|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 17, 2018 19:30:04 GMT
Don't trying to make sense of it, the Bible is basically a comic book series (ridiculous characters, a bunch of weird rules, different authors, continuity problems, retcons, fanboys constantly arguing over it, etc). Of course, people who have no sense can;t make sense of anything. That's where all these whacky guesses abut stuff come from. It's always been odd to me that theophobiacs even start with the Mosaic Law. If they want to pretend there are issues, then why not start with the fact the Mosaic Law didn't exist for centuries. If one is too ignorant to know why the Law started then surely it would be an odd thing to know it wasn't the first iteration. I know, I know, that makes no sense either... In context that was like a post about Frank Miller.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 17, 2018 19:38:01 GMT
I'm not even sure what that means, That doesn;t surprise me but I'll simplify. I am arguing the Bible as if it's a work of fiction and yet you still cannot understand the story. It doesn't make sense lol... "That doesn;t surprise me but I'll simplify."
You mean actually elaborate instead of just putting "lol conudrum" like someone is automatically supposed to know what that means?
"I am arguing the Bible as if it's a work of fiction and yet you still cannot understand the story. It doesn't make sense lol..."
I'm sorry but it doesn't. It is a weird incoherent mess, probably because it was written by several people instead of just one author (which goes back to my comic comparison), often requires "apologetics" (which are basically just mental gymnastics and riddiculous leaps in bounds in logic) to attempt to make sense of, and then accuse people who point out the inconsistencies of "not getting it" and being theophobiacs apparently.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 17, 2018 19:49:18 GMT
Of course, people who have no sense can;t make sense of anything. That's where all these whacky guesses abut stuff come from. It's always been odd to me that theophobiacs even start with the Mosaic Law. If they want to pretend there are issues, then why not start with the fact the Mosaic Law didn't exist for centuries. If one is too ignorant to know why the Law started then surely it would be an odd thing to know it wasn't the first iteration. I know, I know, that makes no sense either... In context that was like a post about Frank Miller. I often get him mixed up with Alan Moore, even though they look nothing alike and politically are quite different from each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 20:08:38 GMT
Just out of curiosity, where in the bible does jesus say that the old rules need no longer be followed? Jesus fulfilled the law - Probably upon his death. He said this in Matthew 5:17 If something is fulfilled, there is no longer a commitment to it. Jesus is simply a continuation of the plan put in place during the OT. There is no break or contradiction. I don't understand that logic. I don't see how saying a law is "fulfilled" necessarily means it need no longer be followed - in fact the word "fulfil" can mean both to abolish and "to put into effect". And given the context that he specifically says he did NOT come to abolish the law, that seems the more accurate interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 17, 2018 20:59:12 GMT
lowtacks86My apologies. It make sense that you wouldn't understand. An "lol conundrum" is one that arises when one hasn't read enough to know it isn't a conundrum. The lol is there to highlight how funny it is to call it a conundrum. You actually don;t have the ability to dictate the bolded part. The lol conundrum was explained multiple times over numerous threads with you or others only coming back with a "Derp! None of it makes sense" That would mean you are illiterate which is odd since you type so well. The rest of your post brings out the real problem. You aren't interested in an explanation since it would reveal how ignorant you are regarding scripture. I'm not saying that as an insult by the way. I would be in the same boat too if I were trying to explain Little Women with a Louisa May Alcott fan.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 17, 2018 21:13:43 GMT
Jesus fulfilled the law - Probably upon his death. He said this in Matthew 5:17 If something is fulfilled, there is no longer a commitment to it. Jesus is simply a continuation of the plan put in place during the OT. There is no break or contradiction. I don't understand that logic. I don't see how saying a law is "fulfilled" necessarily means it need no longer be followed - in fact the word "fulfil" can mean both to abolish and "to put into effect". And given the context that he specifically says he did NOT come to abolish the law, that seems the more accurate interpretation. It does mean to put into effect, but you would have to understand what was being put into effect...i.e... the purpose of the law. Was it primarily concerned with diet and fashion? The law was never abolished, Jesus was just the perfecter of it which is why they were on the lookout for a messiah. He was the new way to commit. Improvements aren't covering up for mistakes or even replacing initial intent. A Tesla existing now does not mean a Model T should have never happened.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 17, 2018 21:19:19 GMT
lowtacks86 My apologies. It make sense that you wouldn't understand. An "lol conundrum" is one that arises when one hasn't read enough to know it isn't a conundrum. The lol is there to highlight how funny it is to call it a conundrum. You actually don;t have the ability to dictate the bolded part. The lol conundrum was explained multiple times over numerous threads with you or others only coming back with a "Derp! None of it makes sense" That would mean you are illiterate which is odd since you type so well. The rest of your post brings out the real problem. You aren't interested in an explanation since it would reveal how ignorant you are regarding scripture. I'm not saying that as an insult by the way. I would be in the same boat too if I were trying to explain Little Women with a Louisa May Alcott fan. "An "lol conundrum" is one that arises when one hasn't read enough to know it isn't a conundrum."
So a conundrum that isn't an actual conundrum. Gotcha.
"The lol conundrum was explained multiple times over numerous threads with you or others only coming back with a "Derp! None of it makes sense"
Actually that would be a better description of your responses, I'm not the one that accuses dissenting opinions of "not getting it" and calling them "theophobiacs".
"You aren't interested in an explanation since it would reveal how ignorant you are regarding scripture."
