Right. As do I. Problem is, the New Testament is supposed to supercede the Old. Hence, the bit about it being "new." Somebody who's been to church more recently than 1995 check me on this, but wasn't the point of the new covenant to erase that kind of crap and provide man with a way to redeem himself in God's eyes through the love of Jesus Christ, son of man?My point is this: you can't have it both ways. If you're going to argue the morality of judgement from a "Jesus loves you, sinner" point of view, then you can't use quotes from the "God will destroy your village if you put your penis into a man's rectum" part of the bible.
Here are the original verses I was talking about.
Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
(NAS)Everyone has sinned
Rom 6:23a
23 For the wages of sin is death, (NAS)Everyone who sins deserves death. Period.
Jesus loves sinners and consequences for homosexuality do actually co-exist. If there were no judgement for sin, why would Jesus have allowed Himself to be tortured to death 2000 years ago. One can't say that Jesus loves sinners, without recognizing the reality of sin.
Rom 6:23b
23 but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(NAS)Forgivness is a GIFT. You can't earn it.
Anyway, it was Paul who made all the changes. Take that as you will.Actually, Paul's writings were accepted by all Jesus' disciples and did not differ or contradict Christ's teachings in any way. Paul also was a gifted scholar of the Old Testament and his writings (like Hebrews) reflect that, showing how the Old Testament Law pointed to Christ as the last sacrificial lamb.
Translation: We are all equally guilty of sin and deserve death unless we buy Jesus Brand(tm) soul detergent.
Here's an interesting story I saw on Fark that seemed relevant: Repeat child sex offenders could face death penalty.
The new covenant does not erase the old covenant, it simply fulfills it because, in light of Romans 3:23, no man can. Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17, "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." (NIV)
Except for all the old testament prophecies about the messiah that he didn't fulfill like being a normal human, uniting all nations under the flag of Israel, being a great military leader, etc.
Out of curiousity, why don't Christians continue to keep all the rules and holidays from the old testament? God said that you'll know the false prophets because they'll try to change the rules set by the Torah. I don't think Jesus ever said, 'It's ok to eat pork now, guys, and don't worry about that Covenant with God' or changed anything else. So...where did all those rules go?
Out of curiousity, why don't Christians continue to keep all the rules and holidays from the old testament? God said that you'll know the false prophets because they'll try to change the rules set by the Torah. I don't think Jesus ever said, 'It's ok to eat pork now, guys, and don't worry about that Covenant with God' or changed anything else. So...where did all those rules go?
Because Jesus actually did effectively discard a lot of those traditions. I don't feel like tracking down exact Scripture passages because I'm lazy and I don't have them memorized because I'm Catholic. 
Out of curiousity, why don't Christians continue to keep all the rules and holidays from the old testament? God said that you'll know the false prophets because they'll try to change the rules set by the Torah. I don't think Jesus ever said, 'It's ok to eat pork now, guys, and don't worry about that Covenant with God' or changed anything else. So...where did all those rules go?
That's exactly my issue with what Paul did. It wasn't Jesus who changed those things, it was Paul. That's not to say it wasn't from God, I'm certainly not qualified to say anything about that, it's just something that bugs me. From what I understand the reasoning is that the rules had become too important, and the new church was trying to preach that it's not the rules that are important, it's the message. Of course, now we've gone the other direction and pretend like we have no rules, but that's a different discussion...
And as far as holidays go, many Jewish holidays are more for remembrance than for religious purposes. Chanukah (Hanukkah) is for remembering the Maccabees (whose leader, incidentally, was also thought to be a possible Messaih). Same with Purim and Passover. Yom Kippur is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that is actually a religious holiday (although I know there are others).
Translation: We are all equally guilty of sin and deserve death unless we buy Jesus Brand(tm) soul detergent.
Actually, an accurate translation would be more like this: We are all equally guilty of sin and deserve death, even if we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Through Him, though, we may find forgiveness and the grace to continually battle our own sinful nature. But we are still a bunch of wretched bastards. 
That's exactly my issue with what Paul did. It wasn't Jesus who changed those things, it was Paul.
But that's not entirely true is it? What about the deal where the Pharisees were harassing Jesus because his followers did not fast, and Jesus came back with something like, "why should the wedding guests fast when the bridegroom is still among them?"
