Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a break-away from a thread in the politics forum. I am starting this so that the thread in politics does not go off topic...some background
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Um, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but Deuteronomy is still in the bible is it not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
But that is taking the text out of context. The old testament demanded blood sacrifices for transgressions, which is why passages like this were written. The point of the Bible as a whole is that Jesus came as the sacrifice for us all so that things described in passages such as this are not necessary.
I am a very devout Christian and harbor absolutely no animosity towards those who follow Islam. I agree with your point in this thread, but really wish you would do your research before posting quotes from any religious text.
If you want to understand more about this particular passage of Deuteronomy, send me a PM. I would be more than happy to explain in greater detail (I just don't want to get too far off topic in this thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Ok,
1. This is off topic and at best a religious discussion. If you want to talk about the "meaning" behind scripture, we can talk about it there.
2. If you do that, I'll destroy your whole "Jesus fulfilled the law" argument, so just try me.
3. The bible is called the "Word of God" not part of it, not some of it, not most of it, all of it.
So I know where you're coming from, and as I've said, if we are going to agree that Christians all don't follow these rules, and I know they don't, then by the same logic we must understand that most Muslims don't follow all of the rules in the Qur'an or Sharia.
Fair enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
Please send me a message explaining how you will 'destroy' that argument.
The Bible is the Word of God as a whole. It was written for a purpose and to convey specific messages. There are very specific ways the old testament law of Moses ties into new Testament scripture (a fact you seem to be ignoring). So please, PM me and 'destroy' that argument. I will be curious to see how you debunk hundreds of years of Biblical study.
Look up the meaning of Galatians 2 (around vs 19 specifically) to see what I mean about the old and new testament tying together. I am not 'ignoring' Deuteronomy, I am reading it in context of the entire text. I would tell you what that passage in Galatians means, but if you don't look it up yourself you will never learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
I'm sure I won't convince you, but if you care to discuss it, open a thread in the Religion forum, message me a link, and I will be happy to discuss what Jesus meant by following his fathers laws.
So with that background - Memphis (and anyone else) - please explain the flaws in what I have posted.
As I mentioned in the Politics forum, Deutronomy is old Jewish law, and Jesus gave us a new covenant and we, as Christians, are not bound by the old law.
I am giving Memphis the chance he asked for to explain his point (without pulling that thread completely off topic)
Read this, its very interesting. While it does say that no doubt Jesus's followers, after his death said that Jesus did away with the former laws (See Ephesians 2), it also does not say that he completely did away with the laws of Moses. More over, Jesus said he came to "fulfill" the law.
The question is, what does this mean.
And BTW, when we talk about what Jesus meant, instead of focusing on one verse, lets look at the entire passage.
Matthew 5:17 in fact does say that he came to "fulfill" the law, not to abolish it, immediately followed by
tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
So which is it? Did he fulfill the law, so no one has to follow the old rules, or did he in fact say that the rules should be followed, and if you don't, you'll be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
Remember, these are Jesus's words himself, not something someone else wrote after his death.
There is also questions about the meaning of the term "to fulfill"
And since its Hebrew we are interpreting, its important to hear from a Rabbi and those who speak the language on its meaning. Otherwise, we are using todays meanings for words spoken almost 2,000 years ago.
There is another sense of the phrase "fulfill the Law", and it is to carry out a law - to actually do what it says. In Jewish sayings from near Jesus' time, we see many examples of this second usage as well, including the following:
If this is how you act, you have never in your whole life fulfilled the requirement of dwelling in a sukkah! 5 (One rabbi is criticizing another's interpretation of the Torah, which caused him not to do what it really intends.)
Whoever fulfills the Torah when poor will in the end fulfill it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty. 6 (Here it means "to obey" - definitely the opposite of "fulfill in order to do away with.")
Interestingly, these two usages of "fulfill" seem to be key to understanding Jesus' words in the passage in Matthew 5 that begins with him speaking about "fulfilling the law."
...Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:19)
May I add that most of us are not in the land of Israel, so much of Torah cannot be done. Further, it does not take an individual to fulfill Torah; it takes the community; one person alone cannot fulfill Torah. Further yet! There is no Temple -- yet -- so much of Torah cannot be done for this reason alone.
Read this, its very interesting. While it does say that no doubt Jesus's followers, after his death said that Jesus did away with the former laws (See Ephesians 2), it also does not say that he completely did away with the laws of Moses. More over, Jesus said he came to "fulfill" the law.
The question is, what does this mean.
And BTW, when we talk about what Jesus meant, instead of focusing on one verse, lets look at the entire passage.
Matthew 5:17 in fact does say that he came to "fulfill" the law, not to abolish it, immediately followed by
tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
So which is it? Did he fulfill the law, so no one has to follow the old rules, or did he in fact say that the rules should be followed, and if you don't, you'll be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
Remember, these are Jesus's words himself, not something someone else wrote after his death.
There is also questions about the meaning of the term "to fulfill"
And since its Hebrew we are interpreting, its important to hear from a Rabbi and those who speak the language on its meaning. Otherwise, we are using todays meanings for words spoken almost 2,000 years ago.
There is another sense of the phrase "fulfill the Law", and it is to carry out a law - to actually do what it says. In Jewish sayings from near Jesus' time, we see many examples of this second usage as well, including the following:
If this is how you act, you have never in your whole life fulfilled the requirement of dwelling in a sukkah! 5 (One rabbi is criticizing another's interpretation of the Torah, which caused him not to do what it really intends.)
Whoever fulfills the Torah when poor will in the end fulfill it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty. 6 (Here it means "to obey" - definitely the opposite of "fulfill in order to do away with.")
Interestingly, these two usages of "fulfill" seem to be key to understanding Jesus' words in the passage in Matthew 5 that begins with him speaking about "fulfilling the law."
...Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:19)
So, chew on that for a while.
I understand what you are saying 100%, and this honestly is nothing new for me. You cannot look at all Mosaic law as one bucket. Mosaic law can be broken down into sacrificial law (or law of atonement) and the law of purification. The law of atonement requires that an offering be presented to God for the debt of sin. This is the law you referenced in Deut. 17 which was done away with by the action of Christ.
Your passages focus on the Bible from a literary point of view, and you lose the point behind why the text was written. What, exactly was the point of Mosaic law? That is the question to be answered and analyzed.
I understand what you are saying 100%, and this honestly is nothing new for me. You cannot look at all Mosaic law as one bucket. Mosaic law can be broken down into sacrificial law (or law of atonement) and the law of purification. The law of atonement requires that an offering be presented to God for the debt of sin. This is the law you referenced in Deut. 17 which was done away with by the action of Christ.
Your passages focus on the Bible from a literary point of view, and you lose the point behind why the text was written. What, exactly was the point of Mosaic law? That is the question to be answered and analyzed.
Does that make sense?
I agree, but the reason this was brought up in the P&OC forum was to point out that some militia groups, some Christians, some churches support all of the old laws, and take the bible at its literal truth.
Most Christians don't do this, otherwise there'd be a whole lot more murders.
My point in bringing up the fact that the bible does indeed say to kill non believers, kill homosexuals, kill your own children in fact, was to point out the logical fallacy of focusing on the same passages in the Qur'an that mention the same thing.
Some people seem hell bent on saying "All Islam is bad because of the Qur'an" and that makes them all blood thirsty idiots. Hardly, most of them are peaceful, and have taken to a reasonable self definition as most Christians have that those words of killing infidels and the like aren't to be literally followed, but were part of an ancient dialect that shouldn't be followed today.
Yet, we are trying to ban a Mosque, and some people support the out right ban of all Islam in our country, because of the wording in their holy book.
By the same logic that all Muslims are evil because of Islam, we must also follow the same logical road to determine that all Christians are evil because of their religion and holy book.
