1. I’ve never said that I won’t venture away from the Gospels. I only said that we could have a separate conversation about that if you want. Feel free to attempt to school me on history as it relates to the Bible, and I will respond. Or did you expect me to lead that discussion?

2. They were literally talking about eating with unclean hands. Jesus was talking about the purpose of the law rather than its application. The same is easily said of pork. Surely we can both agree that common sense would tell you that eating pork does not make someone evil.

If nothing else, at least we’ve established that the Bible can mean whatever it is you want it to mean. You might want to read deeper into those passages you quoted, regarding “it’s not what goes in, but comes out”, because that was a simplified Sunday School reading. It’s a bit deeper than than. It doesn’t mean you get to eat whatever you want.

Nowhere does Jesus say his presence cancels the Law. The opposite is true. The Law does not change. Jesus said it was staying around until he fulfilled his mission. He did not, at least not yet.

I would bring up Matthew, again, but you seem to have read it and not gleaned anything of value from it. I do accept that Jesus broke the law, we differ on the why of it. Because you will not branch out of a couple gospels and into the wonderful world of History due to some other discussion you are having with Loundry I can’t go any farther.

If you aren’t willing to take that leap into books that aren’t the Bible, then there’s nothing I can do. There is an online Classics Archive with all the Historians of the day waiting to be read.

You’re greatly simplifying the reason behind people not believing in a god. I know many atheists, including people who were once Muslims, none of them don’t believe in a god due to the reasons you’ve mentioned.

Nonfactor on November 15, 2007 at 5:24 PM

It’s Bigkatt’s personal anecdote. Everyone’s got one.

But the few that I have heard of in the news all seem to fall under the same three points I made previously. Loss of loved ones, actions taken by them, or actions taken against them.

Bigkatt on November 15, 2007 at 9:08 AM

You’re greatly simplifying the reason behind people not believing in a god. I know many atheists, including people who were once Muslims, none of them don’t believe in a god due to the reasons you’ve mentioned.

Therefore, Jesus knew that everyone interested would wonder what these laws were, and how to get all full of faith and so forth.

As to the way to full faith, Jesus answered that one plainly.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life.”

Before Christ, the way to salvation and God was through the law. Then Christ came claiming He was the way to salvation and “the Father”.

Paul’s letters are even farther removed from Jesus than the Gospel accounts. He’s writing his interpretation of what he thought Jesus meant, which is second source. No matter how you cut it, he was not one of Jesus’ intimates and had no first hand knowledge of the man.

Except for meeting Jesus on the street, a vision which you doubt but nonetheless cannot disprove.

Not buying it? There’s a guy in Oakland who had the same vision.

1. Luke wasn’t one of Jesus’ disciples. His information was also second hand.

2. Paul didn’t demand anything because of his visions.

3. Your analogy falls short of the death threat hanging over Ananias’ head. Ananias had every reason to not believe Saul would become Paul as did every other Christian at the time who lived in fear of being executed.

That you prefer Pauline doctrine over the actual words of the Messiah isn’t something I have to reconcile, you do.

I have never said that.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT.

How many times must I write those exact words before you’ll understand what I’m saying. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT PAUL IS AN AUTHORITY OVER JESUS. That is not even my belief. I’ve written that several times to you just today, but for some reason you’re ignoring it.

Jesus said that these rules remain intact. You think that they don’t apply to Christians, because Paul says so. I say they do, because Jesus says so.

Except that Jesus said so much more than just that.

1. You don’t take Paul as an authority on what Jesus said because he wasn’t there with Jesus.

2. But when Peter, “the rock” and one of Jesus’ closest disciples, has the same interpretation, you don’t buy that because Peter was just good at PR. By good at PR, you mean good enough to convince people to join his faith but not good enough to keep himself from being crucified upside down for his faith.

3. You don’t even accept the times when Jesus Himself broke the laws as evidence that He meant something else.

4. Jesus’ own words go against what you’re claiming:

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ ”

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.”

That’s a literal reference to what Peter and Paul discuss from Jesus Christ. It can be found in the book of Matthew and the book of Mark.

Paul’s letters are even farther removed from Jesus than the Gospel accounts. He’s writing his interpretation of what he thought Jesus meant, which is second source. No matter how you cut it, he was not one of Jesus’ intimates and had no first hand knowledge of the man.

