{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/21/2015 1:35:43 PM
1
Then all bibles should be literal.
I should just call all Christians wife beaters and slave owners/-blam!-rs, right?
English
-
If you know anything about the bible, you would know that the New Testament was a new pact formed between god and man. It renders the teachings of the Old Testament obsolete. The New Testament clearly states this. The only way into heaven is through Jesus and his teachings. None of which involved beating wife's.
-
Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the old law and that not one word of the old law should be removed until heaven and earth come to pass. Matthew 5:17-19
-
You do realize you are misquoting it right? Smh
-
I didn't quote it. I paraphrased. But that is essentially what it says. A quote is only when actual quotation marks are used. smh
-
That is not what it says, and you left out a crucial point in that verse.
-
Editado por ScarceTripod: 11/21/2015 6:20:12 PM"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." "Whosoever shall therefore break one of the least of the commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdoms of heaven." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17-19&version=KJV He absolutely said he did not come to abolish the law. If I left anything out please enlighten me.
-
He stated he did not come to abolish the law, he came to fulfill it. In the context of the rest of the book, he does not want the old laws to continue. In numerous areas throughout the book, it makes note that the old laws are obsolete. The way it is worded is to imply that the book is not to be forgotten, but that the laws are obsolete. If you have issues putting these verses in context, you may google summaries that explain it. For the illiterate, it basically explains that Jesus is the culmination of the Old Testament, as well as it's end. The New Testament is the word of god after the coming of christ. It has new and different guidelines.
-
No he clearly states that the law is NOT to be abolished. There are plenty of other people who would disagree with you. For example here. https://www.gci.org/bible/matthew517 Or here https://bible.org/seriespage/3-above-and-beyond-matthew-517-20 And that is the whole problem with these texts. One can take away anything they choose and justify anything they want.
-
If you believe he wants to ensure Christians adhere to all 613 Old Testament laws, the majority of which contradict his New Testament guidelines, and even some that are specifically stated throughout the bible as "no longer needed", than something is wrong with you, and you aren't even trying to look into what he means when he said he was going to "fulfill" the Old Testament.
-
Editado por ScarceTripod: 11/21/2015 8:09:17 PMI did look up what it means. I gave you two examples. You are nothing but talk and empty rhetoric with nothing to substantiate your claims. You are a waste of time. And I don't believe any of that crap. That fact that people can take whatever they want out of religion to justify their own means is what makes it entirely arbitrary. This is just one example of that.
-
Editado por whiteLI0N: 11/21/2015 8:11:43 PM[url=https://www.gci.org/bible/matthew517]here[/url] is a link you can read. I also was unable to open your links.
-
Did you even read that link? Here is a quote from that. (And I posted the same link by the way). "What Jesus said, then, was the Old Testament as a body of "God-breathed" literature would not be set aside or abolished. His concern was not specifically the sabbath or the Ten Commandments. It was the entire Old Testament." Your own link (which is the same link I had already posted) supports my claim that the Old Testament still is to be adhered to.
-
Omfg. You have to read further than that. That link clearly explains that Christians are not supposed to follow the laws of the Old Testament.
-
Editado por ScarceTripod: 11/21/2015 8:30:14 PMYou are right. It later reads that way and therefore contradicts itself and should not have been used by either of us. It clearly says that the entire Old Testament stands and then later says it does not. So which is it and how does one determine that? It's simply entirely arbitrary on how one WANTS to view it. It is not as if we can ask for clarification. It is all based on personal opinion.
-
The wording is piss poor, I agree. I'm not a Christian, but you would either accept that single contradiction as being poorly worded, or accept a hundred contradictions in other areas of the book.
-
I'm not a Christian either. And personally I agree with what Jesus is know to have taught. My whole view is that if one's religion helps a person be a better person I am all for it. If it is used to justify bigotry, hate, murder, or oppression I have a problem with it. I also have a problem, to a lesser extent, of religious people being dishonest with facts if they do not fit their agenda. Whatever faith you are affiliated with I hope you would use it to guide you to be a better person. Good talk and have a good day!
-
[url=https://www.gci.org/bible/matthew517]here[/url] is a link you can read.
-
Makes sense. I don't follow any religion, I'm agnostic to basically every religion/a slight antitheist (extremely slight). So I don't pay attention to any religion in specific. Overall I don't care in what people believe, though I have a friend that has taught me quite a bit through reading all of the Christian bible, Islamic bible and Jewish bible. Overall, as you said don't take things literally, it can be summed up to "Be a good person, dammit." :p
-
Wow someone who understands Uh...er... Lettuce? [spoiler]sorry I've never had this happen before[/spoiler]
-
-
I completely agree. Christianity was fortunate to have a "second version" that was supposed to erase the old non-politically correct crap. Islam doesn't have that. So when a modern society reads it, and compares it with the actions of the violent extremists, it makes sense that the extremists interpreted it the way they did. Keep in mind that those countries really do still beat/r[b]a[/b]pe their wives, they still have multiple wives that are treated like slaves, and they still execute people by beheadings, public hangings, burnings, and guns.
