Was Paul A False Apostle And Were His Writings Correct?

[KoncreteMind]

I didn't say Pharisees were Levites. I said many Levites were Pharisees, which means the priests in the Temple could have been both Pharisee and Levite. Jesus accused the Temple authorities of being thieves - the temple authorities would mean the priests - and cleansed it from money changers and livestock. (Priests offered sacrifices for money). So what did Jesus object to here? Did he rebuke the sacrifices in general, or merely the merchandising of sacrifice? When he said to make the temple a "house of prayer", do you think He condoned sacrifice?

He must have condoned sacrifice if he ate from the passover. But when he follows commandments only given to Israel (sabbath, passover, feast of tabernacles etc...) it doesnt count for some reason. He says you can eat without washing your hands and that means he's denouncing the dietary laws...

The Israelites performed human sacrifices too, even the firstborn. Moloch / Melek is a title meaning King and referred to whoever was their King at the time. In their time their King was Yahweh and it shouldn't come as a surprise that they performed human sacrifice when it was ordained by their King more than once.

That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD’s. – Exodus 13:12

For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine, both man and beast: on the day that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for myself. – Numbers 8:17

There's good reason to believe the Temple priests sacrificed children along with the Red Heifers, children born and reared in an isolated basement to keep them pure like the ox.

Yea and theres bible verse after bible verse that condemns the act of human sacrifice and THEM committing human sacrifice. So they did that in disobedience.

Give me any other nation that was more tribal and supremacist than the Israelites.

The US from its inception to lets pretend and say the 60's. They treated blacks and native americans negatively because they werent of the "white" tribe and not even as proverbial enemies. These were citizens of their own nation. But for whatever reason that isnt bigger than what Israel did in past times

Why would the Messiah need to restore old teachings? He's supposed to be the culmination. Prophets can restore teachings that have been lost or corrupted. The Messiah comes to save.

Because if He's God, what else would he be doing? Didnt God exist in the beginning? Isnt your position that people over time, stopped following God? Isnt your position that there is God and the devil in all religions or if not, the bible? Jesus came to clarify truth from the lies. To Israel that is.

Do you believe humans have a natural disposition towards good? A conscience? Someone famous once wrote the law is written on our hearts. We all have our inner Christ that we managed to preserve from before our Fall that enables us to intuitively feel the distinction between good and evil. We need to nurture it, because it's essential to our spiritual development. If you numb it you'll just be a robot behaving according to the inputs it receives. Most people feel when they're doing something wrong, most people feel happy when they did something right. We feel happy when we forgive someone for his transgressions and the person shows sincere gratitude and relief. Then comes a law that says, you must stone her to death for having committed adultery or picking up sticks on Sabbath. Suddenly you no longer act intuitively but according to the inputs you've received which you believe to have come from a higher power. You've just become a robot. And that's when you'll be s.o.l. getting into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yea everyone going by whats "in their heart" will lead everybody in different directions while just having it in stone (on paper), lets EVERYONE know what they are supposed to abide by.

The means are different, the end is the same. Supremacist bankers and supremacist conquerors. By the way, the Israelis did grab lots of land by themselves during the 6-day war.

No, they didn't. They looked mediterranean.

First of all, that most present-day Jews are Ashkenazi and thus probably Khazars is a big setback for people who believe in the Diaspora. Secondly, the question where the "real people" or "real Jews/Israelites" are, is an absurd question simply because it doesn't matter, and even for a Christian Israelite like you it shouldn't matter since Greek or Jew is one in Christ. The only ones so desperate to revive this idea of the "chosen people" are those who seek to return to the Old Law or those who have never left.

Well since you dont care for the OT, then you dont know why theres an emphasis on Israel. Take that into account, and how am I wrong? The bible is the one that placed the emphasis on Israel. The apocrypha does as well. Jesus then came and said He came to save the lost sheep of Israel. THATS what I go by and thats why I believe theres a emphasis on Israel.

As well, NO, they did not look mediterranean since the Egyptians didnt look mediterranean. And the bible that is supposed to be speaking of the "Jewish" people, is the one that says the Egyptians could be mistaken for Israelites and vice versa. The modern Jewish people could not be mistaken for ancient Egyptians. And I bring this up, because you try connecting the Jewish people with the people of the bible when they dont fit. I cant really respond to what you say without bringing that point up

Your narrative is really skewed. You could be saying the UK ended Transatlantic slavery and subsequently slavery on a global scale, to the resentment of the African Kings (!) with only having participated for 250 years, which is nothing compared to the rest of the world. The Catholic Church has had papal bulls against slavery since the 15th century, from the first moments Europeans took part in it. You could say that but you choose to make it the culprit. Either way, Jerusalem is the heart of the world. Earthly Jerusalem is the biggest nest of demons.

