Question(s) for Christians

[AKAK]

as God dislikes gluttony too.

I'm linking this to the bacon thread.

 

[jwinslow]

No quarrel here, and it's worse on our part given our familiarity with the scriptures and often teachings earning against those mistakes.

I have no issue with someone rejecting scripture, but to judge it you need to first understand it. Taking single passages or chapters without their context in the whole Bible, especially in the early old testament, is a very problematic way to read scripture.

 

[AKAK]

No quarrel here, and it's worse on our part given our familiarity with the scriptures and often teachings earning against those mistakes.

I have no issue with someone rejecting scripture, but to judge it you need to first understand it. Taking single passages or chapters without their context in the whole Bible, especially in the early old testament, is a very problematic way to read scripture.

So... Josh... what does Deuteronomy tell us about Bacon?

 

[muffler dragon]

Exodus, Chapter 21 is rather interesting.

Let's look at Leviticus, Chapter 20,

Not my dog, just interjecting:

Considering Josh isn't Jewish nor a Jew. The Mosaic covenant has nothing to do with him. Thus, your argument is a fallacy.

Here, you point out the problem with Christianity - or more specifically - the problem with the fact that Christians (the followers of any religion to be sure) have themselves picked and chosen the parts they want to follow and ignored (or justified ignoring) the parts they want to ignore.

So I have no dog in this hunt, but only wanted to say that "only caring about the parts (in this case passages) which protect your incomplete scope" has a long and proud heritage within the Christian Church.

And it's my belief that Christians would have a much easier time of it IF they weren't attempting to follow a Covenant that has NOTHING to do with them. Sans the spiritualization argument, there's nothing in the Mosaic covenant that is binding upon Gentiles. Take it FWIW.

 

[Gatorubet]

And it's my belief that Christians would have a much easier time of it IF they weren't attempting to follow a Covenant that has NOTHING to do with them. Sans the spiritualization argument, there's nothing in the Mosaic covenant that is binding upon Gentiles. Take it FWIW.

Ooooohhhhhh. You just pushed Jesus in the chest!

Noahic, Abrahamic (find me the descendants of Ephraim ), Mosaic or Davidic Covenant????

 

[muffler dragon]

Ooooohhhhhh. You just pushed Jesus in the chest!

From one perspective, yes; from another, quite possibly not. Furthermore, I'm presuming you know that Jesus couldn't observe every mitzvoh in the Torah seeing as though he was not a man, woman, priest, husband, etc. all rolled into one.

Maybe that's a topic for another time.

Noahic, Abrahamic (find me the descendants of Ephraim ), Mosaic or Davidic Covenant????

I'm presuming you know the legal manner in which Leviticus and Deuteronomy are started with:

Leviticus 1
1. And He called to Moses, and the Lord spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying, 2. Speak to the children of Israel,

Deuteronomy 1
1. These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel

The context in the times of the writings shows exactly who the physical audience is.

 

[Gatorubet]

I do not think that an all powerful God needed animal blood splashed on some stone alter to make his happier. Needless to say I am not a literalist. No Flood. No Adam and Eve. So no Voice out of the Tent that excludes or includes me.

Really, I gave up Christianity for Lent this year, and it has not all returned yet.

 

[Taosman]

No quarrel here, and it's worse on our part given our familiarity with the scriptures and often teachings earning against those mistakes.

I have no issue with someone rejecting scripture, but to judge it you need to first understand it. Taking single passages or chapters without their context in the whole Bible, especially in the early old testament, is a very problematic way to read scripture.

The problem is the whole Bible is problematic if your not a literalist. An evangelical. So, like you say, we've come full circle.
Belief versus logic.

 

[jwinslow]

Needless to say I am not a literalist.

That's one way to get around Proverbs 31 (which we studied today)

"She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet."

 

[MaxBuck]

That's one way to get around Proverbs 31 (which we studied today)

"She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet."

Seems clear enough to me.

 

[muffler dragon]

I do not think that an all powerful God needed animal blood splashed on some stone alter to make his happier. Needless to say I am not a literalist. No Flood. No Adam and Eve. So no Voice out of the Tent that excludes or includes me.

