Response to Dr Laura on homosexuality
-
The Law of Moses are for only for the Jews and those who wish to join them. However we must remember even Jews today cannot keep ALL the commandments inside, i.e. it is forbidden to observe certain commandments.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Are you sure that the OT is only for the Jews??
What did Yeshua(Jesus) say? If you love me keep my commandments... Yeshua also said keep my commandments as I have kept My Fathers commandments... what do you suppose that means?
Have a talk to icemoon, he will be able to sort you out in relation to the mitzvot that you should keep... kekekeke.
So when Jesus said keep my commandments, it does not mean ALL the commandments in the Law of Moses. -
How is a Jew 'lost' by definition? Do we see Jews praying to pagan gods in the NT, thus violating the Shema of Israel?Originally posted by googoomuck:He did not come to save the Jews that were well behaved and obedient, but Jews that were 'lost'. You must use a bit of imagination.
As for Matthew 5 17-20, Jesus has come to fulfill the role of the Messiah as prophesied in OT. The Jews have a great responsibility to God. The sacrifice of Jesus is to redeem the sinners of all nations.
The argument that Jesus has come to fulfill the role of Messiah is bull by OT standards. Gospel authors like Matthew painstakingly tried to match the accounts in Jesus' life to the prophecies in the OT, with great failure. Why do I say that? Just look at the audience of the gospel. Matthew was written to a Jewish audience, but how many Jews who understood the Hebrew Bible actually believed Jesus to be the Messiah? Not many then. Not many today also.
It is not hard to understand why this idea of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah is gradually lost, while the idea of him sacrificing himself to redeem the sinners of all nations gathered momentum.
However the idea that a human sacrifice is needed to redeem the sinners of all nations is unscriptural by OT standards. To paraphrase googoomuck, you must use a bit of imagination. Well, not a bit, but a lot. -
This one Matthew said one or Jesus said one?Originally posted by Phaze:Matthew 5:17-18
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
-
Not easy is subjective but that it can be done is an objective fact.Originally posted by googoomuck:For me, I read the old testament for general knowledge since the God is only talking to his people, the Hebrews. It's not easy to obey more than 600 commandments.
Or else why did God give so many commandments to His people? For fun? To torture them? -
Let me share my thoughts on Christianity only. I will not comment on other religions or atheism. Humans have choices.
IÂ’ve read that the sinning is the best part of repentance. I think thatÂ’s bad philosophy for people who have heard the Gospels but yet procrastinate.
Quote:
"And this is the way to have eternal life - to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth" (John 17:3).
Jesus is the only way of salvation because He is the only One who can pay our sin penalty (Romans 6:23).
There's no other way to salvation. This is paramount.
These two verses imply that good deeds alone donÂ’t lead to salvation. WhatÂ’s the problem with believing Jesus as my savior? ItÂ’s many times easier than doing good deeds. Just one more act of faith will save you. After baptism and repentance, one has to resist every temptation to sin. The Ten Commandments serve as a guide.
No one can prove the existence or non-existence of God but is there anything to lose if you just believe by faith – to err on the safe side? At most you die and become fertilizer like everybody else if God doesn’t exist. At least death is peaceful.
The Judaists have a problem to fulfill some of the 613 commandments since the Jewish Temple is destroyed. The modern Orthodox Judaists can deal with the problem. -
The lost Jews as those being misled by the self righteous and hypocritical PhariseesÂ….the tax-collectors, the sinners, the spiritually blind and deaf etcOriginally posted by Icemoon:How is a Jew 'lost' by definition? Do we see Jews praying to pagan gods in the NT, thus violating the Shema of Israel?
The argument that Jesus has come to fulfill the role of Messiah is bull by OT standards. Gospel authors like Matthew painstakingly tried to match the accounts in Jesus' life to the prophecies in the OT, with great failure. Why do I say that? Just look at the audience of the gospel. Matthew was written to a Jewish audience, but how many Jews who understood the Hebrew Bible actually believed Jesus to be the Messiah? Not many then. Not many today also.
It is not hard to understand why this idea of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah is gradually lost, while the idea of him sacrificing himself to redeem the sinners of all nations gathered momentum.
However the idea that a human sacrifice is needed to redeem the sinners of all nations is unscriptural by OT standards. To paraphrase googoomuck, you must use a bit of imagination. Well, not a bit, but a lot. -
Before Jesus, the Jewish Temple had been destroyed once, remember?Originally posted by googoomuck:The Judaists have a problem to fulfill some of the 613 commandments since the Jewish Temple is destroyed. The modern Orthodox Judaists can deal with the problem.
So there was already a point in time there was NO Jewish Temple, how do you think the Jews handled that?
-
These two verses imply that good deeds alone donÂ’t lead to salvation. WhatÂ’s the problem with believing Jesus as my savior? ItÂ’s many times easier than doing good deeds. Just one more act of faith will save you. After baptism and repentance, one has to resist every temptation to sin. The Ten Commandments serve as a guide.
Seem tat god contradict himself often. He asked the jews to follow the laws to go to heaven while christian don't need to because it is difficult. Why is easy=true ? Easy equal to convenient for yourself.No one can prove the existence or non-existence of God but is there anything to lose if you just believe by faith – to err on the safe side? At most you die and become fertilizer like everybody else if God doesn’t exist. At least death is peaceful.
There r so many religion in tis world and a lot of them say believing in other religion is an immediate ticket to hell. Who say u r playing safe here
Furthermore, being a christian doesn't means u do not have to pay a price. U have to pay a tilth, spend time in church and take effort to know the scripture. U lose something here. -
You look at the religion from an atheistÂ’s point of view.Originally posted by stupidissmart:There r so many religion in tis world and a lot of them say believing in other religion is an immediate ticket to hell. Who say u r playing safe here
Furthermore, being a christian doesn't means u do not have to pay a price. U have to pay a tilth, spend time in church and take effort to know the scripture. U lose something here.
You disagree with me but is there another Christian that will agree with you that the Christian God is contradicting Himself?
Things had changed after the death and resurrection of Jesus. ThatÂ’s the whole purpose. The only way to salvation for a Christian is to believe Jesus. I say itÂ’s easy because itÂ’s easy for me. Of course the problem doesnÂ’t end here. As a person, IÂ’m still subjected to temptations to sin. ItÂ’s like nicotine addiction. I can quit smoking but thereÂ’s a chance of relapse.
The other alternative is a Gentile become a Judaist but heÂ’s obliged to observe the 613 Jewish commandments. This is not encouraged. I know I will drop out. -
This is bull and obviously a false dichotomy that you have to be a Christian or a "Judaist".Originally posted by googoomuck:The other alternative is a Gentile become a Judaist but heÂ’s obliged to observe the 613 Jewish commandments. This is not encouraged. I know I will drop out. -
With the temple destroyed and the Jews scattered everywhere, they substituted sacrifices with prayers.Originally posted by Icemoon:Before Jesus, the Jewish Temple had been destroyed once, remember?
So there was already a point in time there was NO Jewish Temple, how do you think the Jews handled that?
The Moderate Jews must be happy. The Orthodox Jews will certainly frown at my statement. -
You look at the religion from an atheistÂ’s point of view.
I look from a logical point of view. U r trying to use logic in the first place isn't it ?You disagree with me but is there another Christian that will agree with you that the Christian God is contradicting Himself?
The fact is there. There r many examples of contradiction. WHy don't u name me the first person who see jesus ? Hint: Read all the books and u will know they contradict one anotherThings had changed after the death and resurrection of Jesus. ThatÂ’s the whole purpose. The only way to salvation for a Christian is to believe Jesus. I say itÂ’s easy because itÂ’s easy for me. Of course the problem doesnÂ’t end here. As a person, IÂ’m still subjected to temptations to sin. ItÂ’s like nicotine addiction. I can quit smoking but thereÂ’s a chance of relapse.
If it is so simple, why don't god use it on the jew in the first place
He do it for fun or wat ? Anyway if our sin r redeemed, why do we still die Death is the punishment for sin isn't it ? -
That's easy to fix. Substitute Judaism with any religion of your choice then.Originally posted by Icemoon:This is bull and obviously a false dichotomy that you have to be a Christian or a "Judaist". -
I've had enough of your logical points. What is logical to you may not be logical to another.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If it is so simple, why don't god use it on the jew in the first place He do it for fun or wat ? Anyway if our sin r redeemed, why do we still die Death is the punishment for sin isn't it ? -
I've had enough of your logical points. What is logical to you may not be logical to another
If it is not logical, then u can easily rebut it. If it is logical, then it make me wonder if u r afraid of the truth -
Yup, in fact God did reveal to His people via the prophets that sacrifices are substituted with prayers. And this is not part of a contingency plan in case the Temple is no longer standing. It is a shift in emphasis.Originally posted by googoomuck:With the temple destroyed and the Jews scattered everywhere, they substituted sacrifices with prayers.
