Understanding the Bible 101: Old Testament (OT) law and New Testament (NT) "law"

[Subby]

So a person born and raised in a rural area of China and has the misfortune of never being exposed to Christianity - that person is going to Hell, right?

[Jughead Spock]

Originally Posted by Drake

This plus abortion = sins most white heterosexual men are not tempted by, or are not applicable to white heterosexual men.

Porn and infidelity are much bigger issues in the church by volume of sin -- and I don't know of a church that would not agree that those are both sin -- but they don't get a tenth of the attention the super sins do. (I actually call them "The Special Sins" in air quotes when this topic comes up at my church.)

Homosexual sex isn't any more of a sin than, say, pre-marital sex (and a bunch of lesser moral crimes). You don't see the religious base getting riled up about legislation to punish 17 y.o. boys for fucking their girlfriends or laws forcing them to get married (or keeping them from getting married because their relationship is rooted in immorality, which would be a better cognate). The argument you hear most often has to do with the slippery slope of morality and "Godz gonna judge us for tolerating sin -- look at N'awlins!".

Seriously? You've left shutting down the porn industry largely to womens rights groups (of whom you're also terrified because they're upending the "natural order"), basic civil rights for minorities to the ACLU, and care for the poor and the widows to the fucking federal government...and you're worried that God is going to judge us because we tolerated some guys ramming their dicks into each other's assholes? That's where you're going to stake your claim to righteousness?

ETA: I want to be explicit here so you know where I'm coming from -- I do believe that the Bible teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. Since I also believe that the Bible is the word of God, I believe that homosexual sex is a sin. I equally believe that every time I look at a hot workstudy in my university office and wonder what it would be like to fuck her, I've committed an equally damnable sin. The Bible says a ton more about lust than it does about gay fucking, and that's a test I fail daily. I don't expect I'm going to stop giving the sex eye to hot 20 y.o. co-eds any time soon. It's built into my design as a dude. I try to be respectful and ask God to help me with my sin. Whatever. That's why I'm grateful for grace -- which God says that he wants desperately to extend to everyone who will have it. The worse sin, it would seem to me, is saying that my sin is less than someone else's and trying to set up an obstacle between them (and their sin) receiving the grace that God has so generously and freely given me when I do not and have not ever deserved it.

Vulgarities aside, this is a pretty strong argument.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember blasphemy being painted as the "super sin"? Blasphemy more in the sense of turning yourself from God throughout the span of your life, rather than shouting out Jesus Christ when you drop something on your foot.

Blasphemy against God, His Son, the Holy Spirit, the Word and the Church is a clear sin but the Phariseatic tradition (as well as late religious traditions) made it punishable by death. But Saul was a blasphemer and a persecutor but he obtained mercy and forgiveness (as recorded in Timothy) and become Paul. Blasphemy against the Spirit cannot be forgiven for that simply means that one did not repent and did not receive the free grace and mercy (hardened against the gospel message) - a true, unrepentent unbeliever.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I have only looked at a few posts here... is this thread worth reading in depth, or is it much like the Bible... something that most people do just fine with catching the highlights.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Subby

So a person born and raised in a rural area of China and has the misfortune of never being exposed to Christianity - that person is going to Hell, right?

Chris, that is a common question and not an easy answer. I don't know what they will be held accountable for but the path to salvation is a narrow one and cannot change. But you, I and many here have heard the gospel message and will be held accountable for our response to it. And as a believer, it is our responsibility to get the gospel message out to everyone.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I have only looked at a few posts here... is this thread worth reading in depth, or is it much like the Bible... something that most people do just fine with catching the highlights.

Pretty good read, I'd say.

[Subby]

It got CrimsonFox boxed, so I would say it was wholly worth it.

[Buccaneer]

As a quick response bhlloy and drake (since I need to get to work and I'm on my iPhone), hypocrisy against the Word has been going on for a long time. Jesus several times slammed the Pharisees with their outward appearance of piety but their hearts were still evil. Sin is very much prevalent not only in our cultures but in our churches as well (many false teachers and deceivers). All those show the condition of man and the need for true repentance and redemption but most will go through the wide gate and not the narrow more difficult one. What men preaches and teaches can be like the Pharisees and one should not base their faith upon man and his institutions, only upon the Word, God's revelation to us.

[DaddyTorgo]

how did CF get boxed? was there a post deleted?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

how did CF get boxed? was there a post deleted?

Wondering about that as well.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

how did CF get boxed? was there a post deleted?

I think it is the general acting like an asshat troll rule. Not that I agree he was acting like one, but his general comments that were OT of the thread might have done it?

[Coffee Warlord]

Looking through the last few pages, my opinion he was going above and beyond the usual sarcasm/mockery that we expect. Think he hit critical asshattery mass.

[Sun Tzu]

"We have a place for babies like you...THE BOX!"

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I'm rooting hard for CrimsonFox, might parlay with the over at 3.

Nailed it, so glad I played risky and avoided the parlay.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Nailed it, so glad I played risky and avoided the parlay.

Indeed. Good call.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by revrew

Yet the manipulation of the doctrine of eternal salvation does not discredit the doctrine itself.

This line has stuck with me, I guess I take a more sociological view. In the case of every other religion, the "manipulation of the doctrine" is used by detractors as conclusive evidence of a religions illegitimacy.

For example, Bucc said, "God's words has not, does not and can not change and is inerrant in its original manuscript as something God-inspired can only be." This statement could (more or less) be claimed by a Jew, Muslim and even Hindu.

In nearly every case, religions provide a social, political and economic framework for a community. The need for a religious "sacred canopy" to protect a community from fear, death, chaos, and selfishness has been a necessary quality for any civilization to survive. (Certainly since Civ IV )

In essence, to a Christian, the only difference between the western christian sacred canopy and all others, is they are merely spiritually right. However, in function, stability and meaningfulness, they are the same as every other one. Moreover, when a religion fails, it is not because it is proved wrong, rather, it is that it ceases to fulfill its essential function of meaningfulness and stability to a community; thus creating an opening for the uncontent to revolt (see Jesus, Luther, Stalin).

One can make the argument that the decline in religious attendance in America is not because the faith has been proven wrong, but that medicine, sports teams, political parties and internet forums are providing more meaningfulness and stability. Where religious memberships are increasing in the world, science, leisure and liberty are weak.

[Buccaneer]

The statement that other sacred claim the same is not true, as far as I can tell. The other religious works does not include the same prophetic content and certainly not the fulfillment of prophesy. Also (pasted from another site) the writings from the Far East, the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism and Hinduism do not even make a claim to be God’s word. They present to their followers a path to a simpler, more satisfactory life. The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future. But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God’s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

[DanGarion]

Bible prophecies are batting 1000? Ok, I'm checking out of this thread and it's zaniness...

[Coffee Warlord]

*weeps*

Yeah. Nothing good is gonna come from going down that road.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Only the Christian Bible claims to be God’s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

Really?

I can write a book that claims to be God's own word to man too. No big deal there.

And not sure what NON-BIBLICAL evidence there is of Biblical prophecies batting 1000?

Because I can write a book that claims to be God's own word to man that attests that a bunch of things that the book itself prophecies also came true. That's not hard.

[Buccaneer]

Surely you don't want me to list them all and their fulfillment?

[Jughead Spock]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah.

What the huh?

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I can write a book that claims to be God's own word to man too. No big deal there.

You have as much chance as writing something Biblical as Joseph Smith does.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The statement that other sacred claim the same is not true, as far as I can tell. The other religious works does not include the same prophetic content and certainly not the fulfillment of prophesy. Also (pasted from another site) the writings from the Far East, the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism and Hinduism do not even make a claim to be God’s word. They present to their followers a path to a simpler, more satisfactory life. The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future. But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God’s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

I'm no religious scholar, but I do know that the Natyasastra (The Holy Book of Theatre)has an authorship tradition very much like the Bible. It was compiled by Bharata, but all the knowledge was provided directly from Brahma.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Matthean

You have as much chance as writing something Biblical as Joseph Smith does.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The statement that other sacred claim the same is not true, as far as I can tell. The other religious works does not include the same prophetic content and certainly not the fulfillment of prophesy. Also (pasted from another site) the writings from the Far East, the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism and Hinduism do not even make a claim to be God’s word. They present to their followers a path to a simpler, more satisfactory life. The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future. But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God’s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

In general, one can say other religions see Christianity as the story of the prophet Jesus. In general, their argument is that the prophet of their religion got the full message, not Jesus. Jews, Muslims, Mormons all believe their prophets have a truth that is greater (word of god, god inspired, etc) than the one Jesus proclaimed. In Hinduism, the main text is believed to be divinely inspired and is translated as "Revealed." Again, they would say that which is revealed to them is more complete than that which was revealed to Jesus.

The problem comes in trying to "prove" which prophet is correct. It is this desire that has caused the majority of the suffering and cruelty of religions.

“Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” St Francis.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just a side note as it is part of my world, there is a lot of academic discussion on what Shakespeare wrote. There are several different versions of Shakespeare's plays and the "modern" version that most everyone reads or performs is certainly not a copy of the original text.

An author wrote on this issue that if you are to take ten works of Shakespeare and see how authentic they are compared to the originals. The authenticity of the Bible is still stronger. I know he started as an atheist and tried to go out and disprove Christianity only to become a believer himself. I think his books have more notes than a number of school books I have read.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

“Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” St Francis.

FYI, one of my pastors ripped on that phrase, and I agree with him. Without words, a Christian's actions are no different than a non-believer's.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Matthean

An author wrote on this issue that if you are to take ten works of Shakespeare and see how authentic they are compared to the originals. The authenticity of the Bible is still stronger. I know he started as an atheist and tried to go out and disprove Christianity only to become a believer himself. I think his books have more notes than a number of school books I have read.

The problem with that is our lack of an "original" version. He was probably talking about the First Folio, but that was compiled and published after Shakespeare's death.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

In general, their argument is that the prophet of their religion got the full message, not Jesus. Jews, Muslims, Mormons all believe their prophets have a truth that is greater (word of god, god inspired, etc) than the one Jesus proclaimed.

Uh... that's not at all true for Mormons. They don't claim that Joseph Smith had some greater truth than Jesus. They claim that he restored the Gospel as it was with Jesus.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future.

This is just incorrect. The Koran is supposed to be Mohammed transcribing God speaking to him. That is why the Koran is not allowed to be translated - because Mohammed wrote God's word in Arabic and it should stay like that for all time. Obviously, Christianity has a diffierent viewpoint - but then again, Biblical literalism is a relatively new concept (like last 200 years)

But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God’s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

Here is the problem I have with the prophecy statement. Some prophecy HAS come true, but then when it doesn't, some Christians like to say, oh well that obviously means the end of time. Such as the Book of Daniel - it really nails the reign of Antioches Epiphanies, up until his death. Conservative Christians like to wave it away by saying instantly Daniel goes from BC era to the end of days, which makes little to no sense.

Men wrote down the revelations of God that they witnessed. Eyewitness reports are usually very accurate (that's why they are given such power in courts), but not perfectly so. We must remember the Bible is not itself revelation, but a record of revelation. Bibolatry is just as idolatry as anything else.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Matthean

FYI, one of my pastors ripped on that phrase, and I agree with him. Without words, a Christian's actions are no different than a non-believer's.

I will side with St. Francis, one of the biggest lights of the Church. You are to act like Jesus with love towards neighbor in such a way that people are drawn to that light and ask why you are acting in the way you are acting. That's when you say it is the light of Jesus, the Son of God, King of Kings, Lord and Savior of Creation.

People are drawn to those whose faith results in action, not mere words & especially not words promoting fear (if you don't believe you'll end up in Hell, etc).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The statement that other sacred claim the same is not true, as far as I can tell. The other religious works does not include the same prophetic content and certainly not the fulfillment of prophesy. Also (pasted from another site) the writings from the Far East, the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism and Hinduism do not even make a claim to be God’s word. They present to their followers a path to a simpler, more satisfactory life. The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future. But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God’s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

Seriously Bucc? In what way has the Bible been prophetic except in parallel's? And your logic that other religions don't claim to the word of god is silly - that's exactly what Muslims believe the Quran is. Its hard to take you seriously on this when you don't demonstrate even a cursory knowledge of the other belief systems you're making claims about.

[Crapshoot]

Dola, I see Imran already made the same point.

[Buccaneer]

My earlier post was sloppy and posted without much thought or clarification. Sorry.

The prophecies mentioned were the prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ - all from the OT (54 of them).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

My earlier post was sloppy and posted without much thought or clarification. Sorry.

The prophecies mentioned were the prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ - all from the OT (54 of them).

Well that's nothing if not a circular example.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The prophecies mentioned were the prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ - all from the OT (54 of them).

The NT fulfilling the prophecies of the OT does not make the NT any more accurate a historic source as it does not address any of the issues regarding the accuracy of the NT...

[Schmidty]

Not going to read this thread or post in it, as I have friends from FB here (which I never go to), but I'm assuming it's going to be a case of "Gangbang a Christian".

Facebook and FOFC has really changed the way I communicate. I'm not sure I think that's a good thing.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

The NT fulfilling the prophecies of the OT does not make the NT any more accurate a historic source as it does not address any of the issues regarding the accuracy of the NT...

There are several early non-Christian writers outside of the Bible that spoke to events of Christ and the early church. The list I have includes Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, the Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion and Acts of Pontius Pilate as referenced by Justin Martyr. But I go back to my earlier point about the sheer number of ancient manuscripts close to the time of the events of the 1st century and even if we had no manuscripts, nearly all of the NT can be reconstructed by the writings of the early church fathers. I understand the point of comparing to other ancient writings (where the earliest manuscripts can date to 1000 years later) in that no one is basing their life (or death) on those but the evidence is there if you chose to research what we have and see how the message have remained unchanged in all of those years since the early centuries.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Bible prophecies are batting 1000

The thing with any book containing prophecies is its 'accuracy' is entirely dependent on how detailed it is in the descriptions of its predictions.

Its no coincidence imho that any 'accurate' books have incredibly vague wording and symbolism for their predictions - this allows each generation to read into the texts something which makes sense to them ....

If you doubt this look at any writing which predicts the future which still has supporters indicating it has credibility - ie. Nostradamus etc.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Only the Christian Bible claims to be God’s very word to man

You might want to read a little more regarding other religions beliefs and suchlike, many many religions have made claims regarding such things ..

Originally Posted by Wikipedia / Islam

Muslims believe that the Qur'an predicted many events years before they happened. They argue that such prophecies are proof of the divine origin of Qur'an. The Qur'an itself states "For every prophecy is a term, and you will come to know (it)." [Quran 6:67] Muslims also recognize the validity of some prophecies in other sacred texts like in the Bible; however, they believe that, unlike the Qur'an, some parts of the Bible have been corrupted over the years, and as a result, not all of the prophecies and verses in the Bible are accurate.[19]

Prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Lathum]

What did crimsonfox do?

[MrBug708]

I'm curious as to Revrew's view on Catholics.

[Buccaneer]

Marc, I did admit that it was a sloppy post. That's what I get for posting quickly on my phone instead of waiting till I got home.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Drake

This plus abortion = sins most white heterosexual men are not tempted by, or are not applicable to white heterosexual men.

Porn and infidelity are much bigger issues in the church by volume of sin -- and I don't know of a church that would not agree that those are both sin -- but they don't get a tenth of the attention the super sins do. (I actually call them "The Special Sins" in air quotes when this topic comes up at my church.)

Homosexual sex isn't any more of a sin than, say, pre-marital sex (and a bunch of lesser moral crimes). You don't see the religious base getting riled up about legislation to punish 17 y.o. boys for fucking their girlfriends or laws forcing them to get married (or keeping them from getting married because their relationship is rooted in immorality, which would be a better cognate). The argument you hear most often has to do with the slippery slope of morality and "Godz gonna judge us for tolerating sin -- look at N'awlins!".

Seriously? You've left shutting down the porn industry largely to womens rights groups (of whom you're also terrified because they're upending the "natural order"), basic civil rights for minorities to the ACLU, and care for the poor and the widows to the fucking federal government...and you're worried that God is going to judge us because we tolerated some guys ramming their dicks into each other's assholes? That's where you're going to stake your claim to righteousness?

ETA: I want to be explicit here so you know where I'm coming from -- I do believe that the Bible teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. Since I also believe that the Bible is the word of God, I believe that homosexual sex is a sin. I equally believe that every time I look at a hot workstudy in my university office and wonder what it would be like to fuck her, I've committed an equally damnable sin. The Bible says a ton more about lust than it does about gay fucking, and that's a test I fail daily. I don't expect I'm going to stop giving the sex eye to hot 20 y.o. co-eds any time soon. It's built into my design as a dude. I try to be respectful and ask God to help me with my sin. Whatever. That's why I'm grateful for grace -- which God says that he wants desperately to extend to everyone who will have it. The worse sin, it would seem to me, is saying that my sin is less than someone else's and trying to set up an obstacle between them (and their sin) receiving the grace that God has so generously and freely given me when I do not and have not ever deserved it.

+1

I was waiting for someone to come into this thread and make a reasonable facsimile of my argument on this topic.

That'll do Pig. That'll do.

good post.


Edit for when my wife reads this post. I don't know anything about these co-eds Drake is talking about.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There are several early non-Christian writers outside of the Bible that spoke to events of Christ and the early church. The list I have includes Tacitus,

BTW, the list you have is essentially complete - these are all the sources for a historical Jesus. None of them come even within the first decades following his death and, more importantly, none make any reference to a fantastic, divine, miraculous, deeds. They are merely used to demonstrate that Jesus existed - NOT that the events of the NT occurred.

Tacitus was born some years after Christ would have died, and his text on Christians was written around 116, so 80-90 years after Christ. From him we get a brief description of the crucifix and on Christian persecution. No mention of miracles, etc.

Non-contemporary, and dated after the earliest Christian texts were written anyway.

Suetonius

Born at least 30-40 years after Christ would have died. Again, very brief, mentions Christians, historians debate whether he was actually referring to Jesus Christ, and even if so, it's non-contemporary and contains no miracles/wonderous tales etc.

Josephus

'Josephus on Jesus' Written around 60-70 years after Jesus would have died. Mentions Christians and Jesus, nothing miraculous again. Parts of it widely considered interpolated later, but even this particular part of the text was regarding Jewish persecution IIRC, and nothing 'divine'.

Thallus

Nothing survives outside of a c. 221 AD reference to a history written by Thallus around 52 AD, so maybe 2 decades after Christ. Contains a story about an exlipse and earthquake that could be linked to a gospel episode.

Pliny the Younger

Born around 30 years after Christ. Simply mentions Christians who worship "Christus" rather than the Roman Emperor.

Emperor Trajan

Trajan was the recipient of Pliny's letter that mentioned Christus and the Christians above.

the Talmud

The Talmud was written between the 2nd and 5th centuries, putting it well out of the contemporary timeframe, and it's almost certain that parts of it were based directly on NT texts anyway.

Lucian

Born nearly 100 years after Christ. Insulted Christians and may have included a reference to Jesus' crucifiction. That is it.

Mara Bar-Serapion

Mara's letter to his son was written sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd Century. Not contemporary, and, at best, it might contain an early reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

and Acts of Pontius Pilate

A forgery from the 4th Century at best guess. Clearly written in different hands etc. Read the wiki page on 'Acts of Pilate' for the full info.

But I go back to my earlier point about the sheer number of ancient manuscripts close to the time of the events of the 1st century and even if we had no manuscripts, nearly all of the NT can be reconstructed by the writings of the early church fathers. I understand the point of comparing to other ancient writings (where the earliest manuscripts can date to 1000 years later) in that no one is basing their life (or death) on those but the evidence is there if you chose to research what we have and see how the message have remained unchanged in all of those years since the early centuries.

I'm sorry but that's completely wrong. NONE of the NT can be reconstructed by the above documents. Only, a) that Christians existed in the decades following the supposed death of Jesus and that, b) someone named Jesus Christ probably existed around that time. That's it.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Drake

This plus abortion = sins most white heterosexual men are not tempted by, or are not applicable to white heterosexual men.

I must have missed this first time through, but I couldn't agree with this more. We minimize the sins that we might be tempted by or even partake in and demonize the ones that have very little effect on our life or we are confident that we won't be ostracized for speaking out against. Refreshing honesty and an attitude that would possibly draw me back if I thought it was shared on any real level within the church.

[Groundhog]

Interestingly enough, and very surprising for me when I read up on Islamic history last year, Islam has a similar problem with their prophet too, which is more worrying considering he came centuries closer to our time.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I'm sorry but that's completely wrong. NONE of the NT can be reconstructed by the above documents. Only, a) that Christians existed in the decades following the supposed death of Jesus and that, b) someone named Jesus Christ probably existed around that time. That's it.

You misunderstood. The early church fathers would not include any of the above documents. I was refuted the claim that there were no evidence of a historical Jesus. Besides, I'll give you a new list: Eusebius, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Tatian.

There were so many accounts in the early 2nd-4th centuries of the phenomenal rise of Christianity (esp. consider that some believe it came out of a delusional sect of illiterates) that there had to be something more than saying that Jesus did not exist or refuting His claims (and those of his followers). It would not have spread much outside of Judea, let alone Samaria and into Asia Minor and the seat of the Roman empire; nor would we have had the consistency of the Scriptures for 1600-1700+ years or the spread into every nation on earth. In other words, the same gospel message that Paul spread to Rome (or Pat Rick in Ireland if you would accept a couple of centuries later) and gospel message we have today. The early spread was into several different cultures and it was done by the Spirit instead of by force or by warfare (which, unfortunately later "missionaries" failed to learn).

Anyone can deny that Jesus was the Son of God but many learned (and unlearned) people have not and that's the point: it is your choice to believe based on the evidence we do have and the claims made in the Scriptures.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I must have missed this first time through, but I couldn't agree with this more. We minimize the sins that we might be tempted by or even partake in and demonize the ones that have very little effect on our life or we are confident that we won't be ostracized for speaking out against. Refreshing honesty and an attitude that would possibly draw me back if I thought it was shared on any real level within the church.

And I think that was revrew's original intent - not to cherry-pick something out and make it a super sin. But one must not also make it less of a sin either.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I'm curious as to Revrew's view on Catholics.

Pick any denomination of Christianity, the issue isn't what church you belong to, but the condition of your own heart and faith. There are many Christians within Catholicism and many within the Catholic Church who are not. The same can be said of Baptists, Methodists, etc., etc.

I don't agree with wide patches of Catholic theology, but again, the same could be said of just about any denomination.

The point of this thread, however, was understanding and interpreting the OT. In my original post, I pointed out that the system I presented was widely accepted among Protestant/Evangelicals, and that I'm uncertain of a Catholic approach to the OT.

Full disclosure: I grew up Catholic, though left the church in my teens