• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turning against Jesus

calamity said:
Apparently not, if you think they breathe.
Click to expand...
I'm taking your thread and your questions seriously. Please stop wasting my time and everyone else's by setting up straw men.
 
COTO said:
I'm taking your thread and your questions seriously. Please stop wasting my time and everyone else's by setting up straw men.
Click to expand...

Reread the OP and then reconsider how serious the intent was.
 
COTO said:
I'm taking your thread and your questions seriously. Please stop wasting my time and everyone else's by setting up straw men.
Click to expand...

You said "breath" of life. Well, there is no breath in a fetus, none. Zero.

If you're going to make an argument, stick to making a factual one, at least.
 
nota bene said:
You're pretending not to understand his point. He said, "to preempt a digressionary rebuttal from you or these members, I disclaimed 'breath of life' apologetics notwithstanding."
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that post is supposed to mean.

He said breath of life. I called it BS. If he agrees it is BS, he should say it.
 
When Jesus comes back he won't be doin' any preachin'...he'll be takin' action...
 
Logicman said:
There is no reconciliation between progressivism (regressivism) and scripture.
Click to expand...

Jesus was quite progressive; the old Jews whose tables he overturned were conservatives.

Developing an entire new religion is progressive by definition. I hope you know that. Adhering to the old is conservative.
 
calamity said:
Speculation thread to pose a hypothetical:

Jesus comes down, preaches most of Mark, Mathew and Luke, ignores John and points to Trump saying, “He’s the one I warned you about.” He follows that up with a rant against guns, money and throwing children in concentration camps. He adds to it admonishments for scapegoating the meek and mocking the compassionate who speak out for them. When asked about fetuses, he shrugs and says. “They do not walk among you like all my children.”

Will the faithful follow his lead or would he be run out of town?

Somehow, I don’t see the MAGA crowd buying into this guy. And, that brings up a good point. Who exactly are they following? IMO, it certainly isn’t the Jesus described in M, M & L.

What if there was a real Jesus, and he said all that “socialist” stuff like feed the poor and shun the rich, love thy neighbor and care for the least among you, turn the other cheek and don’t cast stones, etc.? Has the “flock” turned against him?
Click to expand...

uHYwEYPg.jpg
 
Logicman said:
There is no reconciliation between progressivism (regressivism) and scripture.
Click to expand...

So tell us about your regressive cult. With your vast experience, you'll likely have a soundbite to hand. Start with rewriting the eye of a needle ban on the rich in heaven.
 
calamity said:
Translation: no one really believes that ****. So, quit trying to bring up what that guy we all say we adore said.
Click to expand...

No one cares about your opinion.
 
COTO said:
Possibly because they've read, studied, and internalized more than 3/49ths of the Bible?


I know how babies work, thank you.

There are some members here who twist Genesis 2:7 into claiming a fetus isn't a person until it takes its first breath, which they do by ignoring or reasoning around numerous other scriptures, including John 20:22. Seeing as you've been a fixture here for years, I presumed you'd be aware of this, and to preempt a digressionary rebuttal from you or these members, I disclaimed "'breath of life' apologetics notwithstanding", meaning: the preceding statement, "the Bible is crystal clear on the matter of personhood in the womb", holds true in spite of certain members' claiming otherwise.


Of course, at the time Christ came, the 22 books of the New Testament hadn't been written yet, and the Bible as we know it today didn't exist. This wouldn't change until the latter part of the 1st Century, when Peter (who was martyred shortly after Paul) and then John, the last surviving apostle, compiled the 22 letters, gospel accounts, and various other books into a bound New Testament canon, which was a task that Christ had personally charged them with. (It would be these same books recognized as canon by the many councils of the Catholic Church centuries later.)

Christ quoted extensively from the Old Testament scriptures, which were the only scriptures available during his ministry. The teachings of his Earthly ministry would ultimately give rise to the New Testament. Today, both are canon (i.e. scripture).
Click to expand...

Did Jesus adhere to the religion of the Old Testament? Did he follow Judaism strictly? Why would he need a story book about himself to preach from when he would be here in the flesh? Supposedly he created a new religion but he never wrote a word about that religion. Would he author an update if he came today? Did he or his father decide on which bible writings are canon?
 
gulfman said:
If Jesus retuned and seen Trump he would say "Hi Dad"
Click to expand...

Nah, he would say: "You see Dad, I knew that was Satan, his orange color was just Satan's red skin under a human mask".