I don't believe that, my point was to show others that we shouldn't judge others, when we haven't yet judged ourselves. As Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I agree, but the reason this was brought up in the P&OC forum was to point out that some militia groups, some Christians, some churches support all of the old laws, and take the bible at its literal truth.
Most Christians don't do this, otherwise there'd be a whole lot more murders.
My point in bringing up the fact that the bible does indeed say to kill non believers, kill homosexuals, kill your own children in fact, was to point out the logical fallacy of focusing on the same passages in the Qur'an that mention the same thing.
Some people seem hell bent on saying "All Islam is bad because of the Qur'an" and that makes them all blood thirsty idiots. Hardly, most of them are peaceful, and have taken to a reasonable self definition as most Christians have that those words of killing infidels and the like aren't to be literally followed, but were part of an ancient dialect that shouldn't be followed today.
Yet, we are trying to ban a Mosque, and some people support the out right ban of all Islam in our country, because of the wording in their holy book.
By the same logic that all Muslims are evil because of Islam, we must also follow the same logical road to determine that all Christians are evil because of their religion and holy book.
I don't believe that, my point was to show others that we shouldn't judge others, when we haven't yet judged ourselves. As Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
AWESOME....SIMPLY AWESOME POINT...is anyone paying attention and care to comment on that particually squirmy point?
I agree, but the reason this was brought up in the P&OC forum was to point out that some militia groups, some Christians, some churches support all of the old laws, and take the bible at its literal truth.
Most Christians don't do this, otherwise there'd be a whole lot more murders.
My point in bringing up the fact that the bible does indeed say to kill non believers, kill homosexuals, kill your own children in fact, was to point out the logical fallacy of focusing on the same passages in the Qur'an that mention the same thing.
Some people seem hell bent on saying "All Islam is bad because of the Qur'an" and that makes them all blood thirsty idiots. Hardly, most of them are peaceful, and have taken to a reasonable self definition as most Christians have that those words of killing infidels and the like aren't to be literally followed, but were part of an ancient dialect that shouldn't be followed today.
Yet, we are trying to ban a Mosque, and some people support the out right ban of all Islam in our country, because of the wording in their holy book.
By the same logic that all Muslims are evil because of Islam, we must also follow the same logical road to determine that all Christians are evil because of their religion and holy book.
I don't believe that, my point was to show others that we shouldn't judge others, when we haven't yet judged ourselves. As Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I agree that Islam is not bad. I agree 100%. I also don't think you are looking at the Bible in context. I agree with your point, I just wish you didn't have to misrepresent the Bible to make it.
I agree that Islam is not bad. I agree 100%. I also don't think you are looking at the Bible in context. I agree with your point, I just wish you didn't have to misrepresent the Bible to make it.
I'm not misrepresenting the bible, the words are there. The Christian excuse that "Jesus fulfilled the law" is that, an excuse. Jesus never said you didn't have to follow the law, he in fact said you did have to follow the prophets laws. Meaning the Torah.
But this isn't my point. My point is that most Christians, and Muslims, realize that the old laws aren't supposed to be followed in our time, and as such live a peaceful life.
If I'm misrepresenting the bible for the wording that is within it, then others are misrepresenting the Qur'an for the wording that is within it.
I'm not misrepresenting the bible, the words are there. The Christian excuse that "Jesus fulfilled the law" is that, an excuse. Jesus never said you didn't have to follow the law, he in fact said you did have to follow the prophets laws. Meaning the Torah.
But this isn't my point. My point is that most Christians, and Muslims, realize that the old laws aren't supposed to be followed in our time, and as such live a peaceful life.
If I'm misrepresenting the bible for the wording that is within it, then others are misrepresenting the Qur'an for the wording that is within it.
Galatians 2:19 - "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God."
What do you think that means??
Have you read into ANY of the passages I have given you at all? Please look into this passage. I have given you the respect of reading everything you posted, please show me the same respect.
You seem to be ignoring any point I make, which makes for a very difficult discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
