Miburo

Also, seems like Jesus wants us to follow the laws and profits that came before him (like those in the old testament):
Which is saying that all the stuff that came before Jesus (every little bit and piece of it) shall remain in effect till the earth ends. Jesus said it! Fuck yeah, contradicting messages. =p

RNB

Again, you are interpreting this at face value. He is saying that the law will not disappear, but what does he say after that in Matthew 5? He goes on to explain the law in its true context. See, Jesus isn't changing the law at all. It is the humans who changed the message from the beginning. The law has always been the same, and will be, but Jesus's way of looking at the law was ignored by those who came before him.

What I suggest to everyone who wants to combat Christianity, is to look at Jewish history, and then look at the gospels in a way that is relevant.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Miburo

What do you mean by "face value?" It's not like I'm quoting the part where he says "Cut off your hand, for it's better to kill a limb then let it destroy the entire body, blah blah," and saying "Look, Jesus wants people to cut off their hands, lolololololol." As far as I know, I'm not misinterpreting anything here.

He then does go on to elaborate, add to, explain, whatever, about certain particular things. But what about the things he doesn't mention? What do we have to go on with those things in regards to what Jesus thinks of them? Just what he said, which is what I quoted. Jesus himself says all things passed on by the prophets, all former laws, still apply. So if it says stone non-believes, or it's okay to buy slaves, or anything else then, according to Jesus, it still applies today. I'm just going by what Jesus said, yo.

RNB

This is what I mean:

Jesus says he did not come to abolish the prophets or the laws. So the question becomes, what are the laws? You see, the laws are not the laws that Israel provided with the people, (Leviticus, Deut., Numbers, etc.) those were misinterpretations of God's real laws. Something got messed up when the humans translated God's message to paper. The nation of Israel had a huge ego and used God's message to put forth their own, which was that they were the sacred nation of God, which means they were the best. However, this was not the real message of God, and the laws they created were not the real laws. God realized that the Israelites messed up everything, so God sent his son, Jesus, to communicate the real message and laws to us. The fact is, there is much more to Jesus then what you get from an evangelical. Evangelicals are obsessed over his death for us, but they miss that actual point of Jesus's message. Jesus's message and laws, according to Christians, are the only way of achieving this "Shalom," (which is complete peace with the mind, with others, with the environment, etc.)

So, Jesus did not come to abolish the laws because what we humans misinterpreted as the laws were actually just distorted versions, and Jesus did not come to abolish the prophets because the message they spoke was misinterpreted. The funny thing is, we Christians have done the exact same thing the nation of Israel did. We distorted God's message to fit our zionist views, and we try to combine the church and the state so nobody can oppose it. Funny how history repeats itself?

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Miburo

Can you show me where it says this in the Bible?

Because in the quote I provided, he says every last bit of the laws still apply. Why would he say that if those were distorted laws that didn't represent God's will? Why would he endorse things that misrepresented God? What passages of the Bible are you using to back this theory of yours?

Are you not doing something similar? He's not speaking using analogies here, he's not speaking using parables. He's plaining stating that the words and laws that came previously still apply to this day. Yet you're taking this statement and contorting it to fit your own particular view; that being that the old laws and prophets misinterpreted God's word.

I've provided actual scripture passages showing that Jesus, son of God himself, supports the words of the previous prophets and laws that came before him. Who would know God's will and intentions better than Jesus? Unless Jesus later claims that those things were misinterpretations of God's will (In which case he would be contradicting himself), I don't see how you can argue against what he has plainly stated.

RNB

One, the passages of the Bible weren't meant to be taken literally. This is because if they were, they would be completely contradictory. Jesus's message was obviously much different than Jewish law. He believes that if someone hits you, to turn the other cheek, which is much different than stoning. The fact is, I don't blame you for your interpretation because tons of people look at the Bible like that. We call them fundamentalists. You see, Jesus doesn't want people to just look at his message and instantly get it. This is because, if people could, then people could get in and lead people another way by changing a few things, but still looking as if the message agreed with Jesus's. What you have to understand is that the OT sets up the story for Jesus's message, which you can't fully get without comprehending things such as the ego of the Israelites, and the fact that they were constantly being ruled by other kingdoms. Jesus challenged their ego by telling them that they had to rid themselves of it and learn to care about others because the kingdom of God is available to everyone, not just them. They killed him because their conflicting minds couldn't take it any more and they cracked.

