jews [Archive] - Christian Guitar Forum

shephard_pie

11-03-2001, 10:15 AM

My guess is that HrtsOnFireSingr is talking about Isaiah 1:13-14:

Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations-- I cannot bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. (Isaiah 1:13-14)

This is talking not about abolishing the Sabbath, but about sacrifices and festivals done without sincerity and the proper reverence.

Please note that Isaiah is not saying that God has gotten rid of the Sabbath. This is very obvious if you continue in Isaiah:

Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil." ... For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant-- to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant-- these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." (Isaiah 56:2,4-7)

"If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the LORD's holy day honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, then you will find your joy in the LORD, and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob." The mouth of the LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 58:13-14)

From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD. (Isaiah 66:23)

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 11:48 AM

Their source of truth and reference - the OT - is all about the laws. But first they must realize that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies, then they can understand the fulfillment of the laws Ok, God said that the appropriate punishment for a man that rapes an unmarraied woman is to have him marry her and pay the father 20 sheckles. Now tell me how Jesus fulfilled this law, and how it is not contradicted, but not followed by Christians.

God abolished the "official" sabbath in Isaiah, can't tell you exactly where but I can tell you for a fact, He cahnged that law. Again, that would make Donny's friend correct. Jesus breaks the rule. (from Deut) "Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!" ... "So be careful to do what the LORD your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left."

Luke

11-03-2001, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Ok, God said that the appropriate punishment for a man that rapes an unmarraied woman is to have him marry her and pay the father 20 sheckles. Now tell me how Jesus fulfilled this law, and how it is not contradicted, but not followed by Christians.

Christ pointed back to the original plan for marriage. Matthew 19.

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by lukesneeringer

Christ pointed back to the original plan for marriage. Matthew 19. So God was wrong and God had the wrong view of marriage when he gave Moses the law? God went against God's plan for marriage?

Luke

11-03-2001, 12:02 PM

No. God temporarily allowed things such as limited divorce because of hardness of hearts.

Why? I don't know the answer to that.

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 12:16 PM

I'm not asking about God allowing divorce. I'm talking about God declaring that a rapist should marry his victim for the sake of justice. That doing so was a good act.

Luke

11-03-2001, 12:21 PM

I think it was intended more as a punishment, although I agree, I don't understand why it wasn't more severe. :(

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 12:31 PM

I think it was intended more as a punishment, although I agree, I don't understand why it wasn't more severe. A punishment for whom? The rape-victim? Ignoring the fact that my sensabilites tell me that it would take a rather evil God to feel that the woman is nothing but property who'se value to her father has been damaged by the rape, my qeustion is why this is no longer enforced by Christians, as it is God's declared will.

Did God "change his mind"?

Karen M

11-03-2001, 12:34 PM

Hello all :)

This might be slightly off topic, but the rape thing really makes me question:

WHERE does God get his morals from?

Luke

11-03-2001, 12:37 PM

God is the standard of morality.

Luke

11-03-2001, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
A punishment for whom? The rape-victim? Ignoring the fact that my sensabilites tell me that it would take a rather evil God to feel that the woman is nothing but property who'se value to her father has been damaged by the rape, my qeustion is why this is no longer enforced by Christians, as it is God's declared will.

Did God "change his mind"?

Accomodation comes to mind here--after all, the NT gives women a much higher value (equality) than does the OT. I don't know why God didn't declare this in the OT, but then, He's God and I'm not, so...

Karen M

11-03-2001, 12:43 PM

Greetings Luke :)

>>>God is the standard of morality.<<<

In other words, God is a moral egoist and what he says goes? :)

>>>Accomodation comes to mind here--after all, the NT gives women a much higher value (equality) than does the OT. I don't know why God didn't declare this in the OT, but then, He's God and I'm not, so...<<<

No offence, but consider the idea that the Christian God isn't real. Then it would make sence that he had different opinions in the OT than in the NT regarding female status. It would also, clear up why there are so many unexplainable things in the Bible as because they were made up. I'm not trying to bash anyone, but just consider it for a minute or so and it DOES make sence....

Be back soon :)

Karen

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 12:47 PM

Of course it makes a great deal of sense looked at that way. But I won't force that view down as it falls into a "Christian vs non-Christian" discussion.

The point is that, if we look at a woman as a human being, then God felt it was just to punish her for having a crime committed against her, just to save her father face. I would define that as evil.

Of course, nowhere in the OT does God treat woman as people.

Enobmurt

11-03-2001, 12:48 PM

Hey Jerry, how's it going?

A punishment for whom? The rape-victim? Ignoring the fact that my sensabilites tell me that it would take a rather evil God to feel that the woman is nothing but property who'se value to her father has been damaged by the rape, my qeustion is why this is no longer enforced by Christians, as it is God's declared will.

there might be a few possible reasons for this.

It wasn't necessarily a punishment, just an enforcement for God's law of being with one woman for a lifetime. God can make any relationship work, even one that starts off such as this scenerio.

As for the rape-victim, remember a lot of times that the rape was considered the "victims" fault. The woman could have been in some place that she wasn't supposed to be (such as home). She could have also not screamed for help like she was supposed to.

Hey Jerry...when are you going to start another thread again? Those can be fun :)

Luke

11-03-2001, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Enobmurt
It wasn't necessarily a punishment, just an enforcement for God's law of being with one woman for a lifetime. God can make any relationship work, even one that starts off such as this scenerio.

Hadn't thought of this. It does make sense.

Karen M

11-03-2001, 12:50 PM

>>>Of course it makes a great deal of sense looked at that way. But I won't force that view down as it falls into a "Christian vs non-Christian" discussion.<<<

Yeah, I was afraid we might go that far off topic too :(

Thats why I'm just asking to consider it it MAKES SENSE, and is coherent; but I don't really want to get into a debate over whether it is true or not(as that really would require another thread).

Enobmurt

11-03-2001, 12:58 PM

In other words, God is a moral egoist and what he says goes?

naw...God just has MMMMMMMMUUUUUUCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH more experience than us and wants whats best :)

No offence, but consider the idea that the Christian God isn't real. Then it would make sence that he had different opinions in the OT than in the NT regarding female status. It would also, clear up why there are so many unexplainable things in the Bible as because they were made up. I'm not trying to bash anyone, but just consider it for a minute or so and it DOES make sence....

Actually...that doesn't make sense...but debating it would get off topic.

Of course, nowhere in the OT does God treat woman as people.

Now I could be wrong about this since I'm not that familiar with the OT stories. But what about Sarah or Ruth?

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 01:04 PM

It wasn't necessarily a punishment, just an enforcement for God's law of being with one woman for a lifetime. There was no such requirement in Jewesh law (hence why weather the rapist was already married doesn't come into the picture).

God can make any relationship work, even one that starts off such as this scenerio. Christians have a higher divorce rate than Atheists. Besides what about the woman's feelings?

As for the rape-victim, remember a lot of times that the rape was considered the "victims" fault. The woman could have been in some place that she wasn't supposed to be (such as home). Or she could have just been raped milking the goats. Rape is not the victims fault, and those who think the victim should be punished are evil-thinking people.

She could have also not screamed for help like she was supposed to. The law is clear, if that happens she is stoned to death for dishonoring her father (after all, his honor is more important than her life).

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 01:05 PM

God just has MMMMMMMMUUUUUUCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH more experience than us and wants whats best OK, so if you found out that the guy down the street came into your house and raped your daughter, you would want them to get married?

Karen M

11-03-2001, 01:06 PM

Hello Enobmurt :D

>>>naw...God just has MMMMMMMMUUUUUUCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH more experience than us and wants whats best<<<

Yes, but I was under the impression that he created the entire universe just for "his glory." Therefore, what I'm asking is, does morality have an absolute base? Or is just whatever God says goes and if he changes his mind morality changes with it? :)

>>>Actually...that doesn't make sense...but debating it would get off topic.<<<

Okay, as long as you truly considered it thats fine :D

Now there is no point in debating it as you do not consider it a possiblitly at all in the first place. I was just testing if it was up for debate or not is all :)

Thanks for your response,

Karen

Enobmurt

11-03-2001, 01:21 PM

There was no such requirement in Jewesh law (hence why weather the rapist was already married doesn't come into the picture).

I'm sorry I don't understand this. If the rapist was already married they wouldn't ask him to marry again anyways. It's against their law.

Christians have a higher divorce rate than Atheists. Besides what about the woman's feelings?

There are a lot of hypocrites in the church, probably more hypocrites then true Christians. God could change the woman's feelings, or maybe the woman would have already wanted it that way.

Or she could have just been raped milking the goats. Rape is not the victims fault, and those who think the victim should be punished are evil-thinking people.

Yes, there are times when she is a victim....but whether she is always a victim is just a matter of opinion.

The law is clear, if that happens she is stoned to death for dishonoring her father (after all, his honor is more important than her life).

Naw...that has little to do with honor. It's justice. And women are subject to men...that was one of Eve's punishment for sinning.

OK, so if you found out that the guy down the street came into your house and raped your daughter, you would want them to get married?

I don't know...I'm not as familiar with the laws of the bible as I should be.

Yes, but I was under the impression that he created the entire universe just for "his glory." Therefore, what I'm asking is, does morality have an absolute base? Or is just whatever God says goes and if he changes his mind morality changes with it?

Hey Karen :D

It can be argued though that God has so much knowledge and experience that He never changes His mind and therefore He is the absolute base :)

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 01:24 PM

"I'm sorry I don't understand this. If the rapist was already married they wouldn't ask him to marry again anyways. It's against their law. "

No it's not, Jews were allowed multiple wives.