If you’re willing to accept that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all got the word of Christ down, then what’s the problem with Paul? Just because he’s got no proof that he saw Christ other than his vision and the vision of another man who became convinced that Paul was no longer a Christian killer?

Wow, that’s a pretty good reason right there, don’t you think? Hey everybody, I just had a vision from God himself, and he demands that the Raiders win the next 3 superbowls and go undefeated for the next two seasons! What? Not buying it? There’s a guy in Oakland who had the same vision.

I get the idea that some people think the whole Bible is wrong, but I still do not follow your logic here.

If Jesus said something, and it’s pretty clear he said what he said (unless the Gospels are inaccurate), then how does a guy who is not the messiah, is not even partially divine, and never met the man possibly in any way, supercede Jesus? He doesn’t. That you prefer Pauline doctrine over the actual words of the Messiah isn’t something I have to reconcile, you do.

I’m aware of the random rules in Leviticus, the ones that say things like don’t use two different fabrics together. Those were useful rules back then because of the technology they had back then, the same as with unclean meat; however, in the modern world, we do not have such problems.

That’s not really the point, is it? The point is that God himself gave the chosen people a set of rules they were to follow. Jesus said that these rules remain intact. You think that they don’t apply to Christians, because Paul says so. I say they do, because Jesus says so.

The Gospels are for everyone, right? Therefore, Jesus knew that everyone interested would wonder what these laws were, and how to get all full of faith and so forth. This is why the Old Freaking Testament is right next to the new one. ‘Law? What Law? Oh, THAT law!’

Which means, potentially, there could be glaring omissions or giant embellishments. It seems to me you are hoping to use this to say that there is a chance that “not one jot or tittle” may not have been said anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

I think you’re projecting.

I’ve never said that I believe any of the Bible to be inaccurate.

You seem to start at Acts and stop just prior to Revelation, because the other stuff doesn’t count.

Except that I’m not doing that. I’m able to take both Paul’s word and the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke (who wasn’t even a disciple) and John.

Seriously, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus died. Paul’s letters were written at the present time with scripture backing them up.

If you’re willing to accept that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all got the word of Christ down, then what’s the problem with Paul? Just because he’s got no proof that he saw Christ other than his vision and the vision of another man who became convinced that Paul was no longer a Christian killer?

I get the idea that some people think the whole Bible is wrong, but I still do not follow your logic here.

Doesn’t make any of them right, though.

That’s not my argument.

My argument is that all of those people actually believe whatever it is they’re preaching. They’re not just good PR people.

Not when you stick the consequences of the Law in there. Open up Leviticus and tell me which of those laws you find easy to follow.

Krydor on November 15, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Off the top of my head, I find it really easy to abstain from:

Sleeping with animals, my mother, my father, my brothers, my sister my brother’s wife, my sister’s husband, my aunts and my uncles.

Those are real easy rules for me to follow.

1. You’re talking about Gentiles, people who didn’t have a concept of the Old Testament Law. For them, a law against sex outside of marriage is a further restriction from what they’d been living under.

2. I’m aware of the random rules in Leviticus, the ones that say things like don’t use two different fabrics together. Those were useful rules back then because of the technology they had back then, the same as with unclean meat; however, in the modern world, we do not have such problems.

Which means, potentially, there could be glaring omissions or giant embellishments. It seems to me you are hoping to use this to say that there is a chance that “not one jot or tittle” may not have been said anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

You are still taking the word of a guy who never met Jesus in the presence of anyone over the people who chronicled his life as best they could. You seem to start at Acts and stop just prior to Revelation, because the other stuff doesn’t count.

What do any martyrs gain? What did Jim Jones gain? What did Heaven’s Gate guy gain? What did David Koresh gain? What did that Ba’hai guy gain? What do the guys blowing themselves up in subways gain? I would assume they think they were gaining whatever it was Paul was gaining. Doesn’t make any of them right, though.

He did still though tell Christians to abstain from sex outside of marriage, a rule I would consider a little harder to keep than not eating pork.

Not when you stick the consequences of the Law in there. Open up Leviticus and tell me which of those laws you find easy to follow.

Yes, that’s exactly what you are saying. You are saying the New Testament might have transcription errors due to length of time between actions and recording, so we can doubt the accuracy of the sermon on the mount. Therefore, the whole thing is up for examination. This isn’t some new thing I just thought of today. It’s actually a debate Biblical scholars have been having for hundreds of years.

Did you skip everything else I wrote?

You said:
You can’t do it, because any other interpretation outside of the recorded words of Jesus is a falsehood.

And I’m saying that the logic of that statement escapes me since His words weren’t taken down with a tape recorder. That’s all I’m saying.

No, I’m telling you that the structure of Christianity in it’s infancy was turn off for most Jews and a whole bunch of potential Christians. Because a) Christ did not fulfill the prophecies and b) because the rules were strict and the only thing you were looking at was death if caught.

a) Christ didn’t overthrow the Roman Empire; however, that’s not the only way to interpret

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;

b) You said it yourself. Jesus wasn’t the only one claiming to be the Messiah. He wasn’t the only one promising hope. And your argument is that people stuck with Jesus because of the all you can eat pork plan?

And what did Paul and Peter gain anyway? Fame? Yeah, that’s worth being locked up on a regular basis before being brutally executed. We certainly know they didn’t get money, and as a Roman citizen overseeing the executions of Christians, Paul actually had a better life when he was Saul. He even already had fame when he was Saul.

The only thing Saul gained when he became Paul was imprisonment, rocks thrown at his head and finally a beheading.

Life was so bleak for him as a Christian that he advised others to not marry, because the heartbreak of losing your spouse would be too much to take.

He did still though tell Christians to abstain from sex outside of marriage, a rule I would consider a little harder to keep than not eating pork.

Not even remotely close to what I’ve been trying to say. Is it possible you’ve got me confused with someone else?

Yes, that’s exactly what you are saying. You are saying the New Testament might have transcription errors due to length of time between actions and recording, so we can doubt the accuracy of the sermon on the mount. Therefore, the whole thing is up for examination. This isn’t some new thing I just thought of today. It’s actually a debate Biblical scholars have been having for hundreds of years.

Are you really trying to tell me that people are more willing to be imprisoned, stoned, crucified and burned than they are to give up bacon with their eggs in the morning?

Do you really think people are that masochistic?

No, I’m telling you that the structure of Christianity in it’s infancy was turn off for most Jews and a whole bunch of potential Christians. Because a) Christ did not fulfill the prophecies and b) because the rules were strict and the only thing you were looking at was death if caught.

I’m also telling you that people often go for minimal risk for maximum reward. There weren’t a whole bunch of Christians until it became the only religion in the Roman Empire.

Heaven’s Gate morons castrated themselves and then poisoned themselves in order to catch a ride on a comet. How different is that than not rebuking Christ to avoid torture thus achieving the Kingdom via horrific death?

I don’t know any Muslim’s who have become atheist’s, I’ll ask my friend at the VA if he knows of any.

Ayaan Hirshi Ali is an atheist who used to be a Muslim, but her loss of faith had to do with the fact that 19 people used Islam as a reason for killing nearly 3,000 innocent people.

I am pretty sure that that is what I actually said further on in my post.

Bigkatt on November 15, 2007 at 9:08 AM

Apparently it was more entertaining to not bother reading what you wrote so MB4 could come up with a “gotcha” that you’d already admitted.

Well, you should be applying it to this. But you aren’t. You are using one point of reference, the Bible. You should also try reading the Bible for yourself, and not relying on agenda driven demagogues to tell you what it means.

Loundry made it clear that he wanted a debate based on the Bible. So, in my discussion with him, I’m only using the Bible.

If you want me to have a separate discussion with you based on things other than the Bible, we can do that, but I was talking to him when you responded to me and tailoring the discussion to his request.

I’ve also noticed that you’ve decided that the Law is now, once again, holy as Jesus claimed. So, is the Law the Law or is the Law invalid? If it is invalid, why do the words of Paul outrank the words of the Son of God?

You’re clearly misunderstanding what I’ve written. Maybe you could back up and show me why you believe I’ve switched my position so that we can be on the same page here.

Now, also, we have an admission that the Gospels might be inaccurate with regards to what Jesus said. Perhaps we might go a step further and apply that to his actions? You know, the miracles? Maybe someone lost some of that in translation? No? Just the stuff you can’t reconcile. How convenient.

I never said that. You made it a point that only the words of Jesus are accurate in all of the Bible. That’s an illogical point to make considering how the words of Jesus came to be written down. That was my only point.

I don’t believe they’re inaccurate, but I also don’t believe the rest of the Bible is inaccurate. You’ve yet to make either point.

The law not being changed? Don’t you be so silly, some guy had a fit on a road in Syria and changed all that.

Yeah, I never wrote that. You’re seeing something entirely different in my posts than I am, which is a shame. I’m trying to be as clear as possible here but must be failing in that regards.

If one bit is allowable to be questioned based on the inaccuracy of an oral tradition, then guess what? So is the rest of it. All of it. From 6 days to make the earth, to the improbable wandering about for 40 years on a 3 week trip, to Revelation.

Yeah, I don’t disagree here, which is why I find your logic of only allowing the words of Christ into the debate a little absurd. If the validity of the words of Paul are to be called into question, why are you convinced the red letters are perfect?

That was your assertion not mine.

You’ve opened the door to the possibility the New Testament is inaccurate in order to preserve your interpretation of Pauline doctrine. Now, the rest of it is as well. Fantastic.

Not even remotely close to what I’ve been trying to say. Is it possible you’ve got me confused with someone else?

Oh, and Christians allowing themselves to be killed in a myriad of ways is no biggie. Happens all the time, and continues to happen even to this day. The promise of something greater on “the other side” is a pretty powerful tool when your day to day life is a fairly crummy one. Temple of the Sun, Jim Jones and Heaven’s Gate come to mind.

That’s hardly the point I was making. You asserted that the only reason people were turned off from Christianity is because they wanted to eat pigs.

Are you really trying to tell me that people are more willing to be imprisoned, stoned, crucified and burned than they are to give up bacon with their eggs in the morning?

Do you really think people are that masochistic?

Well, you should be applying it to this. But you aren’t. You are using one point of reference, the Bible. You should also try reading the Bible for yourself, and not relying on agenda driven demagogues to tell you what it means.

I’ve also noticed that you’ve decided that the Law is now, once again, holy as Jesus claimed. So, is the Law the Law or is the Law invalid? If it is invalid, why do the words of Paul outrank the words of the Son of God?

Now, also, we have an admission that the Gospels might be inaccurate with regards to what Jesus said. Perhaps we might go a step further and apply that to his actions? You know, the miracles? Maybe someone lost some of that in translation? No? Just the stuff you can’t reconcile. How convenient.

Resurrection? No problem! Water to wine? Sure! Loaves and fishes? Why not, after all he’s the Messiah! The law not being changed? Don’t you be so silly, some guy had a fit on a road in Syria and changed all that. If one bit is allowable to be questioned based on the inaccuracy of an oral tradition, then guess what? So is the rest of it. All of it. From 6 days to make the earth, to the improbable wandering about for 40 years on a 3 week trip, to Revelation.

You’ve opened the door to the possibility the New Testament is inaccurate in order to preserve your interpretation of Pauline doctrine. Now, the rest of it is as well. Fantastic.

Oh, and Christians allowing themselves to be killed in a myriad of ways is no biggie. Happens all the time, and continues to happen even to this day. The promise of something greater on “the other side” is a pretty powerful tool when your day to day life is a fairly crummy one. Temple of the Sun, Jim Jones and Heaven’s Gate come to mind.

What do you say to people raised Muslim who are atheists? You too don’t believe in the Muslim God, you just trade it in for the one you were raised with.

Nonfactor on November 15, 2007 at 6:03 AM

Not true. Loss of faith is loss of faith. since the previous arguments were not about Muslims, I did not address them. The same applies to their religion as well. The only thing is is that we in the west have a very secular veiw on life, and therefore are much more willing to throw it all away when things don’t go our way. While the Muslim religion has an out. No free will, everything is predetermined by God.

I don’t know any Muslim’s who have become atheist’s, I’ll ask my friend at the VA if he knows of any. But the few that I have heard of in the news all seem to fall under the same three points I made previously. Loss of loved ones, actions taken by them, or actions taken against them. To say that I don’t count them because they don’t believe in the same god as myself is not true. I happen to believe that they do in fact have the same god, just not the same beliefs. I am not an evangelical Cristian, which is why I was hesitant to join this discussion as I am one of the few who can be attacked from both sides.

Translation – You are not up to debating him.

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 11:52 PM

I am pretty sure that that is what I actually said further on in my post. Now if you’ll excuse me for two hours I have to go to my physical therapy, not a moral authority card, just explaining my absence.

I have yet to meet an atheist who wasn’t a “convert”. While I know that there are some out there who exist, most atheists have acknowledged in one way or another that the are angry with God. That some event in their lives drove them to not believe. Be it the death of a loved one, actions taken against them, or their own actions atheists seem to be perpetually trying to prove that they are right and God is wrong.

Bigkatt on November 14, 2007 at 7:59 PM

What do you say to people raised Muslim who are atheists? You too don’t believe in the Muslim God, you just trade it in for the one you were raised with.

Loundry is a good example, he is a sad individual deserving of pity who has allowed hate to blind him to any good that exists in the bible.

Bigkatt on November 14, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Translation – You are not up to debating him.

You can’t do it, because any other interpretation outside of the recorded words of Jesus is a falsehood.

1. The words of Jesus were written down by men years after Jesus died. They’re not tape recorders.

2. If what you say is true, then the entire Old Testament is false as well, so what’s the point?

3. I wouldn’t need to go outside the red letters anyway to prove my point.

This kind of thing is how I slipped from Christianity to Diesm and eventually to Atheism.

Krydor on November 14, 2007 at 6:22 PM

So? Many others have done the same only to “slip” back into Christianity. Even some true geniuses.

There was a bunch of political upheaval in Judea, and a whole pile of Messiahs floating about. The key thing with Messiahs was to rid Judea of the Romans.

That’s not really a novel concept. I was taught that in Sunday School.

The Gentiles weren’t having much to do with the no pork, no fun thing

Christians were being stoned to death, lit on fire as living human torches, crucified, eaten alive and sent to work as a slave. You really believe opposition to Christianity came from people who wanted to have pork?

First off, it wasn’t about Jesus breaking the Law, it was Jesus pointing out that those administering the Law were unable/unwilling to uphold/correctly interpret it.

Except that He did break the law. In the Old Testament correctly interpreting the law had little to do with whether or not you’d followed the letter of the law. A man died because he touched the ark of the covenant with his bare hands. He did so because it was falling, and there was no other way to keep it from touching the ground, but that didn’t keep him from being struck down by God.

Jesus acknowledge that He had broken the law and merely said that as God He is lord over the Sabbath and as such can do what He pleases on the Sabbath.

That’s a little like catching your boss walking in late to work and trying to call him out on it. He’s not going to say to you that you’ve misinterpreted the policy on coming into work late. He’s simply going to tell you that it’s his company, and the policy was not set up for him.

My beliefs also tell me that a heterosexual who has been divorced for a cause other than adultery and has remarried will also suffer in hell if he does not fix the situation.

What good is Christ’s sacrifice if sin is able to defeat it? And if divorce is wrong, why does someone else’s wrong, the adultery, make it alright?

There is a nice line of storms moving through northen GA right now.

I noticed the same.

Sorry, AP. I don’t have the time or inclination to get into the thick of the theological slugfest above.

Loundry on November 14, 2007 at 9:12 AM

Loundry,
My beliefs also tell me that a heterosexual who has been divorced for a cause other than adultery and has remarried will also suffer in hell if he does not fix the situation. Therefore if they do not correct it we disfellowship them also. Sorry I don’t pick on homosexuals only. Also I will again point out that we don’t live by old testament law anymore so you can quote all the old testament you want but that is not how we live. We live under the new testament law. You must be getting bothered by this for you are becoming very defensive.

As far as the babies go, they were not responsible for anything done (that whole thing about not being old enough to understand what sin is) so they are innocent have went straight to heaven. So really they were better off than anyone involved in the whole deal.

Well, waddya know? weather.gov says look for SHOWERS throughout Georgia today, tomorrow, & Sunday.

jgapinoy on November 14, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Are you sure those aren’t the days people are allowed to take a shower? LOL