Idolatry is the cause of ALL sin!

[TaraMaiden]

.....God has not changed since Old Testament days. .....

 

The truth is that salvation worked the same way in OT that it does now after the NT. Abraham was deemed righteous. Why? Because he BELIEVED God. Same as today. Nothing has changed. ....Therefore, since repentance is still required today, just as it was in days of old. Nothing has changed.

 

Israel had its own distinct laws and commands from God. You and I are Gentiles. They don't apply to us.

 

Talk about pick and choose....

So only some portions of the OT apply to you, but not others?

 

Has God given you personal dispensation to cherry-pick, then?

[M30USA]

Talk about pick and choose....

So only some portions of the OT apply to you, but not others?

 

Has God given you personal dispensation to cherry-pick, then?

 

Tara, honestly, have you read the Bible? Don't you understand that many things in life require more than just a simple explanation? Stop trying to make the Bible subject to the requirement that it must be simple and broadbrushed in order to be valid. Nothing in life works that way.

[TaraMaiden]

Don't avoid the question.

You're the one who keeps banging on about 'Scripture being sacrosanct'

 

Explain your stance.

 

Thanks.

[M30USA]

Stance on what exact point?

[TaraMaiden]

You know what point:

Your apparent self-contradiction.

God hasn't changed since the OT days, but a lot of what's written there don't apply to us....

ORLY....?

 

Why not?

[M30USA]

You know what point:

Your apparent self-contradiction.

God hasn't changed since the OT days, but a lot of what's written there don't apply to us....

ORLY....?

 

Why not?

 

Are you a contradiction of yourself when you were 16 years old? Or has your real identity merely become more evident and solidified?

[TaraMaiden]

Are you a contradiction of yourself when you were 16 years old? Or has your real identity merely become more evident and solidified?

 

Are you avoiding the question, or are you saying God was immature in the OT and grew up in the NT?

[M30USA]

Are you avoiding the question, or are you saying God was immature in the OT and grew up in the NT?

 

I'm not equating you to God. I used it as an example to show that God has not REVEALED all of himself to us yet. It's been a gradual process for thousands of years since he first presented himself to Adam. Due to our limited and gradual knowledge of him, there are SEEMING contradictions due simply to the fact that we had not yet received more revelation. (We still haven't seen the full revelation of Jesus and his glory yet even today.)

 

One phrase you hear Jesus say is, "Let it be so for now." This was said in response to when John the Baptist said that Jesus should be baptizing HIM, not the other way around. It's a very powerful comment, in my opinion, and it explains that OT laws pertaining to Israel must have been done "for now" until the greater (yet not contradictory) revelation was received.

[TaraMaiden]

God revealed plenty enough for us to be going on with. The Bible is a guide to Christian attitude, behaviour and belief. It's all you're going to get, it's written, and you have it here and now.

 

But you're saying that while God has not changed since the OT, to whit,

 

- "The truth is that salvation worked the same way in OT that it does now after the NT. Abraham was deemed righteous. Why? Because he BELIEVED God. Same as today. Nothing has changed" -

 

You're still insisting that part of this scripture - scripture YOU hold in its entirety, to be the sacrosanct, holy and unchanged word of God - is not all applicable to you.

 

Tell me why, according to your understanding, when you hold such trust in the whole book - you feel it's ok to use some of it, but say other bits don't apply to you.

[M30USA]

God revealed plenty enough for us to be going on with. The Bible is a guide to Christian attitude, behaviour and belief. It's all you're going to get, it's written, and you have it here and now.

 

But you're saying that while God has not changed since the OT, to whit,

 

- "The truth is that salvation worked the same way in OT that it does now after the NT. Abraham was deemed righteous. Why? Because he BELIEVED God. Same as today. Nothing has changed" -

 

You're still insisting that part of this scripture - scripture YOU hold in its entirety, to be the sacrosanct, holy and unchanged word of God - is not all applicable to you.

 

Tell me why, according to your understanding, when you hold such trust in the whole book - you feel it's ok to use some of it, but say other bits don't apply to you.

 

Look, Tara, Jesus himself was endlessly hounded with the same question. They thought he was contradicting all the OT laws and prophecies. If you really want the answers, read the Gospels (or read them again). Jesus answered this question.

[TaraMaiden]

I'm not asking Jesus.

He was God. He had insider knowledge...

 

I'm asking you.

You're not.

 

What's your explanation for your self-contradiction?

[pie2]

The truth is that salvation worked the same way in OT that it does now after the NT. Abraham was deemed righteous. Why? Because he BELIEVED God. Same as today. Nothing has changed.

 

Oh, yes...having faith in God's plan is so crucial, whether we're operating under the blood of Christ now, or living 5000 years ago.

 

Cultures, depending on their particular bent, focus more on one side of the spectrum (justice/repentance vs mercy/grace). Our culture focuses on the mercy/grace and almost has no place for repentance. Don't believe me? Joel Osteen has admitted himself that he won't even touch the subject! Why not? All New Testament writers did.

 

Joel Osteen is not "our culture". Osteen is one person, within the mighty landscape of American Christianity. I think an over-emphasis on either side (repentance and mercy) only tells half the story. We need to remember both, imo.

 

If you're primarily receiving the word of God through televangelists, or only mega-pastors, you might have a skewed view of what Christ is all about. (Not that they don't do some amazing things for God, in their own way).

[M30USA]

M30, your argument was just destroyed.

 

Credit where it's due. Bravo.

 

Is your goal to destroy arguments or to discover the truth? Thanks for your self- imposed declaration but I referred TM to where she can educate herself and find the answer to why there seems to be a contradiction between OT and NT. Please stop flattering yourself and TM. As passionate as I come off, you don't see me saying anyone else's argument was "destroyed". Doing so is nothing more than a vexation to the spirit.

[TaraMaiden]

Yeah, right......

 

See, the thing is though - you're still not answering my question.

 

Are you?

[M30USA]

Yeah, right......

 

See, the thing is though - you're still not answering my question.

 

Are you?

 

The Levitical laws applied to the nation of Israel, just as American laws apply to the United States. Both sets, while they are based on certain objective truths, are different in their subjective application.

 

The bigger issue, as I've said (and as Jesus said), is the HEART. Jesus introduced morality based on the HEART. It is more important the INTENT and state of a persons heart than it is to follow legalism.

 

Let me now ask you a question:

 

Can you tell me why, biblically, the Law was given to man?

[TaraMaiden]

The Levitical laws applied to the nation of Israel, just as American laws apply to the United States. Both sets, while they are based on certain objective truths, are different in their subjective application.

But American Law is founded on Biblical premise.

Most Law is.

Look at any original constitution (not the one existent now) and you will see that Biblical Law and national Law differ very little.

This is one reason the civil War was fought. It changed the original constitution and amended the bit about slaves.... which was originally based on Biblical premises.

 

Not having been a student of American Law, I'm merely going by what some American scholastic friends have told me.

 

 

 

The bigger issue, as I've said (and as Jesus said), is the HEART. Jesus introduced morality based on the HEART. It is more important the INTENT and state of a persons heart than it is to follow legalism.

That's dangerous territory....

So if your neighbour's wife is committing adultery, you feel killing her to prevent her continuing doing so, is acceptable, because your heart says it is, even though the Law states you shouldn't?

 

Let me now ask you a question:

Can you tell me why, biblically, the Law was given to man?

 

Personally, I don't think it was, because I don't consider the Bible to be a valid document of any great authenticity.

 

But you do.

Which is why I wondered at your cherry-picking.

[M30USA]

A very sharp poster on LS has pointed out that Socrates received criticism, also, for allegedly evading questions. This is because he often responded to a question with question of his own. Why? To expose the motives, goals, and assumptions of those debating him.

 

TM and ED, with all respect, this is usually what debates come down to. It's more about the undeclared assumptions and motives of the people involved than it is about the actual logical flow of the debate. You will notice that Jesus, too, responded to questions with his own questions--and this angered his opponents even more.

 

I don't engage in the debate on your terms. Does that mean I lose? Sure. On your terms, it does. And so did Jesus and Socrates, I suppose. I'm sure you would "destroy" their arguments and say they're "evading".

 

I know where the path you take leads.

[TaraMaiden]

Sheesh, you are hard work.

 

I just want to know why you're cherry-picking and What your explanation for your self-contradiction is.

 

That's all.

 

Where do you get your justification to do this, when you tell everyone that scripture is the sacrosanct plinth upon which everything stands.

 

I just want to know why you do it.

 

That's all I'm after.

 

It really isn't too much to ask.

[TaraMaiden]

I just want him to answer my damn question....

 

I'm not always right. Scripture is always right.

 

Let me know if you'd like to have an educational discussion on Scripture... .

[pie2]

So only some portions of the OT apply to you, but not others?

 

Regarding Israel and the Gentiles, isn't it pretty well-known that, according to Abrahamic tradition, the Israelites are God's chosen people, and during the pre-Christ days, had different laws applied to them (i.e. circumcision)?

 

Then Jesus came, and it changed the game (didn't negate the game, just revealed more as M30 pointed out somewhere ). However, isn't there still a covenant left between God and the Israelites, and certain things will happen in that nation which won't happen with the rest of us?

 

M30 can clarify further if needed (or, if he chooses ).

Edited May 24, 2013 by pie2

[TaraMaiden]

Regarding Israel and the Gentiles, isn't it pretty well-known that, according to Abrahamic tradition, the Israelites are God's chosen people, and during the pre-Christ days, had different laws applied to them (i.e. circumcision)?

 

Interesting.

I wonder why so many men in the USA are circumcised too, though... even if they're not jewish, or religious eve...

Is that where it all 'began'...?

 

 

Then Jesus came, and it changed the game (didn't negate the game, just revealed more as M30 pointed out somewhere...)

Oh no.

He changed it all right.

 

"You have heard it said.... But I say unto you...."

He contradicted.

He changed the game, and how.

Wasn't that one of the reasons they crucified him?

[M30USA]

I asked you a counter-question about why God sent the Law in the first place. The answer is given to us by Paul: so that we would be convicted of sin and would no longer be unaware/ignorant of our actions. In other words, it provided a reference point, given by God, for what human actions should be. Up until that point it was referred to as "the days of ignorance" by Paul. I find it interesting that in modern times we are, again, trying to eradicate any law of God's. The reason this is being done is so that proponents of this can claim that human nature is not evil on the grounds that there is no frame of reference (other than ourselves).

 

Taking this idea further, we then ask: has the purpose of the Law been fulfilled? Yes it has. We have been made aware of what God requires. We can no longer live with excuses.

 

What next? Nobody is fully able to comply with God's Law (except Jesus). This creates a problem. He has, in essence, created for us a cache-22. He, on one hand, has given us a Law to follow. And on the other hand the Law is impossible.

 

So what is the solution? Paul explains it...

 

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:21-26)

[TaraMaiden]

I asked you a counter-question about why God sent the Law in the first place. The answer is given to us by Paul: so that we would be convicted of sin and would no longer be unaware/ignorant of our actions. In other words, it provided a reference point, given by God, for what human actions should be. Up until that point it was referred to as "the days of ignorance" by Paul. I find it interesting that in modern times we are, again, trying to eradicate any law of God's. The reason this is being done is so that proponents of this can claim that human nature is not evil on the grounds that there is no frame of reference (other than ourselves).

 

Taking this idea further, we then ask: has the purpose of the Law been fulfilled? Yes it has. We have been made aware of what God requires. We can no longer live with excuses.

 

What next? Nobody is fully able to comply with God's Law (except Jesus). This creates a problem. He has, in essence, created for us a cache-22. He, on one hand, has given us a Law to follow. And on the other hand the Law is impossible.

 

So what is the solution? Paul explains it...

 

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:21-26)

 

you're still not answering my question, although again, you illustrate how you are at odds with scripture...

 

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

 

Originally Posted by M30USA

Israel had its own distinct laws and commands from God. You and I are Gentiles. They don't apply to us.

 

Please quit quoting scripture at me.

It doesn't do any good, because you're still contradicting yourself.

 

Tell me in your own words why you feel that the Scripture is the definitive word of God, but you feel entitled to contradict it.....

 

You can say something without resorting to Biblical passages and quotations, I trust.

[Keenly]

And the award for king of deflection goes to....

[M30USA]

Tell me in your own words why you feel that the Scripture is the definitive word of God, but you feel entitled to contradict it.....

 

The "contradictions" you keep fabricating are merely the result of your lack of knowledge of Scripture and the ability to see multiple theological concepts interacting at once. This is common not just among non-believers, but among Christians as well. We live in a world of sound-bite Scripture. We love to isolate single verses. Yet we fail--worse yet, refuse--to dig deeper and understand the reasoning behind Scripture.

 

Here is a question for you:

 

Why don't you use a high chair anymore? Or a potty seat? Or what about a pacifier?

 

I can tell you why: not because they are useless devices and obsolete, but rather because their purpose has been served (for you) and they are no longer necessary. The same applies to OT concepts and the ancient Levitical laws. Their lesson was to convict us of sin and teach us our need for God. Now that this lesson has been learned (hopefully), we have been made ready to accept the righteousness through faith described in Romans 3. The law is earthly and physical; salvation through Christ is spiritual. The former is passing away and no longer needed; the latter is eternal. So if this appears as a "contradiction" to you, then I'm sorry. My "deflections" are nothing more than your inability to see things through a spiritual lens, as Christ instructed us.