Others have demons dwelling with them, as did David the king. He is the one who laid the foundation of Jerusalem; and his son Solomon, whom he begat in adultery, is the one who built Jerusalem by means of the demons, because he received power. - Testimony of Truth

But leave Jerusalem. For it is she who always gives the cup of bitterness to the sons of light. She is a dwelling place of a great number of archons. - The (First) Apocalypse of James

Again, white supremacy is a perfect example of the "chosen people" doctrine which is what I was pointing out. You're the one that was calling out tribalism, yet when its America or the UK, you sweep theirs under the rug? So I ask you again, when is God's judgement going to come down on them for their tribalistic acts not to mention possible human sacrifice?

If a body has cancer, you treat the cancer first, not the rest of the body.
I've asked you multiple times now. What commandments did Jesus reaffirm? The Ten Commandments or the entire law including the laws from Moses and the elders? You don't know that, you can't know that, because Jesus doesn't explicitly say and the scriptures have been corrupted, according to both Jesus and the Torah.

Well, the passover doesnt count
Feast of tabernacles doesnt count
Him attending synagogue doesnt count
Him quoting the God of Israel word for word doesnt count
Him quoting the God of Israel's prophets word for word doesnt count
Him quoting the God of Israel's commandments word for word doesnt count either

So I dont know what you're even asking for. The top two are perfect examples as they ONLY apply to the Hebrews, yet you have some reason that it doesnt count. So I dont know what you're even looking for to be honest.

 

[Daciple]

I don't believe YHVH gave the Ten Commandments, no. Read Ptolemy's Letter to Flora if you want a better understanding of my pov.

Id rather you explain with logic how you call YHWH Satan and distinguish Him from this incident and how its really not YHWH and what the text themselves say:

Ex 19:9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.

3068 [e] Yah·weh יְהוָ֜ה the LORD Noun

So clearly the Text itself say that YHWH came to Moses and YHWH told him to come upon the Mountain to meet with Him, YHWH...

19:20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.

Again YHWH came down, and YHWH called Moses to the top of the Mountain.

How do the Ten Commandments even start Art?

Ex 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.


I am YHWH thy God, who did what? Brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, what type of cognitive dissonance must one possess to ignore the clear text here for what they say, while debating in a thread that others such as Muslims are being intellectually dishonest to reject the clear words of the New Testament concerning Christ being God and the other doctrines explicitly declared in the Gospels and Pauls writings. You my friend are just as if not more so guilty than them for rejecting clear precise Scripture.

YHWH gave the 10 Commandments, His name is literally in them from the beginning, declaring that He did exactly what you say the Devil did. This is just so mind boggling the hoops you have to jump through to declare the 10 Commandments as being Good, but not from YHWH.

What else do you we see in the 10 Commandments that you declare is of Satan but not God, that you say gave the 10 Commandments as opposed to YHWH/Satan:

Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

You say that God isnt jealous or would visit iniquity upon others, but here we have in the MIDST of the 10 Commandments YHWH declaring that He is a jealous God, that He ALONE is God. Please explain in your own words how you can tell others to accept Scriptures as they are written but you are allowed to deny that YHWH gave the 10 Commandments...

As I said to Koncrete, there's not one deity in the Old Testament. There is El and there is YHVH. They are not the same. Biblical professors and exegists are starting to agree on this by the way. I will pat my own back for my own pleasure, since I clearly shouldn't expect it from anyone else here.

Lol no buddy neither case is true, there is only one deity in the Old Testament, YHWH and YHWH alone and Biblical Professor and exegists are not starting to agree on this, just because you may find one or two Gnostics who want to declare this doesnt mean there is some sort of movement in this ideology. Pat yourself on the back all you want, its a hollow gesture for a false doctrine...

But I want you if you could please to prove via the Text alone, that Exodus 20 has this second deity El, giving the 10 Commandments as opposed to what the Scripture themselves state, which is YHWH gave the 10 Commandments...

I mean we cant be here telling Muslims that the New Testament is saying what it says then reject the Old Testament when it doesnt align with our own made up beliefs. Might as well tell the Muslims they can and are correct to do so with Paul and the Gospels...

