe for stripe? Burn for burn? How many miscarriages result in such damage yet still produce a living baby?

There's more verses that establish the non-rights of post-birth children but let's hash out this passage for now.

You're wrong in the analysis of the verses Exodus 21:22-25. In this instance the KJV has the better translation where it says "her fruit departs from her" than later translations that say she had a miscarriage. Go back to the Hebrew and you will find that the literal translation means her childern come out. So there is no miscarriage in the original Hebrew and thus the rest of the verses are speaking of the unborn child not the mother. The part that says "no further harm" refers to the child, and just a penalty is imposed on the man/men since the result was a premature birth. Then the other verses deal with punishments if harm comes to the child. This being so your 5 points carry no weight because the original Hebrew does not support your conclusion.
I've underlined part of your statement above and I think you are confused about a miscarriage, a miscarriage never result in the baby living.

[Minimalist]

You already knew how I would answer I've stated that I'm a fundie.

Yeah - I knew. But it is necessary to instruct some of the newcomers.


BTW, fundie is not a title of honor. Quite the opposite.


I'll deal with this tomorrow. Too late now.

[Loki_999]

It has never been about being a deontologist of the law, but of love. The OT is beautiful, the more I look at it, the more beautiful it becomes.

Perhaps read the rest of the OT as well? I mean, slaughter of innocents, genocide, predjudice, intollerance.... and this is from Yahweh!!!!

I think this picture sums up the bible best:

[Godscreated]

Hey Thor, thanks for reminding me about his reference to Lev 17. Speaking of passages in the Bible that work against him.

Lev 17 discusses blood sacrifice and atonement, rather important for establishing the legitimacy of Christianity in the OT. Bold emphasis mine.

Lev 17:10-12 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

This passage would seem to forbid the consumption of sacrificial blood. How can we square this with Jesus' admonishment?:

Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

How can we justify the communion, which is the drinking of the blood of the "lamb of God" when the OT strictly forbids the practice?

Other admonishments of Lev 17 are hard to square with the NT.

17:5-6 To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the LORD. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the LORD.

Can anyone point out to me in the NT where it discusses a priest being involved in the sacrifice of Jesus or where Jesus' blood was sprinkled on the altar?

Again you are trying to satisfy your on disbelief. First you have ignored what I brought up about this passage and secondly the sacrifices of the OT were done away with when Jesus was crucified so there's no need in trying to square the OT sacrifices with NT teachings. As for the last supper that wine was symbolic and there are many symbolic passages in the NT. Yes I can clearly point out the priests involvement and tell you about the altar you seemed to have misplaced. Mark 15:1-15, Matt.26:1-5, Matt.26:57-68, Matt.27:1-2, Matt.27:11-24 is this enough evidence of the priests involvement. The body of Jesus was the altar and the blood poured out of the Altar and the Altar was completely covered in blood. Jesus told the priest that the altar makes the gift sacred in Matt.23:18-19, Jesus being the altar makes the gift of salvation sacred.

[Loki_999]

Again you are trying to satisfy your on disbelief.

Pot meet kettle.

[little_monkey]

This is the argument that Christians use, when Atheists ask why people don't stone their neighbors for working on the Sabbath, and things like that. How do you counter arguments that these rules were for an earlier time? I mean, there are some old testament verses about people's animals falling into pits that certainly don't apply anymore.

The early Christians, under the leadership of Peter, wanted the members to obey the Judaic laws as prescribed in the OT -- kosher food, circumcision, etc. It was Paul who challenged Peter and argued that the religion should open up to non-Jews. His POV prevailed. He went traveling abroad, establishing churches across the empire. Of course in his writings, Paul justified this by saying that Jesus teachings trumped the OT and its Judaic laws.

[DeistPaladin]

I've underlined part of your statement above and I think you are confused about a miscarriage, a miscarriage never result in the baby living.

Not so much confused as familiar with the apology that the verse refers to a premature birth which might or might not produce a living baby. Besides the fact that no modern translation that I'm familiar with translates it as "premature birth" but rather as "miscarriage", there's the part about "foot for foot, burn for burn, stripe for stripe, eye for eye" etc. How many premature births feature babies with missing feet and yet they survive? Or whip marks (stripe)? Or missing eyes? Or burns?

The passage is about damage done to the woman, who might actually suffer burns, stripes or missing eyes and feet as a result of the assault upon her.

Incidentally, I would ask you where you got your degree in ancient Hebrew. Can you go into detail here on why the passage is about premature births and not a miscarriage and how modern translators seem to have gotten it wrong?

As for the last supper that wine was symbolic and there are many symbolic passages in the NT.

So you're not sinning, you're just acting out a sin and pretending to commit it? That hardly seems like sound theology, since Jesus spoke out against committing sins in the mind as well as in practice. Jesus on the mount said that those who lust after women in their hearts or commit hateful acts toward others in their mind have also sinned.

The nature of the OT condemnation of the consumption of sacrificial blood is strong and unambiguous. It should also preclude pretending to do so.

Again you are trying to satisfy your (own) disbelief.

Projection. Your attempts to rationalize both discussed passages and the ad hoc hypothesis you've used demonstrate that you started with the conclusion and then tried to make the scriptures fit that conclusion.