Controversial Christian theology

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is spilling over from another thread, in which Tribesman referenced a remark I once made on how according to the scripture, Christians will be hated by the world. To stop derailing that thread, my next post would have been:


So do you think Christians should not have children?

Unlike todays fundamentalists, I am not waiting for the rapture, and I hold a historicist position on the tribulation, as did Luther, Calvin and all the Reformers before US Evangelicals decided to drop their ideas. So, I believe that the tribulation is a gradual event that has been going on for nearly the past 2,000 years. Also, they were partial-preterists, so they regarded the more specific bits of the prophecy as referring to the events which took place in 70AD (like Mark 13:17 as you mentioned above) - not the end of the tribulation, but a sort of shadow of what was to come.

So, Mark 13:13 can be applied to Christians today, and all parts are of some symbolic significance of the tribulation. Why do you insist on making such a fundamentalist(/literalist?) reading of it?


Hey John 15 is good , it starts out good dies off a bit in the middle and really comes back with flying colours at the end, I like the bit about being thrown out of temple because people who claim to know god and speak of god don't know god...bit of a connundrum there.

I can't find this part with the temple at the end of John 15. Also, please address the verse I quoted. Jesus said "I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you", you tell me I'm talking rubbish when I say the world will hate Christians...

I may also use this thread for other controversial topics which I can think of...

[Tribesman]

How can the world hate christians?
if something is not part of another thing how can the two relate ,
if one does not acknowledge the existance of the other how can it hold any feelings for it.
if something is never seen or heard how can it be rejected.


I can't find this part with the temple at the end of John 15.
At the end of 15 is 16:2thumbsup:

[Rhyfelwyr]

How can the world hate christians?
if something is not part of another thing how can the two relate ,
if one does not acknowledge the existance of the other how can it hold any feelings for it.
if something is never seen or heard how can it be rejected.

This play on words from Zain's thread (IIRC this is what it is, can't be bothered rereding that thread though) doesn't really fit to well here. I guess what you are getting at is that Christians are said to be 'not of this world', so how can the world hate them? Well, I suppose it is because though Christ's kingdom is spiritual, we are still stuck in the flesh here on earth (remembers Paul talks about the conflict between the two), and so people will hate us for not taking part in their carnal lifestyles. And people just generally don't like what's different.


At the end of 15 is 16:2thumbsup:

So the bit you mentioned isn't in the end of the 15th chapter then is it. Kind of important to the context that's it's from a whole new chapter, don't you think? :dizzy2:

Although even if it was at the end of the 15th chapter, I don't really see what it's got to do with my point about people hating Christians.

Maybe you'll eventually get round to addressing the bit where Jesus says "I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you"...

[Tribesman]

So the bit you mentioned isn't in the end of the 15th chapter then is it. Kind of important to the context that's it's from a whole new chapter, don't you think?
Look at the structure of 15 &16 then come back about context

[Idaho]

Getting literal about the bible... I don't know where to start with that.

How come christian fundamentalists don't follow biblical dietary rules?

[Tribesman]

How come christian fundamentalists don't follow biblical dietary rules?
Some do.
It wasn't that long ago there was a fundy on this forum explaining why we shouldn't eat lobster.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Getting literal about the bible... I don't know where to start with that.

How come christian fundamentalists don't follow biblical dietary rules?

because the New Testemant absolves Christians of those rules, several times and most notably in Acts.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Look at the structure of 15 &16 then come back about context

I still don't see what it has to do with what we were originally talking about.

You said my ideas were not in the scripture, and yet Jesus seems to plainly state that "I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you".

I don't see why this is even such a crazy idea, obviously people are not going to like what we stand for.

[Beskar]

because the New Testemant absolves Christians of those rules, several times and most notably in Acts.

The word of God contradicts itself? :o

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The word of God contradicts itself? :o

No, the word of Man does, genius.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The word of God contradicts itself? :o


No, the word of Man does, genius.

