rossh
Well-known member
Oh well, thanks for your help...Asked and answered.
Oh well, thanks for your help...Asked and answered.
But where does the bible say that the ten commandments etc applied to Abraham, or were they just man-made?Hi. Why not?
oh well?? so you both agree then, that Abraham has/had to obey all of the Laws from/of God, that are not yet even given to Moses, in the distant future.. How on earth did he manage that I wonder..Hi. Why not?
Asked and answered. Go back and read.But where does the bible say that the ten commandments etc applied to Abraham, or were they just man-made?
You're dodging my question.oh well?? so you both agree then, that Abraham has/had to obey all of the Laws from/of God, that are not yet even given to Moses, in the distant future.. How on earth did he manage that I wonder..
lol, you are the one who has been asking that same question to all of us,,, lol they were about 250 years apart Moses is after Abraham..But where does the bible say that the ten commandments etc applied to Abraham, or were they just man-made?
Which is why the ten commandments etc are obviously just man-made, since it wasn't morally wrong for Noah and Abraham to have sexual relationships with their sisters Naamah and Sarah, or to commit adultery with Hagar.Asked and answered.
Which is why the ten commandments etc are just man-made.lol, you are the one who has been asking that same question to all of us,,, lol they were about 250 years apart Moses is after Abraham..
So at least we agree there is no where in the Bible that just makes it clear. I guess that is progress.Because it requires that you read the bible several times.
How many times did you read it before you became a Christian?Nope. Just your ignorance.
This however can be resolved simply by reading the bible over and over and over again, several times.
But you cannot quote the verses because...The bible says as much too.
It is your opinion that it is "stupidity".Wow, so as an atheist, you actually believe stupidity is the proper frame for your life.
Ok then.
I did not say that.And yet you just got done saying that you don't have to read the bible beyond your need to win arguments.
Well, we both agree you are wrong...This is the difference between us.
I start with the awareness and premise that I am wrong, and YHVH and Jesus are the only ones who are right.
Wrong. The starting point should be "I do not know".It's a premise and position that you should choose.
How do you work that one out?Well, you're the one who said that it "seems to you." This is perfect evidence that you have more arrogance than you think.
Because in your arrogance there is no way your could be wrong.I pointed out the truth.
So your argument is that wherever something "seems" to be true, it must necessarily lead to death, whatever the claim is?It's written in Proverbs
Pro 14:12 There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
Pro 16:25 There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
Pro 18:17 He who pleads his cause first seems right; until another comes and questions him.
So, that which seems right to you is leading you towards your death. It also makes you believe that you're right. I'm questioning your views and opinions.
I earlier said:And still you cannot justify your claim that the law is divided into three parts.
I have no idea where that comes from.I didn't require your permission.
There you go twisting my words again.I stated in unambiguous terms that you actually have to read the bible for the purpose of learning and understanding, not to win arguments. You however said that you only want to read to win arguments.
I earlier said:Is keeping the Sabbath part of the ceremonial law? If so, how is that clear in the Ten Commandments?
Supposedly you have done that; you have read the bible for the purpose of understanding and learning. So how come you cannot answer the question?You'd have to read the bible for the purpose of understanding and learning so you could become aware of this.
Hmm, well the first is the same as the last, so only two in fact. And - not your fault, of course - but I cannot read the article in Europe for GDPR reasons, so the web site says.![]()
God has three kinds of laws in the Bible
I am responding to a letter that Mike Smith wrote. He notes several scriptures, and is not putting them in their proper context. One must understand that there are threewww.pantagraph.com
Food Regulation in Biblical Law
dash.harvard.edu
![]()
God has three kinds of laws in the Bible
I am responding to a letter that Mike Smith wrote. He notes several scriptures, and is not putting them in their proper context. One must understand that there are threewww.pantagraph.com
One critical reading would be more productive. Maybe this has been pointed out to you before?This however can be resolved simply by reading the bible over and over and over again, several times.
It's actually quite clear.... once you actually read the bible enough to see it.So at least we agree there is no where in the Bible that just makes it clear. I guess that is progress.
0.How many times did you read it before you became a Christian?
Scripture doesn’t limit its reasons against sin to “just because it’s wrong.” It also includes “because it’s stupid” since sin’s consequences are so severe. “For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them; but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster” (Proverbs 1:32-33, ESV).But you cannot quote the verses because...
Excuses.
It is your opinion that it is "stupidity".
You're the one who refuses to read.But all I see from you is excuses for why you cannot quote any verses to support your position. This is exactly what I would expect if your position is not Biblical.