But as none of those people exist, except the Orange Ogre, that will never happen.
 
devildavid said:
Did Jesus adhere to the religion of the Old Testament? [1] Did he follow Judaism strictly? [2] Why would he need a story book about himself to preach from when he would be here in the flesh? [3] Supposedly he created a new religion but he never wrote a word about that religion. Would he author an update if he came today? [4] Did he or his father decide on which bible writings are canon? [5]
Click to expand...
Briefly, and in order:

[1] Yes.

[2] No, since Judaism at Christ's time had morphed into something very different from the religion of the Old Testament. The same holds true today.

[3] The New Testament was compiled as a record of his ministry and teaching, and as a record of the ministry and teaching of the apostles, for the sake of Christians in the countless generations to come. He preached from the Old Testament because he epitomized servant leadership, part of which is leading by example. It's extremely important to God that Christians know and understand scripture (Luke 16:29), and have a scriptural basis for everything they believe about God and morality (Isaiah 8:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Christians should reason with each other on the basis of scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17).

[4] Without getting deep into the relevant scriptures here, God can be regarded as a family of two beings, the Father and the Son, perfect and like-minded in all respects. No one has ever seen or heard the Father. The Son, who is also called the 'Word', Greek logos (which can also be translated as "spokesman") is the one who emptied himself and came in the flesh as Jesus Christ. He indicates in John 14:28 that the Father is greater than himself, in authority over him, hence "Father" and "Son". He is also the one who dealt directly with Abraham, the Patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets throughout the Old Testament, and is called the LORD or the Eternal. 'God' in the Old Testament, depending on the word used in Hebrew, can refer either to the God Family (i.e. the Godhead) or to God the Son. The distinction typically isn't important since the Father and the Son work in perfect harmony; anything commanded or effected by the Latter can effectively be regarded as commanded/effected by Both.

Scripture is written by men, specially chosen by God, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is God's outflowing spirit, power, and essence. Hence while the individual authors' personalities and writing styles are their own, the substance of scripture--everything important--is of God. Many scriptures make this plain, but 2 Tim 3:16-17 is again a good starting point. The bottom line being that God, including the Word who is Jesus Christ, can be regarded as the senior co-author of all scripture. The apostles (specifically James, John, and Peter) were also guided by God's Holy Spirit in selecting which writings were ultimately to become New Testament canon, to "bind up the testimony and seal the law" (Isaiah 8:16), and this much is documented in scripture.

I understand your comment that "[Christ] never wrote a word about that religion" is basically asking: why did Christ, while in the flesh, not personally write the books of the New Testament, instead delegating to his apostles? One could equally well ask why He spoke via the prophets in the Old Testament. I personally know of no concise answer to this question, but I do know from scripture that it pleases God to involve us (the sons of man) in His work, in order to teach us, train us, give us real purpose, and instill within us His spirit of industriousness, creativity, and authorship. I can think of no better way to do this than to involve men directly in the revelation of His prophetic word.

With this as context, moving on to your question: "Would he author an update if he came today?"

If by "today" you mean "when he returns in his second coming", and by "author an update" you mean "add to mankind's revelations about God", the short answer is "I don't know.". The slightly longer answer is "He can do whatever He wants to, and I'm sure his decision will be the right one."

[5] I don't know how They sorted it out, or if They even had to sort it out. One of a million things I'd like to know about God but isn't in the Bible, which means we presently don't need to know.
 
COTO said:
Briefly, and in order:

[1] Yes.

[2] No, since Judaism at Christ's time had morphed into something very different from the religion of the Old Testament. The same holds true today.

[3] The New Testament was compiled as a record of his ministry and teaching, and as a record of the ministry and teaching of the apostles, for the sake of Christians in the countless generations to come. He preached from the Old Testament because he epitomized servant leadership, part of which is leading by example. It's extremely important to God that Christians know and understand scripture (Luke 16:29), and have a scriptural basis for everything they believe about God and morality (Isaiah 8:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Christians should reason with each other on the basis of scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17).

[4] Without getting deep into the relevant scriptures here, God can be regarded as a family of two beings, the Father and the Son, perfect and like-minded in all respects. No one has ever seen or heard the Father. The Son, who is also called the 'Word', Greek logos (which can also be translated as "spokesman") is the one who emptied himself and came in the flesh as Jesus Christ. He indicates in John 14:28 that the Father is greater than himself, in authority over him, hence "Father" and "Son". He is also the one who dealt directly with Abraham, the Patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets throughout the Old Testament, and is called the LORD or the Eternal. 'God' in the Old Testament, depending on the word used in Hebrew, can refer either to the God Family (i.e. the Godhead) or to God the Son. The distinction typically isn't important since the Father and the Son work in perfect harmony; anything commanded or effected by the Latter can effectively be regarded as commanded/effected by Both.