"There are a lot of hypocrites in the church, probably more hypocrites then true Christians. God could change the woman's feelings, or maybe the woman would have already wanted it that way. "

God doesn't make Christian marriage work, why would he make rapists ones work. And how mentally deranged do you have to be to think that a woman would want to marry the man who raped her?

"Yes, there are times when she is a victim....but whether she is always a victim is just a matter of opinion."

You are a sick individual and I am done talking to you now.

Enobmurt

11-03-2001, 01:39 PM

No it's not, Jews were allowed multiple wives.

No they weren't. Yes there are several instances in which Jews had multiple wives, but where does it say they were allowed to and they weren't just disobeying the law

God doesn't make Christian marriage work, why would he make rapists ones work. And how mentally deranged do you have to be to think that a woman would want to marry the man who raped her?

God could make Christian marriages work....He doesn't favor the hypocrites though.
Maybe it was date rape and the girl still liked the guy? There are many delusional and deranged girls out there.

You are a sick individual and I am done talking to you now.

Letting your emotions get the best of you Jerry? I'm disappointed, I would have expected better from you.

I'm sorry, but if a woman goes to a club filled with rapists and convicts doing drugs and getting drunk and sinning...all the while not expecting to get raped. That sin is her fault.

Karen M

11-03-2001, 01:41 PM

Hello Enobmurt :)

>>>I'm sorry I don't understand this. If the rapist was already married they wouldn't ask him to marry again anyways. It's against their law.<<<

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think poligamy was outlawed until the NT...

>>>There are a lot of hypocrites in the church, probably more hypocrites then true Christians. God could change the woman's feelings, or maybe the woman would have already wanted it that way.

Yes, there are times when she is a victim....but whether she is always a victim is just a matter of opinion.<<<

Excuse me, but as someone who personally has known a friend who was rapped, I really think you should reconsider your answer here. He had taken off his shirt because it was hot outside and he was anal rapped in the back of a parking lot. Are you implying that rape victims somehow "ask for it"????

>>>Naw...that has little to do with honor. It's justice. And women are subject to men...that was one of Eve's punishment for sinning.<<<

Didn't Adam eat the apple too?

>>>I don't know...I'm not as familiar with the laws of the bible as I should be.<<<

So, if you were rapped and homosexual marrage was legal, you wouldn't mind being forced to marry your rapist? Or would you have faith that God would make you like it? :)

>>>It can be argued though that God has so much knowledge and experience that He never changes His mind and therefore He is the absolute base<<<

But he made the universe simply for "his glory" and tortures people who refuse to worship him. Isn't that morally egotistic? :)

One more thing, I think you should reconsider your answers to rape victims because it is clear you have never known any friends who have been rapped.

Karen

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 01:46 PM

Hey Karen, the scary thing is this is extending to the women here. I just had a Christian woman tell me that women are tempting creatures and it's not the mans fault if he rapes her.

Karen M

11-03-2001, 01:50 PM

Hello again Eno,

>>>No they weren't. Yes there are several instances in which Jews had multiple wives, but where does it say they were allowed to and they weren't just disobeying the law<<<

Usually laws work in which you write down what people ARN'T supposed to do, not what they CAN do and everything else is forbidden :)

Where does it say that they WERE breaking the law?

>>>God could make Christian marriages work....He doesn't favor the hypocrites though.
Maybe it was date rape and the girl still liked the guy? There are many delusional and deranged girls out there.<<<

So any Christian who breaks up wasn't a "REAL Christian" now? :) and, btw, girls do not still like the guy after he rapes them. I agree with Jerry, it doesn't seem like you understand point of view and you are becoming a little sick in your arguements :(

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

>>>I'm sorry, but if a woman goes to a club filled with rapists and convicts doing drugs and getting drunk and sinning...all the while not expecting to get raped. That sin is her fault.<<<

I have heard this arguement before :( You want to know where? It was in an old article proclaiming that it was a black man's fault that he got beaten to death because he was walking through a white town.

Listen, maybe you should come back to this topic once you are a little older, but I don't think you understand the implications right now :(

Karen

Enobmurt

11-03-2001, 01:52 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think poligamy was outlawed until the NT...

read my previous post

Excuse me, but as someone who personally has known a friend who was rapped, I really think you should reconsider your answer here. He had taken off his shirt because it was hot outside and he was anal rapped in the back of a parking lot. Are you implying that rape victims somehow "ask for it"????

previous post again...

Didn't Adam eat the apple too?

Yes...and Adam was punished too, but a lot of their punishments differed such as the woman having the man be her master.

So, if you were rapped and homosexual marrage was legal, you wouldn't mind being forced to marry your rapist? Or would you have faith that God would make you like it? So, if you were rapped and homosexual marrage was legal, you wouldn't mind being forced to marry your rapist? Or would you have faith that God would make you like it?

I don't know much about the OT...but I do know homosexuality is a sin :D

But he made the universe simply for "his glory" and tortures people who refuse to worship him. Isn't that morally egotistic?

I'm sorry, English and Vocabulary has always been my WORST subject...how do you define egotistic?

One more thing, I think you should reconsider your answers to rape victims because it is clear you have never known any friends who have been rapped.

Again...previous post...and I'm sorry, yes rape is wrong...but if you're in a sinful and wrong environment, you can't expect everything to be just dandy. you can't be in a horrible environment and expect nothing to go wrong.

Karen M

11-03-2001, 01:53 PM

>>>Hey Karen, the scary thing is this is extending to the women here. I just had a Christian woman tell me that women are tempting creatures and it's not the mans fault if he rapes her.<<<

:(:(:(:( Well, most Christian women I know do not condone it, so maybe it was a one case senario, because that is just scary....

Enobmurt

11-03-2001, 02:07 PM

Usually laws work in which you write down what people ARN'T supposed to do, not what they CAN do and everything else is forbidden
Where does it say that they WERE breaking the law?

Not a law I was talking about..just situations and stories. As for breaking the law...Jesus points to that in Matthew 19 back to the old testament.

So any Christian who breaks up wasn't a "REAL Christian" now? and, btw, girls do not still like the guy after he rapes them. I agree with Jerry, it doesn't seem like you understand point of view and you are becoming a little sick in your arguements

Christians do sin still....but hypocrites a lot more.

How do you know girls do not still like the guy after he rapes them? Yeah, you might know a few rape victims, but do you know all of them? Why do women continue to stay in abused relatinships? Yeah...it might seem sick to us...but it seems alright to them.

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

Anyone who truly wants to know I'm sure can do the math from my profile ;)

I have heard this arguement before You want to know where? It was in an old article proclaiming that it was a black man's fault that he got beaten to death because he was walking through a white town.

The difference here though is was the black man sinning? Drugs, getting drunk, and being involved with sinful people and situations WILL get you hurt. Last time I checked...walking through a neiborhood (not even taking part in the neighborhood) is not a sin.

Listen, maybe you should come back to this topic once you are a little older, but I don't think you understand the implications right now

I fully understand the implications...and it is part of MY Christians World View that says we are a sinful world and sin gets punished.

. I just had a Christian woman tell me that women are tempting creatures and it's not the mans fault if he rapes her.

I'm not sure about all the time...but that is true on occassion when a woman is wearing seductive clothing.

Well, most Christian women I know do not condone it, so maybe it was a one case senario, because that is just scary....

Please understand this....NO ONE except the rapist condones the act of raping. We are just giving you reasons why it happens.

Luke

11-03-2001, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Karen M
>>>Hey Karen, the scary thing is this is extending to the women here. I just had a Christian woman tell me that women are tempting creatures and it's not the mans fault if he rapes her.<<<

:(:(:(:( Well, most Christian women I know do not condone it, so maybe it was a one case senario, because that is just scary....

That had better be a one case senario because that idea is totally rideculous.

Karen M

11-03-2001, 02:35 PM

Hello again Eno:

Before I respond, I would like to suggest that you please read up more on the issue of rape. It DOES scar the victim and the victim's family emotionally; it is not just some apathetic occurance.

Luke, if you are out there I would like you to respond to this thread also, because I don't think Eno can be considered the norm here unless most Christians actually do blame the victim in cases of rape? ;)

>>>Not a law I was talking about..just situations and stories. As for breaking the law...Jesus points to that in Matthew 19 back to the old testament.<<<

This is against devorce; I don't see anything pointing against poligamy being outlawed in OT times.

>>>Christians do sin still....but hypocrites a lot more.

How do you know girls do not still like the guy after he rapes them? Yeah, you might know a few rape victims, but do you know all of them? Why do women continue to stay in abused relatinships? Yeah...it might seem sick to us...but it seems alright to them.<<<

Anyone who WANTS to remain in an abusive relationship is mentally unhealthy. And second of all, just because there may be some odd ones, that is no where close to ALL women wanting to be married to their rapist.

>>>The difference here though is was the black man sinning? Drugs, getting drunk, and being involved with sinful people and situations WILL get you hurt. Last time I checked...walking through a neiborhood (not even taking part in the neighborhood) is not a sin.<<<

Very well then, lets say that you go to a bar to drink with your friends and one of them anal rapes you. Are you saying you would have been asking for it?

>>>I fully understand the implications...and it is part of MY Christians World View that says we are a sinful world and sin gets punished.<<<

I'm sorry, but I have several friends who also happen to hold a Christian world view and they fully understand that rape is NOT iniciated by the victim and that the rapist SHOULD go to prison for his crime. You may have the opposite view, but I assure you, you are the odd one out, not the norm.

>>>I'm not sure about all the time...but that is true on occassion when a woman is wearing seductive clothing.<<<

So if you are playing football and you have to take off your shirt because you are sweating and its hot, you should be rapped for being seductive?

Karen

Enobmurt

11-03-2001, 03:23 PM

Before I respond, I would like to suggest that you please read up more on the issue of rape. It DOES scar the victim and the victim's family emotionally; it is not just some apathetic occurance.

I never said it didn't scare the victim....and I don't mean to imply that it is some apathetic occurance because I know it isn't. I'm sorry if I came accross this way.

because I don't think Eno can be considered the norm here unless most Christians actually do blame the victim in cases of rape?

You're acting like we condone it again.....no we don't. The rapist shouldn't rape, but the victim also shouldn't place themselves in the situation where it is possible

This is against devorce; I don't see anything pointing against poligamy being outlawed in OT times.

It also points to two becoming one...not many becoming one....not one man becoming one with many wives because that is not possible. A person doesn't have an infinite number of pieces of their heart to give away to as many wives as he wants to continue to be one with each person.

And second of all, just because there may be some odd ones, that is no where close to ALL women wanting to be married to their rapist

I never said it was.

Very well then, lets say that you go to a bar to drink with your friends and one of them anal rapes you. Are you saying you would have been asking for it?

Better come up with a different situation because I believe drinking is a sin :)

I'm sorry, but I have several friends who also happen to hold a Christian world view and they fully understand that rape is NOT iniciated by the victim and that the rapist SHOULD go to prison for his crime. You may have the opposite view, but I assure you, you are the odd one out, not the norm.

I never said the rapist shouldn't go to prison. The women shouldn't put themselves in that situation either though.

The first people who claimed the world was round were also the odd one out ;)

Please understand I am not for rape. It should not happen in any case. Sin shouldn't happen at all, but it does. I'm not saying all cases should hold the victim responsible. I'm not even saying that the majority of cases should hold the victim responsible.

I fully understand sometimes the victim is innnocent without having sinned. Just as I can be the victim of say you lying to me that my parents are alive and well while they are dying in a hospital. I did nothing wrong...you were the one who sinned and lyed to me, but that still would deeply affect me.

I'm not going to say though that every victim is innocent. The person raping is guilty all the time because performing the act of rape is sin...period. I'm just saying that sometimes the responsibility should be shared.

So if you are playing football and you have to take off your shirt because you are sweating and its hot, you should be rapped for being seductive?

No...no one should be raped!! How often do I have to say this? I do not condone raping!! No one in their right mind would condone raping!!
Raping is also not used as a mean for justice when someone is sinning.
Sometimes the responsibility should be shared though. Whether I was intending to be seductive or not would decipher on whether I should share the responsibility or not.

Let me make this clear again though.....NO ONE SHOULD BE RAPED!! I am against raping! whether you spell it with one R or two R's (remember english is my worst subject :p ) Raping is bad! It is not a means of justice! it is evil!!

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 05:18 PM

Much as I should just go back to AOE2...

You're acting like we condone it again.....no we don't. The rapist shouldn't rape, but the victim also shouldn't place themselves in the situation where it is possible Like what? Women get raped walking home from work, they get raped sleeping in their home, they get raped in elevators. What would you like them to do?

It also points to two becoming one...not many becoming one....not one man becoming one with many wives because that is not possible. Whatever you think, Jewesh law allows multiple wives. No one stopped it, and many of the most porminent and "god favored" people in the Bible had several.

So the simple reality of Jewesh law (regarding a rapist having to marry his victim) is that this is regardless of weather he already has a wife.

Better come up with a different situation because I believe drinking is a sin OK, you are walking down the street and are arrested because you look like someone else. In jail, you are raped.

I never said the rapist shouldn't go to prison. Perhaps, but God does not feel that they should, or he would have said so.

The women shouldn't put themselves in that situation either though. There is no situation where women are immune to being raped.

I'm not going to say though that every victim is innocent. The person raping is guilty all the time because performing the act of rape is sin...period. I'm just saying that sometimes the responsibility should be shared. Then you are off the topic. Should every unmarried woman that gets raped marry their rapist because that is what God said?

No...no one should be raped!! How often do I have to say this? I do not condone raping!! No one in their right mind would condone raping!! You don't seem to be condoning it, you seem to be blaming the victim.

So, do you support God's law? Should the rapist and rape victim be compelled to marry? What if he is already married? Deut doesn't make an exception.

Pete_H

11-03-2001, 08:53 PM

WOW! this thread got off topic big time.

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 09:08 PM

Yes and no; the question is currently weather Christians follow the laws God set down in the OT. If not, either "Jesus changed the law" (original statement) or the Christians aren't following their own religion.

Enobmurt

11-03-2001, 10:56 PM

"Much as I should just go back to AOE2...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're acting like we condone it again.....no we don't. The rapist shouldn't rape, but the victim also shouldn't place themselves in the situation where it is possible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like what? Women get raped walking home from work, they get raped sleeping in their home, they get raped in elevators. What would you like them to do?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also points to two becoming one...not many becoming one....not one man becoming one with many wives because that is not possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever you think, Jewesh law allows multiple wives. No one stopped it, and many of the most porminent and "god favored" people in the Bible had several.

So the simple reality of Jewesh law (regarding a rapist having to marry his victim) is that this is regardless of weather he already has a wife.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better come up with a different situation because I believe drinking is a sin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, you are walking down the street and are arrested because you look like someone else. In jail, you are raped.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said the rapist shouldn't go to prison.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, but God does not feel that they should, or he would have said so.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The women shouldn't put themselves in that situation either though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no situation where women are immune to being raped.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to say though that every victim is innocent. The person raping is guilty all the time because performing the act of rape is sin...period. I'm just saying that sometimes the responsibility should be shared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you are off the topic. Should every unmarried woman that gets raped marry their rapist because that is what God said?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No...no one should be raped!! How often do I have to say this? I do not condone raping!! No one in their right mind would condone raping!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't seem to be condoning it, you seem to be blaming the victim.

So, do you support God's law? Should the rapist and rape victim be compelled to marry? What if he is already married? Deut doesn't make an exception."

you know what...I had such a bad night all I feel like doing is attacking people...so I know all my answers wouldn't be put correctly during this mood (and yes I have answers for all these comments)

I do have to say one thing......You act like I'm saying its the same thing for all cases. I never said the victim is ALWAYS to blame...I never said the victim is to blame the MAJORITY of times...I've never even said half, yet you seem to be ignoring those statement.
This isn't an all or nothing subject! Not all black people are gangsters! Not all Islams are a threat!! Sheesh!! Stop stereotyping things!

It's sin! Sin! Sin!! But not being Christians....you aren't going to understand that! I've gone over it again and again in previous posts...yet you ignore them.

OK...emotion getting best of me...I'm done

JerryLove

11-03-2001, 11:05 PM

"you know what...I had such a bad night all I feel like doing is attacking people...so I know all my answers wouldn't be put correctly during this mood (and yes I have answers for all these comments) "

Considering you did not elect to put off responding till you were in a better mood, that reeks of an answer of convience.

"I do have to say one thing......You act like I'm saying its the same thing for all cases. I never said the victim is ALWAYS to blame...I never said the victim is to blame the MAJORITY of times...I've never even said half, yet you seem to be ignoring those statement."

Well, the punishment is consistant for all cases. And based on the solutions you offered "don't put yourself in a position where you will be raped" you are implying universal causality "women are raped because tehy put themselves in positions were they will be"

"This isn't an all or nothing subject! Not all black people are gangsters! Not all Islams are a threat!!"

The word is "Muslims".

"It's sin! Sin! Sin!! But not being Christians....you aren't going to understand that!"

The issue as I see it is that I have not asked weather it is a sin, but you keep responding as if that were my question. My question is weather the appropriate punishment for raping an unmarried woman is 50 sheckles and a marriage? I'm asking weather that would be what you persued for your mother (presuming she were not married at the time) or your daughter.

Is the law given by God to Moses what you follow? Would you stone to death your sister for having sex? Do you think you should be stoned to death if you work on the Sabbath? Or do you think these laws are not ones you should follow?

"I've gone over it again and again in previous posts...yet you ignore them. "

Tell you what, just respons A or B and I'll stop asking this specific question to you.

A. I think everyone who works on the sabboth should be stoned to death, I think non-virgins should be stoned to death, and I think rape-victims should marry their rapists.

B. I do not agree with one or more of these things and therefore do not believe we should follow the law of Jehovia as given by Moses in the Old Testement.

Chrysostom

11-04-2001, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Much as I should just go back to AOE2...What a great game :D What's your favorite race? i personally think the Japanese and Vikings are most fun to play. i haven't played in forever, though... is there a devastating counter to mass infantry, yet, or do you still have to mass produce cavalry or something else in large quantities to counter it? What i mean is, pikemen own war elephants... anything like that for Champions?

<hr>
Rape:
This example in the OT is something clearly pertaining to Jesus' fulfillment of the law. As clearly stated in the Sermon on the Mount, the OT law was not really about specific legalism but heart attitudes. The Pharisees prayed very eloquently, but they did so in public specifically so that people would hear them. Prayer is good, but they did it with the wrong heart attitude.

In this circumstance, we see that a specific event has been given a specific response. As Luke already pointed out, God gave them the Mosaic law because their hearts were hard. The specifics are no longer important because we can now understand the "heart attitude" at work here. Many times over, we see the OT giving specific responses that basically just point to a state of the heart.

