• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Fallacies in Christianity

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
Might as well create this, since it's happening everywhere.

Basically, is the bible self-contradictory, or is it pure and logical? Does it make sense for an all loving and omnipotent God to allow Sin to exist?

I might as well start on the second one (since I don't have a bible with me to look up scriptures), and say no. If God was omnipotent and all loving, he'd have no reason to create existence with the possibility of sin. Even more, if he originally created the world without sin and Satan corrupted it, then God is either not powerful enough to undo the corruption, destroying the first part of the claim, or he just doesn't want to, destroying the second.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
OMG, thank you so much for posting that. I'm going to have so much fun trolling the people who try to answer these question, lol! I'll post their attempts at responses. (But probably not until tonight. I can't check my email right now)
 

JediKnightLuigi

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Indy, IN
well, all this time I've basically been a courier for everything on there. i searched for all-loving also; 72 results.
 

JediKnightLuigi

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Indy, IN
Hm, well then I guess i'm debating that the Bible is better than all human reasoning, and that human reasoning itself can't reason that, as i'm finding out.
 

Crimson King

I am become death
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
28,983
JKL, actually debate or stop posting, because I will remove you from the room if you just start posting links for people to read.

One of my problems, which that site covers, is the idea of three gods, since Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit or equal and the fact that some sects deify Mary and the Saints. This makes Christianity a polytheistic religion versus what they claim. This bothers me because many Christians laugh at polytheistic religions and look at it as a joke.

On top of that, the bible contradicts itself so much that no one logical would follow it.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
Try these on for size then:

Free Will is mutually exclusive with an Omnipotent Being

It is a part of typical christian dogma to believe in both an Omnipotent (and thus Omniscient) god and at the same time Free Will, but this is impossible.

Myself said:
It's really pretty simple. In order to have Free Will, there must be options.

Imagine a world where everything happens deterministically, much like a video game. Everything that happens in this world is is determined strictly according to the state of the world previously, and progresses in a well defined manner.

Certainly no creatures or objects in this world can be said to have Free Will. They have no choice about what to do, their actions are determined entirely by the laws of the world. Everything in this world have no options. Given a particular state of the world, there is only one possible way for the world to end up later. Thus there is no choice involved at all, everything just progresses in a boring deterministic fashion.

Makes sense, yes? In order to make choices, there must be options.

Well, if there exists an omniscient being, then there are no options. This being already knows the state of the universe and all of its future states. In other words: it already knows what the creatures and objects in the universe will do. There are no options. A creature in this world has no choice about what to do. Their future is already determined and they cannot change it.

Get it?

Bible Contradictions
How about these. All KJV.


Why does god hate amputees? (IE: Miracle healing)

Christian dogma claims that people can be, and continuously are even today, healed through prayer. Blind people are claimed to be able to see again, cancer is ridden, etc...

And yet not a single amputee has ever regained a lost limb! Surely plenty of amputees are good honest christians who pray to be healed. Why do they not receive healing?!

Could it be, perhaps, that this would necessitate that there IS a god?! Instead of just attributing divine miracles to abnormal medical recoveries?
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
well, all this time I've basically been a courier for everything on there. i searched for all-loving also; 72 results.
And not a single one that is in any way relating to what we were talking about or answers it.

edit: that infidel site's scripture quotes shouldn't really be trusted, if you actually look them up you'll see that they're slightly edited to be more harsh and abrupt.
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,926
Location
San Francisco, CA
Why does god hate amputees? (IE: Miracle healing)

Christian dogma claims that people can be, and continuously are even today, healed through prayer. Blind people are claimed to be able to see again, cancer is ridden, etc...

And yet not a single amputee has ever regained a lost limb! Surely plenty of amputees are good honest christians who pray to be healed. Why do they not receive healing?!

Could it be, perhaps, that this would necessitate that there IS a god?! Instead of just attributing divine miracles to abnormal medical recoveries?
Well if you're already trusting the bible (which you probably aren't anyway, though), there are instances of restored appendages (i.e. Jesus healing the ear that Peter hacked off of that dude)

If you want secular documentation of something like that, does that mean that you already acknowledge other "healed through prayer" stories?
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
Today. People are healed today. There are millions of people right now with missing limbs who are praying for them to be restored. Why are they not being given their limbs as opposed to cancer patients?!
 

snex

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
3,085
Location
Chicago, IL
no matter how you try to answer the question "why does god allow sin?" you have sacrificed a key tenet of christianity - absolute morality. in fact, you have to abandon all attempts at morality at all based on the answers.

for example, if god allows sin because the benefit of free will outweighs the cost of sin, then our legal systems are all sinful. if free will is better than stopping sin, then we should not imprison criminals, because we should value their free will greater than we value the cost of the consequences of their sins. but thats not how we see it, is it? we value our lives, property, and safety more than we value the free will of criminals.

ANY answer you try to give to the question "why does god allow sin?" runs into the exact same problem.
 

Cubemario

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
299
What I don't understand is why there needs to be several topics that are essentially about the same thing. Surely there is other things people can debate about? Quite frankly I wouldn't mind hearing more debate about things like politics.
 

Johnthegalactic

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
None of your business
And yet not a single amputee has ever regained a lost limb! Surely plenty of amputees are good honest christians who pray to be healed. Why do they not receive healing?!

Could it be, perhaps, that this would necessitate that there IS a god?! Instead of just attributing divine miracles to abnormal medical recoveries?
Well, this is like asking for your scar to go away after a wart has been cut off, why, you get limbs removed to fix the problem, as in forst bite or gangrene, the limbs were amputated to stop the problem.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
No, I'm talking about limbs removes in accidents, such as wood chippers. Or other non-voluntary methods where the person prays for their limb back.
 

JediKnightLuigi

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Indy, IN
To aesir, as cont'd from the Homosexuality thread

This verse of a vision of Peter helps explain why Jewish customs were done away with once Jesus died for mankind's salvation:
Acts 10:11-16
11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
Leads me to a question. Why would God create one set of moral laws, and then undo them and make another? This proposes that either morality is flexible and is not fixed, or that God made a mistake.
 

JediKnightLuigi

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Indy, IN
Leads me to a question. Why would God create one set of moral laws, and then undo them and make another? This proposes that either morality is flexible and is not fixed, or that God made a mistake.
The first set was to satisfy God before the Messiah came, it was for the nation of Israel. In order for their sins to be forgiven they had to make burnt sacrifices and such.
When Jesus died, he did away with the regulations God put in place during the time period of the OT. He gave us Christian freedom, which means we can sin as much as we want and we're still forgiven by Jesus' death on the cross. However, if one truly loves Jesus, they would follow the *moral* law God has written on our hearts (conscience) and in the Bible, and won't sin.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
What does this verse have to do with killing homosexuals? or killing disobedient children? Nothing at all, it's simply doing away with the ritualistic eating habits the Jews had possessed. Not eating anything impure, or on specific days etcetera.
 

JediKnightLuigi

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Indy, IN
Yes but they were commanded by God, along with the OT command of killing disobedient children. That law was put upon Israel by God while they were still in a theocracy, when God was their leader and before Israel started using human kings. And like I said before, those laws were done away with with the coming of Jesus.
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
The first set was to satisfy God before the Messiah came, it was for the nation of Israel. In order for their sins to be forgiven they had to make burnt sacrifices and such.
When Jesus died, he did away with the regulations God put in place during the time period of the OT. He gave us Christian freedom, which means we can sin as much as we want and we're still forgiven by Jesus' death on the cross. However, if one truly loves Jesus, they would follow the *moral* law God has written on our hearts (conscience) and in the Bible, and won't sin.
I know the story well enough, thank you. You didn't answer the question posed. Either it was moral to kill homosexuals/non-believers then and isn't now, which means morality is flexible and there is no such thing as morals except for what a diety randomly decides and can change at any moment, or he made a mistake.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
Yes but they were commanded by God, along with the OT command of killing disobedient children. That law was put upon Israel by God while they were still in a theocracy, when God was their leader and before Israel started using human kings. And like I said before, those laws were done away with with the coming of Jesus.
Again you haven't offered a scripture which states this, only using your interpretation of those select verses you gave me. God never said "Ignore the OT" neither did Jesus, Jesus said it's the law and shall never be stripped. So why are you saying it's okay to ignore it when your own god is for it.

The OT is inspired by god, then we have Paul who affirms that the OT is a significant doctrine to study and learn. So why are you trying to say we should ignore it?
 

JediKnightLuigi

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Indy, IN
Because you're taking OT verses that talk about killing completely out of context. Anyone can take a single verse from the Bible and say 'Why don't you follow this?' without looking at the context. You must do research in order to debate.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
No I'm not, the context is correct, god is endorsing the death of individuals. I'm not twisting the words or creating any sort of false illusions.

I've done extensive research on the OT you can't be a Christian and denounce the OT as god and Jesus both support it, as I pointed out earlier as well Paul affirms the OT is significant for Christians.
 

JediKnightLuigi

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Indy, IN
But you're still not giving me sources. Context does not say God endorses death of individuals always, that is in effect adding to the Bible, which is wrong.
I believe in the whole Bible. The OT is significant for Christians, its just the points you keep mentioning to me are taken out of context. Please give me the passages where God commands the killing of homosexuals.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
Leviticus 20:13: "13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

which is virtually identical to 18:22 however goes into detail on the punishment of death.

I'm just going to focus on this at the moment. The passage indicate that if a two men engage in sexual acts together it it detestable and punishable by death.

RO 1:24-32: Speaks of men/woman worshiping other deities and engaging in homosexual behavior, also states they deserve death.
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
You're welcome!

Could I see the passage please?
Might as well start with Exodus 32:26-28, where Moses orders the slaughter of those who worshiped a pagan god over Jehovah. God latter shows his support for this by sending a plague to kill even more people in Exodus 32:35. To add in, defend the ten plagues as being morally correct, if you have time.

Also, all of Numbers 16. In it, members of Israel go to Moses to ask for a more democratic society, instead of the dictatorship with Moses as head. In return, God decides to kill every Israeli except for Moses and Aaron, but is convinced by Moses to just bury the leaders of the democracy movement alive, then later burn more of them alive. God then sends a plague that ends up killing another 14,700 people, apparently just for kicks.

In Genesis 38: 6-10, Onan didn't want to impregnate his brother's widow, so he pulled out and came on the ground. In response, God slew him.

In Exodus 20: 5-6, God says not only that he will punish those who worship other Gods, but that he will punish their children, and their children's children.

Luke, 19:27, Jesus orders people to kill those who will not follow him

Not done by God, but in 2 Samuel 12:26-31 David had the people in the Rabbah sawed and tortured to death.

In 1 Kings 18:70-40, Eljiah did the contest with the priests of Baal. After God answered Elijah and the priests converted on the spot to Judaism, they were rounded up and slaughtered. If this was not on the will of God, then God would have no reason to let it happen, as he showed himself just moments before.

In Numbers 25: 1-9, God ordered the murder of Israeli tribal leaders for allowing interfaith relationships. When an Israeli brought his Midianite girlfriend into the camp, the grandson of Aaron impaled them both with a javelin. This clearly pleased God, as at these acts he stopped the plague he had created that had killed 24,000 people.

And let's not forget Genesis 6:5-9, the Great Flood, a clear act of Genocide. And I don't want to look up the exact place, but let's add Sodom and Gomorrah.

In 1 Chronicles 13:7-11, David was transporting the Ark. Against God's wishes, it was not being done by priests by in a cart. It faltered, and so Uzza put his hand on the Ark to steady it. For touching the ark, God smote him dead.

