Jump to content

Scriptures New And Old


Recommended Posts

This is getting into the meat of the issue (or an issue, at least). The New Testament contradicted some things in the Old (for instance, burnt offerings and keeping kosher).
Contradict is the wrong word, fulfilled the requirements for is a better explanation.
If you had been alive and had the same belief that something had to agree totally with the Old Testament in order to be added, then you would had to have opposed adding the New Testament because of that.
You are making an assumption without proof. The NT does say that nothing will be added to it in Revelations, the OT does not. The OT also clearly makes the case that there is a Messiah coming. To argue that things would not change after the Messiah came is completely illogical.
Even the bible says there were lots of people casting out demonds and even raising the dead at that time, so you assume that you would have recognized and followed Jesus, but someone who is innately conservative may very well have doubted his claim.
The vast majority of the upper class in the Jewish faith 'doubted His claim'. That's why they pronounced Him worthy of death, but they were unable to carry out this sentence because their right to implement capital punishment had been taken away from them at that time. Which btw was prophesied about them as a precursor to the coming of Messiah."The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to him shall be the obedience of the people." Genesis 49:10 (NKJ)This strange prophecy has a few words that need to be defined in order to be fully understood. The word "scepter" has been understood by the Rabbis to mean the "tribal staff" or "tribal identity" of the twelve tribes of Israel. This "tribal identity" was linked, in the minds of the Jews, to their right to apply and enforce Mosaic law upon the people, including the right to adjudicate capital cases and administer capital punishment, or jus gladii (The jus gladii is a legal term which refers to the legal authority to adjudicate capital cases and impose capital punishment.)Secondly, it is well documented that the word "Shiloh" has been understood for millennia to be an idiom for the Messiah.
After all, the Old Testament had worked for thousands of years, why change it? And when a new revelation is being revealed, not everyone is going to embrace it right away -- and in fact, it might be the conseratives, those who are suspicious of change, who might be the least likely to embrace it. So can you be sure that God didn't bring the Nag Hammadi scriptures to light now in order to reveal a new revelation, a refinement of the way we understand the bible?
Again I don't accept you presumption that God held stuff back because of our inability to accept the 'new truths'. God does not contradict Himself, therefore the notion that God would give us incomplete knowledge so He could change His message later, after telling us that the messages He did give us was the entire message for salvation, doesn't follow through.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

the Anti-Christ is revealed ( might be Obama but don't quote me on that )
Wasn't Reagan convinced it was either Gorbachev or Arafat?
Link to post
Share on other sites

the Anti-Christ is revealed ( might be Obama but don't quote me on that )And then you ask why some view religious belief as detremental? Maybe because it helps foster rediculous ideas like this.. This is a belief that is actually not as uncommon as it should be....

Link to post
Share on other sites
the Anti-Christ is revealed ( might be Obama but don't quote me on that )And then you ask why some view religious belief as detremental? Maybe because it helps foster rediculous ideas like this.. This is a belief that is actually not as uncommon as it should be....
It takes a while to get BG's subtle humor. None of the regulars here took that seriously.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't Reagan convinced it was either Gorbachev or Arafat?
To be honest there was a mania for End Times in our country then because of the time table of the creation of the nation Israel. Up until then there was a need to re-interpret the meaning of Revelations for the verses that talked about the Nation of Israel, so the popular one was that this referred to the church, of course now we see that the meaning of the Nation of Israel, was the new nation created called Israel.Add in the "This generation will not pass away..." section in Matthew and there were many people thinking that the revealing of anti-Christ would happen approximately 40 years after the re-birth of the nation Israel, which was in 1948ish, so the 80's was a pretty good decade to write a book on end times...As a buddy of mine's father said to him,"There is a lot of money in end times"Of course it was a bad time for the anti-Bible people who pointed to those same verses and said that those prophecies failed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll admit, at this point I can't tell what's sarcastic and what isn't... I thought I could... but maybe i'm wrong.Suffice it to say if this is a schtick you, sir, are brilliant. Like... Andy Kauffman brilliant

Link to post
Share on other sites
i'll admit, at this point I can't tell what's sarcastic and what isn't... I thought I could... but maybe i'm wrong.Suffice it to say if this is a schtick you, sir, are brilliant. Like... Andy Kauffman brilliant
If it is informative while being pro-God, it is probably not sarcastic.If it is causing crow to have an aneurysm, then it is probably not being sarcastic.If it makes LLY mad, then it definitely is not being sarcasticIf the post starts with the letters D- L plus M and W then it is serious 100%
Link to post
Share on other sites
we agree that you think that. you should try giving me credit for one. even if it's a poor one.
I will give you credit for trying, although the results were considerably weak and only a partisan fool would laugh.
i laughed.
Hypothesis proven!
Link to post
Share on other sites
it hasn't, it's just stupid.
If you spend your days getting worked up by stupid people you will be one miserable dude. Especially if you are so inclined to be worked up by stupid people who you admit have no effect on your life whatsoever. Then, the question begs, who is actually stupid in that equation?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Then, the question begs, who is actually stupid in that equation?
The questions begs?What the fuck does that mean? And if you meant this "begs the question", you're still using it wrong."Begging the question" is a logical fallacy concerning an attempt to proffer a premise of an argument which implicitly proves the conclusion of the argument without providing any evidence supporting the truthfulness of the premise in question. So to answer the question you have raised: you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The questions begs?What the fuck does that mean? And if you meant this "begs the question", you're still using it wrong."Begging the question" is a logical fallacy concerning an attempt to proffer a premise of an argument which implicitly proves the conclusion of the argument without providing any evidence supporting the truthfulness of the premise in question. So to answer the question you have raised: you.
Well, I swallow, so I will always have that. Fag.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was at my sister-in-law's family's house for christmas eve, and in between dinner and dessert a bunch of them went to church. When they got back one of them was all annoyed about the sermon (or whatever you call it), which was about Caesar's virgin birth and comparing it to that of JC himself. Does the bible say that Augustus Caesar (I assume that's the one they were referring to) was born to a virgin mother? What's the deal there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I was at my sister-in-law's family's house for christmas eve, and in between dinner and dessert a bunch of them went to church. When they got back one of them was all annoyed about the sermon (or whatever you call it), which was about Caesar's virgin birth and comparing it to that of JC himself. Does the bible say that Augustus Caesar (I assume that's the one they were referring to) was born to a virgin mother? What's the deal there?
I think it was pretty common back then for people to claim virgin births.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...