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

[Loki_999]

You asked for scriptures, you did not specify OT or NT so all the verses I used are relevant.

Quite right, i didn't. But please keep in mind we are discussing why Christians believe they can discard some of the OT laws. And secondly, this point related to where it mentions that the Holy Spirit existed from the beginning. If you accept the NT books, the books written either during or after Christianity's formation then already you have to accept the political or religious agenda that was already forming and influencing which books were treated as canon. Think about all the books that didn't make it into the NT. Why didn't they? Perhaps largely because they disagreed with the party line? Presented Jesus in a light that refuted his divinity.

You're trying to limit the facts as given in scripture. The OT and NT are one book in christianity and that is what this is about. God is not only God to the Jews He is God to all that believe. You are flawed in your thinking, the way you think would negate any new laws from being written and if you think you are correct then you and Thor need to have a discussion.

Why? I would actually say that both NT and OT are equally important to Christianity, the OT laying the foundation and the NT is the new interpretation which the Jews rejected because they don't accept Jesus as the son of god. What I was saying is you can't point to the NT as presenting new evidence such as the Holy Spirit being present at the beginning when it isn't mentioned in Genesis... that was the book that told about the beginning. It would have been one hell of an oversight of the early writers to miss the point that god was Triune. If it was correct then Genesis should have started with: In the beginning there was the word, and the word was God, whose nature was triune consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

Like i said, otherwise its just retconning.

What I can accept is they if you believe in Jesus then Jesus came and changed the rules of the game, this is normal in religion when prophets and messiahs turn up. What I can't accept is retconning (its bad enough in Star Trek but when it comes to things people believe then its really messed up). Despite this, even accepting Jesus changed some rules, you need to show where happened (which you have done) and secondly prove that it does not go against the Word of God. Why the bold? Because God is (according to your religion) omniscient, omnipotent, and half a dozen other omni-somethings. So if God said in the OT, this is the law, and everything is part of God's plan, then either a) his word is law for all time, or b) he is fucking with you.

Looking at the bible, my suspicion would be option B.

The Jews had Jesus put to death because He called Himself the Son of God And Jesus told His disciples that He had to return to the Father so the Helper (Holy Spirit) could come, in this one statement the Trinity is made visible. When Jesus was baptized the Holy Spirit desended upon Him and the Father said this is My Son in whom I Am is well pleased, another example of the Trinity. Jesus also told His disciples that the Holy Spirit knows the mind of God, He did not mean this was just Gods spirit Jesus meant that the Holy Spirit would interact with man to help him know the will of God. Jesus also told His disciples that He and the Father were as One. If you like I will look up and post all the passages, I do not believe I need to you seem to know that they are in scriptures. This is alot of scripture statements that show the three persons of the One true God and yes they are three seperate persons of the God of creation. As for the OT it's the foretelling of Christ, I'm not sure how anyone could deny the Trinity.

And isn't this all just your interpretation of the words? And lets not forget translation and subtleties of context problems. Unless you are fluent as a native in the original ancient Greek or whatever language the original you are quoting from then you will make some errors in conveying meaning. I work with Russians everyday and even those with outstanding English still make errors, because while they know the correct translations, they do not know the shades of meanings words can convey. Looking at your quotes its quite easy to take another interpreation that when god or Jesus is referring to his spirit, it is exactly that, his spirit, his non-corporeal form or his presence, not a separate (but not separate) entity. The same with Jesus and God being as one... it doesn't mean they are one, just linked, like, erm, father and son. Bottom line its simply interpretation... which is why we have the lovely mess with different sects of Christianity.

As for the OT it's the foretelling of Christ

Its the story of the Hebrew and the Jews and their relationship with their god. Part of that story is the foretelling about a Messiah who Christianity believe is Jesus (Christ). Islam accept large parts of the OT especially the Pentateuch, but they don't believe Jesus was the messiah, they simply accept his as a prophet (and they say he was a Muslim as well), while Mohammed was the final prophet. They don't have quite the same take on the messiah but do believe the Mahdi will walk the earth at the end of days alongside Jesus as they together clean the earth of sin and injustice. Well, at least Jesus still gets a major role in Islam.

I'm not sure how anyone could deny the Trinity.

I just did But there again, i deny God as well, so its not surprising.

Catholicism is wrong in elevating Mary to such a high place, Jesus in His time on earth did not hint that this was to happen. Catholicism has broken the commandment not to worship any other gods.

So what happens to Catholics? Do they burn in hell for eternity for this? I mean, this just highlights the point that the bible is so open to interpretation and abuse by those who control the religion. Catholics went one way, Orthodox another, the Amish another, and i don't think we need to mention the Mormons.

The Son is not the Father,

Ask another Christian and they will tell you the opposite. I've had many Christians tell me that the trinity is one being both joined and separate.

If you want I can show you scriptures of why, not all the OT applies to christians. It's late so I'll look for your reply this weekend.

---

Looking forward to it.

And evolutionist look at the same stupid fossil and think it's two, three, four and more different things.

I think you mean to say either biologist or paleontologist? Evolutionist is a word invented by theists to describe those who subscribe to the theory of evolution, it doesn't make them experts on fossils. Anyway, yes, there is disagreement, and study, and research, and usually eventually consensus... and even possibly later that "final" answer will be found to be false when new evidence comes along, and the textbooks gets updated.

This is the scientific process. Start with some facts, work towards a conclusion.

The religious process is backwards. You start with a conclusion and look for facts to back it up. When you argue over differences between different sects of Christianity you are arguing over points of view. You will both point to the same (or different) parts of scripture which will back up your points of view. Neither will change their opinion. I'm sure it very rarely happens that a Catholic (for example) would say, hey, the Methodists have it right, Mary shouldn't be so important! I'm changing teams.