There are many ex-Chrisitians that have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible (more so than you) that can easily tear it apart. But of course you would probably just write them off as being theophabiacs, not being a true Christian to begin with, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 21:43:13 GMT
I don't understand that logic. I don't see how saying a law is "fulfilled" necessarily means it need no longer be followed - in fact the word "fulfil" can mean both to abolish and "to put into effect". And given the context that he specifically says he did NOT come to abolish the law, that seems the more accurate interpretation. It does mean to put into effect, but you would have to understand what was being put into effect...i.e... the purpose of the law. Was it primarily concerned with diet and fashion? The law was never abolished, Jesus was just the perfecter of it which is why they were on the lookout for a messiah. He was the new way to commit. Improvements aren't covering up for mistakes or even replacing initial intent. A Tesla existing now does not mean a Model T should have never happened. That seems like an awful lot of assumption that isn't actually stated in the quote at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 12:41:49 GMT
It does mean to put into effect, but you would have to understand what was being put into effect...i.e... the purpose of the law. Was it primarily concerned with diet and fashion? The law was never abolished, Jesus was just the perfecter of it which is why they were on the lookout for a messiah. He was the new way to commit. Improvements aren't covering up for mistakes or even replacing initial intent. A Tesla existing now does not mean a Model T should have never happened. That seems like an awful lot of assumption that isn't actually stated in the quote at all. Surely you know that there is more than one place in the NT that addresses this issue and fleshes the idea out further.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 16:00:07 GMT
That seems like an awful lot of assumption that isn't actually stated in the quote at all. Surely you know that there is more than one place in the NT that addresses this issue and fleshes the idea out further. And where would these places be?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 18, 2018 16:43:27 GMT
It does mean to put into effect, but you would have to understand what was being put into effect...i.e... the purpose of the law. Was it primarily concerned with diet and fashion? The law was never abolished, Jesus was just the perfecter of it which is why they were on the lookout for a messiah. He was the new way to commit. Improvements aren't covering up for mistakes or even replacing initial intent. A Tesla existing now does not mean a Model T should have never happened. That seems like an awful lot of assumption that isn't actually stated in the quote at all. Actually, there isn't one bit of assumption unless you think paraphrasing is assumption which would be a nice thing to know before conversing so as to avoid wasting time.
Well, admitted, there is no mention of the Tesla analogy.
I just have no reason to quote someone verse I know and they may not. I already did it once and it just brought up more questions
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 16:55:12 GMT
Surely you know that there is more than one place in the NT that addresses this issue and fleshes the idea out further. And where would these places be? Other Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles (many of which were written BEFORE the Gospels). It's all over the NT. It might be a good idea to brush up on your knowledge of Scripture before you try to poke holes in what it does/doesn't say. If you weren't aware that the NT frequently addresses how Christ relates to the Law, then you need to do some research before a true discussion is warranted. We shouldn't have to teach you New Testament 101.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 18, 2018 17:57:15 GMT
Since this was glossed over, I'll ask it separately.It is OK to say it doesn't make sense to you as long as some knucklehead doesn't come along and say it's unanswerable.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 18, 2018 18:50:19 GMT
How embarrassing it must be for you to come up with four options A, B, C, and D, and come up with 0% of the possibilities. You must feel real embarrassed. I don't blame you.
Anyone who eats pork is poisoning himself, first of all. It's just slow poison. Humans were meant to live on mostly vegetarian diets. Every ten years or so, new self righteous control freaks, all of whom are out of control, come in to change the history of man. 20 years ago, primitive man was considered to eat nothing but grains, and now the craze is "hunter-gatherer". Ho hum, don't care what the morons say in the next ten or twenty years to feel important.
B is so generalized, one can make nothing out of it. What is the mistake? The ten commandments? The laws of Moses. Two obvious factors to consider are 1. Was God the character who gave these to Moses? Fair enough, since Jesus himself sanctioned the commandments as coming from his father, but the laws of Moses were not sanctioned, and for good reason. 2. Was there a supernatural effect that made it possible for the laws of Moses to be perfect at one time? The biggest flaw is "two witnesses against one" winning out, which is something that works 0% of the time today. I've never seen two people tell the truth together against one. If you're honest, you'll admit you haven't either. There is a supernatural effect that creates liars out of humans, even without motivation, in order to persecute one when they can.
The "two against one" laws of Moses are the cause of almost all the horrible injustices and atrocities today. Mob mentality cause holocausts.
So, for whatever reason, Jesus corrected that, because it was an inferior law that didn't work. Courts of law don't work because lawyers and judges only want to placate the most dangerous of demon possessed mobs. Lawyers and judges are cowards, and are promoted for being the biggest cowards.
C and D are whining wishes of someone totally in denial of reality.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 19, 2018 0:02:24 GMT
Either (A) eating pork is forbidden, or (B) God made a mistake and Jesus was the messenger that corrected God's error, or (C) the OT is just a bunch of Bronse-Age folklore, or (D) the NT is just more folklore written by people who didn't like what a bunch of old fuddy-duddies wrote 500 years before them. E) Some shit changes. Some of the signs that God looked for in The Jewish people looking forward to the birth/death of "The Savior" weren't deemed necessary for people to follow after said birth/death of said savior. Or so the story goes..... Is this really too hard of a concept for you to grasp? ![](https://s26.postimg.cc/svo7b2k61/mjeyds.gif)
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 19, 2018 1:25:21 GMT
It probably did for Mary.
|
|