Your hypothesis may well be confirmed, but it just proves that you don't actually want to know the truth. You only want to win arguments.You know how the scientific method works, right?
Hypothesis confirmed.
- You make a hypothesis: Certain claims by Christians are not Biblical
- You draw a prediction, a testable, necessary consequence of the hypothesis: Christians will consistently fail to support those claims with Bible verses
- You test the predictions: This thread
And yet you did.I did not say that.
I don't need to twist anything. You're achieving that all by yourself.Your case would look better if you could avoid twisting my words.
It's exactly why I don't trust you either.Well, we both agree you are wrong...
If I didn't, I would have.Wrong. The starting point should be "I do not know".
Yet you depend entirely on your own bias, which is even dumber.And just assuming a character in a book is always right is just plain dumb.
Patiently.How do you work that one out?
If YHVH was wrong, I wouldn't be talking about him.Because in your arrogance there is no way your could be wrong.
If you think you know better than YHVH, go for it. It is after all your life, and your eternity.According to you I am arrogant if I qualify my opinion with it "seems" to me. But here you are proclaiming that your opinion is "the truth".
To those who are perishing, you're right.So your argument is that wherever something "seems" to be true, it must necessarily lead to death, whatever the claim is?
That is hilarious.
Looks like a perspective to me.I have no idea where that comes from.
Do you?
You're the one who keeps saying that you don't need to trust YHVH to know you're right because you're smarter than those who do trust YHVH.There you go twisting my words again.
If you had truth on your side, you would not need to do that.
Oh. Well then. I'll go right ahead and skip a bunch of yours too. That'll make this a more efficient discussion. You are after all quite clear that you only want to win.Supposedly you have done that; you have read the bible for the purpose of understanding and learning. So how come you cannot answer the question?
I will try again, mainly to emphasise how Christians are evading so consistently in this thread. Is keeping the Sabbath part of the ceremonial law? If so, how is that clear in the Ten Commandments?
I am skipping a chunk here and it is just you ranting against a straw man. But then we actually get to three links. Hopefully they will quote or cite actual verses...
Hmm, well the first is the same as the last, so only two in fact. And - not your fault, of course - but I cannot read the article in Europe for GDPR reasons, so the web site says.
But the second is interesting.
According to Maimonides, the sages believed that the commandments are not arbitrary and do have an underlying purpose: "Our Sages do not think that such precepts have no cause whatever, and serve no purpose; for this would lead us to assume that God's actions are purposeless. On the contrary, they hold that even these ordinances have a cause, and are certainly intended for some use, although it is not known to us; owing either to the deficiency of our knowledge or the weakness of our intellect."
This is a great point. Either the prohibition on eating pork and wearing a garment of more than one type of thread is arbitrary, and God gave the law basically to be jerk to the Hebrews, or they are important. And if they are important to God, who do Christians ignore them?
Are they for good health? The web page is pretty clear that that is not so.
Anthropologist Marvin Harris sees no special health benefit to the biblical food laws:All domestic animals are potentially hazardous to human health. Undercooked beef, for example, is a prolific source of tape worms, which can grow to a length of sixteen to twenty feet inside the human gut, induce a severe case of anemia, and lower the body's resistance to other diseases. Cattle, goat, and sheep transmit the bacterial disease known as brucellosis, whose symptoms include fever, aches, pains, and lassitude. The most dangerous disease transmitted by cattle, sheep, and goats is anthrax, a fairly common disease of both animals and humans in Europe and Asia until the introduction of Louis Pasteur's anthrax vaccine in 1881.
It goes on to suggest an ethical or moral basis, and I have to say, I find that quite convincing. It goes on to the "Aesthetic Explanation", which to me seems deeply connected. I read:
Milgrom notes that the pig in particular was widely reviled throughout the ancient Near East. He cites an Assyrian tablet dated in the sixth year of the reign of Sargon ~9I that reads: "The pig is unholy.. bespattering his backside, making the streets smell, polluting the houses. The pig is not fit for a temple, lacks sense, is not allowed to tread on pavements, [and is] an abomination to all the gods. "
That seems to fit perfectly with the earlier:
If man takes on the behavior characteristic of the animals which he consumes, according to Philo's understanding of the biblical food regulations, man's behavior will be in compliance with the noblest of ethical principles.
It also discusses "The Cultural Identity or Cultic Explanation" which I do find appealing - but from an atheist point of view. It makes sense that the Hebrew priests would invent such rules to keep the people part of the cult, in a manner not dissimilar to how modern cults operate - trying to build as much separation between cult members and outsiders.
I think this explains why they have the laws, while the content comes down to what was thought to be spiritually clean because of its lifestyle. No carrion eating birds, no pigs that wallow in mud. The prohibition against wearing a garment of mixed thread is symbolic of keeping the Hebrews separate from other tribes.
That is all well and good, but it does not say why these laws no longer need to be kept. And more importantly it never actually supports your position that the Bible says there are three divisions of the law.
The rest of your post is more ranting against that straw man.
Right, you read the Bible zero times before becoming a Christian.It's actually quite clear.... once you actually read the bible enough to see it.
This of course means that you actually have to read the bible for the purpose of understanding, learning and awareness.
0.
So God tortures for eternity people who are stupid... even though he created them stupid?Scripture doesn’t limit its reasons against sin to “just because it’s wrong.” It also includes “because it’s stupid” since sin’s consequences are so severe. “For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them; but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster” (Proverbs 1:32-33, ESV).
You are the one who refuses to thinkYou're the one who refuses to read.
You know how the scientific method works, right?
Hypothesis confirmed.
- You make a hypothesis: Certain claims by Christians are not Biblical
- You draw a prediction, a testable, necessary consequence of the hypothesis: Christians will consistently fail to support those claims with Bible verses
- You test the predictions: This thread
Thank you. That is really all my point was in the other thread, and it is heartening that you can acknowledge it is confirmed.Your hypothesis may well be confirmed....
No, Steve. If the hypothesis is confirmed, that means the hypothesis is right.Your hypothesis may well be confirmed, but it just proves that you don't actually want to know the truth. You only want to win arguments.
If you ever decide to learn the truth, come follow Jesus.
But you cannot quote me saying that because....And yet you did.
Where did I say I know that, Steve?Furthermore, you're also the one who keeps saying that you know YHVH is just a character in a book.
Big words from a guy who just is pretending I keep saying I know God is a character in a book.So, it's pretty clear that you are the one who keeps pushing a lie to support your ignorance.
1 Satan is under God's control
Christianity tells us that Satan is working against God, but the Bible actually makes clear that Satan is just doing God's work - thus in the last chapter of Job, it makes clear that all the troubles that befell Job were due - ultimately - to God.
2 When you die you go to heaven
Christianity tells us that when we die, if we are good, we go to heaven right then. However, the Biblical position is that the dead are all in Sheol, and the righteous do not go to heaven until the day of judgement - and in fact, rather than go to heaven, the kingdom of God will come to earth
3 The Trinity
Christianity maintains the Trinity, but it is absent from the Bible. Sure, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the same sentence, but no where does it say they are the same thing.
4 Give up your wealth
Jesus was clear that his follower should give up their material goods, and trust in God to provide. Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. ... Christians (besides monks and nuns) do not do that.
5 Die that day
God told Adam if he ate the fruit, he would die that day. Christians pretend he meant something else, as Adam did not die the day he ate the fruit.
Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant Ex. 34:28. But the eternal royal law of Love God with all your heart, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself was written on our hearts which are no longer surface laws by the letter, but to the very core of us by the Spirit and changes our nature to partake of the divine nature of God6 Fulfill
Christians pretend "fulfill" has some weird meaning so that Jesus fulfilling laws means those laws no longer need to be observed.
7 Generation
In a similar manner, Christians pretend "generation" has some weird meaning so that when Jesus said "This Generation Shall Not Pass", he was not wrong.
32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.7 Generation
In a similar manner, Christians pretend "generation" has some weird meaning so that when Jesus said "This Generation Shall Not Pass", he was not wrong.
8 Flat earth and firmament
The Bible is clear in numerous places that the earth is flat; the sun, moon and stars are just points of light on a solid dome.
9 Snake in Eden
Christianity pretends the snake in the garden of Eden was Satan, but the text does not say that, and the fact that God cursed all snakes for what the snake did makes clear this was not Satan.
10 References to Satan
In fact, Christianity claims many verses are about Satan, when this is simply not true. Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19, for example, are purely about the king of Babylon and the king of Tyre respectively.
So why does Job 42:11 explicitly say that God was responsible for all the troubles that Job suffered?Satan does his own thing except what God will not allow him to do which if you discern carefully is what Job is all about.
