Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
seeder

5 massive lies the Bible tells re Jesus

332 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Nuclear Wessel

I agree. Reading over Otto's post, there was no way he was making an assumption. I can't see the 'assumption' and I don't know how anyone else can see it as well. In fact, Arbenol's reply to him seemed like an adequate reply to him. He didn't think Otto assumed, and replied about what one sees in the bible.

So, I feel pretty much described what Otto saw. Big difference, I think, then assuming.

When it came to what the bible said, I just know, others who read it, read what it says and repeating it here.

Admittedly I read it over several times to see if there were any assumptions but I did not see any whatsoever. This is a typical Walker move--misinterpreting something and then create an argument related to the misinterpretation that has really nothing to do with the claim(s) that he misinterpreted. Then he further argues for his misinterpretation and how it was clearly the correct interpretation and it just goes on and on further derailing the thread.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Stubbly_Dooright

Admittedly I read it over several times to see if there were any assumptions but I did not see any whatsoever. This is a typical Walker move--misinterpreting something and then create an argument related to the misinterpretation that has really nothing to do with the claim(s) that he misinterpreted. Then he further argues for his misinterpretation and how it was clearly the correct interpretation and it just goes on and on further derailing the thread.

And that is why I usually ignore such posts. I don't have time for that! Let's just go back to what Otto saw. Arbonel did.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

What have we been arguing about here? It seems to go back to this one.

There is a logical inconsistency in that assumption. You assume Christ said " I did not come to abolish the law but my coming does just that"? He meant that his coming was the fulfilment of OT law and prophecy.

He went on to tell us HOW we should view and obey the laws. Ie that the laws were made for us, from a love of us, and we should obey the laws from love of god and love of self and others,, not from duty, legalism, or fear. That instruction would be redundant if Christ meant we no longer needed the laws for our guidance, or did not need to obey them.

Such an instruction turns on ones head, even the laws about homosexuality.

Well, I don't know if I'd say I was assuming exactly, but like with so much he said* it's open to all sorts of interpretations, isn't it. I see the point you're making, perhaps one way of thinking of it is that he reinterpreted the old Laws to suit the more sophisticated view of God that he wanted to encourage people to have, and he meant "fulfill" as in to bring them to completion, not to abolish them, I don't think i was trying to say he was abolishing them completely. Anyway, sorry this seems to have resulted in a rather lengthy argument.

* or was alleged to have said, for the skeptics

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

3. Homosexuality is apparently punishable by death.

"Leviticus 20:13 – "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Ha and now we have gay weddings...in churches!!

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/14/first-church-wedding-gay-couple-uk

to be clear this is not a slur to any gay readers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Admittedly I read it over several times to see if there were any assumptions but I did not see any whatsoever. This is a typical Walker move--misinterpreting something and then create an argument related to the misinterpretation that has really nothing to do with the claim(s) that he misinterpreted. Then he further argues for his misinterpretation and how it was clearly the correct interpretation and it just goes on and on further derailing the thread.

I've explained my reasoning and rationale. If you cant see it, that might be due to a lack of background in scriptural debates (and this is rather a big one)

But i cant be responsible for your inability to see or understand something, once i have explained it once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

What have we been arguing about here? It seems to go back to this one.

Well, I don't know if I'd say I was assuming exactly, but like with so much he said* it's open to all sorts of interpretations, isn't it. I see the point you're making, perhaps one way of thinking of it is that he reinterpreted the old Laws to suit the more sophisticated view of God that he wanted to encourage people to have, and he meant "fulfill" as in to bring them to completion, not to abolish them, I don't think i was trying to say he was abolishing them completely. Anyway, sorry this seems to have resulted in a rather lengthy argument.

* or was alleged to have said, for the skeptics

Thank you for a calm and intelligent response I appreciate that only you can explain your thinking on the matter. Indeed it IS open to interpretation.

Maybe my confusion came because you yourself are not completely clear or fixed in your opinon on this isssue and so presented both sides of wht is a very intense biblical d debate without explaing how you intepreted it.

it is a fairly important practical issue. On the one hand some Christians argue they don't even need to obey the 10 commandments, because christ freed them from the law. On the other side some see ALL the biblical laws as still applicable, but that they are to be interpreted through love of self and our fellows.. For example a christian shoudl not eat pork because it is unhealthy to do so (ALL biblical dietary laws are actually based on good health principles and safe consumption of food based on the observation of tribal elders) But for example, if offered pork, on a once off occasion, a new testament christian would accept it without argument, rather than offend his host and make them think that Christians are ill mannered and fanatical.

An accompanying verse explains that we are (can be) more defiled by the words we speak, than by putting certain foods into our mouth.

This doesn't mean we should risk our health to accommodate our hosts, so for example i wouldn't accept a cigarette or an alcoholic drink, but we are not offending god if we accept food provided in good faith by another. Christ pointed out that to the jews the laws had become more important than man, and reminded them that the laws served man not man the laws. He did this on many occasions from healing the sick on Sabbath, to husking an ear of wheat on the sabbath (technically breaking the law against working on the sabbath)

Interstigly my cardiologist said that a diet based on OT laws is still the best diet he can recommend for cardio vascular health. ie lots of fruit, nuts, some grain products, a very little meat and no mea t from animals which are high in cholesterol, or otherwise unhealty

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ladiablessebelle

do listen.... objectively pls

Have to say I agree with this

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.