Are you saying that the context I brought up is not literal or are you commenting on something else?

Really, I gave up Christianity for Lent this year, and it has not all returned yet.

The circularity of the statement leaveth me spinning.

 

[lvbuckeye]

LV,

Just out of curiosity, two questions:

1) Why do you think Jesus saying one should pay taxes to the Romans would get him in trouble with the Sanhedrin?

because they asked 'is it lawful to pay tribute to Caesar.' lawful being the key word. the question is WHAT LAW? Roman or Moses? if He said to pay tribute to Caesar, He would have been advocating breaking Mosaic Law, namely "Thou shall not have any other gods before Me." paying tribute was viewed the same as idol worship. and that stance would most certainly had Him in front of the council.

2) Considering that whatever disagreements one might have with the US government's use of our taxes, it is at the very least no worse than what the Romans were doing with the taxes they collected, so why do you draw a distinction between good and bad uses of the $$? And do you think Jesus was making such a distinction?

is at the very least no worse... hm. i'd half tempted to say say yeah, but the other side is that what's going on in this country is far worse. the Romans were pagan. we're supposedly a God fearing nation. (i think we all know THAT is a joke.) do i think Jesus was making such a distinction? no. further, i don't think there is a distinction. in for a penny, in for a pound...

 

[lvbuckeye]

Not my dog, just interjecting:

Considering Josh isn't Jewish nor a Jew. The Mosaic covenant has nothing to do with him. Thus, your argument is a fallacy.

um.... actually, by accepting Christ, he does indeed take on the Mosaic covenant. since Christ fulfilled it.

And it's my belief that Christians would have a much easier time of it IF they weren't attempting to follow a Covenant that has NOTHING to do with them. Sans the spiritualization argument, there's nothing in the Mosaic covenant that is binding upon Gentiles. Take it FWIW.

see my comment above. the entire Old Testament is literally STREWN with Messianic prophecies and references. even Deuteronomy and Numbers, since someone brought that up. i think it was Chuck Missler where i first heard it, but basically, if you look at the numbers of the people and where they camped, as laid out in Numbers chapter 1, the tabernacle was in the middle. the largest group stretched out to the east. there were smaller groups camped to the north, south and west. and what you got was the whole of Israel camping in the shape of a cross FOR 40 YEARS, with the Ark of the Covenant at its center, and about 1500 years before crucifixion was even invented. wrap your head around that. personally, it blew my mind.

(besides, who's to say Josh isn't an Israelite by birth? after all, there are 10 lost tribes. just because they are lost doesn't mean God's promises to Israel cease to exist.)

 

[muffler dragon]

um.... actually, by accepting Christ, he does indeed take on the Mosaic covenant. since Christ fulfilled it.

It's impossible for one person to perform every mitzvoh in the Mosaic covenant. This doesn't have anything to do with ability either as there are mitzvoh that pertain to men, women, husbands, priests, etc. Jesus never had a menstrual cycle, Jesus didn't marry, there are certain things he simply did not do; thus, he didn't fulfill every mitzvoh.

see my comment above. the entire Old Testament is literally STREWN with Messianic prophecies and references. even Deuteronomy and Numbers, since someone brought that up.

I'm well aware of the messianic prophesies through out the Tanakh (I'm also well aware of the ones that aren't; yet people describe them as).

(besides, who's to say Josh isn't an Israelite by birth? after all, there are 10 lost tribes. just because they are lost doesn't mean God's promises to Israel cease to exist.)

IF Josh were a Jew; then he would be bound to follow the mitzvoh that pertain to him and just those (not the superfluous ones that don't).

 

[buckeyegrad]

It's impossible for one person to perform every mitzvoh in the Mosaic covenant. This doesn't have anything to do with ability either as there are mitzvoh that pertain to men, women, husbands, priests, etc. Jesus never had a menstrual cycle, Jesus didn't marry, there are certain things he simply did not do; thus, he didn't fulfill every mitzvoh.

Muffler, just interested in knowing why you are placing an emphasis on Jesus performing every mitzvoh? I'm unaware of such a teaching in any version of Christianity. The general idea is that he didn't violate any of the commands, which is very different than carrying every one of them out.