The Moderate Jews must be happy. The Orthodox Jews will certainly frown at my statement.
So the Jews have no problems with a non standing Temple. The solution is spelt out in the Hebrew Bible, long before we have those Orthodox Jewish folks. -
what are the questions? I see if I can rebutt.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If it is not logical, then u can easily rebut it. If it is logical, then it make me wonder if u r afraid of the truth -
The way you expect everything to have a proper explanation, even you cannot be satisfy yourself to the very end of the age. And where did you learn that everything must be logical? Never heard of unexplained phenomenon?Originally posted by stupidissmart:If it is not logical, then u can easily rebut it. If it is logical, then it make me wonder if u r afraid of the truth
At least the Christian theologians made no attempt to bluff to cover up the inconsistencies of the gospels.
Tell me how to find witnesses for history that's a few thousand years old? ThatÂ’s also a logical question.
If you can answer the question, I will reconcile the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the books. -
what are the questions? I see if I can rebutt.
Christians r not free to break all the OT rules. U know tis topic has really no clear cut answer. Jesus contradicts himself some times, Paul also contradicts himself on occasions, saints argued over it, denomination split by it and scholars debate over it. It really depend on wat section u wanna focus on in the bible. One part contradicts the other. So giving a broad answer tat "OT rules r only applicable to jews" is not scriptually true. If u can give a satisfactory answer to tis, then scholars wouldn't argue over it even now.The way you expect everything to have a proper explanation, even you cannot be satisfy yourself to the very end of the age. And where did you learn that everything must be logical? Never heard of unexplained phenomenon?
Not really. Sometimes people make me stumbled over logical arguments and I keep quiet after tat. I am not difficult to be satisfied.
Does everything have to be logical ? If u ask me, yes. Unexplained phenomenon doesn't means it is logically wrong, but just means there r unknown. But the things we know shouldn't be logically wrong.
For example in the bible, I did not ask why fire can drop from the sky or why god can seperate the red sea. Tis r unexplained phenomenon and I treat tat if god exists, then it is easy for him to do tat. However parts like OT contradicts NT, certain part of the bible cannot be right because it violates science etc r logical errors.
It is like saying he is so fat he cannot pass through a 10X10 meter doorway yet thin enough to go through the 2mmX2mm eye of a needle. The first part contradict the second and it is logically wrong. People can believe on the first part more and sat tis guy is fat. Some people focus on the second part more and say tis guy is thin. They can argue forever and no one know wat is really the case. Tis is because something is wrong with the statement.At least the Christian theologians made no attempt to bluff to cover up the inconsistencies of the gospels.
Tat is true. But tat meant tat certain interpretation and sections r wrong. Tat means u can believe in the wrong things now. tat also mean the bible is not really guided completely by divine powers because there r errors in it.
U know how police tell if a witness is lying or not ? A peson can tell many stories but if he
1) contradict himself
2) defies facts and evidence
then obviously the police can know he is lyingTell me how to find witnesses for history that's a few thousand years old? ThatÂ’s also a logical question.
It is not about finding witnesses, but the stories between different eye witness giving true accounts shouldn't contradict one another. It just give the impression tat either the eye witness r wrong or not telling true account. -
Breaking News!
I've read and compared the end chapters of the four gospels according Matthew, Mark, John and Luke and found no inconsistency.
Magdalene was the first person to witness the resurrection. -
Dr Laura is wrong in judging people using old testament.Originally posted by Honeybunz:Can someone pls summarise into 10 words or less -
Originally posted by googoomuck:
The way you expect everything to have a proper explanation, even you cannot be satisfy yourself to the very end of the age. And where did you learn that everything must be logical? Never heard of unexplained phenomenon?
At least the Christian theologians made no attempt to bluff to cover up the inconsistencies of the gospels.
Tell me how to find witnesses for history that's a few thousand years old? ThatÂ’s also a logical question.
