Yes we do assume that the Old (preceding) Covenant is as it always was. Anyone who has read it would see that God consistently states that it's forever and breaking it would result in bad outcomes. Any deviation would require an extraordinary argument to say the least. To even hint at an overhaul would put one in serious jeopardy of being executed.

Fulfill obviously means - to do, and not - to abolish.

I'd like to see you do your homework here and fully apply this thought.

Let's say you're a lawyer defending someone who has raped someones wife or fiance and is facing the death penalty. (since your previous question was 'should I as a Christian kill other Christians who've committed capital crimes according to the law' - paraphrased, and apparently your answer is no) Was it the custom in such cases for such a person to merely appear in court with a lamb, and by this he would escape execution? My guess is no.


Your client is facing the death penalty, and the Judge is looking at this:

Deut 1:16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. 17Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. 18And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do.

and this:

Deut 22:25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.


What exactly are you going to extrapolate from Paul's epistles to exonerate your client?

You're right that it would take an extraordinary argument to deviate from the Old Covenant, which is why many Jews rejected these changes. That is not to say that an argument has not been put forth, the New Covenant (New Testament) is dedicated to explaining these things, I don't know how you can only look at one phrase and ignore the rest. The fact that you even give weight to the words of Christ means that you accept the Canon in some way, since the text was not written by Christ.

Fulfill does not mean "to do", the word is plērōsai, which means to complete, or to make full, it is a false dichotomy to suggest that it's either on or off. If there is no difference between the time of Moses and the present, the entire NT is superfluous, as is Christ. There is an obvious change after Christ came, to deny this is to deny Christ. Not only that, you have to ignore the passages that allude to the Covenant which was to come, this was understood by Jews. You also have to ignore the passages that deal with the New Covenant written by Paul.

I'll quote Hebrews 8:13 to cut to the chase: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Paul (arguably Paul) says that the first covenant was made old and is now obsolete. So there is either a contradiction, or we can find a way to reconcile these passages.

A sin offering was not used to exempt people from punishment, so your analogy is not apt. If you did certain crimes the punishment was death.

You are free to ignore the NT and the writings of Paul, but you should probably state that up front.

I was staying on track to solve your question about capital crimes, in order to not muddle the issue.

Fulfill - To do to the fullest/completely. Thusfar I've only maintained that it's on.

We can find a way to reconcile these passages, but referring to them earlier would be muddling the issue.

They hadn't been relevant as of yet.

And that's why referring to them was unnecessary, so far.

So we both agree then, that yes, Christians should be putting their fellow countrymen to death if they commit certain crimes, as the law stipulates?

Paul killed the Torah. This simplifies things for us Christians.

In addition, Paul only wrote Galatians, Romans, Phillipians, Thessalonians 1, Corinthians 1 and 2, Philemon. Everything else was not written by Paul. To quote from them is to not quote Paul.

Paul is very clear that the Torah is dead. Salvation is only thru faith in Christ. That's it.

They should be fd even now if they have not converted to Judaism. But the messianic Christians seem to accept the NT teachings of Paul on that....

Paul killing the Torah is a misnomer. (purposefully anyway)

Peter 3:16 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So the controversial versus that makes people want to forsake God's national laws and replace them with 'their' own (Romanesque) are apparently these:

Hebrews 8 1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

It appears to me that either Paul is referring to a replacement of the temple, priest (see ch 7), and sacrifice ritual portion of the law only, as his logic starts out something like...Moses was given an image of the real, and his temple was merely a replica of the real, and the chapters 7 and 8 are only pertaining to these.

Exodus 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. 9According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

God having the Romans destroy the temple helps alleviate the controversy.

Let's see what Paul has to say about the law in Romans ch. 7

21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

He tosses around the word "law" pretty casually it would seem. For example, he states there is a law working in the members of his body to explain that his flesh has base animalistic inclinations. I'm pointing this out to show he's not always referring to the statutory laws, when he says law.

Note that he says he does delight in the law of God in his inner man, and with his mind he serves the law of God. Does this sound like someone who dislikes the law?

If we look at Malichi ch 4., does God sound like someone planning on replacing the national laws?

Malachi 4:1For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

4Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

5Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Ever the true religious coward. Ever the obscurantist.

Clearly the point of the original question was, 'if the true point of the Bible is to act as an authoritative moral teacher, then the occasional contradiction matters not to you, given that you already accept its status as authoritative moral teacher, no'?

No, I don't believe is killing people when they commit sins because we are not under the Law. Just as Jesus spared the adulterous woman, I would not kill my son if he rebelled against me. Paul made this abundantly clear.

If you can read Galatians and still believe we are under the Law, I have nothing much to say.

I don't think "killed" is the right word, but other than that, I agree.

I'd be surprised if that was the question. I look forward to fraleyight coming back to correct you. Your question barely resembles anything that he's said so far.

I'm going to reorganize your question because that's probably among the most awkwardly worded questions I've ever read.

"Do you agree that...

If the true point of the Bible is to act as an authoritative moral teacher and you already accept its status as authoritative moral teacher...

Then the occasional contradiction does not matter?"

My answer is that the contradictions do matter. Upon accepting the assumptions, I don't agree with the conclusion. But I also don't accept the assumptions.

Yes it is a problem. I just got kicked out of my home, for something unrelated to me. Do you not think that is a problem? How does that make sense to you?

It would be the equivalent of you working in a store with a few other employees. 1 of the employee steals all the money in the store and you get fired too!

Another thing to note is that you say heaven is our home. If it truly was our home, don't' you think we'd eventually get let back in? It's been over 6000 years already, like wtf? Or don't you think if it truly was our home we'd not been kicked out in the first place?

Also you say that we were spirits and God put us in human bodies so he could punish us, right?

Are you saying that God could not punish us when we were spirits?

God has found you guilty. You're here after all.

No, you were a co-conspirator

Everyone sent to Earth refused to acknowledge God as the supreme lawgiver, and for most nothings changed. So no, you're still in the right place.

Hmm, well...I can't remember exactly how it was, but there is no pain without a body. I'm ok with the body system. It should be noted that the punishment is intended for correction and not sadomasochism. When we get sick, hurt, afraid, lost, we call out to God and He helps us. Then we learn to trust God, and in so doing, learn how to navigate His universe without fear.

So you're going to let the aforementioned rapist go because you feel you're above the law? Good thing no one has appointed you judge.

The story of the adulterous woman isn't found in all manuscripts. Let's not obfuscate things anymore with the relationship between you and your son.

Paul opens that letter by criticizing the fraudulent Roman cult that has become "Christianity" and the fraudulent religion Judaism (Talmudism).

To the judge : In the matter of the rapist and the charges against him, the prosecution sees no relevant matter to address from the defendant, and therefore will rest as well.

Have I found the cliff notes to this thread?

Do you think the Brits and Scott's are the True Jews and the people who call themselves Jewish are false ones like some who float this stuff?

There are two Houses referred to often in scripture. The House of Israel, and the House of Judah. After King Solomon, the Kingdom broke up into these two kingdoms/houses.

The House of Israel was composed of 10 tribes and Judah 2. The House of Israel first forsook the law and went into captivity to the Assyrian empire, then a few hundred years later Judah did the same and was captured by the Babylonians. This is all pretty straight forward and outlined in the O.T.

The O.T. ends and 600 years pass before the N.T. begins. We find people living in Judea, a Roman province, with a King whom the N.T. refers to as an Edomite - King Herod. Again all straight forward.

Were the inhabitants of the land also descendants of Jacob's/Israel's brother Esau/Edom like Herod? Does Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 refer to them? Perhaps?

I know that there is a document hanging in Westminster Abbey, whereby one can trace the line of British Kings to David. I know that the coronation stone that the monarch of the U.K. sits on is believed by some to be Jacob's pillar. I know the Queen swore to uphold the laws of God upon her coronation, along with being anointed with oil, a biblical custom for the Kings of Israel, some of which can be seen here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNnyctcE4eQ

So by those verses yes they are false Jews?

Aaron,

I am just asking as someone who doesn't interpret the bible literally; why do you care if there are contradictions?

This was just out of curiosity by the way. Not a "gotchya" question or anything like that.

It raises a lot of questions. I think it would be helpful if I knew why you wanted to know.

I on my part, am not too concerned about having 'Jew' status as it affords no benefit over the other tribes. Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, meaning 'champion of God', had lots of sons who would form a tribe of Israel, each of which had the same legal rights. (slightly different for Levi)

Perhaps it could even be argued that all who champion God's cause are spiritual Israelites.

Ive asked what i wanted to know im not looking for you to teach me. Im trying to see if you hold some of the more disturbing views of the people who float the brit stuff. Like the Jews in Israel today are false Jews.

So we can stop right here, such contradictions can be accounted for because some stories should not be in the Bible, according to your view.

You also likely know that Marcionists wanted to omit Christ' message in Matthew 5 because of it's seemingly contradictory nature. Some believed, it seems, that Christ did not say these words as it contradicts his actions, and every letter in the NT. Perhaps if the Pauline Christians were not as strong as they were and had not won the war of the Canon, The Beatitudes would not be in our modern Bible.

In any case, contradictions should be common place where the Canon is decided by chance. As you suggest, the story of the adulterous woman has snuck in and complicated things.

If movies aren't real, why do continuity mistakes matter?

Because the existence of such things impacts the understanding of the information being presented.

and my discoveries have impacted me enough to realize that God if he exists is a peice of ****.

You can drop everything and follow mosaic law or even what the tard they call Christ taught and things will only get worse.

1) demons are more powerful
2) god doesnt exist
3) its possible that some of us arent meant to follow "god".

What discoveries are these? You mean this list?

discoveries in life. (experiences)

events that have happened

discussion in this thread and other forums.

Ive lived my life being a good human doing what Christ taught in Mat 5 even.. ive been tormented endlessly ( by my government, one of the biggest companies in canada, murderous doctors, Pokerstars) until im left no longer believing. The list is too long.