Satanism 101: you sign contracts with the devil, not with God. God does not arrange legal contracts with his own creation because if your child doesn't believe you're the father, no legal contract between you and him that your child entered on birth confirming that you're his father would change his mind. The power lies in your kid "believing" you're his father without the compulsion of any contractual obligations.

Satanism 101: Calling God Satan and trying have Satan become God, which is exactly what Gnosticism does, you reject the One True God which is YHWH which is the God Jesus was declaring as very clearly shown when we read the Word of God for what it says.

God indeed makes contracts, Jesus made a Contract is He Satan?

Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1242 [e] diathēkēs διαθήκης , covenant N-GFS

diathéké: testament, will, covenant
Original Word: διαθήκη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: diathéké
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ath-ay'-kay)
Short Definition: a covenant, will, testament
Definition: (a) a covenant between two parties, (b) (the ordinary, everyday sense [found a countless number of times in papyri]) a will, testament.

Jesus literally made a New Contract with all of mankind, so now if what you are saying is right then we must conclude Jesus is Satan for this is Satanism 101!!!

What other times in the New Testament, the one in which you are defending that the Muslims and those that reject Paul need to accept as Truth and Scripture, is this Word used and for what intent?

Luke 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

Who was John Art? Do you reject him as the Forerunner to Christ? Because if you dont then you must admit that John was a Prophet of the God of Israel, the one that established the HOLY COVENANT, and he went to prepare the way for GOD, JESUS, the Lord and God of Israel and John.

What else? Well what does Paul declare about the Covenant? Is it Evil of Satan like you say or no?

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

This is Paul quoting from the Old Testament, and what is he quoting or referencing?

Ps 14:7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord ( YHWH) bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

Is 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord (YHWH)
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith (YHWH); My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord (YHWH), from henceforth and for ever.

Is 27:9 By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.

12 And it shall come to pass in that day, that (YHWH) shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel.
13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship (YHWH) in the holy mount at Jerusalem.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith (YHWH), that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Rom 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God (YHWH) 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.
6 But 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.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For 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:

I dont expect you to answer, you have consistently dodged every single instance when I have brought these incongruities in your ideology up, and I expect you will dodge it again. Jesus brought in a New CONTRACT aka Covenant aka Testament, and YHWH predicted Himself in Jeremiah that He would usher in a New CONTRACT. It makes no logical sense that Satan would create this CONTRACT then say hey I will predict that I myself will come and annul it and create a new CONTRACT and then have some other entity He has zero clue about fulfill it.

Either way Jesus created a Contract with His Creation, its clear as day, thus according to your teachings concerning Satanism 101, Jesus is also Satan...

You're refuting whatever you think I believe, not what I actually believe. "YHVH is not EL is not the Father of Jesus", doesn't mean "nothing in the OT is true or prophetic".

I am refuting Gnosticism which you say you believe, but you really dont, which is one of the points I am trying to show people. Instead you have made up your own Religion, that allows you to be your own God and decided what Scriptures are valid in your own Religion. And it seems whenever confronted with the massive holes and contradictions that come to you or anyone that cherry picks the Bible to suit their own made up Religions, you doge and ignore the clear cut incongruities.

The other point I have been trying to get across not really to you because I know youre smart enough to know what you are doing, is that it is utter hypocrisy to be in this thread trying to tell the Muslims to accept the New Testament for what it says while in the same breath negating huge portions of the New Testament that contradict your made up Religion and Gnosticism in general. The Entire Bible all of it is True, Jesus Father is YHWH, Jesus came and established the NEW CONTRACT that YHWH predicted would come in Jeremiah 31.

 

[Daciple]

What historical texts concerning Marcion? We only have texts of his detractors, nothing of Marcion himself. The canon was formed by Irenaeus in reaction to Marcion, not the other way around and a comparison of Luke written by Marcion and canonical Luke shows that Marcion's more simplistic writing was unnecessarily made profuse in the canonical one, implying things were added.

No thats not what Historians, or Bible Scholars believe what so ever, and I believe you truly know this, but in order for you to maintain your rejection of much of the New Testament you have to hold to these falsehoods...