This isn't the issue when it comes to dietary laws. They were part of the ceremonial law which God only ever stated that he gave specifically to ethnic Israel.

[Kadagar_AV]

This isn't the issue when it comes to dietary laws. They were part of the ceremonial law which God only ever stated that he gave specifically to ethnic Israel.

Can anyone explain why the jews are not allowed to eat some stuff, while the rest of us are A-OK to eat it.

I mean, it is the same god, isn't it?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Can anyone explain why the jews are not allowed to eat some stuff, while the rest of us are A-OK to eat it.

I mean, it is the same god, isn't it?The Jews don't follow the New Testament.

Dietary laws are Old Testament. In the NT, Paul absolves Christians from having to follow these laws: 'no food is impure of itself'. I think it is in one of his letters, I am too lazy to look it up.

Edit: there are several new covenants, with a different relationship between God and Man / Jews / Christians. There is a progression in the Bible.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ok... So... God first said we are not supposed to do some stuff, and then he changed his mind?

Just to be clear....

[Sigurd]

Not so much changing his mind.
It's all in the Old Testament - the Jews not worthy of living a higher law (the golden calf incident) and therefore punished to live a lesser law with many strict rules to prepare them for the Messiah, or Jesus if you want.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not so much changing his mind.
It's all in the Old Testament - the Jews not worthy of living a higher law (the golden calf incident) and therefore punished to live a lesser law with many strict rules to prepare them for the Messiah, or Jesus if you want.

Would this not make Jews second rate human beings, in the perspective of this religion?

[Sigurd]

Would this not make Jews second rate human beings, in the perspective of this religion?
Not at all... God chose them as his elect people. But being elect brings responsibility. Disobeying brings consequences. It does not take 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This isn't the issue when it comes to dietary laws. They were part of the ceremonial law which God only ever stated that he gave specifically to ethnic Israel.

I refer you to ->


Not so much changing his mind.
It's all in the Old Testament - the Jews not worthy of living a higher law (the golden calf incident) and therefore punished to live a lesser law with many strict rules to prepare them for the Messiah, or Jesus if you want.

Exactly, the point is made several times that the Law of Moses is not the Law of God; hence the "Think not that I come to change the Law" section in the Sermon on the Mount.


Would this not make Jews second rate human beings, in the perspective of this religion?

No, it would make them dissobediant to God, exactly the same as any other non-Christian.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not at all... God chose them as his elect people. But being elect brings responsibility. Disobeying brings consequences. It does not take 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan.

Oh, so the jews are more like the cool people in gods eyes?

Where does that leave christians?

Sorry for my ignorance, just here to learn...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, so the jews are more like the cool people in gods eyes?

Where does that leave christians?

Sorry for my ignorance, just here to learn...

Well, I think there is a bias here. Obviously, Jesus is a Jew in a Jewish contexts, so we picked up their writings. However, just because the priests told the Jews they were God's chosen people doesn't necessarily make it true; and even if it is they haven't fared better (or worse) because of it.

In Christian Theology the Jews are the people who killed Christ, and their descendants are those who still refuse to accept him. This is the scriptural view, and it was only dropped by the Catholic Church because of the Holocaust.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, I think there is a bias here. Obviously, Jesus is a Jew in a Jewish contexts, so we picked up their writings. However, just because the priests told the Jews they were God's chosen people doesn't necessarily make it true; and even if it is they haven't fared better (or worse) because of it.

In Christian Theology the Jews are the people who killed Christ, and their descendants are those who still refuse to accept him. This is the scriptural view, and it was only dropped by the Catholic Church because of the Holocaust.

I cant help but hear the theme song from Benny Hill as I read this...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I refer you to ->

Exactly, the point is made several times that the Law of Moses is not the Law of God; hence the "Think not that I come to change the Law" section in the Sermon on the Mount.

Indeed, the ceremonial law served to point to redemption in Christ (Hebrews 7-11 etc), since people were themselves incapable of living by the true moral law.

