Controversial Christian theology

[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 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, Paul describes the crossing of the Red Sea as Israel's baptism, and from verse 5 onwards 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

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.

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.

[drone]

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

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

[Subotan]

Monks aren't allowed to eat beaver. 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. 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

[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.