A good debate for Christians

Just as our laws change to fit the times , I believe "The Law" you are speaking of is still in effect , only modified and strengthend by the New Covenant .

The law to me evolved as the people's capacity and will to understand the law evolved. I believe that many of these "laws" are mearly a manner of conduct, so not to stimulate in yourself and others temptation.

It seems as though Jesus were doing more to confirm the continuing validity of the laws, while also saying that there must be changes.

Jesus (peace upon him) said in the bible:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18)

So, according to your bible, the laws can NOT be changed or evolved. But -as usual- because you practice the method of "pick & choose" when it comes to religion you accept whatever biblical expressions satisfy your desires and you reject whatever you dislike!

You are not even obeying your own Jesus who you made falsely as your God!!

Do you obey Allah? Have you never sinned? Didn't know muslims were perfect?

You have to apreciate the context in which these teachings were transimited. We would have to study everything about the culture in that time to fully understand what Jesus meant at a specific moment. What we can do is adapt it to our time and needs.

Jesus came to adjust the law to provide for the salvation of the Jews. They rejected and killed Him. As a result, He became the law, which we must obey, through Him. Without Him, there is no law, and no way for us to redeem ourselves in the eyes of God. Man without Christ is an animal -- a mere creature, without purpose.:no:

"Didn't know muslims were perfect?"

Islam equals theistic, Middle Eastern Nazism. Muslims sense the existence of God, but because they don't follow Christ, they remain creatures, and behave accordingly. As theistic Nazis, they find it necessary to be as cruel as possible in their poitical and religious fumblings. In fact, they pride themselves in spiking their insatiable appetite for cruelty by murdering children, and employing children in the conduct of mass murder. Children are the living and dying symbol of their innate barbarism and inconquerable bestiality.

FALANGE FOREVER:headbang:

I believe I have an answer for Silverchild79's essential question: what is the relationship between the New and Old covenants of the Bible.

Many commentators suggest the New Covenant amends, updates, or otherwise freshens up the Old Covenant. My friend, SWORD OF GOD, makes a very good point in Matthew ch.5:

[QUOTE]"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18)[/QUOTE]

To amend or update the Law is to change the Law and Jesus did not come to change the Law. However, the Law is not the the Covenants, either old or new.

The Covenant made by God with Abraham was a stripped down, bare bones, Gerber baby version of the Law and its fulfillment to which this motley crew had a chance of adhering . In short, even pared down to a simple 10 rules and some one-on-one attention from the creator of the universe Abraham's descendants still couldn't keep all of it strait all of the time and, thus, were given a method of atoning for their guilt through the sacrifice of an animal. Problem is that by the Law (which exists before the world began) the Covenant had to be made on the promise of a true fulfillment of the Law (death of the guilty). The only means of salvation from such death is for someone who is fully accountable to the law (not a farm animal) and fully blameless in the Law, to offer himself in place of the guilty. Since there are none of those mushing around the earth, God Himself had to do it. This is were Jesus comes on the scene.

Jesus is the Messiah which was prophesied to the Hebrews and is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. Jesus was fully man, and thus fully accountable to the Law, but, he was also fully God and, thus, capable of obeying the Law in its pure entirety. Jesus spent 30 some years just living a plain old ordinary life. Traditionally, he is quaintly thought to have been a carpenter/woodworker. The original texts which chronicle his life use words which actually indicate that his occupation, like his earthly father's, was that of a low level mason. Someone who lifted large stones into place all day long. Since most of the known world was controlled by the Roman Empire at the time you can imagine that he had job security as well as worse than miserable bosses, and unimaginably backbreaking labor to deal with each day. (Hey, maybe there's more than just Roman ingenuity holding those ancient bridges together!!) His last 3 years or so Jesus gave up working to be homeless and live by the compassion and generosity of others while he taught those willing to listen (quite a lot of people actually) about what his purpose on earth really was and help them understand what it meant.

So, Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant that God made with the Hebrews. That covenant, the Old Covenant, was completed, finished, fulfilled, no longer active, done the moment that Jesus was crucified. The New Covenant that Jesus taught about is, thus, not a replacement of the Old Covenant but just plain a new one ...an extension of the old one perhaps. As near as my feeble mind understands it, the New Covenant (as did the old one) applies to all people in all times, both after and before the chronologically oriented events which brought it about. (Please direct any further questions on this point to God and not me!)

The New Covenant is, in essence, that if anyone will surrender their life/soul to God in the name of God incarnate, the Messiah (or, as we say in Christendom, the Son of God) then their soul shall be pardoned under the Law and found innocent. The end result? When their bodies die they will find themselves in the presence of God. However, if anyone rejects this covenant with God, then their soul is not pardoned and thus when their body dies they will find themselves eternally and permanently separated from God, their creator.

The essence of Christianity, whether or not your Christian buddy or colleague knows it, is merely that God has paid the price required by the Law and we need only surrender our soul to God, believing that God has indeed fulfilled the requirement, and our sins (past and future) will be blotted out and the death of our soul will not be required of us. The correlary is that our souls are not our own but surrendered to the will of God. However, all the rules and lifestyle requirements imposed on churchgoers are well meaning but not the point of orthodox Christianity.

Was that too long winded and muddled?

I think that was a very good first post .
Stay with us and continue to add your well thought out comments coming .

Very Good

I can tell you are a very educated Christian. This argument in fact is the very essence of "Church Christianity". Unfortunately, just like "Church Christianity" it only works when you take bits and pieces of the Bible while leaving others omitted from consideration.

I emboldened a couple phrases I will address, in the reverse order from which they were given.

Firstly

(Please direct any further questions on this point to God and not me!)

I love the whole idea of "I have the answer but please don't ask me to explain any more questions" notion. It's so.... Christian lol

and Second

Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant that God made with the Hebrews. That covenant, the Old Covenant, was completed, finished, fulfilled, no longer active, done the moment that Jesus was crucified.

this is the cornerstone of the "living in grace not by the law (as in old covenant)" argument. But does the Bible agree with the stance of the modern church?

Matthew 5:17

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Wasn't Moses a prophet? Didn't he say that the first covenant WAS the law?

Exodus 21
1 "These are the laws you are to set before them (from Yahweh himself)

What about the Apostles? After the Death of Jesus what did they say about the continued validity of the 1st Covenant?

Paul says in Romans...

Romans 1

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness

Wrath of God? Sounds a bit Old Testament don't you think? But why continue this speak post salvation?

and here's the Coup de Grace

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

As you can see the things I have made emboldened here are laws from the first covenant which deserve the death penalty. This is a letter Paul wrote post resurrection. Where is the "They should come to Jesus so that they may be forgiven" talk from Paul that we see so often in the modern church? No, it is very clear here that in Paul's eyes the first covenant is still very much in force!

Please, I'm not out to get Christianity, in fact I love Christians. The Modern Christian faith is a great compass for morality. All I am trying to illustrate is the very real difference between "Church Christianity" and "Bible Christianity"

While your argument is an effective way to bridge the gap between Jesus and modern America it simply doesn't hold up to what's printed in the Bible.

Silverchild79,

You are obviously a well read agnostic (or other?). I do not know what to make of your impression of my sounding so Christian. As to my semi tongue in cheek comment deferring questions to to God, it was specifically on the subject of the prior sentence, on which I do not have the answer. There are, in fact, aspects of my faith which the Bible does not explain.

You called my bluff by citing my use of the Bible out of context. I would go so far as to say that I didn't cite anything in the Bible. I did make general references to events and concepts laid out in the Bible, which might well be more in context than citing Romans 1:18 as proof that the old covenant was still in effect during the New Testament. In fact, a quick scan of neighboring verses will illuminate the context of Paul's writing; Paul is making general observations about the deeds of men throughout the history of mankind and thus, cannot be referring to the old covenant because, chronologically speaking, the old covenant wasn't around at the beginning of human history.

As to the verses other than Romans which you cited, they quite rightly support your point from the particular point of view which you have on the subject. It is a very good point of view too. However, I ask that you zoom out several notches on your mapquest view of the cosmos (so to speak). You are viewing the situation from the perspective of documented events.

You rightly identified me as a Christian. As such, I believe in the infallible singular truth of the Bible. Because of this and by what the Bible says about God, I, by default, believe in a constant all powerful, all knowing, and all present being that has created all things, both seen and unseen, who exists without end and without beginning; a being who still exists before the worlds began. I also must believe that this being is, in essence, constant in will and motive. If this is true then God's will is the same before, while, and after the galaxies exist. If God is, indeed, unchanging in this way, then the will of God must also be the law of God since God cannot, in essence, contradict Himself and the law cannot, for lack of another source, come from elsewhere. Thus, the true law of God is not the covenant made with the Hebrews +/- 7,000 years ago but an essence that, like God, transcends time altogether. The old covenant, then, is what I eluded to originally: "a stripped down, bare bones, Gerber baby version of the Law and [provision for] its fulfillment."

From this we must now take a look at what the Jewish books of the law actually say and then infer from the mortal "kiddie" version what the immortal God must be like. My inference is pretty terrifying! Now take a moment to try on my shoes and imagine actually believing this to the depths of your very being. Many people, including Christians, don't take time to ponder the ramifications of actually believing something as terrifying as this. For the uninitiated, anything less than total, complete, and genuine devotion and worship of God with body, heart, mind, & soul without reservation or lull of any kind is deserving of eternal spiritual death which is a terror beyond comprehension. Incidentally, the Muslims (you know the radical ones who actually believe something) believe in a god far less compassionate and forgiving than mine. No wonder, they gladly prefer to piss off a few billion people rather than find themselves on Allah's black list! But I digress... It is fortunate for me and all of humanity that God created humanity with one singular purpose in mind: that we would, in the face of true freedom of choice, choose to worship and serve Him (BTW I don't use the masculine to be sexist; God has no gender) over ourselves. Of course, once given the chance to be selfish we humans flock toward it like bees to honey regardless of our intentions. God then is faced with the dilemma of either destroying everything He has created or provide a means by which God can capitalize on the few of us who are genuinely willing but haven't the strength of will to pull it off. The only means, of course, for a jealous and unchanging God is to atone for our shortcoming by taking out His wrath on someone who is held to the same standard and isn't already in the doghouse. This leads us to the "old" covenant fulfilled by Jesus' birth, life, & death and giving rise to the "new" covenant. The difficulty in explaining this is the fact that I don't have language that isn't confined by time. God is most certainly not confined in time and, thus, my inherently chronological explanation can't fully express the nature of God. Suffice it for now to say that the whole plan was in place before God breathed life into Adam.

As an orthodox Christian I am put in a very peculiar circumstance when I try to tackle the bigger picture of where my faith comes from. The Bible is very grounded in the human experience and gives fairly little fodder for such philosophical musings. I also have a firm conviction that nothing can be known for certain except what is laid out explicitly in the Bible (which would be in the original texts as written down by the human authors and not withstanding hasty or careless translations). Thus, I take my own philosophical meanderings with a grain of salt.

I am not an indoctrinated drone of the church but someone who has seriously and privately doubted and systematically dismantled my faith to get at the core. I don't know all there is to know, and heaven knows there's obscure parts of the Bible I haven't gotten to yet but I know enough to be confident in what I believe.

That my friends is faith, for those who are in doubt.

Christians do not live anymore under "The Law" of Moses but shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.

I believe there is no conflicting views with Matthew 5:17-20 and Hebrew 8.

In Hebrew 8, the author is talking of new covenant...."he has made the first one obsolute; and what is obsolute and aging will soon disappear".

While in Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus was talking of people who are already 'inside the kingdom of heaven' who are already saved and shall be called great and least in the kingdom. Jesus said "whosoever therefore break one of these least commandment and shall teach man so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

If you follow all you are great, if you break these least commandment (like eating pig, duck, fish w/out scale etc, not circumcise, touching unclean things according to the law and so on) you will be the least IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. If you break the least there is no problem... why... because......

(My question is), who is great in the kingdom of heaven that have done all the law of Moses? My answer is none. No one can do all the law of Moses. In fact in Acts chap 15 verse 10 it says 'Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" See... If you are the least in the kingdom of heaven then you are the greatest because no one is greater than the least..... Do you get my point....?

No you didn't cite anything in the bible, that is because the arguments of "Grace not Law" are largely human made during the 2000 years since the death of Christ. The idea the the crucifixion renders salvation refers to Original sin, the idea that even if we commit no sin outwardly we sin sin within our hearts and are therefore dammed. This principle was first taught by Jesus, who in the Bible later died as a way of canceling out that Original Sin he invented.

It does not however allow Christians to be free of the laws of Moses that Jesus never changed (some he did alter). In old Bibles Jesus wasn't "Fulfilling" the old Covenant he was "Filling it to the Fullest", topping it off, refining it. He most certainly isn't wiping it away, this explains Romans, as well as a number of other sections of the New Testament which seem to be in conflict with your "In Grace" theory.

In Romans the people who "deserve death" he is referring to are the sinners within Rome who he longs to teach. A nice try but it is simply not a general musing of times past. As we know he eventually goes to Rome, and stirs up enough trouble to get himself executed.

More proof that the 1st Covenant was the law can been seen with the Apostles continued tolerance for slavery (a very ungodly practice endorsed by Yahweh and left uncorrected by Jesus), even Jesus himself in his teachings related things to slavery to help people understand his concepts (by using slavery which was an accepted and understood concept)

Jesus also critizes the Pharisees for not stoning their children.

I expound on these concepts further towards the bottom of the page on this link

http://www.conflictingviews.com/t1097/



Then you must, without exception, believe that throughout time there have been periods where rape, genocide, murder, & the stoning of children were acceptable and godly practices. The common argument against this is that (things are different since Christ), but the Bible doesn't entirely support that claim and doesn't that concept in and of itself damage the credibility of the timelessness of God's law and perfection?

You must also agree that Ghandi, the Dali Lama, Pious peaceful Muslims, Hindu's, etc will all burn in unspeakable torment, forever



That odd. Jesus himself uses no other term then "The Father" to depict Yahweh (even though some scholars believe that's a female name). As Jesus lived in Israel, not San Fransico, I would think that in "Father' he meant dad...

Silverchild79,

You are not as well read as I thought. I'm leaving for a trip and haven't time to address your claims now. Perhaps Tuesday we can pick this up.

I'll be here, hurry back. But I have claimed nothing, only shown you your own Holy book. dispute that with it's source, not the presenter.

If the Lawmaker breaks His Law then the L aw looses all validity and should be redone.
God the Law maker killed, murdered many. He gave us as precedent the idea of bestiality by mating with a human , allowing angels to mate with humans, and thus allowing humans to mate with lower animals.

Regards
DL

I find it a bit ironic that a falangist is criticizing violent religious zealotry.