Scripture is written by men, specially chosen by God, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is God's outflowing spirit, power, and essence. Hence while the individual authors' personalities and writing styles are their own, the substance of scripture--everything important--is of God. Many scriptures make this plain, but 2 Tim 3:16-17 is again a good starting point. The bottom line being that God, including the Word who is Jesus Christ, can be regarded as the senior co-author of all scripture. The apostles (specifically James, John, and Peter) were also guided by God's Holy Spirit in selecting which writings were ultimately to become New Testament canon, to "bind up the testimony and seal the law" (Isaiah 8:16), and this much is documented in scripture.

I understand your comment that "[Christ] never wrote a word about that religion" is basically asking: why did Christ, while in the flesh, not personally write the books of the New Testament, instead delegating to his apostles? One could equally well ask why He spoke via the prophets in the Old Testament. I personally know of no concise answer to this question, but I do know from scripture that it pleases God to involve us (the sons of man) in His work, in order to teach us, train us, give us real purpose, and instill within us His spirit of industriousness, creativity, and authorship. I can think of no better way to do this than to involve men directly in the revelation of His prophetic word.

With this as context, moving on to your question: "Would he author an update if he came today?"

If by "today" you mean "when he returns in his second coming", and by "author an update" you mean "add to mankind's revelations about God", the short answer is "I don't know.". The slightly longer answer is "He can do whatever He wants to, and I'm sure his decision will be the right one."

[5] I don't know how They sorted it out, or if They even had to sort it out. One of a million things I'd like to know about God but isn't in the Bible, which means we presently don't need to know.
Click to expand...

1. Wrong. Jesus was not a strictly adherent Jew, he both broke the rules and encouraged breaking them.

Christ did not speak through the prophets, nor did they invoke his name.

God always does the right thing because that is how you define him.
 
devildavid said:
Did Jesus adhere to the religion of the Old Testament? Did he follow Judaism strictly? Why would he need a story book about himself to preach from when he would be here in the flesh? Supposedly he created a new religion but he never wrote a word about that religion. Would he author an update if he came today? Did he or his father decide on which bible writings are canon?
Click to expand...

He most certainly did...Jesus and his disciples quoted from the Mosaic Law as well as from the Ten Commandments and considered all of it equally binding on those under the Law....Matthew 5:21-48; 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10; James 2:10, 11...the Bible plainly states that Christ’s sacrifice “abolished...the Law of commandments consisting in decrees” and that God “blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees...and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.” It was the complete Mosaic Law that was “abolished,” “blotted out,” taken “out of the way”...Ephesians 2:13-15; Colossians 2:13, 14...

"Nailed to the torture stake"...just what does that mean? Since the law was not literally nailed to the stake, the meaning must be symbolical...knowing the background facts give the words understanding...in the time of Christ, in Asia bills or deeds were canceled by driving a nail through them and fixing them to a post in a public place....outmoded laws were dissolved by nailing copies of them up in public places...there are indications that this custom existed and was followed where Colossians 2:14 speaks of the law as being canceled out by nailing it to the torture stake on which Jesus was impaled...
 
devildavid said:
1. Wrong. Jesus was not a strictly adherent Jew, he both broke the rules and encouraged breaking them.

Christ did not speak through the prophets, nor did they invoke his name.

God always does the right thing because that is how you define him.
Click to expand...
You're mistaking my answer for [1] as my answer for [2]. The numbers appear after the citations, which is the academic standard.

My answer to "Did he follow Judaism strictly?", which is [2], is "No, since Judaism at Christ's time had morphed into something very different from the religion of the Old Testament. The same holds true today."

More specifically, in Christ's time the Jewish religious authorities had added countless laws (thousands and thousands, even) to the Old Testament Law that they had no business adding, including many that made the original laws of no effect, and Christ took them to task for it. It's also important to note that the Jewish authorities at the time were illegitimate. The true high priest by lineage was John the Baptist, however he was thrown out, essentially driven into the wilderness, and replaced by Annas and Caiaphas, who were installed by the Romans. A great deal of historical evidence suggests they were neither Jews nor Levites by geneaology. Hence what Christ had to contend with was illegitimate, hypocritical Jewish leaders "teaching as commandments doctrines of men" (Mark 7:7) to the nation of Judah at the time.