The quote you provided is set right before Jesus says the sermon on the mount, which is where Jesus tells us the true "rules" that God has set for us in order to create a peaceful society where everyone loves one another. He says that he has not come to abolish the law because he isn't. He is trying to restore the law. It was the Israelites that abolished the true law right from the beginning. This is why he tells them to be like little children. He wants them to throw away their knowledge and learn it all over again.

Again, most of this information is coming from the book, The Secret Message of Jesus by Brian McLaren. This isn't much of a radical perspective anymore either. Now that we know a ton more about Jewish history, it is easier to see the true context of Jesus's message.


It wasn't a plain statement though. You took a verse or two, out of the whole Bible, and took it literally as if Jesus speaks that way. It is obvious he doesn't. The guy rarely ever speaks plainly. He pretty much always answers people's questions in a somewhat cryptic way.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Miburo

Says who? Jesus? God? You'd think if this were the case, Jesus would have mentioned this somewhere, right?

Of course you're not suppose to take analogies and parables, and shit like that, at face value. Because they're told to instill some sort of moral teaching. But not everything in there is an analogy.

Just because there is conflicting messages doesn't mean everything in there wasn't meant to be taken literally. Now, I don't take anything in there literally, or seriously for that matter, because I know a lot of that stuff is silly. How I interpret it doesn't = how the authors wanted it interpreted though. You can say "He didn't mean it that way" till your blue in the face; doesn't change the fact that it's exactly what he said. Even I have enough faith in the supposedly son of God to think that he can articulate what he means when he talks.

Yeah, he advocates being meek towards your enemies. Stoning is done to those who supposedly deserve punishment though. It's kinda different.

Look, take that "turn the other cheek" crap. Like I said earlier, maybe he only meant that to apply to certain situations. Like, most people would say killing someone is bad, right? But what about in self-defense? That's usually considered okay. So sometimes it's okay to kill people. So maybe Jesus thought it was sometimes okay to stone people. There's a way to look at things without Jesus contradicting himself right there. : )

He challenged them on other things, yet doesn't do so when it comes to their laws? Laws that supposedly misrepresent the word of God? Weird.
Where does Jesus say this? Again, you're just interpreting things to suit your beliefs. If Jesus said something that doesn't make sense, you can't just say he didn't mean it that way without providing something tangible to show that he didn't.

Well my Bible guy disagrees:

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/re...06/default.htm

= /


Not every single thing Jesus said was some cryptic metaphor. This is a pretty straightforward quote. It's not like I haven't read the Bible before or anything either. I've also read the entirety of Matthew: 5 to establish the context of the quote. It doesn't take a genius to see this isn't a god damn cryptic message. Again, you're just twisting a simple statement to suit your beliefs. I'm going by exactly what Jesus says.

jon

yea thats true

__________________
want to know what FCs im in....take a look

Pairings i like

Pairings im ok with

Pairing i despise

RNB

God does mention somewhere that he doesn't care about the laws set up. Here is the verse:

It is obvious here that God doesn't care much about the actual rules, so much as their hearts, which is what Jesus taught. You see, ISRAEL'S LAWS ARE NOT "THE LAWS" OF GOD. God's real laws are revealed through Jesus, which are that we are to be humble, have integrity, be generous, etc. The Old Testament gives context to Jesus's message so we may truly understand it. What the people say about God and the God created by the Old Testament is largely a God created by their opinion. The Israelites chose what to hear and what not to hear, which is why God sent prophets down to check them, and ultimately himself, in the end.

Jesus is the only one who was actually God. Therefore, he is the only true example of what God wants.

Well, he says more than being meek:

There is more than just, "Turn the other cheek.":

The book I was talking about also suggests that Jesus wants us to use creative ways of showing people how bad, evil really is. The point is, if you just sit there and let someone beat the shit out of you, and the whole time you tell him to hit you once more, people will probably see the true nature of that man. We, as Christians, are called to be a light unto the world and be an example of God's kingdom, which can be here on earth. This is the only form of a "utopia" a believe in. You see, people can believe in Jesus's message without being Christians. The only difference is that I believe that God is the only way we can achieve Shalom whereas the others would say that man can do it by themselves.

The laws are very much a human-tainted version of God's real values.