For instance, the Law saying to stone a person for something declares it a terrible offense. However, note that if any man has ever sinned once, he will go to Hell. Therefore, adultery and telling "a little white lie" are both Hell-worthy sins. When looking at it in this context, stoning a person (or any other OT laws) seems less a direct command to do something (after the New Covenant of grace) and more an indicator of a wrong heart attitude.

Karen M

11-04-2001, 11:32 AM

Hello Must :D

>>>What a great game What's your favorite race? i personally think the Japanese and Vikings are most fun to play. i haven't played in forever, though... is there a devastating counter to mass infantry, yet, or do you still have to mass produce cavalry or something else in large quantities to counter it? What i mean is, pikemen own war elephants... anything like that for Champions?<<<

No way! Britian!!!! :D....and Japanese :p

>>>This example in the OT is something clearly pertaining to Jesus' fulfillment of the law. As clearly stated in the Sermon on the Mount, the OT law was not really about specific legalism but heart attitudes. The Pharisees prayed very eloquently, but they did so in public specifically so that people would hear them. Prayer is good, but they did it with the wrong heart attitude.

In this circumstance, we see that a specific event has been given a specific response. As Luke already pointed out, God gave them the Mosaic law because their hearts were hard. The specifics are no longer important because we can now understand the "heart attitude" at work here. Many times over, we see the OT giving specific responses that basically just point to a state of the heart.

For instance, the Law saying to stone a person for something declares it a terrible offense. However, note that if any man has ever sinned once, he will go to Hell. Therefore, adultery and telling "a little white lie" are both Hell-worthy sins. When looking at it in this context, stoning a person (or any other OT laws) seems less a direct command to do something (after the New Covenant of grace) and more an indicator of a wrong heart attitude.<<<

How do you sort out what was caused by a "wrong heart attitude" and what is actually God's law then? ;) Did Jesus ever say anything condemning the act of marrying rape victims to their rapists?

Have fun :)

Karen

*also, isn't there a place where God says he created Good and Evil or something? This has nothing to do w/ this thread, but I need to find it for another one :(

JerryLove

11-04-2001, 12:19 PM

"is there a devastating counter to mass infantry, yet, or do you still have to mass produce cavalry or something else in large quantities to counter it?"

Hand cannoneers in castels or towers behing palacades work well. Cavalry supported onagers do some real damage too, provided you can get a good firing position. Generally I used walls and archers to take out calvary / infantry and a small (say 10) to run out and kill any siege weapons... Of course the counter to that is calvary supported siege weapons or infantry supported trebuchets.

"In this circumstance, we see that a specific event has been given a specific response. As Luke already pointed out, God gave them the Mosaic law because their hearts were hard. The specifics are no longer important because we can now understand the "heart attitude" at work here."

So the law *was* changed and Jesus / salvation changed it? That would seem to support the Jewesh person in the first post.

Chrysostom

11-05-2001, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Karen M
Hello Must :DHey again Karen :):)

Originally posted by Karen M
No way! Britian!!!! :D....and Japanese :pBritain is cool... i must admit to that :) Longbowmen are so fun

Originally posted by Karen M
How do you sort out what was caused by a "wrong heart attitude" and what is actually God's law then? ;) Did Jesus ever say anything condemning the act of marrying rape victims to their rapists?Through His references to sexual immorality, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, all sexual immorality laws were clarified. i'll try to put this in a nutshell: "Love God above all, and love your neighbor as yourself." These are the two laws. Through the OT Law, we can understand what is right, what is wrong, etc., etc. In the OT their hearts were hard, but now God softens the hearts of those who believe and they can understand the New Covenant, able to follow the spirit of the law instead of having to follow the strict rules of OT time. We now still follow the law, but we follow it as an overflow of the heart.

Originally posted by Karen M
*also, isn't there a place where God says he created Good and Evil or something? This has nothing to do w/ this thread, but I need to find it for another one :( Wish i could help you, but i don't know anything about that.

Chrysostom

11-05-2001, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Hand cannoneers in castels or towers behing palacades work well. Cavalry supported onagers do some real damage too, provided you can get a good firing position. Generally I used walls and archers to take out calvary / infantry and a small (say 10) to run out and kill any siege weapons... Of course the counter to that is calvary supported siege weapons or infantry supported trebuchets.Ahhh, the hand cannoneers. Are the cavalray to prevent enemy light cavalry from killing the onagers, i take it? Before, i would always just send in light cavalray to kill siege weapons... of course, no one ever used sieges extensively on me... maybe i just needed competent opponents (i was never far above "competent")

Originally posted by JerryLove
So the law *was* changed and Jesus / salvation changed it? That would seem to support the Jewesh person in the first post.Tell me if you understand this: the law was and is the same throughout time. However, the Jews were given strict rules to follow in the OT because their hearts were hard. Somehow, God decided it was the right time and the hearts were no longer hard, so He sent Jesus to clarify the law. We now understand what the law has always been, while before there were just laws which pointed at the truth. This is probably one of the five most complicated Christian topics.

JerryLove

11-05-2001, 09:51 PM

Ahhh, the hand cannoneers. Are the cavalray to prevent enemy light cavalry from killing the onagers, i take it? Before, i would always just send in light cavalray to kill siege weapons... of course, no one ever used sieges extensively on me... maybe i just needed competent opponents (i was never far above "competent") Sorry, my brain went faster than my fingers. I like to build a wall to protect my onagers / archers(hand cannoners). The Calvalry is to prevent things like archers with better range from attacking, or trebuchets from destroying my wall (I send the cavalry out to kill them).

Tell me if you understand this: the law was and is the same throughout time. However, the Jews were given strict rules to follow in the OT because their hearts were hard. Somehow, God decided it was the right time and the hearts were no longer hard, so He sent Jesus to clarify the law. We now understand what the law has always been, while before there were just laws which pointed at the truth. This is probably one of the five most complicated Christian topics. I understand this statement. I don't see that it is unilaterally supported, I do see that it falls right into the original post that "Jesus must not be the son of God because God said not to veer from the law and Jesus did"; and I don't buy into it (God can condem everyone to hell, but he'll make bad laws for them not to follow because they won't follow the good ones either?

jmlouie

11-05-2001, 11:34 PM

I looked over these last few posts and decided to comment...

In the OT the law was used to prove that people were imperfect and that a person could never live up to the standard that God set.

So Jesus was sent as the perfect and ultimate sacrifice to provide a way to be accepted by God through acceptance of the sacrifice, who is Jesus.

About where Jesus did not obey the law... I'd like to see where that is coming from and an interpretation on that. :)

JerryLove

11-05-2001, 11:48 PM

"About where Jesus did not obey the law... I'd like to see where that is coming from and an interpretation on that. "

Actually, the issue is weather he told others to stop obeying the law. But if you want an example of Jesus disobeying the Law of God, try when he saved the prostitus from her stoning, a punishment ordered by God and set forth by Moses.

Chrysostom

11-06-2001, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
I understand this statement. I don't see that it is unilaterally supported, I do see that it falls right into the original post that "Jesus must not be the son of God because God said not to veer from the law and Jesus did"; and I don't buy into it (God can condem everyone to hell, but he'll make bad laws for them not to follow because they won't follow the good ones either?OT example of prostitute not being stoned, and God having no problem with it: Rahab the prostitute in Jericho.

Bad laws vs good laws: Paul, as a Pharisee, was well-versed in the Law. In Romans, he makes a conclusive argument for basically what i have been saying. Some key parts to the argument are:

Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the Law we become conscious of sin.
*This tells us that the original "law" gives us direction for the acknowledgement of sin. The question, remains, however, as to the Law being changed from OT to NT.

Romans

Romans 4:3b
Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness
-quoted from Genesis 15:6
-The entire chapter 4 is basically for this purpose, as well
*This lets us know that even from OT times the Law was not as was thought. It was always the Law of Faith. However, this begs the question as to why the original Mosaic Law was given.

i can't find the verse from Romans, but Galatians 3 deals with this, as well
3:1
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified ?
3:2
This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith ?
3:3
Are you so foolish ? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh ?
3:4
Did you suffer so many things in vain --if indeed * it was in vain ?
3:5
So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith ?
3:6
Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
3:7
Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
3:8
The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN
3:9
So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
3:10
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM
3:11
Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
3:12
However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."
3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE "--
3:14
in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
3:15
Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
3:16
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
3:17
What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
3:18
For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
3:19
Why the Law then ? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
3:20
Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.
3:21
Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God ? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
3:22
But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
3:23
But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
3:24
Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
3:25
But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Thus, the Mosaic Law was never God's actual Law, as no one could possibly live up to it! Instead, God's law was always faith, and the Law simply made it impossible to be righteous on one's own. Now, Jesus came to clarify that Law, and helps us understand the true Law of Faith and God's original design with the Mosaic Law.

JerryLove

11-06-2001, 12:36 PM

OT example of prostitute not being stoned, and God having no problem with it: Rahab the prostitute in Jericho. He asked where Jesus broke the law, and I answered.

Bad laws vs good laws: God made bad laws?

Thus, the Mosaic Law was never God's actual Law, as no one could possibly live up to it! Instead, God's law was always faith, and the Law simply made it impossible to be righteous on one's own. Now, Jesus came to clarify that Law, and helps us understand the true Law of Faith and God's original design with the Mosaic Law. Your entire support is new testement. Jesus and proclaimed follower of Jesus. YOu cannot assume that Jesus is right because he says he is.