He never once taught against the laws and statutes of the Old Testament, except to clarify what was actually there and what were additional strictures tacked on by men.

devildavid said:
Christ did not speak through the prophets, nor did they invoke his name.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree.

devildavid said:
God always does the right thing because that is how you define him.
Click to expand...
You can define Him in many ways: as the Eternal One, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Almighty, the Redeemer of Mankind, and many other offices besides.

But in the sense that God alone determines what is morally right and what is wrong: yes, He always does the morally right thing. He is perfect and unchanging when it comes to morality, and can be considered synonymous with "good".
 
Elvira said:
He most certainly did...Jesus and his disciples quoted from the Mosaic Law as well as from the Ten Commandments and considered all of it equally binding on those under the Law....Matthew 5:21-48; 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10; James 2:10, 11...the Bible plainly states that Christ’s sacrifice “abolished...the Law of commandments consisting in decrees” and that God “blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees...and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.” It was the complete Mosaic Law that was “abolished,” “blotted out,” taken “out of the way”...Ephesians 2:13-15; Colossians 2:13, 14...

"Nailed to the torture stake"...just what does that mean? Since the law was not literally nailed to the stake, the meaning must be symbolical...knowing the background facts give the words understanding...in the time of Christ, in Asia bills or deeds were canceled by driving a nail through them and fixing them to a post in a public place....outmoded laws were dissolved by nailing copies of them up in public places...there are indications that this custom existed and was followed where Colossians 2:14 speaks of the law as being canceled out by nailing it to the torture stake on which Jesus was impaled...
Click to expand...
You're gravely mistaken.

What Christ abolished was the sure penalty for our sins, which was death.

Every man sins, and the penalty for sin is death. This is what Paul calls "the curse of the Law" in his letters to the Gentiles. Christ paid this penalty for us with his sacrifice. He removed from us the death penalty and opened the way to eternal life. It's critically important because without it, no man would have any hope of salvation. It's also why Christians should be exceedingly grateful to God and to Christ, for paying this penalty on our behalf.

The Protestant Churches, starting with Martin Luther himself, never understood this. But the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" is a false doctrine--a very dangerous one. Christ absolutely did not do away with Old Testament law. If the New Testament scriptures are taken in their entirety, without omissions, this truth is clear and manifest.
 
COTO said:
You're mistaking my answer for [1] as my answer for [2]. The numbers appear after the citations, which is the academic standard.

My answer to "Did he follow Judaism strictly?", which is [2], is "No, since Judaism at Christ's time had morphed into something very different from the religion of the Old Testament. The same holds true today."

More specifically, in Christ's time the Jewish religious authorities had added countless laws (thousands and thousands, even) to the Old Testament Law that they had no business adding, including many that made the original laws of no effect, and Christ took them to task for it. It's also important to note that the Jewish authorities at the time were illegitimate. The true high priest by lineage was John the Baptist, however he was thrown out, essentially driven into the wilderness, and replaced by Annas and Caiaphas, who were installed by the Romans. A great deal of historical evidence suggests they were neither Jews nor Levites by geneaology. Hence what Christ had to contend with was illegitimate, hypocritical Jewish leaders "teaching as commandments doctrines of men" (Mark 7:7) to the nation of Judah at the time.

He never once taught against the laws and statutes of the Old Testament, except to clarify what was actually there and what were additional strictures tacked on by men.


Agree to disagree.


You can define Him in many ways: as the Eternal One, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Almighty, the Redeemer of Mankind, and many other offices besides.

But in the sense that God alone determines what is morally right and what is wrong: yes, He always does the morally right thing. He is perfect and unchanging when it comes to morality, and can be considered synonymous with "good".
Click to expand...

Yes, it is very easy to be perfect when you have a rule that you are perfect so everything you do is perfect. But it means that we don't really have a precise idea of what god or perfection is.
 
COTO said:
You're gravely mistaken.

What Christ abolished was the sure penalty for our sins, which was death.

Every man sins, and the penalty for sin is death. This is what Paul calls "the curse of the Law" in his letters to the Gentiles. Christ paid this penalty for us with his sacrifice. He removed from us the death penalty and opened the way to eternal life. It's critically important because without it, no man would have any hope of salvation. It's also why Christians should be exceedingly grateful to God and to Christ, for paying this penalty on our behalf.

The Protestant Churches, starting with Martin Luther himself, never understood this. But the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" is a false doctrine--a very dangerous one. Christ absolutely did not do away with Old Testament law. If the New Testament scriptures are taken in their entirety, without omissions, this truth is clear and manifest.
Click to expand...

lol...so how many of the over 600 laws do you keep, many of them being dietary, ceremonial, and priesthood laws...how many bulls and goats have you sacrificed lately?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom