@huxley,

huxley:


4) Abandon your family and follow me. (Matt 10:21.

10) Advocated passiveness to unwarranted aggression and oppression.

huxley:

Help rid the world of falsehoods which for many generation have been the scourge of humankind.

Perhaps we should start by ridding the world of atheistic falsehoods of pretending it has always been about religion and saying nothing about atheistic murders, no?

In anycase Matthew 10:21 does not advocate the abandoning of family to follow Christ -

And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death,
and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents,
and cause them to be put to death.

Does that sound like "abandoning" family?

Besides, the other verses cited:
Matt 8:21, Matt 10: 34-37, Matt 19: 29, Matt 23:9
Matt 24: 19, Mark 10: 29 - 30,
. . please see if the highlighted are stating the same thing you had intoned.

Is this how to present atheistic honesty?

huxley:


You can start with these, baba:

What's with the "baba" term.

Anyways to answer your questions

huxley:

1) I did not come to bring peace BUT a SWORD. (Matthew 10:34)

Jesus Christ did not advocate the use of a physical sword nor did he preach violence in Mathew 10:34 since he was speaking metaphorically otherwise why would he turn around in Mathew 26:52 - 53 when he advocates that those who live by the sword will perish by the sword.

huxley:

2) Do NOT go into the towns of the Gentiles (Matt 10: 5)

Because he had not commissioned the gospel to be preached at the time. He would have to leave to join his father in order for the advocate (the holy spirit) to John 16:4 - 7. Paul and Barnabas were especially commissioned to bring the gospel to the gentiles Galatians 2: 1 - 2.

huxley:

3) I was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:22-28)

If your read it through mathew 15 : 22 - 28 honestly it would have been easy for you to see that Jesus was merely testing the woman's faith, afterall her daughter was healed by Jesus Christ.

huxley:

4) Abandon your family and follow me. (Matt 8:21, Matt 10:21. Matt 10: 34-37, Matt 19: 29, Matt 23:9
Matt 24: 19, Mark 10: 29 - 30,

Again Jesus did not mean it the way you are putting it. In all the cases you have cited he was asking his disciples to forfeit (again not literally) everything including family to be his disciples. In other words he wanted them to be devoted whole heartedly to him as proof of their commitment to him.

huxley:

5) Caused suffering to innocent animals by inflicting demons on them (Matt 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26)

Animals do not have emotions nor self awareness. How did Jesus cause them to suffer?

huxley:

6) Advocated the killing of recalcitrant children

I am waiting to see where he did this using the bible of course as your reference point.

huxley:

7) Advocated and upheld the laws of the Old Testament (Matt 5)

Wrong. He said he had not come to abolish the Law and the prophets (scripture) but to fulfill it. Read verse 18 well when he says " not the smallest letter or smallest part of a letter will pass from the law until all things have taken place.

huxley:

8-) Advocated eternity in hell

I am waiting for where he stated this lie.

huxley:

9) Advocated a life without planning for the morrow (Matt 6: 31- 34)

Clearly he meant we should not be have anxiety over the future but rather face it without worries. There is no where he indicated living a life without planning for the future. Is this not the same Jesus who told the parable of five wise and five foolish virgins? The foolish ones waited till the last hour to find oil for their lamps where as the wise ones had prepared ahead of time.

huxley:

10) Advocated passiveness to unwarranted aggression and oppression.

huxley:

11) Killed an innocent tree for not having fruits out of season

huxley:

13) Advocated the maiming of bodily parts to avoid sin.

That is a Lie. He was making an illustration that if any part of you (common sense would tell anybody that your hand, eyes or ear cannot cause you to sin but rather what comes out of you) causes you to sin it should be removed from you in order to save your soul. That part of you could be a habit, a thought or behaviour not a hand, eye or ear. He after all said it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but rather what comes out of him.

@Pilgrim.1: Stop pretending. You can at least answer questions arising from your presentation about the Bible!

@Pilgrim.1: « #24 on: Today at 07:27:41 PM »

Quote
@huxley,
Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
I know of the Christian concept of the New Covenant. Now, what is the New Covenant and what OT traditions does it have jurisdiction over?

These terms should not be confused, huxley. The old covenant (Judaism) is not the same thing as the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi). So also the New Testament (Matthew to Revelation) is not to be confused for the new covenant (Christianity).

Christianity is not a continuum of Judaism; and when these matters are placed in their proper perspectives, I don't see why they should present any problem to anyone who is careful and honest enough to look at them.

Where do we now place King David's Psalms; OT or NT? And when you say "Proper perspectives," what does that mean? What yardsticks are you using? Should it be different from the what the plainly speaking meant? It any has an opinion among the "Christians," that is different from what Jesus plainly said, in the Bible, should this person's view be taken and disregard that of the plain speech of Jesus?






[Quote]
Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
Was it at Jesus's birth?
Was it during is adulescences?
Was at the moment of his baptism?
Was it at the moment of crucifixion?
Was it at resurrection?
Was it as ascension?

The new covenant came into effect when Jesus was glorified after the resurrection.
[/quote]

If this is the case, then all that Jesus said, in the New Testament, prior to this "glorification state that occurred after 'resurrection,' must be discarded and rendered IRRELEVANT, along with the OT! I ask you here and now; what then do you have left?

And why are you still keeping all of the pre-resurrection materials in the Bible and acting upon them?

Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
Imagine, you were born on the same day as Jesus and had lived up to the grand old age of 60 years. In fact, imagine all people born with 10 - 20 years of Jesus's birth, form about 15 BCE to 10 CE. There would have been millions of such people in the Near East at the time who were contemporaries or near coevals with Jesus. What dispensation was open to such people?

The old covenant was never given to the nations of the world - rather, it was specifically given to just one nation: ISRAEL (Deuteronomy 5:2-3). Even if the other nations all fell under the period of the Old Testament, it does not mean that they were under the old covenant that was specifically given to israel (see Romans 2:14-15). And just incase you ever wondered how they related to these matters, please see Romans 2:12.

How true to form and can anyone rely on the words of Jesus, if the ordinary men after him, as indicated above, from Biblical verses can dismiss his core statement about "OT," and its preservation and its unabrogatable? Who is correct here, Jesus or the others?

Lol, huxley. . . you make me laugh, and that's why I have been slow to reply! If you really wanted to know these matters, all you needed to do was study the Bible and see matters for yourself - even if you had to study it with an honest heart as a student of theology. One doesn't have to be a Christian to do theology, you know - and when you do these studies in their deixis (contextual settings), they will not present any problem to you.

Why then is a need for interpretation to the point that the plain speech developed a completely different meaning? Is there any where in the Bible where Jesus is as affirmative about "abrogating the OT, and their prophets," as he was when he spoke about his "fulfillment of the very same OT and its Prophets?" And I am a gentleman today. There is no harshness in my speech.






[Quote]
Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
If you were 30 years old at the time of Jesus death, does it mean that for most of your life you would have been subject to the old covenant.

It all depends - as a Gentile, I was not subject to the old covenant (because I was not a Jew), and the only way that the same old covenant would have affected me was if I had become a proselyte to Judaism. In as much as I was not a Jew, the old covenant was not applicable to me, although in my conscience, I could not live against the dictates of my spiritual awakening.
[/quote]

Is there anywhere Jesus restricted his speech about the validity of the Old Testament ad its Prophets, only to the jews, but to all who "believed in him?"






[Quote]
Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
But immediately following his death, the new covenant would have kicked in, and you would have had to live the rest of your life under the new covenant?

The new covenant did not "kick in" or become effective until Jesus was glorified, which means it was not immediately after His death that these matters came into fruition.
[/quote]

Then I will take it that all the materials known before the "kick in," must be all "kicked out," from that time on? Yes? I truly fail to see the continum of any pre "Kick in" things! Its just like if a person says he does not consume alcohol any longer, you will not expect find an open bottle of champagne in his bedroom, with part of it poured in a flute, and a smell of it in his breathe. Why do we see the pre kick in books in the bible of the christians? Its for what purpose exactly, since the "Kick in?"






[Quote]
Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
Which old covenant tradition would you have had to abandon?

As a Gentile, was I given any covenant? How could I abandon what I had not received in the first place?
[/quote]

I guess that whatever is in the OT covenant, is fair games for the post covenant, NT people? Like whatever flows the roll?






[Quote]
Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
Would you have had to abandon the dietary law, the hygiene laws, the cleanliness laws, the apostasy laws?

Since I was never given any in the first place, the idea of "abandoning" is a mute consideration, NO?

Cheers.
[/quote]

Oil wells that end well! I said it before. I am in your support camp. Do what you will, since there is no "Covenant" to bind any Christian, against pre glorification- after resurrection. NO? I have enjoyed myself. I learnt something today, about Christianity's post resurrection lack of covenant platform. Unless somebody thinks that I am way off mark in any or all of my responses. I need a true "teacher," without "interpretation," where the meaning is obvious and plain.

@Paulipopo: « #65 on: Today at 12:47:15 AM »

Jesus Christ did not advocate the use of a physical sword nor did he preach violence in Mathew 10:34 since he was speaking metaphorically otherwise why would he turn around in Mathew 26:52 - 53 when he advocates that those who live by the sword will perish by the sword.

Yet he commanded his disciples to sell their clothes and use the gains to buy swords! Is that not the case? What is metaphorical about that? They they not purchase the swords? Did their purchases of swords not a plain obedience to the commandment of Jesus? What were the swords purchase supposed to be used for?

Interesting that those disciples who knew Jesus did not "interprete" when he commanded them. They simple followed his commandment, his words to the exact letter! But I bet you will give us interpretation that will end up opposite what the disciples did.




[Quote]
Because he had not commissioned the gospel to be preached at the time. He would have to leave to join his father in order for the advocate (the holy spirit) to John 16:4 - 7. Paul and Barnabas were especially commissioned to bring the gospel to the gentiles Galatians 2: 1 - 2.
[/quote]

And said that he was not "sent," but to the lost house of israel! Tell us what sent means? Tell us what house of Israel means? Tell us who is Israel? I am sure there is no nation of Africa that qualifies as a member of the house of Israel.




[Quote]
If your read it through mathew 15 : 22 - 28 honestly it would have been easy for you to see that Jesus was merely testing the woman's faith, afterall her daughter was healed by Jesus Christ.
[/quote]

Was Jesus in the business of testing or speaking plainly?




[Quote]
Again Jesus did not mean it the way you are putting it. In all the cases you have cited he was asking his disciples to forfeit (again not literally) everything including family to be his disciples. In other words he wanted them to be devoted whole heartedly to him as proof of their commitment to him.
[/quote]

If nothing is literally in the Bible, I will submit to you that the Issue of "my father and I are one," is not literally, as well. See how you damage, literally, "Trinity" by your own presentation?




[Quote]
Animals do not have emotions nor self awareness. How did Jesus cause them to suffer?
[/quote]

And it seems as if you have not seen an animal who cried before? Ask a pet owner, okay a dog owner about his dog, concerning emotion? Have you seen a mother of a dead baby animal cradle her and will not let go?




[Quote]
Wrong. He said he had not come to abolish the Law and the prophets (scripture) but to fulfill it. Read verse 18 well when he says " not the smallest letter or smallest part of a letter will pass from the law until all things have taken place.
[/quote]

Was that not upholding the Old Testament and the Old prophets? How did you come to the conclusion that what Huxley said here is wrong? Are you as a Christian still following that particular instruction from Jesus? Or Paul and others after him have caused you to ignore Jesus commandment on the issue?





[Quote]
That is a Lie. He was making an illustration that if any part of you (common sense would tell anybody that your hand, eyes or ear cannot cause you to sin but rather what comes out of you) causes you to sin it should be removed from you in order to save your soul. That part of you could be a habit, a thought or behaviour not a hand, eye or ear. He after all said it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but rather what comes out of him.
[/quote]

So when you steal the possession of another man, using your hand to take it, I am taking it that your hand is not part of the elements of your body that committed the sin of thiefery? How about when you use the eye to lust after a person of the opposite sex?

@Olabowale

It is obvious that you are misrepresenting my views. You deliberately Pick out what you desire to highlight, misrepresent them as my views and set up a process for an endless and pointless journey of arguments.

All the questions you have asked are anything but reasonable and any informed ignoramus will know that from the way you push them across.

Since you have deviated from the topic and asked questions that have nothing to do with this topic please do me the favour of answering all of them by yourself.

My God will only do such a thing to people who are convinced that evil should go unpunished. But that was the 'jewish god' anyway, the very one who had not yet revealed his secret plan for mankind i.e to unite all mankind Jews and Gentiles by making them partakers of his grace.

What do you mean by the jewish god? is there any such thing as the jewish god? the same god that revealeved himself in the old testament is the same god in the new testament so what the heck are you saying?

Go over those verses you think God was cruel and ask yourself if he meted punishment to good people who never caused harm and destruction.

If you don’t worship God, he’ll sever your arm, revoke your eyesight, and curse you with a premature death (1 Samuel 2:31-33). Similarly, he’ll wipe you off the earth if you observe other gods (Deuteronomy 6:14-15). If you take it as far as hating God, he’ll totally destroy you (Deuteronomy 7:10). I think these punishments are starting to creep over that arbitrary boundary known as “fairness.” are the medieval jews any different than the jews of today? where is the harm and destruction in not worshiping a god? so you believed the jews deserved to have their body parts cut off as god said he would do to them if they refuse to worship him. . . there are over 4 billion people on earth today who do not worship the biblical god why is'nt he going around killing them? i bet there was a lot of people at that time who were worshipping other gods, why didnt he destroy them?

Due to the hardness of their hearts (jewish people) he made laws that were meant to order their steps according to his will. All the laws no matter how harsh they may have been were meant to force his people to obey and serve him since he had made a covenant with Abraham to preserve this people.

as some one pointed out god was the one that hardned their hearts and destroyed them for hardneing their hearts in some cases in the bible, why would a good, loving and just god do that? why make hard the hearts of mean and punish them for that which you made them do? does that sound like justice to you?

The gift of the holy spirit which would have made them love and keep his commandments without being coerced had not yet been given and that was why he sent his son.

You just pointed that the biblical god does not know what he is doing, and yet you guys claim that he is omni, omni. . . . . . . the bible said that jesus came to defeat sin, has sin been defeated after his death? why is there still sin in the world? there was no sin during the time of adam and eve in garden of eden according to the bible, jesus came to restore man to god and defeat sin why is there still sin after jesus death and so called resurection?

This same God is unchangeable because there is no contradiction in his ways what seems to be contradictions are the ranting imaginations of the , you know who.

You clearly do not know what you are saying . . .

6) Advocated the killing of recalcitrant children (Matthew 15: 4)

8-) Advocated eternity in hell (Matt. 13:40-42, 2 Th. 1:7-9, Rev. 20:10, Rev. 14:10, Jn. 3:18; 6:35, 40; Lk. 23:43; 24:47)

10) Advocated passiveness to unwarranted aggression and oppression.(Luke 6: 24-31, Matthew 5: 37-45)

11) Killed an innocent tree for not having fruits out of season (Matthew 21:18-19; 20-22 and Mark 11:12-14; 20-25)

13) Advocated the maiming of bodily parts to avoid sin. (Matt 5: 27, Mark 9: 39 - 40)