Maybe it was Paul who actually quantified a lot of that stuff, but certainly much of it came from Jesus as well?
And as far as holidays go, many Jewish holidays are more for remembrance than for religious purposes. Chanukah (Hanukkah) is for remembering the Maccabees (whose leader, incidentally, was also thought to be a possible Messaih). Same with Purim and Passover. Yom Kippur is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that is actually a religious holiday (although I know there are others).
That's kind of an unfair representation of Jewish holidays. For one, remembrance IS a religious purpose; connection to your ancestry and your history is something very sacred. Remembrance is holy. Two, isn't any holiday essentially, at heart, an excuse to commemorate something that happened in the past? For instance, Christmas celebrates Christ's birth, and Easter his death; Passover celebrates the exodus from Egypt (and for that matter, Independence Day commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence; Armistice Day celebrates the signing of the WWI armistice, etc, etc.) Very few holidays exist unconnected to a historical event. So just because a holiday has historical origins makes it no less religious.
That's kind of an unfair representation of Jewish holidays. For one, remembrance IS a religious purpose; connection to your ancestry and your history is something very sacred. Remembrance is holy. Two, isn't any holiday essentially, at heart, an excuse to commemorate something that happened in the past?
...
Very few holidays exist unconnected to a historical event. So just because a holiday has historical origins makes it no less religious.
That's true, but I took Mixolyde's question to be "what happened to all the jewish holidays, aren't christians just jews who accept Christ?" For the Jewish people, both religion AND remembrance are cultural and can't be separated from one another, whereas Christians, who are mainly non-Jewish, don't celebrate holidays in cultural remembrance because we have no shared culture to remember, aside from holidays pertaining to Christ (easter/christmas).
I did not mean to belittle Jewish culture or heritage in any way, and I do apologize if it came off that way. If it helps, I'm also Jewish (from my mother), so at least I'm belittling myself
Except for all the old testament prophecies about the messiah that he didn't fulfill like being a normal human, uniting all nations under the flag of Israel, being a great military leader, etc.
Some of these prophecies have yet to be fulfilled. The New Testament speaks specifically to the military leadership and uniting of nations in Christ's second coming. As for the "normal human" reference, I can't specifically recall Messiah being referred to as normal in the OT, but if you have a Scripture reference, I will address it to the best of my ability.
Regarding the Jewish feasts and holidays, some Christians, including me and my family, still observe some of them. We have observed Passover for the last several years and have recently included Purim. While under the new covenant, the observance is no longer required, I still believe them to be important. Like Kat said:
For one, remembrance IS a religious purpose; connection to your ancestry and your history is something very sacred. Remembrance is holy. Two, isn't any holiday essentially, at heart, an excuse to commemorate something that happened in the past?
Jolly Bill wrote:That's exactly my issue with what Paul did. It wasn't Jesus who changed those things, it was Paul.
But that's not entirely true is it? What about the deal where the Pharisees were harassing Jesus because his followers did not fast, and Jesus came back with something like, "why should the wedding guests fast when the bridegroom is still among them?"
Maybe it was Paul who actually quantified a lot of that stuff, but certainly much of it came from Jesus as well?
I'm not entirely sure what that particular passage has to do with changing the Law. Jesus certianly did bring along a whirlwind of change, but most of it was in class structure and racism (Jews vs Non-Jews). The only part of the Law he came close to changing was divorce, which he claimed God allowed Moses to do because the peoples hearts were hard.
While under the new covenant, the observance is no longer required, I still believe them to be important.
This is something I always find puzzling, and I'm still trying to work out for myself. Where in the new covenant does it say observance is no longer required?
I was generally referring to stuff I've read similar to this list and others like it. Granted, the info is on a site dedicated to Judaism and the Bible has been re-translated approximately 742 times. I'm no bible scholar, obviously, but it seems to me that there are some pretty major discrepencies between the OT and NT when it comes to prophets and messiahs.
In particular from that site "The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!" and "The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)"
It seems to me that you can't recognize the OT's visions of the 'messiah' and still call Jesus a 'messiah' or even a 'prophet.' Now, maybe Jesus was the son of a different god, and he's that god's messiah with a different set of rules. Or maybe 'saviour' is the more appropriate word to use and Christians are still waiting for the Hebrew messiah. Or there's a few dozen translation errors. Or maybe I just don't have the capacity for the cognitive dissonance necessary to wrap my head 'round all of it. Hard to say really.