God gives no indication in the OT that the laws he gave Moses were just him playing around and not his "actual laws". He makes it verry clear that he expects people to follow the laws and "never veer" from them. And Jesus comes along and does just that; he rewrites God's laws with new ones.

You can argue that as God he's allowed to do that (despite his own quotes saying he did not come to change the law). But since the argument is that doing so is the proof that he was *not* God, it ends up being circular support.

Enobmurt

11-06-2001, 05:07 PM

But if you want an example of Jesus disobeying the Law of God, try when he saved the prostitus from her stoning, a punishment ordered by God and set forth by Moses.

The Jewish leaders had already disregarded the law by arresting the woman without the man. The law required that both parties to adultery be stoned (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). The leaders were using the woman as a trap so they could trick Jesus. If Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, they would accuse him of violating Moses' law. If he urged them to execute her, they would report him to the Romans who did not permit the Jews to carry out their executions (18:31).

Notice Jesus did not tell them not to stone the woman, He merely told them that he who was sinless should throw first.

YOu cannot assume that Jesus is right because he says he is.

Why not?

God made bad laws?

No, but Paul mentions in Romans that some laws are more important than others.

he rewrites God's laws

which ones did Jesus rewrite?

Considering you did not elect to put off responding till you were in a better mood, that reeks of an answer of convience.

I'm sorry...I don't think like you do. I was saying something so you knew I was not abandoning the subject.

Well, the punishment is consistant for all cases. And based on the solutions you offered "don't put yourself in a position where you will be raped" you are implying universal causality "women are raped because tehy put themselves in positions were they will be"

I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply universal casualty. When it's the woman's fault that she is raped it is because she put herself in a position where she would be.

My question is weather the appropriate punishment for raping an unmarried woman is 50 sheckles and a marriage? I'm asking weather that would be what you persued for your mother (presuming she were not married at the time) or your daughter.

I am not qualified to answer this question. I do not understand the old testament law as much as I should. I do remain by my argument that God could change the people's hearts in that situaion to become compatable.

Is the law given by God to Moses what you follow? Would you stone to death your sister for having sex? Do you think you should be stoned to death if you work on the Sabbath? Or do you think these laws are not ones you should follow?

Again...not qualified. I will say this though. Paul says in the New Testament in Romans to obey the current authority (government, police, etc). The authorities are established to punish those who do wrong (Roman's 13: 1-7).

Women get raped walking home from work, they get raped sleeping in their home, they get raped in elevators. What would you like them to do?

Those don't fall under the cases of sin that I described. Those are not sinful situations (to the best of my knowledge) and therefore are not the women's fault.

Whatever you think, Jewesh law allows multiple wives. No one stopped it, and many of the most porminent and "god favored" people in the Bible had several.

Please show me where in the Bible there is a Jewish law that says a man may have multiple wives.

OK, you are walking down the street and are arrested because you look like someone else. In jail, you are raped.
Again...not a sinful situation (not even a sinful situation I don't think because jail is for justice) that I chose to be in...therefore not my fault.

Perhaps, but God does not feel that they should, or he would have said so.
He also told us to obey the government and the government says the rapist should go to jail.

There is no situation where women are immune to being raped.

Yet you continue to miss my point again.

Then you are off the topic. Should every unmarried woman that gets raped marry their rapist because that is what God said?
I'm not as versed with the law as I should be. But since you insist on an answer, I say yes because God can change their hearts, but it will not happen today because the government wants the rapists arrested and we are to listen to the government.

You don't seem to be condoning it, you seem to be blaming the victim.

Not all the time.

JerryLove

11-06-2001, 06:05 PM

"The Jewish leaders had already disregarded the law by arresting the woman without the man. The law required that both parties to adultery be stoned"

The law did not allow for one to get off if the other was not found. Look at the law for non-virgin girls. They got stoned without there being mention of their partner.

Also, a prostitute is not neccessiarily an adulteress.

"The leaders were using the woman as a trap so they could trick Jesus. If Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, they would accuse him of violating Moses' law. If he urged them to execute her, they would report him to the Romans who did not permit the Jews to carry out their executions"

So rather than carry out God's law, he acted in his own preservation? I guess he hadn't committed to suicide yet.

"Why not? "

Because it's circular.

"No, but Paul mentions in Romans that some laws are more important than others."

But many were abandoned all together and owuld be "unchristian" to act out.

"which ones did Jesus rewrite? "

Which ones don't you follow?

"I am not qualified to answer this question. I do not understand the old testament law as much as I should. I do remain by my argument that God could change the people's hearts in that situaion to become compatable. "

The obvious counter would be that God could change their hearts in any marriage to keep the union. Obviously, this is not occuring.

"Again...not qualified. I will say this though. Paul says in the New Testament in Romans to obey the current authority (government, police, etc). The authorities are established to punish those who do wrong (Roman's 13: 1-7)."

Over and above what God told you to do? What if "current authority" tells you to date people of the same gender? Or worship satan? Do you pick and choose which of God's laws are immuteable and which can be userped by secular authority? Would you support OT laws in a Christian theocracy?

"Those don't fall under the cases of sin that I described. Those are not sinful situations (to the best of my knowledge) and therefore are not the women's fault. "

So why punish the woman?

"Please show me where in the Bible there is a Jewish law that says a man may have multiple wives. "

It's right next to the one where it says people can drink water.

"I'm not as versed with the law as I should be. But since you insist on an answer, I say yes because God can change their hearts, but it will not happen today because the government wants the rapists arrested and we are to listen to the government. "

No, she could just not press charges. Would you encourage that of your mother?

Chrysostom

11-06-2001, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
God made bad laws?You said that, and i was answering by quoting you

Originally posted by JerryLove
Your entire support is new testement. Jesus and proclaimed follower of Jesus. YOu cannot assume that Jesus is right because he says he is.This is Paul's defense of Jesus as per the OT. In the OT, He makes it very clear that such men as Abraham are declared righteous by faith.

Originally posted by JerryLove
God gives no indication in the OT that the laws he gave Moses were just him playing around and not his "actual laws". He makes it verry clear that he expects people to follow the laws and "never veer" from them. And Jesus comes along and does just that; he rewrites God's laws with new ones.Again, He continually refers to the righteous justification by faith in the OT, as pointed out by Paul. In addition, we see from the Law that NO ONE can live up to the law. Moreover, we see the prophecies regarding a Messiah--which Jesus fulfilled.

JerryLove

11-06-2001, 06:18 PM

I must have missed a memo. When did Paul become OT?

Enobmurt

11-06-2001, 06:33 PM

The law did not allow for one to get off if the other was not found. Look at the law for non-virgin girls. They got stoned without there being mention of their partner.

The problem is that the other one WAS found. In fact...she was caught DURING the act of adultury.

Also, a prostitute is not neccessiarily an adulteress.
It doesn't say she was a prostitute. It says she was an adulturous.

Read the story John 8: 1-11

So rather than carry out God's law, he acted in his own preservation? I guess he hadn't committed to suicide yet.
I'm sorry...I just don't understand this statement.

Because it's circular.

How so? It's not like I don't have reasons to believe what Jesus says.

But many were abandoned all together and owuld be "unchristian" to act out.

Could you please be more specific? Which ones were abandoned all together?

Which ones don't you follow?

This is avoiding the question. I asked because I don't know.

The obvious counter would be that God could change their hearts in any marriage to keep the union. Obviously, this is not occuring.
Just because its not occuring means it can't happen? Yeah, it doesn't happen in every marriage, but I have seen couples personally who have had it happen.

Over and above what God told you to do? What if "current authority" tells you to date people of the same gender? Or worship satan? Do you pick and choose which of God's laws are immuteable and which can be userped by secular authority? Would you support OT laws in a Christian theocracy?
No, we are allowed to defy the law if it interferes with our relationship with God.

So why punish the woman?

Who says all of the women concidered it punishment?

It's right next to the one where it says people can drink water.

Yeah, this doesn't answer the question. As someone once said "that reeks of an answer of convience."

No, she could just not press charges. Would you encourage that of your mother?

Being that I don't know the laws that well, I would say yes even though I would be encouraged to do more research in the topic to make sure it was the correct thing to do in the bible. Again, I am not an authority on this subject, I was just stating my views.

JerryLove

11-06-2001, 07:03 PM

I'm sorry...I just don't understand this statement. We are discussing two different passages.

How so? It's not like I don't have reasons to believe what Jesus says. Jesus is God because Jesus says so. You cannot see how that is a circular proof?

Could you please be more specific? Which ones were abandoned all together? Stoning your children, marrying your rapist, stoning blasphemers, keeping slaves.

This is avoiding the question. I asked because I don't know. Read Deut, Gen, and Levit to get an idea (Deut 19-22 should list several).

Just because its not occuring means it can't happen? Yeah, it doesn't happen in every marriage, but I have seen couples personally who have had it happen. When they break up it's their fault and when they don't it's cause God did it? Ignoring the hypocracy, that's not the point. The point is that God does not reliably "make it work". So we are just punishing the woman further for being raped.

No, we are allowed to defy the law if it interferes with our relationship with God. So now we are back to stoning our Children as God ordered.

Who says all of the women concidered it punishment? Would any woman in the audience like to comment on weather having your father force you to marry the man who raped you would be a pleasent or unpleasent thought?

Yeah, this doesn't answer the question. As someone once said "that reeks of an answer of convience." It does answer the question. It's implicitly allowed by God condoning and praising the virtue of multilpe-wife men, by never once forbidding it, and by it's requirement (rapist marries rape victim, weather he is already married is not mentioned, guy married brothers wife if he dies, weather or not he is married, etc).