I think I answered this already. If I didn't just ask the question again with more detail as what you want a reference to.

He is interpreting the text literally. Jesus never recognizes the OT to be taken word for word, he simply believes that God's real message is found in the OT, it is just hidden away a bit. Look at this broad interpretation:

Your guy says that he is recognizing the story of Adam as literal, when in fact, this has nothing to do with acknowledging the story of Adam. It was during the time when the Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce, when he said this. Therefore, he demonstrated a lesson using Genesis, but that doesn't mean he acknowledges a actual Adam and Eve.

Also, isn't it interesting how he never quotes the law of Leviticus as a way to defend divorce...?

You don't even understand what exactly was going on before Jesus was born and what was going on at the time. How can you expect to understand the true context?

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Miburo

Wait, did you just quote the old testament? You know, the thing I'm saying Jesus was cool with? Nice. ; )

And Jesus supports the shit said in the old testament. Fuck yeah.

I never implied that was all he said. I was responding to a particular circumstance.


Not relevant, at all.


Cool. Not relevant, so I don't care.


Even if you completely ignore the "law" part, he still refers to the prophets of the old testament. So no matter what, my point still stands. Not that it matters, since mother fucking Jesus Christ, God on mother fucking Earth, says, quite plainly, that one should practice and teach the laws should he wish to enter the kingdom of heaven. No amount of bullshit assumptions on what he meant is going to change that.

I mean, what the fuck. Jesus said it. How can you even argue against JESUS CHRIST!?

Actually, by using it in that context he is using it as if it's a credible source, for it is God's word. If it was just some made up story, why would it hold any merit? He's operating under the assumption that the creation story is true, therefore his conclusion is true.

First off, for all you know I understand exactly what was going on whenever just fine. I've not once demonstrated any ignorance in that regard. So fuck you. Secondly, that's beyond retarded, dude. It doesn't take some scholar to read some text and decipher it's meaning, all you need is some reading comprehension skills. Unless Jesus was a complete retard who couldn't say what he means, I understand what he meant just fine.

RNB

That was a quote from the prophet Amos, who was giving God's words to the people. Not the same thing I was disagreeing with. I am arguing with Jesus's definition of "the law".


He does not support everything in the Old Testament. The Old Testament even suggests that God didn't like what the Israelites were doing. God blatantly says in the verse provided that he despises the law-following attitude of the Israelites. So, how could Jesus agreed with everything in the Old Testament if he was God.

The thing is, peace and stoning contradict each other.

Yes it is. Jesus is specifically saying in that verse that we need to be servants of others, and we need to care more about them than ourselves.

It is going to change it. I still do not understand how you believe you can just translate everything literally, which is what you are doing. You are basically saying, "Well, the founding fathers said in the constitution that we have the right to bare arms, so I guess that means that gun rights are really not essential. I mean, why would the founders want us to have guns? They are dangerous."

I am not arguing with all with him. I am arguing that you are not understanding the context to get Jesus's message.

Actually, did you ever think about the idea that the creation story could be completely symbolic?

Jesus wants us to become scholars. Not so much as one that would go to college for it, but he wants us to find the message by seeking it. If he blatantly said it, would we still have that drive to understand Jesus's message?

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Miburo

All I was saying is that Jesus has endorsed the old testament.

So the old testament says that, and Jesus agrees with it, right? I don't see the problem there then. If that's part of the old testament, then cool.
No shit. I never denied the fact that Jesus contradicts himself. There is, however, a difference in punishing someone and allowing your enemies to kick your ass. If a parent punishes a child, I'm sure he doesn't consider the child his/her enemy, right?
Okay. Still isn't relevant though. Jesus contradicting himself doesn't mean anything except that he contradicts himself.

Wut? It'd actually be more like me saying "The founding fathers wanted us to have the right to bear arms, because it says 'the people have a right to bear arms.'" I see no flaw there.


Great, I can read though, so I understand it just fine. Unless Jesus didn't mean what he said, that is.

Sure. I think a lot of things about the story of creation, none of which is that it's actually how shit came to be. What I think isn't really relevant though. If it was just some stupid story then it wouldn't hold any weight as proof of anything though, now would it? So Jesus using that story would be pretty retarded if he wasn't operating under the assumption that the story of creation was true.


Actually, I'm fairly sure intelligence isn't a value that's praised much in the Bible. It seems to me that Jesus wanted people to be unquestioning, completely loyal sheep a whole hell of a lot more than intellectuals. = /

Veggiegirl101

I've had to re-type this post like three times because my computer is acting funny... I wanted to say that I'm sorry for taking forever to reply, between school and dodging a hurricane I haven't really been able to get on here that much. So as soon as I can I'll respond hopefully it'll be later tonight/early tommorow morning!

Also I saw some of the conversation that's been going on recently, this is something to add to that:

"10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."(Matthew 9:10-13)

This is the part of the scripture that I've been thinking about a lot lately:
"13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"(Matthew 9:13)

I'll respond soon, and I'm sorry for taking forever once again...
VG101

Miles T

I recommend that you compose and regularly save your replies in a text editor or word processor. That means that your messages are saved in at least two places; can be clearer to read through; can be saved easily; can have the program they are in closed without being lost and more besides.

No problem. Unless there’s good reasoning for a time limit (which there isn’t in this case), there should be no time limitations on argumentation.

Veggiegirl101

What I’m trying to say is that we are all human, we are subject to no one but God/Jesus Christ. That’s why I went further and said later on in my post that we are to bow to no one but God. I will try to provide you with an example and edit this post later on with it.

But as for being female, God made man and woman...from man, so as for us being demonized…? I don’t really see that anywhere in the Bible of what I have read to tell you the truth. Now if your talking about peoples actions could you tell me please where and when this has happened? Then maybe I could understand better and explain. But as for the other part subjugation, do you mean in marriage? In this regard a woman is supposed to be submissive to her husband, the thing is that the woman is supposed to respect her husband and the husband is supposed to treat the woman as Jesus treated the Church or you could say that a man is supposed to love his wife the way that Jesus Christ loves the Church. That’s a lot of love if you think about it, Jesus died for the church among other things….

Okay the next thing was homosexual’s and non-Christians…
Homosexuals, I’ll try to state this tenderly but I will be truthful…homosexuality is basically unnatural, looking at nature as in if we look at animals for example they are made male and female, and in order to reproduce you need a male and a female, this is natural. Homosexuality is a sin, just like any other sin the wages for sin are death but the debt for it has been paid already just like all other sins through Jesus Christ dying in our place. But it is a sin. And just like any sin there is freedom from this if you are willing to accept it.

So then there is the argument stating that some people are born gay. I don’t believe that is true. I think half of the problem is the society that we live in (For this part I’m talking about the United States). We are to critical and judgmental of people and their habits and we label them as gay if they look a certain way, act a certain way, or like certain things that are supposed to be classified as typical ‘gay’ things. That is honestly really foolish.

People can like certain things without being gay, possibly after hearing all of these things over and over again they might come to the conclusion that they are gay by societies stupid rules that are lain before them. “If you act this way your gay…” We use the term gay over here way too loosely…I’m actually going to be looking into this more, here’s something else though that kinda made me wonder on the whole entire being born gay thing: When I was on a trip with a group of people in an organization (Not Church affiliated) One of the persons who was ‘supposed’ to be gay had a bit too much to drink I guess and I was minding my own business, completely sober just to let you all know, I don’t drink or smoke or anything like that so this isn’t my imagination…and he kept on hitting on me, I dunno…yeah so that was a bit odd but not really I guess, I’m still trying to make sense of that one.

I Just found this through a website on the internet, it’s related to what ‘s being discussed right now:

http://settingcaptivesfree.com/door_...hope_test4.htm

Also if you read/after you read that you might see a similarity in his testimony to mine in an earlier post, about how Jesus Christ really can save you. He can take you from a place of death, deception, and sin and give you life, but the thing is that we have to trust in Him and completely surrender to Him. That’s what I had to do in my life. When he talks about how he was searching for love, I can feel for him their because I was subject to that same thing as well and I looked in all the wrong places also, it’s a void you know that a person has, people want to be noticed, accepted, loved, and appreciated…I know that I do, I’ll post a reply to this on something that I have, that I’ve written regarding this a little later.

As for Non-Christians we are supposed to walk in love, that goes for everybody (which includes non-Christians), we are supposed to love which is a big part of following Jesus:

“8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”(Romans 13:8-10)

Here’s more to add to this point:

“6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.”(Romans 5:6-11)

I hope that cleared some of those things up...