In 2 Samuel 24: 1-15, God orders King David to do a census. He does so, but then feels as if he had sinned. God agrees, and let's David choose how to be punished. David chose pestilence, and so 70,000 people died because David did as God asked.

As well, Slavery is constantly referred to in the Bible, and they were allowed to beat their slaves, and as long as the slave lingered for longer then 24 hours after the beating before dying they committed no crime. Unfortunately, I gave up looking for that quote because I have no idea where I read it, so you're not required to respond to that (though maybe you know?). However, there is no doubt that slavery was allowed (and was allowed in way too many verses to list). When Jesus came around, he made no mention of slavery being immoral. Considering that slavery was a massive institution of the time, and that he constantly interacted with slaves and slave masters, why didn't Jesus bring it up that this was not a just thing to do? He mentioned almost every social qualm he could, so why not something as massive as slavery?

And throughout Exodus, God "hardened" the heart of Pharoh so he would not let the Jews leave, resulting in the genocide we now know of.

Also, in Exodus 4:24-26, God was apparently going to kill Moses. I honestly have no idea what this passage means, or how touching his child's foreskin saved his life, but it does show God acting with murderous intent.

In Numbers 11:10-34, God caused a plague among the Jews because they wept for meat when they had none.

In Numbers 21:34-35, God ordered the genocide of the Amorites.

In Galatians 1:9, Peter curses (literally) those who aren't Orthodox Christians.

Exodus 22:20 says to kill those who follow other Gods

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 says to kill priests of other religions

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 says to kill family members who ask you to worship other Gods.

That's enough about violence for now, I believe. But, other questions!

I've seen a lot of discussion about Abraham being asked to kill Isaac, but I never saw this asked. God did it to test Abraham's faith, which implies that until that moment, God did not know exactly how faithful Abraham was. This shows God to not be an omnipotent God. Along with this are the earlier passages I mentioned where God was prevented from killing Moses, or convinced by people to not do acts. These imply that God is both not always moral, and is not all powerful.

edit: and I didn't put the actual scripture in here because every time I do, the person I'm arguing with goes with the "well my Bible has a different translation", then drops off the face of the earth. But this isn't about words, this is about plot.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,692
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
Again you haven't offered a scripture which states this, only using your interpretation of those select verses you gave me. God never said "Ignore the OT" neither did Jesus, Jesus said it's the law and shall never be stripped. So why are you saying it's okay to ignore it when your own god is for it.

The OT is inspired by god, then we have Paul who affirms that the OT is a significant doctrine to study and learn. So why are you trying to say we should ignore it?
Romans 7:4.
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ.

The law was done away with through christ. However you are aboslutely right it is not to be ignored as it is by most christian denominations.
For paul further goes on to describe the law as a tutor. The tutor of Bible times was generally, not the actual teacher, but the one who accompanied the child to and from school and possibly in other activities as well. He would turn the child over to the instructor. This continued from childhood to perhaps puberty or longer. He was to keep the child from physical or moral harm. (Thats why the old French tuteur and Latin tutor mean, literally, “a protector or guardian.”) However, the duties of the tutor also involved the matter of discipline, and he might be charged with instructing the child in matters of conduct.
Therefore, Galatians 3:24,*25 points out that “the Law has become our tutor [Gr., pai‧da‧go‧gos′, literally “child leader”] leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.”

Edit: to address eor or it means that gods foreknowledge is selective, as in he chooses when to forsee the future or not, giving humans free will?
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
But God is also described as being all knowing. Besides that, he wasn't sitting around and thought "hmm, i wonder if this sucker will kill his kid if I asked him", instead he was trying to see how much faith Abraham had. He should of already known that.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,692
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
i dont get what your saying here. He should have known? Maybe he did know, maybe he chose to find out what abraham would do. In either case he clearly didnt want Isaac to die since god already told abraham his seed would come through issac. And gods word is described as being as sure as morning rain. Abraham obviously knew god could somehow still fulfill his purpose even if issac was dead. im not sure if i answered your post or not cuz you lost me.
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
i dont get what your saying here. He should have known? Maybe he did know, maybe he chose to find out what abraham would do. In either case he clearly didnt want Isaac to die since god already told abraham his seed would come through issac. And gods word is described as being as sure as morning rain. Abraham obviously knew god could somehow still fulfill his purpose even if issac was dead. im not sure if i answered your post or not cuz you lost me.
What I'm saying is that God is said to be both all loving, all knowing, and all powerful. The test of Abraham, however, has to contradict one of these three. God did it in order to see how much faith Abraham had. However, since God is both all knowing and all powerful, he wouldn't need to do an earthly test. He would already know how much faith Abraham had, meaning that the test is useless. He would also know what Abraham would do in such a case too. But he still went through with it, causing Abraham the mental harm of trying to kill his kid, and Issac the harm of seeing his father attempt to sacrifice him.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,692
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
Issac wasnt harmed, issac willingly went through with it. He was 25(according to jewish hostorian Josephus) and his father was 125, he could have easily said what are you doing? and ran away.
Hebrews 11:17-19 describes it this way:
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up [his] only-begotten [son], 18*although it had been said to him: “What will be called ‘your seed’ will be through Isaac.” 19*But he reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; and from there he did receive him also in an illustrative way.
Abraham was perhaps stunned but had faith issac was already in gods purpose and wouldnt suffer permanent harm.
What i was suggesting was that God(the christian-anything is possible with god-god) has the power to see whether his servants will be faithful to him or not.
I never copy and paste but i found this provided a more valid explanation than i could:

although God has unlimited power, he never acts unjustly. Moses described God as “a God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he.” (Deuteronomy 32:4) Whatever God does harmonizes with his wonderful personality. His actions manifest the perfect harmony of his cardinal qualities of love, wisdom, justice, and power.

15 Consider how all of this relates to the events in the garden of Eden. As a loving Father, God provided everything human creatures needed. He endowed Adam with the ability to think, to reason on a matter, and to reach a conclusion. Unlike the animal creation, which is largely guided by instinct, Adam had the ability to make choices. The result of this was that God looked down from his heavenly throne and saw “everything he had made and, look! it was very good.”—Genesis 1:26-31; 2*Peter 2:12.

16 When God chose to lay a command upon Adam not to eat of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad,” He provided adequate instruction so that Adam could decide what to do. He allowed Adam to eat from “every tree of the garden” except one and warned of the fatal results of eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. (Genesis 2:16,*17) He laid before Adam the consequences of his actions. What would Adam do?

17 God apparently chose not to foresee what Adam and Eve—would do, even though He has the ability to know everything in advance. It is therefore a question, not of whether God can foresee the future, but of whether he chooses to do so. Furthermore, we can reason that God being a God of love, would not knowingly and cruelly predetermine that rebellion—with all its sad consequences—should take place.

Please note too that im not so much on the side of christianity in these debates. Most christianity is corrupted by false teaching traditions and greed of men.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
Romans 7:4.
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ.

The law was done away with through christ. However you are aboslutely right it is not to be ignored as it is by most christian denominations.

For paul further goes on to describe the law as a tutor. The tutor of Bible times was generally, not the actual teacher, but the one who accompanied the child to and from school and possibly in other activities as well. He would turn the child over to the instructor. This continued from childhood to perhaps puberty or longer. He was to keep the child from physical or moral harm. (Thats why the old French tuteur and Latin tutor mean, literally, “a protector or guardian.”) However, the duties of the tutor also involved the matter of discipline, and he might be charged with instructing the child in matters of conduct.
Therefore, Galatians 3:24,*25 points out that “the Law has become our tutor [Gr., pai‧da‧go‧gos′, literally “child leader”] leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.”

Edit: to address eor or it means that gods foreknowledge is selective, as in he chooses when to forsee the future or not, giving humans free will?
Interesting passage, amazing how Paul and Jesus contradict each other, in the gospel Jesus states it at least twice that the old is not abolished but reinforced. Jesus never once states that the old testament should be abolished for the new, it's incorrect and misleading to say otherwise. all throughout Matthew and Luke Jesus says this. So how come Paul says Christians are liberated from the law, but Jesus the son of God says we're not?

Seems like Paul is just trying to appease to the Galatia, as they were heavy followers of law.
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
He was not physically harmed, no, but I fail to see how knowing that your father is going to sacrifice you wouldn't cause mental harm. Besides that, Issac had no idea that he was going to be sacrificed until they were already there, as the Bible mentions him asking his father where the animal they were sacrificing was.

The idea that God chooses what to see and what not to see has no scriptural evidence (and if it does, please show). All it is is a cope out, a switch you can turn on and off depending on situations to hide contradictions. It is very clear that God is Omniscience, he knows everything. To say that he doesn't know something is to blaspheme God.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,692
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
Interesting passage, amazing how Paul and Jesus contradict each other, in the gospel Jesus states it at least twice that the old is not abolished but reinforced. Jesus never once states that the old testament should be abolished for the new, it's incorrect and misleading to say otherwise. all throughout Matthew and Luke Jesus says this. So how come Paul says Christians are liberated from the law, but Jesus the son of God says we're not?

Seems like Paul is just trying to appease to the Galatia, as they were heavy followers of law.
Thank you first off for not saying i twisted scripture there.
Next, remember the verse you quoted Matt 5:17(“Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.) christ says i fulfilled the law. If i fulfill a contract its null and void correct? I 'm not breaking it, nor am i doing away with it. But it served its purpose. Christ introduced a new covenant, or contract/law(Luke 22:20)(john 13:33) that his followers were to follow which paul described as "law of the Christ,".

Edit: just saw your post eor hold on.
If there was no animal to sacrifice obviously he would put 2 and 2 together since it was a 3 day walk.

Remember the bible describes god as just, and loving. it certainly wouldnt be just or loving to set adam and eve up for failure. He gave them a choice. Its not a matter of if he knows, its if he chooses to know. It would be against gods standard of justice to knowingly put adam and eve in a situation where they would only sin.
Think about when satan tested job. he told god if you take everything away from job he wont serve you. Satan would know that god is omniscient(since humans know he is omniscient we can ASSUME satan would know as well) and god would know the outcome of the test. Then there would be no point in satan testing job if god would already know satanwould be proved wrong.
Or maybe it is a cop out. But your right the bible says god is omniscient. it also says he is just. You focus on the omniscience but not the just. A just god would use his omniscience justly.
 

JediKnightLuigi

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Indy, IN
Interesting passage, amazing how Paul and Jesus contradict each other, in the gospel Jesus states it at least twice that the old is not abolished but reinforced. Jesus never once states that the old testament should be abolished for the new, it's incorrect and misleading to say otherwise. all throughout Matthew and Luke Jesus says this. So how come Paul says Christians are liberated from the law, but Jesus the son of God says we're not?

Seems like Paul is just trying to appease to the Galatia, as they were heavy followers of law.
This is true: Galatia did have that problem. They felt they needed to follow the law in order to gain eternal life in heaven. This included mandatory circumcision. Paul was explaining that because Jesus died, these customs of the Jews weren't necessary anymore. He's not 'appeasing', he's teaching.

EDIT: I noticed a passage up there, Eor. You have a bad habit of taking things OUT OF CONTEXT. Luke 19:27 is a parable!! If you people are going to quote Bible passages out of context, I have no further reason to debate with you. I've insisted on doing your research on these Bible passages; it has not happend at all.

EDIT2: Eor, you post these passages, you tell what they say, and then *you* drop off the scene, leaving the extensive backdrop and context to each of the stories in limbo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom