Christianity, your doing it wrong (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

GotSteel -> Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 2:20:14 PM)

In another thread it was asserted that all the rules in the Old Testament have nothing to do with Christianity. Now don't get me wrong I think it's great that people are ignoring the Old Testament a lot of it is horrible, I wish they would disregard the New Testament as well. What I don't understand is how someone can disregard The Law in the Old Testament when Jesus tells them to follow it and still call themselves a Christian.
 
Matthew 5:17-20

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I 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. 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. For 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.



Rule -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 2:31:49 PM)

Christians also were told in the New Testament something like: Investigate everything and keep what is good. So Christians can toss out anything they deem not good.



MasterHermes -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 2:59:00 PM)

I am not sure if there is any point of discussing this, since a person who adopted a chuch education (either through schools or their family) will have very difficult time accepting this:

New and Old testaments contradict in many cases. If you want to understand the essence of the Jesus's teaching try reading nothing but gospels dedicated to him (no old testament, no letters in new testament, but only the 4 gospels). You will realize what he is saying is very different than the christianity that is practiced today. Now lets go 1700 years ago, yes the bible you read today were brought together at A.D 325. When the gospels were written, Old Testament were not part of it. Now when we go back 1700 years , we question what would happen if Old Testament and letters were not attached to Jesus's teaching? Its very simple. Many of the rules that dominate christian life wouldnt exist today. If you re-read 4 gospels, you will notice Jesus rarely talks on earthly matters. His teaching is focused on love, spirit, illusions of the world, and how man, the average man can become one with him, therefore Father.

But this is not enough for building a church authority. You cant declare wars depending of this teaching. His teaching is talking about never judging, turning other face, doing no harm. He also makes a direct calling to people. He says if you know me, you will become like me, and becoming like me you will be the one with my Father. This is also against all the church structure that requires you to reach him through church authority. Also, if you read it carefully you will notice many things you practice today as christianity comes from either religious folklore, or old testament.

This is a great trick played on people. Its really a great idea. Bring two different teachings together. Whenever old one bothers you, say new one replaces it, and whenever new one doesnt serve your purpose find a chapter from old one to manipulate people.

What he says and what church says through a book which is a mixture of old testament, his teachings and included letters are very different. 2000 years ago there was no bible as you read today. There were only gospels. The book called bible today were formed by a counsel 325 years later than his era. All these should tell you something.

Hermes



RCdc -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 3:32:35 PM)

In the other post, you said something like 'disregarding the law'.  In that sense, no they shouldn't disregard it.  In the same way any ethnic group should remember their history, it should not be disregarded.
But as you quoted, Jesus wasn't there to say the law sucked, but to bring it into being.  He was it's fulfilling.  In other words, that chapter ended and a new one began.  Otherwise there would be no christians, but Jews.
 
the.dark.



GotSteel -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 4:07:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

In the other post, you said something like 'disregarding the law'.  In that sense, no they shouldn't disregard it.  In the same way any ethnic group should remember their history, it should not be disregarded.
But as you quoted, Jesus wasn't there to say the law sucked, but to bring it into being.  He was it's fulfilling.  In other words, that chapter ended and a new one began.  Otherwise there would be no christians, but Jews.
 
the.dark.

 
But the Earth hasn't disappeared. It's right there in the quote that Christians are supposed to follow The Law until heaven and earth disappear.



RCdc -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 4:27:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

In the other post, you said something like 'disregarding the law'.  In that sense, no they shouldn't disregard it.  In the same way any ethnic group should remember their history, it should not be disregarded.
But as you quoted, Jesus wasn't there to say the law sucked, but to bring it into being.  He was it's fulfilling.  In other words, that chapter ended and a new one began.  Otherwise there would be no christians, but Jews.
 
the.dark.

 
But the Earth hasn't disappeared. It's right there in the quote that Christians are supposed to follow The Law until heaven and earth disappear.


Not exactly.  It says that it doesn't disappear.  In the same way that america cannot erase slavery or england cannot erase blair.  It still exists and should not be forgotten until everything is brought to fruition.
 
I am editing to add, before it's insisted that we are supposed to follow every letter of the law, that isn't the way it's written... at least, not all translations.  It's like teaching what came before, not forgetting, not breaking the instruction to go out and learn from where their heritage comes, the laws, the letters etc.

the.dark.



MasterHermes -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 4:51:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
But the Earth hasn't disappeared. It's right there in the quote that Christians are supposed to follow The Law until heaven and earth disappear.


First of all, please notice he doesnt say prophet. Its plural, so he is not only talking about old testament. Second, he says fulfill (plēroō) in greek version . It also means make complete, perfect. Now when old testament added before the new one, and they tell you this is the law, you assume the old one remains. Now lets take the old testament out of it and read the gospel as is. What does he say?

He says I am not here to destroy the law (prophets, plural, not referring the law coming from one prophet) , which means there still will be laws , but the ones he made complete, perfect. If you see it, then you may also realize, when he speaks of law not passing before earth passes, he means His Laws, the laws he perfected.

You will find many parts they are claiming Jesus were breaking the (old) law. Ask yourself another question. If he didnt want to change the law, if he was trying to keep it as is, why did they want to kill him in many instances? Because his law (teaching) was new. The law which was perfected, that is the law he says wont pass till the earth passes.

Hermes



Arpig -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 4:58:45 PM)

quote:

He says I am not here to destroy the law (prophets, plural, not referring the law coming from one prophet) , which means there still will be laws , but the ones he made complete, perfect. If you see it, then you may also realize, when he speaks of law not passing before earth passes, he means His Laws, the laws he perfected.
That has got to be the biggest pile of  sophistry I have ever come across. What a twisted pile of crap. If your Gospels don't make sense, (and they don't) then please don't insult my intelligence with apologist crap like this.
Jesus, assuming he existed (of which there is no actual historical evidence) was a Jew born and raised, when he talked about The Law, he would have meant the Jewish Law, not some theoretical new Law,otherwise he would have said My Law. I swear, the way Christians twist the words to justify the contradictions in the Gospel just beggars belief. Why, if they were trying to impart the wisdom of their teacher would the authors have written in such a deliberately ambiguous and deceitful manner, why didn`t they just write what they meant?




MasterHermes -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 5:59:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

He says I am not here to destroy the law (prophets, plural, not referring the law coming from one prophet) , which means there still will be laws , but the ones he made complete, perfect. If you see it, then you may also realize, when he speaks of law not passing before earth passes, he means His Laws, the laws he perfected.
That has got to be the biggest pile of  sophistry I have ever come across. What a twisted pile of crap. If your Gospels don't make sense, (and they don't) then please don't insult my intelligence with apologist crap like this.
Jesus, assuming he existed (of which there is no actual historical evidence) was a Jew born and raised, when he talked about The Law, he would have meant the Jewish Law, not some theoretical new Law,otherwise he would have said My Law. I swear, the way Christians twist the words to justify the contradictions in the Gospel just beggars belief. Why, if they were trying to impart the wisdom of their teacher would the authors have written in such a deliberately ambiguous and deceitful manner, why didn`t they just write what they meant?


I am not sure if you are really interested, but we can talk about the religions history (starting from ten thousand years ago and coming today) and gospels anytime you want to aside from the current topic. The Gospels look like contradicting because they are used as a tool to establish authority over people. The problem doesnt arise from the Gospels, its the religious authority that manipulates them. You dont have to care what they say, but if you pick one gospel and read it without adding other books, letters, folklore, comments etc.., you will see its a spiritual teaching, and there are no contradictions in it.

Lets go back to subject here:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to make complete.

And then:

Mat 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' Mat 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment...

Now its not that difficult. Anybody can see it. First, its said that the Law will be made complete, and then its goes as: ".... it was said to those of old ..... But I say to you..." which means my words are replacing the old. In many instances it will say "you have heard this but I say to you (something else)"

So there shouldnt be a confusion here.

Hermes




Rule -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 6:49:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Matthew 5:17-20
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

He says that he has come to fulfill the law. (i.e. all strictures put on the Jews by their centuries earlier murdered god.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Matthew 5:17-20
I 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.

He is telling them the truth: his purpose is to accomplish everything in the law. When he has done so, the law or parts of it may disappear. His purpose is to free the Jews from the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Matthew 5:17-20
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.

He is talking about himself: he will be called great in the kingdom of heaven, because he has come to fulfill the law, accomplishing all prophesies in it, freeing the Jews.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Matthew 5:17-20
For 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.

He is saying that the Pharisees and the teachers of the law are insufficiently righteous - and thus the law subject Jews themselves also. He is also saying that he himself is more righteous than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law - and thus more righteous than the law itself.




Arpig -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 8:27:50 PM)

quote:

First, its said that the Law will be made complete
quote:

He says that he has come to fulfill the law.
quote:

Now its not that difficult. Anybody can see it. First, its said that the Law will be made complete
OK, so how exactly do you read "making complete" or "fulfilling" to mean that the Law has been superseded. Why didn't he just say "I am here to replace the old Law"? I'll tell you why,because he wasn't!

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Matthew 5:17-20
I 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.

He is telling them the truth: his purpose is to accomplish everything in the law. When he has done so, the law or parts of it may disappear. His purpose is to free the Jews from the law.
How the Hell do you get that interpretation? He says quite plainly that not one tiny bit of the Law will change or disappear as long as heaven and earth exist, and you somehow interpret this to actually mean that he is somehow overturning the Law.  How? Where in the passage does it say anything about him overruling the Law? You interpret the phrase "until everything is accomplished" to mean "once I have been killed and risen". On what basis do you make this huge leap?
quote:

He is saying that the Pharisees and the teachers of the law are insufficiently righteous - and thus the law subject Jews themselves also. He is also saying that he himself is more righteous than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law - and thus more righteous than the law itself.
The first bit, yes,you have correctly interpreted that,but the rest,the bit about him being more righteous,well that is simply bizarre. Nowhere does the passage mention Jesus being in any way more or less righteous than anything, in fact the passage doesn't mention Jesus in any way.

quote:

Mat 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' Mat 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment...

Now its not that difficult. Anybody can see it. First, its said that the Law will be made complete, and then its goes as: ".... it was said to those of old ..... But I say to you..." which means my words are replacing the old.
So if I read you right, murder is no longer a sin that would put one in danger of judgment, but getting angry at somebody without a reason is? Because I am pretty sure that there is nothing in the Gospels about murder being wrong, or stealing, or adultery, or blasphemy for that matter. Doesn't it make more sense to interpret this passage to read as follows:  They used to say that you would face judgment for something major like murder, but I say you will face judgment if you do something as minor as get angry with somebody for no good reason. After all that is what the words used actually mean. If this is not what was meant,then why didn't the authors just say so, why say one thing when another is meant. The Gospels were written to be read aloud to a largely illiterate audience, so one would assume that they would be written in as clear and straightforward manner as possible, yet you would have us believe that they were written in a deliberately obscure fashion,so that the actual meaning is completely hidden. Why would that be? Wasn't the whole point of the Gospels to spread the word? You would have us believe that it was to deceive the listeners rather than to enlighten them.
quote:

You dont have to care what they say, but if you pick one gospel and read it without adding other books, letters, folklore, comments etc.., you will see its a spiritual teaching, and there are no contradictions in it.
Well no shit Sherlock, of course there will few contradictions, if any, within a single Gospel, but if you read any two of them there will be contradictions, and if you read all 4, then the contradictions abound. And you can't say it is because the memories of the Apostles was fallible,after all the Bible is the infallible revealed word of God himself, right? Well why the errors?
You can dance around the facts all you want, but they remain the facts. The canonical Gospels were chosen and edited for their political correctness.



GotSteel -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 10:20:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterHermes

yes the bible you read today were brought together at A.D 325.


This doesn't have anything to do with your point it's just a factual correction, the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD didn't have anything to do with putting the bible together. It was proposed at the Synod of Hippo in 393 and approved at the third Council of Carthage in 397.



GotSteel -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 10:39:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Christians also were told in the New Testament something like: Investigate everything and keep what is good. So Christians can toss out anything they deem not good.


I'm not familiar with that, do you suppose you could find it?



Rule -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 11:18:36 PM)

Sorry, I already tried google. I know it is in there, probably in letters, but it has been a long time ago since I last quoted it here in the forum.



NihilusZero -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 11:24:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Christians also were told in the New Testament something like: Investigate everything and keep what is good. So Christians can toss out anything they deem not good.

So the OT deity sends a human incarnation of himself into the NT to debunk his own former non-avatar edicts as perhaps the greatest PR trick ever pulled?



Rule -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 11:29:43 PM)

Which OT deity are you referring to? And what do you mean by 'former non-avatar edicts'? Or is it simply that you meant to write 'former, non-avatar, edicts'?



NihilusZero -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 11:37:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Which OT deity are you referring to? And what do you mean by 'former non-avatar edicts'? Or is it simply that you meant to write 'former, non-avatar, edicts'?

Um...the deity of the OT is the one I'm referring to. The one specifically...you know...mentioned in the OT?

And, by "non-avatar edicts" I mean the laws he put into place before he made a puppet of himself to send down into his creation. Ones which are roundly disregarded/abandoned now by modern christian theists because, well...you know, it's hard to justify worldwide genocide just because you're pissed off at people (even for a god).



Rule -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/8/2009 11:55:21 PM)

Oh, that deity. Well, he had been murdered centuries before the birth of Jesus (I am not going to explain that), so he couldn't have sent Jesus - even if he had been reincarnated. In any case Jesus was not his avatar; if Jesus was any incarnate god's avatar (I have not much of an indication for that, except him being precoccious and perhaps wise) then it was that of the Creator.

I have no evidence for this, but I suspect that the next incarnate god(dess) to rule had to abdicate shortly (fifty? years) before the birth of Jesus. Probably had to abdicate because of a powerful wish he or she made, which also due to Divine intervention, resulted in the Jesus gambit.



NihilusZero -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/9/2009 12:00:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Oh, that deity. Well, he had been murdered centuries before the birth of Jesus (I am not going to explain that), so he couldn't have sent Jesus - even if he had been reincarnated. In any case Jesus was not his avatar; if Jesus was any incarnate god's avatar (I have not much of an indication for that, except him being precoccious and perhaps wise) then it was that of the Creator.

Your reason for dissociating the OT god from your described "Creator" (when, scripturally, they are the same) is...?

I mean, I can make up stuff as I go along too.



Rule -> RE: Christianity, your doing it wrong (8/9/2009 12:37:10 AM)

There have been at least three creation rituals performed, that I know of. I suspect that whenever a god usurped the place of his predecessor, he (or she, but I know only about males) performed a new creation ritual. So each god that ever ruled may be called a creator. However, there is only one incarnate god (and his avatars) who is named the Creator. The god of the Jews was another guy, the sixth and last known incarnate god to have ruled heaven and Earth: his rule was quite an advancement on previous reigns; had his good points and his bad points of course.

I am not going to elucidate this either.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875