Are we arguing here.... I think we would agree that this Old Covenant with it's dietary laws etc was made specifically with the nation of Israel?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed, the ceremonial law served to point to redemption in Christ (Hebrews 7-11 etc), since people were themselves incapable of living by the true moral law.

Are we arguing here.... I think we would agree that this Old Covenant with it's dietary laws etc was made specifically with the nation of Israel?

Well we are and we aren't (arguing), so everything is normal.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well we are and we aren't (arguing), so everything is normal.

That's alright then. :sweatdrop:

[Papewaio]

Well, I think there is a bias here. Obviously, Jesus is a Jew in a Jewish contexts, so we picked up their writings. However, just because the priests told the Jews they were God's chosen people doesn't necessarily make it true; and even if it is they haven't fared better (or worse) because of it.

In Christian Theology the Jews are the people who killed Christ, and their descendants are those who still refuse to accept him. This is the scriptural view, and it was only dropped by the Catholic Church because of the Holocaust.

Bit more then that. A political unit who were Jewish voted to kill Christ. How many of Christ early followers were Jewish and how many of his disciples were as well.

Also in Scripture the view is that Jews are the roots and Christian's the branches of the same tree.

If one is to accept the NT then one has to accept that the OT was correct within its time period, so Christians should accept that, until at least the coming of Christ, Jews were God's chosen people.

=][=

As for dietary restrictions one can look at how lethal shell fish and pork is in the desert sun so it is a no brainer to not eat it.

OR

Also in a PC context as far as OT vs NT being correct, JC is the patch for the human soul. And having a new OS means being able to access new things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bit more then that. A political unit who were Jewish voted to kill Christ. How many of Christ early followers were Jewish and how many of his disciples were as well.

Well, no, because logically all the Jewish followers of Christ converted and became Christian, thereby ceasing to be Jewish by religion. Ergo, modern Jews would be decended from the "political unit" as you call it.


Also in Scripture the view is that Jews are the roots and Christian's the branches of the same tree.

Except the yeast of the Saduccees and the Pharasees will not rise, they are barren ground. It would be better to say that Christianity is a cutting from the tree that (is/was) Judaism.


If one is to accept the NT then one has to accept that the OT was correct within its time period, so Christians should accept that, until at least the coming of Christ, Jews were God's chosen people.

Why must I accept the validity of the Old Testemant? Should I stone adulterers and force pregnant women to drink water and ash? Given that the Old Testemant is just as broken as the New Testemant in places, are you suggesting I should accept the whole thing? After all, Christians have never accepted the "whole" Old Testemant, what you know as the OT is a selection made by Augustine and Jerome.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The NT is the fullfilment of the OT. All the fancy ceremonial laws given to the Jews were there to point to Christ. The story of Israel being led from bondage to the promised land is the story of the salvation of every individual Christian.

All this is there in the NT (don't make me look it up!).

And on the original topic of the thread... anyone else got any other thoughts on why what I said was so crazy and counts as "scipture" and not scripture?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The NT is the fullfilment of the OT. All the fancy ceremonial laws given to the Jews were there to point to Christ. The story of Israel being led from bondage to the promised land is the story of the salvation of every individual Christian.

All this is there in the NT (don't make me look it up!).

And on the original topic of the thread... anyone else got any other thoughts on why what I said was so crazy and counts as "scipture" and not scripture?

I want you to look it up. While I appreciate the alegorical interpretion of the Old Testemant I'm not convinced it has to be right.

[Papewaio]

Well, no, because logically all the Jewish followers of Christ converted and became Christian, thereby ceasing to be Jewish by religion. Ergo, modern Jews would be decended from the "political unit" as you call it.


I very much doubt that all Jews are descended from the ones who voted to get Jesus on the cross...



Except the yeast of the Saduccees and the Pharasees will not rise, they are barren ground. It would be better to say that Christianity is a cutting from the tree that (is/was) Judaism.

Still descended from the same root stock.