Chrysostom

11-06-2001, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
I must have missed a memo. When did Paul become OT?Paul took the OT and used it to show that Jesus really did fulfill the Law. His argument for Jesus fulfilling and not destroying the Law is the same one i support.

Enobmurt

11-06-2001, 10:29 PM

We are discussing two different passages.

Yeah...I've gotten lost and am watching dull minding TV to where I don't care, hehe.

Jesus is God because Jesus says so. You cannot see how that is a circular proof?

No, because it doesn't make sense any other way. Not to mention all the proof He's shown me...but that would be getting off topic.

Stoning your children, marrying your rapist, stoning blasphemers, keeping slaves.

Well, i don't know much, but I do know slaves were different back then than what they are perceived to be as today. They were paid and kept well clean.
I have read that Paul tells the Gentile Christians that they don't have to follow alot of the Jewish laws in order to be saved.
I shall let mustbe take over because he knows more than me.

Read Deut, Gen, and Levit to get an idea (Deut 19-22 should list several).

No, I asked you to show me what laws Jesus rewrote. That requires text from the New Testament.

When they break up it's their fault and when they don't it's cause God did it? Ignoring the hypocracy, that's not the point. The point is that God does not reliably "make it work". So we are just punishing the woman further for being raped.

The first part of this goes back to the argument of Free Will which Luke knows more about. My point is that God could make it work. You're assuming its an "either/or" situation...its not. My point is also how do you know God didn't make it work in the Old Testament?

So now we are back to stoning our Children as God ordered.

uumm...how about NO. Not stoning children is not affecting my relationship with God.

It's implicitly allowed by God condoning and praising the virtue of multilpe-wife men, by never once forbidding it, and by it's requirement (rapist marries rape victim, weather he is already married is not mentioned, guy married brothers wife if he dies, weather or not he is married, etc).

You know...arguing with a Christian, you are going to have to start citing specific Bible verses. Because I still don't buy this.

Would any woman in the audience like to comment on weather having your father force you to marry the man who raped you would be a pleasent or unpleasent thought?

Would those same women please tell us if and why you stay in an abusive relationship.

JerryLove

11-07-2001, 11:43 AM

No, because it doesn't make sense any other way. Not to mention all the proof He's shown me...but that would be getting off topic. Well, since we cannot share "the proof he's shown you"; I'll handle the claim this way... "I'm God".

Well, i don't know much, but I do know slaves were different back then than what they are perceived to be as today. They were paid and kept well clean. Nope, there were some standards for Jews having Jewish slaves, but that's about it.

I have read that Paul tells the Gentile Christians that they don't have to follow alot of the Jewish laws in order to be saved. So we are back to you *not* having to do what God ordered. But since it is a good and right thing to do, why wouldn't you want to?

No, I asked you to show me what laws Jesus rewrote. That requires text from the New Testament. You keep running your argument in a circle. As a Christian, any laws that you are not following and have no deisre to follow are either going to condem you to hell (as you are not a real Christian) or you feel Christ changed. So go through Deut and see what you are not doing. I gave several examples.

The first part of this goes back to the argument of Free Will which Luke knows more about. My point is that God could make it work. Only if he violated free will; and my point is god doesn't "make it work", so what god could do is irrellevent.

uumm...how about NO. Not stoning children is not affecting my relationship with God. It's what God said he wants.

You know...arguing with a Christian, you are going to have to start citing specific Bible verses. Because I still don't buy this. Deut 20 for the rape cites. Who do you want to look at with multiple wives? Noah? David? the list is long.

Would those same women please tell us if and why you stay in an abusive relationship. Same reason abused children stay in contact with their parents. It's an unhealthy mental condition. It's pretty unrelated of a comment.

Enobmurt

11-07-2001, 06:35 PM

Paul taught that Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the Old Testament (2 Cor. 3: 14-17). Ultimately, it was because Jesus claimed to be the Christ that he was put to death.

The truth of Christianity stands upon the fact that Jesus was the Christ. If it is shown that Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies, then Christianity would not be true. No other religion has such a stringent test imposed upon its leader. In Jesus Christ, 456 identifiable prophecies were uniquely fulfilled. The chances of any man fulfilling just forty-eight of such prophecies is a probability of 10157. This figure, calculated by Peter Stoner, Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont college, has been confirmed by the committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. The fulfillment of messianic prophecies at such a high level of probability indicates a supernatural agent. The fact that Jesus is the Messiah is not just a clever guess, nor could Jesus have been an imposter who carefully arranged the fulfillment of all the messianic prophecies. To reject Jesus as Messiah requires an unbelief which runs counter to the laws of probability.

Jesus claims to be God, therefore He was either a liar, mentally unhealthy, or God.

Jesus' moral character and His willingness to die for His claim to be God have convinced most people that Jesus was not lying. Jesus' humility and unselfish love, His intelligent communication with the crowds, and His amazing self control and composure amidst the tremendous physical and emotional stress of His betrayal and crucifixion, all point to His contact with reality. Jesus was no lunatic.

So we are back to you *not* having to do what God ordered. But since it is a good and right thing to do, why wouldn't you want to?

As must has pointed out...the law was for hardened hearts and God really wants faith. I shall leave this thread for him to answer because I do not know that much

Only if he violated free will; and my point is god doesn't "make it work", so what god could do is irrellevent.

I only meant that this goes back to the argument that if there really is such a thing as free will. I don't have a concrete position on it, but Luke has more information in saying there is no such thing as free will.

It's what God said he wants.

God wants faith.

Who do you want to look at with multiple wives? Noah? David? the list is long.

I know there were people in the bible with multiple wives. You forgot to list King Solomon. I'm asking you to list where God says its acceptable.

Moses' law said, the king "shall not multiply horses to himself... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deuteronomy 17:16-17).

"You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods." Solomon clung to these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart.(1 Kings 11: 1-3)

God never intended multiple wives because it turns the man's heart away from God.

Same reason abused children stay in contact with their parents. It's an unhealthy mental condition. It's pretty unrelated of a comment.

I'm saying the people who want the rapers could have an unhealthy mental condition.

JerryLove

11-08-2001, 12:28 PM

"If it is shown that Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies, then Christianity would not be true."

It has yet to be shown that Jesus was a real person. It would be rather simple for 2000 years of church to make sure that the Biblical description of Jesus fits the Biblical requirements of Jesus. It's no different than writing the second "Dune" book and making sure to fulfill the portents of the first one.

"In Jesus Christ, 456 identifiable prophecies were uniquely fulfilled. The chances of any man fulfilling just forty-eight of such prophecies is a probability of 10157."

A. I'd need to see better support.
B. You don't know what Jesus did or did not do outside of the writings of people who already preumed he was God (or were deliberately fabricating a religion).

"This figure, calculated by Peter Stoner, Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont college"

Having read his statistics and how he came up with them, I find them dismissable. I can get more remote odds than you put up by saying "There will be an Italian, Christian man with black hair and brown eyes born on December 1st in the City of New York"

Using his method, you already have the odds at one in several million, but I am willing to put money that that happens.

"has been confirmed by the committee of the American Scientific Affiliation."

Another religious source "The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science." Showing evidence against Jesus being the Christ would hardly be within the tennant of "fidelity to the Word of God" now would it?

Although in both cases, my important argument is not disputing the odds, but rather disputing the unverified claims of Jesus fulfilling the OT prophecy.

"The fact that Jesus is the Messiah is not just a clever guess, nor could Jesus have been an imposter who carefully arranged the fulfillment of all the messianic prophecies. To reject Jesus as Messiah requires an unbelief which runs counter to the laws of probability. "

If the Bible is the true testimony of witnesses (since half the NT is from people who never even claimed to meet Jesus, this is rather unlikely) and has not been altered, than I think you have a good case. However, it is entirely likely that anyone in the foundling Christian church with half a brain, made certain to write in that their Messiah (Jesus) fit all the requirements set forth in the portions of the Talmud they claimed.

I do also doubt some of the way some of the prophecies are interpreted, but like the odds discussion, this is really a side issue to the bigger one of simple revisionist history.

"Jesus claims to be God, therefore He was either a liar, mentally unhealthy, or God."

Or fictional, or never claimed it, the Bible just says he did (you haven't sat down and had a 2-way conversation with him, you don't *know* what he claimed, just what one book says he did).

"Jesus' moral character and His willingness to die for His claim to be God have convinced most people that Jesus was not lying."

Buddah had equally high moral values and also died for his beliefs. Is he therefore right?

"Jesus' humility and unselfish love, His intelligent communication with the crowds, and His amazing self control and composure amidst the tremendous physical and emotional stress of His betrayal and crucifixion, all point to His contact with reality."

He didn't keep a lot of self control with the moneylenders did he? He seems to have several stages, depending on when you look. Of course, you don't know what is edited in or out.

"As must has pointed out...the law was for hardened hearts and God really wants faith. I shall leave this thread for him to answer because I do not know that much "

Well, I haven't argued that God does or does not want faith. I have argued that since God created a law, it must be a good law, and anyone with "good morals" should want to follow it.

"I only meant that this goes back to the argument that if there really is such a thing as free will. I don't have a concrete position on it, but Luke has more information in saying there is no such thing as free will. "

Well, if there is no free will, than everything is God's will (unless he lacks free will too, which can be argued) meaning that Sin is actually "God's fault" and he should be the one in hell.

"God wants faith. "

Didn't says he didn't. Said he commanded actions as well, and the Bible says to "never turn" from God's law.

"I know there were people in the bible with multiple wives. You forgot to list King Solomon. I'm asking you to list where God says its acceptable. "

By calling people with multiple wives "holy" and "with God", by never once declaring it bad, and by issuing law on how to do things like deciding inheritence among children from favored and unfavored wives. There are no laws on how to commit sins.

"God never intended multiple wives because it turns the man's heart away from God. "

Solomon with his combined wives and concubines breaking 1000 is given as an example of excess causing the turn away from God. It is not a condemnaion of poligamy any more than your Deut cite it is a condemnation of owning more th!n one hrse (any Christians want to consider that a sin?).

"I'm saying the people who want the rapers could have an unhealthy mental condition."

Then you are beating at a straw man. The argument was that you said that a woman being forced to marry the man that raped her would not be a punishment for the woman. This is untrue, and most all women would find that abhorrent.

Enobmurt

11-08-2001, 03:37 PM

It has yet to be shown that Jesus was a real person. It would be rather simple for 2000 years of church to make sure that the Biblical description of Jesus fits the Biblical requirements of Jesus. It's no different than writing the second "Dune" book and making sure to fulfill the portents of the first one.

Every historian would agree that Jesus was a real person. Not only is he mentioned in the bible, but also in many secular writings. He's also taught in high school and college history books.

B. You don't know what Jesus did or did not do outside of the writings of people who already preumed he was God (or were deliberately fabricating a religion).

The idea of people fabricating the New Testament is rediculus. Their are bunches of different writers from different continents writing the majority of books at same time and not knowing what the others were writing about.

Having read his statistics and how he came up with them, I find them dismissable. I can get more remote odds than you put up by saying "There will be an Italian, Christian man with black hair and brown eyes born on December 1st in the City of New York"
Using his method, you already have the odds at one in several million, but I am willing to put money that that happens.

That is your opinion and I would be willing to put money on my opinion against yours.

Another religious source "The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science." Showing evidence against Jesus being the Christ would hardly be within the tennant of "fidelity to the Word of God" now would it?

This can be dismissed because it could also be argued that as a Christian source, they would have the values and morals not to lie.

If the Bible is the true testimony of witnesses (since half the NT is from people who never even claimed to meet Jesus, this is rather unlikely) and has not been altered, than I think you have a good case.

the (half the NT is from people who never even claimed to meet Jesus), that is only half the truth and misleading Paul never claimed to meet Jesus but he wrote more books than any other writer of the New Testament. That would leave only a few people out of the majority of writers would not have met Jesus. Therefore the majority of writers did claim to meet Jesus.

However, it is entirely likely that anyone in the foundling Christian church with half a brain, made certain to write in that their Messiah (Jesus) fit all the requirements set forth in the portions of the Talmud they claimed.

However, it is even more likely that since the church began by word of mouth, once scripture was recovered, the people would find it so important as to make sure it wasn't changed like that.

It could also be argued that God would not allow His word to be changed like that.

Or fictional, or never claimed it, the Bible just says he did (you haven't sat down and had a 2-way conversation with him, you don't *know* what he claimed, just what one book says he did).

I would go back to the above arguments I just stated

Buddah had equally high moral values and also died for his beliefs. Is he therefore right?

I'd have to study more into Buddhism to check this.

He didn't keep a lot of self control with the moneylenders did he? He seems to have several stages, depending on when you look. Of course, you don't know what is edited in or out.

I think He kept a lot of self control when He acted out in the temple. Those people deserved a lot worse.

Of course, you are just assuming things are edited in or out. You can't base that argument on anything but odds. Many things throughout history have defied odds though.

Well, I haven't argued that God does or does not want faith. I have argued that since God created a law, it must be a good law, and anyone with "good morals" should want to follow it.

Then that is not my topic and I shall stop responding to it. Must has a better grasp then me.

Well, if there is no free will, than everything is God's will (unless he lacks free will too, which can be argued) meaning that Sin is actually "God's fault" and he should be the one in hell.
That would be another thread then

Didn't says he didn't. Said he commanded actions as well, and the Bible says to "never turn" from God's law.

No, we are justified by faith alone apart from works or actions.

By calling people with multiple wives "holy" and "with God", by never once declaring it bad, and by issuing law on how to do things like deciding inheritence among children from favored and unfavored wives. There are no laws on how to commit sins.
Christians are called "holy" and "with God" and yet we continue to sin also.
As for the rest, please give some cites or scripture.

Solomon with his combined wives and concubines breaking 1000 is given as an example of excess causing the turn away from God. It is not a condemnaion of poligamy any more than your Deut cite it is a condemnation of owning more than one horse (any Christians want to consider that a sin?).

That would have to be the easiest cop-out answer I have ever seen. That goes against every Bible commentary I have ever read and probably ever will read, and also against every opinion from people I know. That is probably your opinion and yours alone.

Then you are beating at a straw man. The argument was that you said that a woman being forced to marry the man that raped her would not be a punishment for the woman.

The point is the woman being forced to marry the man that raped would not consider it a punishment:
A) because God could have changed their hearts.
B) because the woman might want it for various reasons, probably being mentally unhealthy.

JerryLove

11-08-2001, 04:23 PM

Every historian would agree that Jesus was a real person. Not only is he mentioned in the bible, but also in many secular writings. He's also taught in high school and college history books. Never use "every", it would be simple to disprove. Still, name one secular source that bears direct witness to Jesus being a real person.

The idea of people fabricating the New Testament is rediculus. Their are bunches of different writers from different continents writing the majority of books at same time and not knowing what the others were writing about There are (supposedly) two groups. One is the deciples of Jesus, the other is Paul and his deciples. Of course, there is no verification of the authorship of any of it. And certainly, you cannot establish that what you read today, is what the Roman Christians read in 100AD, books were added, removed, and altered by the Church of Rome (such as the removal of reincarnation references, and the redefinition of the trinity). Next thing you'll tell me that Jesus was born in December.

That is your opinion and I would be willing to put money on my opinion against yours. Make it enough to be work my while, and I will be happy to contact New York hospitals on December 1st.

This can be dismissed because it could also be argued that as a Christian source, they would have the values and morals not to lie. Christians, and christian informational sources lie constantly. They lie by misquoting (Jefferson, Darwin, etc), they lie about physics, they lie about fact, the lie more than any other group I know. (well, maybe the Taliban).

the (half the NT is from people who never even claimed to meet Jesus), that is only half the truth and misleading Paul never claimed to meet Jesus but he wrote more books than any other writer of the New Testament. That would leave only a few people out of the majority of writers would not have met Jesus. Therefore the majority of writers did claim to meet Jesus. There's also what's-his-face (Paul's deciple) but preponderance of authors is moot. If thre authors each wrote an episode of Star Trek (more accurately for the bible, their own version of the same episode) then one author wrote the seasons remaining 20 episodes, it's reasonable to say that Star Trek is the preponderant work of the most marterial, not the most authors.

Most of the NT is written about Jesus by people who never saw him. And that's the Bible's own admission. It's quite possible the entire thing is not authentic.

However, it is even more likely that since the church began by word of mouth, once scripture was recovered, the people would find it so important as to make sure it wasn't changed like that. No, this runs exactly counter to actual people. The Muslims can show you their Bible and why Muhammed fits all the prophecies, the Christians can show you theirs and say the same about Christ. The Jews don't believe either of you.

And pretty much everyone was the good-guy in pretty much every war. It's called "revisionist history". The people spreading Christianity had a lot to gain by making it fit into scripture, and a lot to loose if it didn't.

Not compelling? Why don't you take a look at Christian holidays? Christmas wasn't even celebrated until the 5th century. Then they decided that Jesus was born on the same day as the sun god Mithras. Why? That was a popular God of the nobility of Rome, and Constantine had decided his power would be consolidated by uniting the empire under a single religion.

Did Jesus really die on good friday and rise on Easter? You tell me if you think that would have been recorded as the "thrid sunday after the first full moon after the spring equanox". That's how you find Easter. But wait, the last supper was supposed to be a full moon, so there is no way that Jesus died three weeks later. ****, more revisionist history... At least they didn't rewrite the Bible to get Easter to coopt Soheim, they just lied.

It could also be argued that God would not allow His word to be changed like that. If a complete lack of support doesn't bother you, you could indeed.

I think He kept a lot of self control when He acted out in the temple. Those people deserved a lot worse. Yes, they deserverd death. I wonder why Jesus didn't act in accordance with God's law?

Of course, you are just assuming things are edited in or out. You can't base that argument on anything but odds. Many things throughout history have defied odds though. I'm not just assuming things. Take a look at the footnote for Mark 1:1 in the NIV Bible. It says "Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.". Some of the oldest manuscripts differ from one another. We know changes occured the the Bible. We know God didn't prevent them. The questions are "what" and "how many".

No, we are justified by faith alone apart from works or actions. That's not what God said. Look; God gave laws, God commanded you follow those laws and never turn from them, you don't follow those laws. You are disobeying God.

That would have to be the easiest cop-out answer I have ever seen. That goes against every Bible commentary I have ever read and probably ever will read, and also against every opinion from people I know. That is probably your opinion and yours alone. "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been."

This talks of what *his* wives did to *him*. It is not a condemnation of poligamy.

"The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORD's command."

Notice he wasn't pissed over the 700 wives; and he wasn't pissed about sex with 300 non-wives (I have repeatedly argued that married man + unmarried woman is not adultry Biblically).

The point is the woman being forced to marry the man that raped would not consider it a punishment:
A) because God could have changed their hearts.
B) because the woman might want it for various reasons, probably being mentally unhealthy.

A) Defies free will.
B) Don't ever accuse me of coping out. I suppose it's not bad when someone murders because the victtim might have wanted to die for various unhealthy reasons?

Enobmurt

11-08-2001, 06:33 PM

Still, name one secular source that bears direct witness to Jesus being a real person.

EARLY NON-CHRISTIAN REFERENCES TO JESUS

Writer
Date
Writing
Relevance

Thallus
AD 52
Chronicle
Solar eclipse at the crucifixion

Phlegon
AD 140
Olympiads
Solar eclipse at the crucifixion

Josephus
AD 93
Antiquities
References John the Baptist, James, and Jesus

Pliny the Younger
AD 112
Letter to Trajan
Information about early Christianity

Cornelius Tacitus
AD 116
Annals
Information on the origin and spread of Christianity

Serenius Granianus
AD 117-38
Letter to Hadrian
Discusses charges brought against Christians

Suetonius
AD 120
Life of Nero
Reports punishment inflicted on Christians

Lucian of Somosata
AD 170
The Death of Peregrine
Hostile testimony about early Christians

Many other secular writers refer to Christ and Christianity; these include: Epictetus, Aristides, Galenus, Lampridius, Dio Cassius, Hinnerius, Libanius, Ammianus, Marcellinus, Eunapius, Zosimus, as well as numerous references from Jewish rabbis also discuss the life of Jesus. Not even one of these early references ever questions whether or not Jesus actually existed, nor do any present-day historians deny the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And certainly, you cannot establish that what you read today, is what the Roman Christians read in 100AD, books were added, removed, and altered by the Church of Rome (such as the removal of reincarnation references, and the redefinition of the trinity).

yes, when the bible was put together books were added, removed, although altered I kind of doubt. Luke knows more about this than me.

Christians, and christian informational sources lie constantly. They lie by misquoting (Jefferson, Darwin, etc), they lie about physics, they lie about fact, the lie more than any other group I know. (well, maybe the Taliban).

Please back this up. If they ever do lie, I'd question as to if they are really Christians (not just claiming to be).

It's quite possible the entire thing is not authentic.

I would say barely possible, if that.

No, this runs exactly counter to actual people. The Muslims can show you their Bible and why Muhammed fits all the prophecies, the Christians can show you theirs and say the same about Christ. The Jews don't believe either of you.

This requires a knowledge of all 3 religions and why Christianity is correct. This would be another thread also.

And pretty much everyone was the good-guy in pretty much every war. It's called "revisionist history". The people spreading Christianity had a lot to gain by making it fit into scripture, and a lot to loose if it didn't.

This doesn't make since we refute a lot of the things early Christians did such as the Crusades.

Not compelling? Why don't you take a look at Christian holidays? Christmas wasn't even celebrated until the 5th century. Then they decided that Jesus was born on the same day as the sun god Mithras. Why? That was a popular God of the nobility of Rome, and Constantine had decided his power would be consolidated by uniting the empire under a single religion.

The dates of Christian holidays are not mentioned in the Bible, only the reasons behind them. Therefore celebrating on the 25th is not wrong, only if we celebrate for the wrong reasons.

Actually, my religious studies teacher taught us that the dates of Christmas and holloween and stuff were decided because they are during the winter and fall, the darkest part of the year. They used holidays so that they can have nights with glowing lights to cheer them up. Christmas trees actually come from a pegan holiday where they used trees and lit fires all around the trees for great light and celebration.

Did Jesus really die on good friday and rise on Easter? You tell me if you think that would have been recorded as the "thrid sunday after the first full moon after the spring equanox". That's how you find Easter. But wait, the last supper was supposed to be a full moon, so there is no way that Jesus died three weeks later. ****, more revisionist history... At least they didn't rewrite the Bible to get Easter to coopt Soheim, they just lied.

Again...the Easter days we use today are not mentioned in the bible.
I do not see the relevance this has on this topic though.

If a complete lack of support doesn't bother you, you could indeed.

There is actually support in the Bible with passages such as Flowers and grass wither away but the word of the lord will stand forever.
Or the one about the Word being God
Then there is the statement that God doesn't change.

You just don't believe the bible

Yes, they deserverd death. I wonder why Jesus didn't act in accordance with God's law?

It's called mercy.

Take a look at the footnote for Mark 1:1 in the NIV Bible. It says "Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.". Some of the oldest manuscripts differ from one another. We know changes occured the the Bible. We know God didn't prevent them. The questions are "what" and "how many".

Enough copies and writings are found of the letters that a reasonable compilation has been made. Assurting that the church has changed the bible over 2,000 years is still ridiculus.
The parts that are found different in different manuscripts are still mentioned in the Bible.

That's not what God said. Look; God gave laws, God commanded you follow those laws and never turn from them, you don't follow those laws. You are disobeying God.

Ephesians 2: 8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--NOT by workd, so that no one can boast.

Justified through faith, by grace, apart from works.

This talks of what *his* wives did to *him*. It is not a condemnation of poligamy.

The same principle applies to everyone though. The more wives you have over one, the more attention is dirrected away from God. This is not what God wanted.

Notice he wasn't pissed over the 700 wives; and he wasn't pissed about sex with 300 non-wives (I have repeatedly argued that married man + unmarried woman is not adultry Biblically).

yes, but 700 wives is what drove him away from God. All these sins are what drove him away from God. God was mad that Solomon wasn't concentrating his full attention on God....the sins of Solomon are what drove solomon away from God
As for arguing that one part....that would be another thread and I would argue that even premarital sex is considered adultry biblically.

A) Defies free will.

"so-called" free will....another thread

B) Don't ever accuse me of coping out. I suppose it's not bad when someone murders because the victtim might have wanted to die for various unhealthy reasons?

Bad comparison, you are comparing marriage with murder. Marriage is not a sin. Murder is.

Karen M

11-08-2001, 07:33 PM

Hello Eno:

>>>EARLY NON-CHRISTIAN REFERENCES TO JESUS

Writer
Date
Writing
Relevance

Thallus
AD 52
Chronicle
Solar eclipse at the crucifixion

Phlegon
AD 140
Olympiads
Solar eclipse at the crucifixion

Josephus
AD 93
Antiquities
References John the Baptist, James, and Jesus

Pliny the Younger
AD 112
Letter to Trajan
Information about early Christianity

Cornelius Tacitus
AD 116
Annals
Information on the origin and spread of Christianity

Serenius Granianus
AD 117-38
Letter to Hadrian
Discusses charges brought against Christians

Suetonius
AD 120
Life of Nero
Reports punishment inflicted on Christians

Lucian of Somosata
AD 170
The Death of Peregrine
Hostile testimony about early Christians

Many other secular writers refer to Christ and Christianity; these include: Epictetus, Aristides, Galenus, Lampridius, Dio Cassius, Hinnerius, Libanius, Ammianus, Marcellinus, Eunapius, Zosimus, as well as numerous references from Jewish rabbis also discuss the life of Jesus. Not even one of these early references ever questions whether or not Jesus actually existed, nor do any present-day historians deny the historicity of Jesus Christ.<<<

Though I personally do believe there probably was a Jesus(of some sort); I think the story has been so distorted and edited, its anyone's guess what actually happened. On the other hand, I'll go ahead and answer this ;). Look at the dates. Many of these writers would have been able to copy off of eachother and Christian sources. And none of them were alive during Jesus's time.

>>>yes, when the bible was put together books were added, removed, although altered I kind of doubt. Luke knows more about this than me.<<<

You just said they added things and removed them, that sounds altered to me ;) How do you know they didn't do a bit of editing too?

>>>Please back this up. If they ever do lie, I'd question as to if they are really Christians (not just claiming to be).<<<

Try any TV evangilist. Try many of the U.S presidents(or many Christian politicians for that matter). Try any of the terrorists fighting in Ireland.

>>>I would say barely possible, if that.<<<

Are you a historian/ or at least have sources from historians? :)

>>>This doesn't make since we refute a lot of the things early Christians did such as the Crusades.<<<

The first crucade started in 1095, I think most would have been edited in by then... ;)

Or is this on a different topic?

>>>The dates of Christian holidays are not mentioned in the Bible, only the reasons behind them. Therefore celebrating on the 25th is not wrong, only if we celebrate for the wrong reasons.

Actually, my religious studies teacher taught us that the dates of Christmas and holloween and stuff were decided because they are during the winter and fall, the darkest part of the year. They used holidays so that they can have nights with glowing lights to cheer them up. Christmas trees actually come from a pegan holiday where they used trees and lit fires all around the trees for great light and celebration.

Again...the Easter days we use today are not mentioned in the bible.
I do not see the relevance this has on this topic though. <<<

This is correct. Most Christians are aware that the dates they celebrate events are not the actual dates the events they are celebrating occured.

>>>There is actually support in the Bible with passages such as Flowers and grass wither away but the word of the lord will stand forever.
Or the one about the Word being God
Then there is the statement that God doesn't change.

You just don't believe the bible<<<

Sorry, i just skimmed through the last few posts, I must have missed this issue :( If it requires belief in the Bible, though, then it probably won't work for support against people who don't believe the Bible is true ;)

>>>It's called mercy.<<<

I thought God's laws were absolute? You can't just break them for mercy. ;)

I also just skimmed the Biblical change stuff, but over 2,000 years, its likely something had to slip somewhere ;) I'll read up more than