Most Christians seem to believe that when a righteous person dies, he goes to heaven. If you do not then, great, this does not apply to you.This is true, otherwise when Jesus returns He could not bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
That is an interesting one, as there is good evidence it was a later addition, it being absent from the oldest manuscripts. In a sense, then, you are right. There is support in the Bible for the trinity. However, it is there because someone in the fourth century added it, once Christianity had invented it.1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
Neither indicate Jesus ands the Holy Spirit are equal to God.John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Col. 2:9
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily
Not quite sure of your point here. Do you think this says you can keep all the material goods you like?James 2:
15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Adam was never immortal; he would become immortal if he ate from the Tree of Life. He missed that opportunity, but missing the opportunity for immortality is not the same as dying.His divine nature which is invisible died that day and he took on the nature of Satan. What died was his innocence and spirit and he lost immortality. He became mortal and could die. The first thing he noticed was that he was naked. That is why we (our nature) must be born again so that we may once again partake of the divine nature and take on immortality of spirit. Our body must still die and itself take on immortality at the resurrection.
What does it actually mean to "fulfil" an ever-lasting covenant, and how does that lead to the covenant no longer being valid?Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant Ex. 34:28. But the eternal royal law of Love God with all your heart, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself was written on our hearts which are no longer surface laws by the letter, but to the very core of us by the Spirit and changes our nature to partake of the divine nature of God
Nevertheless, I do not understand. Are you saying the second coming has already happened?32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
Jesus told them what to look for, so when they start happening, that generation will see the second coming. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. It's not that hard to understand.
Read Genesis 1. It only really makes sense if you understand that the world is flat, resting on pillars with a solid dome over it, and surrounded by primordial waters.I am not aware of this theme anywhere in scripture. Do you mind referencing this claim?
The point is that in Genesis it is clearly a snake. The alternative is that God erroneously cursed all snakes for something Satan did.The creature that Satan turned himself into was not how we now know as a snake. It was probably beautiful with legs and probably wings. What we see now is after the curse. Before the devil was called Satan, he was Lucifer,
No, the Kings of Babylon and Tyre are references to Kings of Babylon and Tyre. They lived in palaces with wonderful gardens that a likened to Eden. Read the context. What is it you said? CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.The above verses are about Satan. The Kings of Babylon and Tyre are references to Satan and neither were in the Garden of Eden. LOL
So do you, and more often than not.This is not about what Christian leaders do, it is about how Christianity sometimes makes claims that are at odds with the Bible.
For starters, your point #1 falsely quotes what scripture says about Satan. So right out the box you falsely quote scripture.But you cannot actually show that anything I said is a false quote, quote-mine or a strawman , so you are just going with accusation by innuendo. Another fail.
Is 45:1-7Here:
Job 42:11 Then all his brothers, all his sisters, and all who had known him before came to him, and they ate bread with him in his house; and they sympathized with him and comforted him for all the adversities that the Lord had brought on him. ...
It is quite clear that all the troubles Job suffered were brought on by God - Satan was merely acting as God's instrument.
Of course you don't know what lie you're pushing.Right, you read the Bible zero times before becoming a Christian.
This is vitally important to realise. You were already a Christian before you had read the Bible. Therefore you necessarily read it through a Christian filter. And even then, you apparently had to read it several times before you could twist the words to mean what you were told they meant.
Think about that Steve.
So God tortures for eternity people who are stupid... even though he created them stupid?
Do you ever actually think this through, Steve?
Do you honestly think it is okay to make stupid people suffer because they are stupid?
You are the one who refuses to think
Thank you. That is really all my point was in the other thread, and it is heartening that you can acknowledge it is confirmed.
No, Steve. If the hypothesis is confirmed, that means the hypothesis is right.
Think about it, Steve. It is not difficult.
But you cannot quote me saying that because....
Because it is a fantasy in your head. Look, I get that you are utterly convinced you are right, but when you trot out nonsense after nonsense, you should realise that you just loose more and more credibility.
Where did I say I know that, Steve?
If I keep saying it, you must be able to find a few quotes right? Just search the thread for the word "book". In fact, I will get you started - here is a search of the forum for every time I used the word "book".
Hmm, that is odd. I can see one time in this thread, when I said "just assuming a character in a book is always right is just plain dumb". I never said I know God is a character in a book.
Are you telling porkies, Steve? Surely not!
Big words from a guy who just is pretending I keep saying I know God is a character in a book.
Your unsupported accusation of lying - I am not even sure what supposed lie you think I am pushing - follows directly from your own dishonest twisting. Ah, but of course it is okay when a Christian does it, right?
But I am not pretending to follow the Bible, Christians do. Can you see the difference?So do you, and more often than not.
Then tell me how you understand Job 42:11. I see no way to read it that does not say that all the trouble caused by Satan was God's responsibility.For starters, your point #1 falsely quotes what scripture says about Satan. So right out the box you falsely quote scripture.
What do you think that shows?Is 45:1-7