Why must I accept the validity of the Old Testemant? Should I stone adulterers and force pregnant women to drink water and ash? Given that the Old Testemant is just as broken as the New Testemant in places, are you suggesting I should accept the whole thing? After all, Christians have never accepted the "whole" Old Testemant, what you know as the OT is a selection made by Augustine and Jerome.

"OT was correct within its time period"

IMDHO OT vs NT cannon is like discussing Star Trek phasors vs Star Wars lightsabers. Fun but not actually of much use.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I very much doubt that all Jews are descended from the ones who voted to get Jesus on the cross...

Not litterally, but philosophically speaking you are a Jew and then Jesus comes along and you either follow him or stone him as a heretic.


Still descended from the same root stock.

This is only relevant if you consider that both religions remain wholly valid and one has not superceeded the other.


"OT was correct within its time period"

IMDHO OT vs NT cannon is like discussing Star Trek phasors vs Star Wars lightsabers. Fun but not actually of much use.

How is this an appropriate example.

OT says you can get divorced, NT says not. OT says "eye for an eye", NT says "turn the other cheek".

How is the comparison not relevant, or more accurately, how can you defend the defunct canon?

If you insist on making geek references: It's like the history of Boba Fett before and after Episode II, we used to think we knew some of his history because novel writers told it, then Lucas came along and said, "no, this is how it happened".

[Papewaio]

Not defending the defunct cannon as correct for now. After the update/patch/directors cut the new version takes precedence. It does not stop the previous one from being correct in its cultural context, which includes time period.

I find Trek Conventions amusing, then I remember all around the world we have grown men dressing in robes discussing fiction.

Sometimes I think there is a translation error and instead of meek it should be geek... and the geek shall inherit the world...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not defending the defunct cannon as correct for now. After the update/patch/directors cut the new version takes precedence. It does not stop the previous one from being correct in its cultural context, which includes time period.

I find Trek Conventions amusing, then I remember all around the world we have grown men dressing in robes discussing fiction.

Sometimes I think there is a translation error and instead of meek it should be geek... and the geek shall inherit the world...

I don't believe the soul got "patched", and anyway, to further extend your metaphor: A patch means the OS was broken, which to convert your metaphor back: Means the Law was never actually truly valid.

[Papewaio]

I also agree that a non-existent thing cannot be patched.

A) I don't think that any of it is true (OT, NT) more than any other myth.
B) I do see how a law can be specific for a period of time and true for that time. So in the context of this mythos, some of the laws were punishments and were only to last until the Messiah came along.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Not litterally, but philosophically speaking you are a Jew and then Jesus comes along and you either follow him or stone him as a heretic.

Nonsense. There's plenty of other choices, not least: "What a pleasant young man, Mildred. Terribly impractical what, but he'll go far as long as he gets a haircut. Now, should we get lamb or chicken tonight?"

[Pannonian]

Nonsense. There's plenty of other choices, not least: "What a pleasant young man, Mildred. Terribly impractical what, but he'll go far as long as he gets a haircut. Now, should we get lamb or chicken tonight?"
Is that the Synagogue of England? Do they have afternoon tea as well as evening lamb and chicken?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Is that the Synagogue of England? Do they have afternoon tea as well as evening lamb and chicken?

Yes.

They're the fellows who are still under the impression that the cheese-makers are blessed, although only the truly Orthodox argue that this does not apply to all manufacturers of dairy products.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I want you to look it up. While I appreciate the alegorical interpretion of the Old Testemant I'm not convinced it has to be right.

Regarding the ceremonial law as a shadow of Christ and the covenant of grace, Hebrews 7-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%207-11&version=KJV) gives a list of various elements of the ceremonial law and their symbolic significance, which aimed to point the Jews to Christ.

For the second bit on Israel mirroring our salvation, I have to hold my hands up, I didn't find as clear an example as I thought I would. There are parts though where Israel's journey is paralleled with that of Christians, for example in one passage (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2010:1-2&version=KJV), Paul describes the crossing of the Red Sea as Israel's baptism, and from verse 5 onwards (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2010&version=KJV) he says that Israel's suffering in the wilderness was given as an example for Christians.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I also agree that a non-existent thing cannot be patched.

Ok, so now you're trying to wind me up.


A) I don't think that any of it is true (OT, NT) more than any other myth.
B) I do see how a law can be specific for a period of time and true for that time. So in the context of this mythos, some of the laws were punishments and were only to last until the Messiah came along.

God's Law cannot change, there can be only on Divine Law.

That is a foundational principle of Christianity, but since you aren't interested in whether any of it is true I don't understand why you would care.

[Mooks]

This title makes me laugh, "Controversial" christrian theology? Theres so many brands of christrianity with their own interpretation of the bible you might as well say the whole thing is controversial.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This title makes me laugh, "Controversial" christrian theology? Theres so many brands of christrianity with their own interpretation of the bible you might as well say the whole thing is controversial.

Well it's stemming from another thread where Tribesman thought the original subject here was quite controversial and wrong.

[Kadagar_AV]

I find Trek Conventions amusing, then I remember all around the world we have grown men dressing in robes discussing fiction.

Agreed :2thumbsup:

People who believe in the christian god is more fun than the trekkies though, as some of them have pointy hats.

Then again, the Trekkies has people dressed as Klingons...

Hmm... I will have to go with "GAH!" on this one, it's a toss up, really.

[Papewaio]

Ok, so now you're trying to wind me up.

Even if I agree with someone I have that tendency.:vulcan:



God's Law cannot change, there can be only on Divine Law.

That is a foundational principle of Christianity, but since you aren't interested in whether any of it is true I don't understand why you would care.

Just the same way I enjoy other great works of fiction. I do love analyzing systems of thought and how they interact, how people deal with them in real life and how elastic they are with internal conflicts within the system. I love Lord of the Rings, it does not mean I actually believe in Hobbits.

I don't actually agree that God's Law cannot change otherwise there would be no OT, no series of prophets, or several different books in the NT that are different in their descriptions...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just the same way I enjoy other great works of fiction. I do love analyzing systems of thought and how they interact, how people deal with them in real life and how elastic they are with internal conflicts within the system. I love Lord of the Rings, it does not mean I actually believe in Hobbits.

Ok, the Bible is not "fiction", it is not written for enjoyment; it is either genuine or forgery, or some conflation of the two. To consider it fiction, however, is to miss the point of the text entirely.


I don't actually agree that God's Law cannot change otherwise there would be no OT, no series of prophets, or several different books in the NT that are different in their descriptions...

This also very much misses the point. The Bible is cast as a text authored (at least in part) by God. God is constant and eternal, His word, His mind, His LAW, does not change; EVER. So, if there are inconsistancies in the Bible they cannot be the result of divine authorship.

This is a foundational principle of Christianity, God is never wrong and therefore never changes his mind.

If you are actually interested in the Bible you have to at least try to appreciate it in its own context.

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm not a Christian but I think a literal interpretation of the bible would make the world a better place and I would start practicing. I could beat my wife she acted up, I could make the sex with my servants and I could own slaves. But I also believe in equality and equal rights, so I think everyone should be allowed to own a slave.

[Subotan]

Some do.
It wasn't that long ago there was a fundy on this forum explaining why we shouldn't eat lobster.

We can eat beavers though. In fact, we're so allowed, that monks almost ate them to extinction in the UK.:yes:

[drone]

We can eat beavers though. In fact, we're so allowed, that monks almost ate them to extinction in the UK.:yes:

Monks aren't allowed to eat beaver. :inquisitive: Or is that a loophole?

[Subotan]

Monks aren't allowed to eat beaver. :inquisitive: Or is that a loophole?

Well on Fridays, Catholics aren't supposed to eat meat. But since beavers live in the water, they're obviously fish, so you can eat them on a Friday.

[Papewaio]

Ok, the Bible is not "fiction", it is not written for enjoyment; it is either genuine or forgery, or some conflation of the two. To consider it fiction, however, is to miss the point of the text entirely.

To those who are not Christian it is in the same mythos band as Thor, Zeus, Aztec Sun Gods etc. Just because the believers are sincere does not make it fact.



This also very much misses the point. The Bible is cast as a text authored (at least in part) by God. God is constant and eternal, His word, His mind, His LAW, does not change; EVER. So, if there are inconsistancies in the Bible they cannot be the result of divine authorship.

This is a foundational principle of Christianity, God is never wrong and therefore never changes his mind.

If you are actually interested in the Bible you have to at least try to appreciate it in its own context.

Assuming there is a god:
But his law has changed multiple times from NT to OT, so how can it be assumed that it does not? His word would be the universe made whole, and that is not a constant, it is an ever changing system. Consistency does not conflict with change. Having a consistent plan does not require repeating the same action over and over again. The law changes to meet the demands of the followers.

For instance OT has Ten Commandments. NT replaces/updates them with the likes of Do unto others and you would have them do to you.

=][=

Assuming there isn't:
Can't really sell a lifestyle system if the people won't follow it. Most religions adapt over time to the knowledge and desires of its peoples. They go from spirit in everything worship, to animal worship, to animal-people worship, to pantheon to a few to a single entity. The religions also tend to get less structured. To strict covenants and not mixing with other people to come all ye faithful lets eat another shrimp on the barbie.

[Sigurd]

Monks aren't allowed to eat beaver. :inquisitive: Or is that a loophole?

Well on Fridays, Catholics aren't supposed to eat meat. But since beavers live in the water, they're obviously fish, so you can eat them on a Friday.

Oh, the innocence :laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

For instance OT has Ten Commandments. NT replaces/updates them with the likes of Do unto others and you would have them do to you.

The NT does not replace the moral law. Jesus did the whole dying on the cross thing because we kept failing to live by the law.

Some advice that was given by leaders/prophets etc in the OT to the Jewish people as guideliness for civil order, was later replaced by Jesus own advice on what was morally correct (eg with 'eye for an eye' -> 'turn the other cheek').

[Idaho]

because the New Testemant absolves Christians of those rules, several times and most notably in Acts.

So Paul - not divine, but just an early church bureaucrat, gets to overturn the word of god given to Moses, and add to the word of Jesus, God's son?

Surely that can't be right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So Paul - not divine, but just an early church bureaucrat, gets to overturn the word of god given to Moses, and add to the word of Jesus, God's son?

Surely that can't be right?

Actually, all the rejections of the Law are voiced by Christ in the Gospels or by Peter in Acts.

Paul came late to the party.

[Tribesman]

Well on Fridays, Catholics aren't supposed to eat meat. But since beavers live in the water, they're obviously fish, so you can eat them on a Friday.

That was Puffins that were classed as fish.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To those who are not Christian it is in the same mythos band as Thor, Zeus, Aztec Sun Gods etc. Just because the believers are sincere does not make it fact.

Did you know that the majoriety of Greek worshippers and philosophers did not believe the stories told in the Theogeny, or the divine elements of the Iliad etc.?


Assuming there is a god:
But his law has changed multiple times from NT to OT, so how can it be assumed that it does not?

No, the Laws recorded in the Old Testemant has been changed by the priests, and prophets. Only the Ten Commandments represent a direct giving of Law to humanity by God, which is why they are followed by Christians as well as Jews.


His word would be the universe made whole, and that is not a constant, it is an ever changing system.

This is occasionalism, but mainstream Christianity asigns the universe an operative autonomy. As you say, it is a system, and the system itself has apparently always functioned in the same way. The Laws of the universe are assumed to be constant.

It is, after all, no co-incidence that the Laws of Motion were proposed first by a Cambridge Theologian.


Consistency does not conflict with change. Having a consistent plan does not require repeating the same action over and over again. The law changes to meet the demands of the followers.

God's Law is unchanging, because it is a universal constant. God's Law is the definition of Right and Wrong, truth and lies.