Some of these prophecies have yet to be fulfilled. The New Testament speaks specifically to the military leadership and uniting of nations in Christ's second coming.
But instead, the Patriarchs and Roman/Byzantine leadership squandered the next 7-800 years squabbling over the "true" nature of Christ, resulting in the takeover by the Muslim Caliphate of many of the nations orginally addressed. Seems that if Christ were going to come back, he squandered some perfectly good opportunities during Western Civ's Dark Ages.
KaterinLHC wrote:That's kind of an unfair representation of Jewish holidays. For one, remembrance IS a religious purpose; connection to your ancestry and your history is something very sacred. Remembrance is holy. Two, isn't any holiday essentially, at heart, an excuse to commemorate something that happened in the past?
...
Very few holidays exist unconnected to a historical event. So just because a holiday has historical origins makes it no less religious.That's true, but I took Mixolyde's question to be "what happened to all the jewish holidays, aren't christians just jews who accept Christ?" For the Jewish people, both religion AND remembrance are cultural and can't be separated from one another, whereas Christians, who are mainly non-Jewish, don't celebrate holidays in cultural remembrance because we have no shared culture to remember, aside from holidays pertaining to Christ (easter/christmas).
I did not mean to belittle Jewish culture or heritage in any way, and I do apologize if it came off that way. If it helps, I'm also Jewish (from my mother), so at least I'm belittling myself :-)
You are being way too polite. I hereby revoke your P&C card. Also, I wasn't accusing you of belittling Judiac practice. Just misrepresenting it. Indeed, really, I'm afraid of accusing you of anything too strong, lest your avatar come to life and revenge me to death.
Also, how in the world did this thread go from pedophilia to the intracies of Christian theological practice? I don't know, but I like it. Much better than the original topic, by far (sorry Pred :)).
In particular from that site "The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!"
I believe he was descended from David on his mother's side (although Joseph was supposed to be of David's line as well, I think). Just doing a quick online scan of a couple translations of those passages (Yeah, not doing ANY work today), I found:
Genesis 49:10 "The sceptre turneth not aside from Judah, And a lawgiver from between his feet, Till his Seed come; And his [is] the obedience of peoples. "
Isaiah 11:1 "And a rod hath come out from the stock of Jesse, And a branch from his roots is fruitful."
Nothing is said about it coming from his father's side. Course, it might say it elsewhere, I'm just going from these passages. Like you said, it's been translated hundreds of times (although, thankfully some of those translations went back to earlier texts to hopefully correct errors instead of perpetuate them).
And as for him changing the Torah, I've already said he didn't do that.
*edit*
Mix, I know you're not really presenting this as your argument, just throwing it out there. I just can't help throwing counterpoints back.
*whimpers and reaches for the empty space where his P&C card use to be...*
In particular from that site "The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!"
Well, first off, those are some pretty squirrely translations, but whatever. Jesus did in fact have an earthly father, Saint Joseph. Even though he was not the "real father" in terms of the virgin birth, he fulfilled the role in every other sense of the word.
edit: Curse you, Jolly Bill! You beat me to the punch and much more comprehensively to boot. Stupid work!
Sorry for the delayed response, I was reading the article Mix referenced and doing a little research. Most of what I was going to say has already been posted by others (including myself in reference to the second coming). But there are a few points the article makes that I would like to address, most of which can be refuted using the Old Testament.
Regarding the Trinity, it mentions that Jesus could not be God in the flesh because God would not assume human form. Although, He did in Gen. 32:24-32 when He wrestled with Jacob. It also neglects to mention instances in the OT when the Spirit of the Lord was present.
Regarding the belief that God revealed his laws to the entire nation of Israel and not to an individual, in Deut. 5:5 it is clear that the law was revealed only to Moses and then revealed to the people.
There are other items of contention, but I don't want to turn this into an attack on Judaism. I will however, mention one more thing since it does tend to disparage Jesus. Jesus did not try to turn anyone away from the Torah or from God. Jesus embraced the Scriptures, it's just that He claimed that He was the fulfillment of them.
Where in the new covenant does it say observance is no longer required?
Paul's writings are loaded with references about being free from the law, which includes the observance of the holy days and feasts.
Also, how in the world did this thread go from pedophilia to the intracies of Christian theological practice? I don't know, but I like it.
I don't know either, Kat, but I am also enjoying it.
Well, first off, those are some pretty squirrely translations, but whatever.
Well according to some 'thou shalt not kill' is open to interpretation, but yeah, they are kind of squirrely.
Even if it was Peter that came along and changed the rules, doesn't that make him a false prophet? Aren't his changes still sanctioned by the Church?
Wow... and there's been not one post weighing in on my story about the pedophile that was at my church. Not even a crack about pedophile priests, for that matter!
The P&C is a much more genteel place these days.
Paul's writings are loaded with references about being free from the law, which includes the observance of the holy days and feasts.
Thanks, I'll have to go back and look.
Even if it was Peter that came along and changed the rules, doesn't that make him a false prophet? Aren't his changes still sanctioned by the Church?
The answer is yes to your second question. As to the first... I'm still trying to figure out what I believe on that one. Obviously, if the answer is yes, it means a lifestyle change, and seeking out at least, what is the number, 1,000 other people who agree with me so I can get off of work for my new religion's holidays?
For the record, I think Farscry IS the pedophile from his church.
Mix, the passage in Deut. 13:1-4 that you referenced calls a false prophet one who says, "'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them.'" Jesus did not try to turn anyone away from the One true God. Quite the opposite. His ministry on Earth was to reconcile people to God, not to turn them away from Him to follow other gods.
Paleocon wrote:Translation: We are all equally guilty of sin and deserve death unless we buy Jesus Brand(tm) soul detergent.
Actually, an accurate translation would be more like this: We are all equally guilty of sin and deserve death, even if we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Through Him, though, we may find forgiveness and the grace to continually battle our own sinful nature. But we are still a bunch of wretched bastards. :)
Like I said about the Jesus Brand(tm) soul cleanser.
Sorry. I have a real problem with a religious philosophy that equates a multiple child rapist/murderer with someone who disobeys Commandment Number One (don't worship other gods).
Like I said about the Jesus Brand(tm) soul cleanser.
Sorry. I have a real problem with a religious philosophy that equates a multiple child rapist/murderer with someone who disobeys Commandment Number One (don't worship other gods).
No man, you're still missing my point. You said:
Translation: We are all equally guilty of sin and deserve death unless we buy Jesus Brand(tm) soul detergent.
What I am saying is:
Translation: We are all equally guilty of sin and deserve death. Period.
Whether or not we achieve salvation has to do with Jesus Brand(tm) soul cleanser, but it does not change our fundamentally flawed nature.
As far as the philosophy goes re: the equivalence of sins, not all Christians agree on that. In the Catholic Church, rape and murder are mortal sins of the worst sort, and not equivalent in severity to worshipping another god.
Wow... and there's been not one post weighing in on my story about the pedophile that was at my church. Not even a crack about pedophile priests, for that matter!
The P&C is a much more genteel place these days. :)
I've been figthing the urge to mention something about fruity clubs brainwashing people into becoming child molesters, but I thought it'd be better if I left that one alone.
And modern Catholicism has largely abandoned the idea of the "one path to heaven" dealio, so it almost doesn't qualify as Christianity to biblical literalists and evangelicals.
Irrespective of whether or not one "sin" is greater or lesser, Christianity equates them with the phrase "the wages of sin are death" to describe the punishment for everything from ass-raping an entire kindergarten class to flashing a glance at your neighbor's wife's new boob job. That, by any reasonable stretch, is pretty screwed up.
And modern Catholicism has largely abandoned the idea of the "one path to heaven" dealio, so it almost doesn't qualify as Christianity to biblical literalists and evangelicals.
Irrespective of whether or not one "sin" is greater or lesser, Christianity equates them with the phrase "the wages of sin are death" to describe the punishment for everything from ass-raping an entire kindergarten class to flashing a glance at your neighbor's wife's new boob job. That, by any reasonable stretch, is pretty screwed up.
It's a lot harder to both seek and accept forgiveness for a heinous act like ass-raping a kindergarten class than for sneeking a peek at my neighbor's wife.
In the latter, sure it's embarrasing, and you say you're sorry, and more than likely you'll move on with you're life and accept that the pain of the event has been washed over and cleared away.
In the former... even those seeking forgiveness have a horrible time believing that they're worthy of being forgiven (mainly cause, well, they're not). Once forgiveness is both offered and accepted, then they are spiritually in the clear (thankfully not legally though).
I know you're going to scoff at this because it sounds like it's so easy, but it's not. I've heard you say a few times that people who've done something incredibly stupid or hurtful and then "turned to God" are just not taking responsibility for their actions. That's true, probably in most cases.
Suppose one actually does take personal responsibility for their actions, and accepts the fact that nothing they can do will fix the harm that they've caused. What route do they take then? Would it be enough for you if they cried and showed remorse every time they were on TV? If they tore their clothes and gave everything they had to pay restitution? If they're families were ass-raped in return? If they killed themselves?
It's a lot harder to both seek and accept forgiveness for a heinous act like ass-raping a kindergarten class than for sneeking a peek at my neighbor's wife.
In the latter, sure it's embarrasing, and you say you're sorry, and more than likely you'll move on with you're life and accept that the pain of the event has been washed over and cleared away.
In the former... even those seeking forgiveness have a horrible time believing that they're worthy of being forgiven (mainly cause, well, they're not). Once forgiveness is both offered and accepted, then they are spiritually in the clear (thankfully not legally though).
I know you're going to scoff at this because it sounds like it's so easy, but it's not. I've heard you say a few times that people who've done something incredibly stupid or hurtful and then "turned to God" are just not taking responsibility for their actions. That's true, probably in most cases.
Suppose one actually does take personal responsibility for their actions, and accepts the fact that nothing they can do will fix the harm that they've caused. What route do they take then? Would it be enough for you if they cried and showed remorse every time they were on TV? If they tore their clothes and gave everything they had to pay restitution? If they're families were ass-raped in return? If they killed themselves?
In a case like that, I'd be far more likely to go with the Talmud and state that "only the injured party can forgive". It is not up to a god (anyone's god) to absolve you for what you did to another person. What would be enough is for that person to make the injured party whole or die trying. Crying and theatrics count for nothing. Emotional torment of the injurer counts for nothing unless it is the motivation for righting the wrong. The absolution of an uninvolved deity is nothing but a cop-out -- a way of declaring moral bankruptcy without having to pay one's debts.
In a case like that, I'd be far more likely to go with the Talmud and state that "only the injured party can forgive". It is not up to a god (anyone's god) to absolve you for what you did to another person. What would be enough is for that person to make the injured party whole or die trying. Crying and theatrics count for nothing. Emotional torment of the injurer counts for nothing unless it is the motivation for righting the wrong. The absolution of an uninvolved deity is nothing but a cop-out -- a way of declaring moral bankruptcy without having to pay one's debts.
I agree with that, within reason. But that also leaves the absolution of the sin to personal preference. A heartbroken parent who knows that nothing will bring their child back may absolve a murderer after only a nominal sacrifice in order to move on and not have to be constantly reminded of the act by the murderer's sin to them hanging in the air. A proud and vain husband may withhold his forgiveness, knowing that you, a religious sap, will prostrate yourself seeking it for momentarily ogling his wife, and he'll enjoy it.
I'm sure you'll say, the two sins aren't anywhere equal to each other, and the wife-ogler should just move on after he feels he's repayed the sin. But then we're back to the sinner deciding when they're forgiven, and not taking responsibility for their actions.
Meh, this is fast hitting a track where we'll just end up agreeing to disagree. Keeping the faith angle out of it, I'd prefer to seek forgiveness and repay my sins to those I've sinned against until I feel I'm right with God, than to leave that decision up to the possibly proud or evil people I may have offended, or to our wonderful government.
I think this thread hijack may be my fault. Or nomad's. Let's blame him then. Unless it will make him want to kill me in the name of God or something
Anyway, I acknowledge that my understanding of the intricate interplay between the Old and New Testament in modern Christianity was flawed and apologize. Makes me nostalgic for the good, old days when this sort of thing was explained in pictogram-like fashion via stained glass and idols of saints. Seemed to be much more straight forward back then.
Pages