Old testament
-
Do you still think it is relevant now?
-
OT is totally impossible to follow in today's society, but the bible states tat it is very important and all its rules had to be kept. Most christians and catholic now simply turn a blind eye to a huge portion of it. IMO it do give the impression tat the bible is faulty and not perfect.
-
Yay SIS finally replied after so many weeks!
-
sad to say I have taken a more busy schedule will will find myself having less time to write in forums. I guess tis is good news for some people here...
-
Bad news. It mean EH ratings may drop even further .. haha
-
actually when I first arrive, there appears to be much activity such as wekkly thred etc. Now the activities seems to be really going downhill.
-
i notice something ironic even in those religous people, they keep quoting from the new testament.Then when someone ask them about old testment, they feel it is irrelevant
-
How many in the modern age still agree that a saying in the old testament which goes something like this
A camel is more likely to pass through the needle of a eye than a rich man going to heaven(I think it was something like this)
Or leviticus insisting that we should not loan for interest -
The first one is a hyperbole? Not meant to be taken literally.
-
I don't know if there is an actually quotation from the NT that states explicitly that the OT is to be followed literally. Jesus Christ even challenged some of the rules stated in the OT when He spoke out against the Pharisees.
Basically, the OT is divided into the 5 books of the Pentateuch, which the Jews (practitioners of Judaisim) follow religious, the books of poetry/wisdom ie Psalms, Proverbs, Songs, Ecclesiastes, and then there are the historical books of Judges, Samuel, Chronicles and Kings, to be followed by the prophetic books, both major and minor prophets.
Books of laws as I'd mentioned are the rules for the Jews, these are probably practical if we were alive back then with regards to how we should live, but these are probably irrelevant in this present times;
Books of history provides us a glimpse of life in the OT, maybe even learning the culture of the middle east at the time, one only need to refer to a non-religious history book to validate if these are true or not;
Books of poetry is like wise saying that may be useful for some level of practical living (doesn't even need to be religious to follow them);
Books of prophets is a pronouncement of the future for the people in OT. Some prophecy came true and others are waiting to happen.
When everything is over in Malachi, it's over. The old covenant has passed and the new covenant arrived in John. -
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17 onwards. Here jesus say the OT r relevant forever. How about the book of Deutronomy ? Was it meant to be folowed ? -
pls dnt get confused witht the old covenant n the Law. they r two very differennt things. Deuteronmy was mainly the description n records of the old covenant. the Law is the ten commandments. thus Jesus was saying tt the ten commandments still stands n He fulfilled it.
-
The Law and the Prophets that verse refers to was the divine Law and the prophet's message respectively e.g 10 commandments not the laws such as the Mosiac laws e.g: An eye for an eye.Originally posted by stupidissmart:"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17 onwards. Here jesus say the OT r relevant forever. How about the book of Deutronomy ? Was it meant to be folowed ? -
Tat is strange, all the laws is mentioned by Lord to moses to instruct the people. So these r not laws ? Even the bible says tat Lord explicitly named tham as "laws". Jesus use the word "laws". Now they r different things ?!?! The whole bok of deuteronomy says they r laws to be followed, directly from the Lord. He even mention tis many times
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it
Some passages for Deuteronmy which states tat the laws listed after r "laws". The commandments r not the only laws.
See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse- 27 the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; 28 the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. 29 When the LORD your God has brought you into the land you are entering to possess, you are to proclaim on Mount Gerizim the blessings, and on Mount Ebal the curses. 30 As you know, these mountains are across the Jordan, west of the road, [c] toward the setting sun, near the great trees of Moreh, in the territory of those Canaanites living in the Arabah in the vicinity of Gilgal. 31 You are about to cross the Jordan to enter and take possession of the land the LORD your God is giving you. When you have taken it over and are living there, 32 be sure that you obey all the decrees and laws I am setting before you today. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
There are different types of laws as I've stated earlier Jesus was refering to the laws of God such as you stated in the passage. He was not refering to the laws added on by the Jews. Furthermore this passage is one of the extension(support) of the commandments.
Tat is strange, all the laws is mentioned by Lord to moses to instruct the people. So these r not laws ? Even the bible says tat Lord explicitly named tham as "laws". Jesus use the word "laws". Now they r different things ?!?! The whole bok of deuteronomy says they r laws to be followed, directly from the Lord. He even mention tis many times
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it
Some passages for Deuteronmy which states tat the laws listed after r "laws". The commandments r not the only laws.
See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse- 27 the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; 28 the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. 29 When the LORD your God has brought you into the land you are entering to possess, you are to proclaim on Mount Gerizim the blessings, and on Mount Ebal the curses. 30 As you know, these mountains are across the Jordan, west of the road, [c] toward the setting sun, near the great trees of Moreh, in the territory of those Canaanites living in the Arabah in the vicinity of Gilgal. 31 You are about to cross the Jordan to enter and take possession of the land the LORD your God is giving you. When you have taken it over and are living there, 32 be sure that you obey [b]all the decrees and laws I am setting before you today.[/b] -
The laws which I have stated r explicitly mentioned by God himself to tell to the people. They r not laws added by the jews. From Deuteronomy 1-12, they r telling people the importance of the laws and from DT 13 onwards they r telling wat laws have to be followed, from moses mouth it was "laws", "decree" "commands" and he say it came from "God"/"Lord". Jesus says the law has to be followed, and the things listed in deuteronomy r part of the old laws. They were really followed and they were supposedly from god. Now u r forsaking it and claim they r jewish laws. Why don't u read the whole deuteronomy and tell me again why do u think these laws were not laws or why these laws were only made by jewish for jewish, not made by god for its people. After he finished saying all the laws for tat day, he climb down the hill, god is suppose to be pleased and show him a vision of the land his decendents is gonna get befiore he die. DT 33
-
If Jesus meant 4 us to keep the old covenant He wld hv washed his hads b4 he ate n stayed away frm certain food. Read the Gospels. He told the Pharisees tt nothing outside can make the inside unclean but rather the heart of a man. The Mosiac Laws stated tt certain foods shld b abstained n one must wash their hands b4 they ate. now if Jesus say tt the laws of the old covenant still stands, He wld b contradicting Himself. but if He is God in the flesh, who is infinite then, now n forever more, He cant contradict Himself. Thus, frm basic common sensical and logical analysis, we can thus accurately say tt the old covenant is broken.
-
ccck, aren't you like begging the question now?Originally posted by ccck:Thus, frm basic common sensical and logical analysis, we can thus accurately say tt the old covenant is broken. -
If Jesus meant 4 us to keep the old covenant He wld hv washed his hads b4 he ate n stayed away frm certain food. Read the Gospels. He told the Pharisees tt nothing outside can make the inside unclean but rather the heart of a man. The Mosiac Laws stated tt certain foods shld b abstained n one must wash their hands b4 they ate. now if Jesus say tt the laws of the old covenant still stands, He wld b contradicting Himself. but if He is God in the flesh, who is infinite then, now n forever more, He cant contradict Himself. Thus, frm basic common sensical and logical analysis, we can thus accurately say tt the old covenant is broken
Well, actually I derive different conclusions from your statement If jesus says the old laws still stand, and the old laws itself says it will stand forever, and tat Jesus purposely broke some of the old laws, then it is an obvious bible contradiction and it shows tat either god is not as wat he describe or the whole bible is just man written without any inspiration from supernatural forces. From basic common sensical and logical analysis, we can come to the conclusion tat the bible is flawed -
if annnyone has qs then can pm me....rather than posting up here n have a certain individual try to warp the truth in2 some obscure reasoning under the guise of rationalising.
-
your reasoning not much better also, imho
There are no serious errors in SIS's logical deduction. His logical reasoning reads perfectly fine to me, though the premises could be debated. He was trying to show an internal inconsistency in the text.
SIS's technique is of a higher level than you. You made bold assumptions which you need to justify to a court of non believers. SIS just used "scripture to fight scripture". -
I can argue along the following line: He is God, the "I AM", thus he is "free" to break whatever mosiac laws.Originally posted by ccck:but if He is God in the flesh, who is infinite then, now n forever more, He cant contradict Himself.
I know the argument sounds childish but well ..
Jesus special case mah .. since "thru Adam all men had sinned" .. thus you need the special case - 100% God and 100% man - to give mankind salvation.
I repeat .. Jesus is special case. What he can do doesn't mean we can emulate. Haha .. -
if annnyone has qs then can pm me....rather than posting up here n have a certain individual try to warp the truth in2 some obscure reasoning under the guise of rationalising.
I know it is easier to just condemn and judge another...
Won't this just close up your mind as some evangelists claim some non-believers r ?can argue along the following line: He is God, the "I AM", thus he is "free" to break whatever mosiac laws.
so in conclusion, all christians and catholic have to follow all the OT. If they don't follow then they r not following god's orders
I know the argument sounds childish but well ..
Jesus special case mah .. since "thru Adam all men had sinned" .. thus you need the special case - 100% God and 100% man - to give mankind salvation.
I repeat .. Jesus is special case. What he can do doesn't mean we can emulate. Haha ..
speaking about tat it bring me to the earlier statement tat
OT is totally impossible to follow in today's society, but the bible states tat it is very important and all its rules had to be kept. Most christians and catholic now simply turn a blind eye to a huge portion of it. IMO it do give the impression tat the bible is faulty and not perfect.
I don't know... I thought it is really obvious tat the bible do contains a lot of errors and contradictions... I mean even the 2 chapter of genesis there is already a contradiction of whether men is formed before animals or formed after animals. God even say make men in "our" image in genesis 1 which made me wonder how many gods r there as well.... -
Christians explain the "us" in the "Let us make man in our image" as the Trinity. Jewish sources explain the "us" to refer to God and His angels. Both faith agree that angels were created before mankind.Originally posted by stupidissmart:God even say make men in "our" image in genesis 1 which made me wonder how many gods r there as well.... -
I expected tis answer but it is just tat the idea of trinity makes it not really a single god but multiple ones. I mean single means one, multiple means not single. There can't have a single being tat is actually multiples. Sounds more like a name for an organisation than an individual.
Just a question though, if god have many angels, does tis make it similar to the taoist idea of heaven where there r many many different deities and a ruler among them (jade emperor) So wat about saints ? If they goes to heaven now, then it really makes it similar to chinese mythology where Guan Yu, a famos general can goes there to become a deity as well...
Never mind, i guess tis is a pretty silly topic to debate about.