Anyway, you've contradicted yourself. Either God is constant in his purpose, or he is not.


For instance OT has Ten Commandments. NT replaces/updates them with the likes of Do unto others and you would have them do to you.

No it doesn't. What the New Testemant does is change the way human law relates to Divine Law, henceforth a Man's actions are judged by his intent and he cannot make a cash payment for his Sins.


=][=

Assuming there isn't:
Can't really sell a lifestyle system if the people won't follow it. Most religions adapt over time to the knowledge and desires of its peoples. They go from spirit in everything worship, to animal worship, to animal-people worship, to pantheon to a few to a single entity. The religions also tend to get less structured. To strict covenants and not mixing with other people to come all ye faithful lets eat another shrimp on the barbie.

Assuming there isn't, life doesn't really make sense, because the universe should be a lot more vicious and miserable than it is.

[Askthepizzaguy]

This is a foundational principle of Christianity, God is never wrong and therefore never changes his mind.

So when he suggests that you must be circumcised in order to be with him, and then reveals through his son that it is no longer necessary, he hasn't changed his mind?

There is a clear change of the rules between the old and new testaments. Obviously if you both books are his Word, then you believe both are true, and you see that they are different, and if you believe they are his Word, and his Word has changed, then his mind has changed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So when he suggests that you must be circumcised in order to be with him, and then reveals through his son that it is no longer necessary, he hasn't changed his mind?

There is a clear change of the rules between the old and new testaments. Obviously if you both books are his Word, then you believe both are true, and you see that they are different, and if you believe they are his Word, and his Word has changed, then his mind has changed.

You know my position on this, stop trolling.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It wasn't trolling, it was a serious point. But I will stop posting on your threads as per your request.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It wasn't trolling, it was a serious point. But I will stop posting on your threads as per your request.

It's very simple, the Old Testemant isn't accurate; if it was we wouldn't need the New Testemant.

As I said though, you know my position on this (or you should by now.)

[Sigurd]

I would like to point out that any "God changed his mind" arguments can be countered. I know as I have gone through them all in my pro-agnostic debates. Even the ones where it is translated to "God changed his mind" in the OT can be explained in such a way as to be pre-meditated on God's part and support His omniscience.

The circumcision thing is a covenant and even though it is worded as everlasting - it was not everlasting. You have the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision and later a Mosaic circumcision and then the New covenant where the physical symbol of circumcision of the flesh was replaced with a symbolic circumcision of the heart.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Calvin goes as far as to argue that the Old and New Covenant are one and the same, simply under different administrations.

In the old one, all the ceremonial laws point to Christ. In the new one, we know of Christ more directly. So all the OT saints were saved by Christ's blood, just like the rest of us.

[Idaho]

Actually, all the rejections of the Law are voiced by Christ in the Gospels or by Peter in Acts.

Paul came late to the party.

These are the same Acts and Gospels written between 100 and 300 years after the death of Jesus in Aramaic, then translated to Latin?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

These are the same Acts and Gospels written between 100 and 300 years after the death of Jesus in Aramaic, then translated to Latin?

No, the ones written in Greek arounf 90 AD and still extant in Greek.

There's really no reason to believe any Gospel, even Apophycal, was written later than 200 AD.

[Papewaio]

There's really no reason to believe any Gospel.

Quote for the win... well that is how modern news would sound bite it. ;)


There's really no reason to believe any Gospel, even Apophycal, was written later than 200 AD.

More seriously...
The later the writings the less trusting of the source. But why draw the line at 200AD not 150/100/50?

What is the reasoning for the reason?

ie Ghost writer needs a person who was there at the time as a adult, and currently has no dementia or history of hallucination. That would mean roughly speaking up to 50 years after the event one could have a large selection of eyewitness accounts. At 70 years after the events one might find a 20 year old who saw it. At 100 years the only eyewitness accounts would likely be from children. At 150 years it would have to have been a very long lived eyewitness.