If you can answer the question, I will reconcile the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the books.Well actually they did try to cover up the inconsistencies of the gospels - it's just that they did an incomplete job doing it.
Although of course, they didn't call it covering up the inconsistencies. They called it "identifying which books were divinely inspired." For the new testament, that wasn't completed until about the 4th century although different christian sects still use slightly different canon. Eg. The Catholic bible vs the protestant bible vs the book of mormon.
If you accept the Bible as a work of literature, there is no problem with inconsistencies - it's just a collection of books. If you take the stories in the bible as myth and legend, just as you would take Homer's Odessey, there's no problem with accepting the bible for what it is. The bible is not a book. It's a library or anthology. It's a collection of books from numerous authors and editors.
The problem is some people claim that it's the perfect, unchanging Word of God as is said in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Breaking News!
I've read and compared the end chapters of the four gospels according Matthew, Mark, John and Luke and found no inconsistency.
Magdalene was the first person to witness the resurrection.Indeed, that is amazing news.
Could you explain why in Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31, the geneologies are different?
Even right from the beginning, the line is traced through Solomon in Matthew, and through Nathan in Luke.
Some have argued that the differences are because some of the lineage in Luke is traced through Mary - which still makes no sense because both geneologies still end with Joseph.
And for that matter, if Mary was a virgin, how can Jesus be a descendant of Joseph?
-
Originally posted by Phaze:
Well actually they did try to cover up the inconsistencies of the gospels - it's just that they did an incomplete job doing it.
Although of course, they didn't call it covering up the inconsistencies. They called it "identifying which books were divinely inspired." For the new testament, that wasn't completed until about the 4th century although different christian sects still use slightly different canon. Eg. The Catholic bible vs the protestant bible vs the book of mormon.
If you accept the Bible as a work of literature, there is no problem with inconsistencies - it's just a collection of books. If you take the stories in the bible as myth and legend, just as you would take Homer's Odessey, there's no problem with accepting the bible for what it is. The bible is not a book. It's a library or anthology. It's a collection of books from numerous authors and editors.
The problem is some people claim that it's the perfect, unchanging Word of God as is said in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
the compilation of the new testaments was done in AD500 by the Roman Church, and inconsistent (read undesirable) gospels were discarded.
the recent discovery of the dead sea scrolls and the gospel of judas tell a different story of what happened then. -
Indeed, that is amazing news.
Could you explain why in Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31, the geneologies are different?
Even right from the beginning, the line is traced through Solomon in Matthew, and through Nathan in Luke.
Some have argued that the differences are because some of the lineage in Luke is traced through Mary - which still makes no sense because both geneologies still end with Joseph.
And for that matter, if Mary was a virgin, how can Jesus be a descendant of Joseph?
For me, there’s no significance in the genealogies of who…Joseph! For Believers, Jesus is Son of God.
Just like you, the people in those days would not believe in a virgin birth. So Mary must have a husband, Joseph. A jew’s affiliation with the Jewish tribes, are traced through the father.
Luke 3
The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus
23. Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph
At least read Matthew from 1-24 to understand that Jesus is Son of God, not Joseph.
One contributor’s explanation below seems to reconcile the discrepancy. Matthew follows the natural line of descent, while Luke follows the legal line of descent.
Because of the Jewish Levirite laws, both are correct, but in different ways. In Jewish law, if a man died childless, his brother was to marry the widow, and the first son born would legally be the dead man's heir (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). In the story of Ruth, we see that this was not limited to brothers; the nearest male relative willing to take on the responsibility would marry the widow.
The logical (and traditional Roman Catholic and Orthodox) understanding is that Joseph's mother was originally the wife of Heli, but that he died without offspring. His kinsman Jacob then took the widow as his wife, and she bore Joseph. So, while "Jacob begat Joseph", legally Joseph was the son of Heli. Both were descendants of Zerubabel, and apparently Jacob was the nearest kinsman to Heli willing to fulfill the Levirite duty. Matthew follows the natural line of descent, while Luke follows the legal line of descent.
To summarise, Heli was the legal husband of Joseph’s mother. He died and Jacob took over the duty as husband and was the natural father of Joseph but legally, Heli was father of Joseph. That’s Levirite laws.
Complex relationship but intriguing.