Marcion believed that the true gospel of grace had been corrupted by Jewish influences, and in particular that the more Jewish followers of Jesus had adulterated the message. Therefore he saw his task as restoration (cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.3-5). Although some have suggested that canonical Luke is a response to Marcion’s Gospel, the consensus supports the view of Tertullian and the other Fathers that Marcion’s work is a form of gospel redaction.[14] As Irenaeus saw it, Marcion was ‘the only one who has dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures’ (Adv. Haer. I.27.4). He further said:

He mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most clearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father.[15]

Tertullian is particularly strident on this point: ‘What Pontic mouse is more corrosive than the man who has gnawed away the Gospels?’ (Adv. Marc. I.1.5). Tertullian also suggests that Marcion had distinctive interpretations for some of the material he left in (Adv. Marc. IV.43). He set out to refute Marcion’s theology from his own text, arguing that Marcion’s emendations and mutilations served to prove the temporal priority of the orthodox text (Adv. Marc. IV.3-6, esp. 4).

Marcion’s main policy was redaction by omission. The vast majority of his alterations to the text of the New Testament were of this nature, whether whole books, chapters, particular pericopae, verses or even single words.[16] He criticised with a knife. Two factors appear to have motivated Marcion’s editorial activities. The main factor is his contrast between the two gods, and thus between law and grace. This explains, for example, his attitude to the OT, and to OT quotations within the NT (which were entirely omitted); as well as his omission of Romans 3:31-4:25 and the bulk of Romans 9-11. This is continually present in his alteration of the gospel texts as well, as we shall see.

The famous christological passages in Colossians 1:15ff. and Philippians 2:6ff. were altered. Colossians 1:15-18 was reformulated through omissions to read: ‘He is the image of the invisible God, and he is before all things’. The phrases omitted by Marcion from this passage mostly concern the relationship between Christ and creation: ‘the first-born of all creation’ (v. 15b), which clearly links Christ to the Creator; the whole of verse 16: ‘for in him all things were created. . .all things were created through him and for him’, which clearly links Christ to the created cosmos; and v. 17b: ‘in him all things hold together’, which links Christ with the ongoing continuation of the created world.[35] Although Marcion’s distinctive theology was an important factor in these alterations, we should note the christological implications as well. A clear alteration is made in 1:22 where Marcion omits the words th=v sarko\v au0tou= from the reference to Jesus’ body.[36] The reason for this is obvious, since for Marcion Christ had no flesh.

The Euaggelion opens with the sudden appearance of Jesus in Capernaum, in which Marcion combines material from Luke 3:1a and 4:31

... precluded any use of the birth narratives (Tertullian, de Carne 2)

. In addition, the Jewishness of the material in Luke’s birth narrative, and the human ancestry revealed in the genealogy were not congenial to Marcion.[44] The connection of Jesus to Nazareth was consistently obscured by Marcion,[45] and the baptism and temptation were also left out. Luke’s insistence on the human development of Jesus was similarly rejected. Marcion’s rejection of the OT combined with his tendency to docetism in order to facilitate the rejection of these chapters.

The content of Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue is omitted.[47] The events following the episode in the synagogue are transferred to after the healing of the demon-possessed man. In this episode the crucial phrase from 4:41: ‘because they knew that he was the Christ’ was omitted—Jesus could not be the Messiah predicted in the OT. Marcion also omits Luke 5:39: ‘the old [wine] is better’;[48] which was presumably thought to support a positive view of the OT

Luke 8:19 (the mother and brothers of Jesus coming to him) is omitted.[49]

A significant complex of alterations occurred around the account of the Last Supper in Luke 22:14-20. Verses 16-18 were omitted;[58] v. 19b may also have been omitted. Marcion certainly deleted the kainh/ of v. 20, resulting in ‘the covenant in my blood’.[59] Various other passages are also omitted from the passion narrative: 22:23-30;[60] 22:35-38 with the clear statement of the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecies in Jesus.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Marcion.htm

It is evident that Maricon redacted from the original as opposed to others a hundred years later adding to it. I mean come on man, I see you argue about how certain verses in the New Testament that the Muslims are insisting were added later were not added later, (which I agree with) but yet choose to believe Maricon had the correct versions of Luke and Pauls writings and others added to them? No sir Maricon clearly removed all the teachings he didnt like from out of these Books, why? Because there is absolutely no way one can believe the garbage he believed and taught if one reads the Word of God as it was given and written originally all of which state Jesus came in the Flesh, died in the Flesh, was Resurrected, and spoke against many of the Gnostic Ideologies Maricon and other Gnostics taught..

 

[Artful Revealer]

He must have condoned sacrifice if he ate from the passover. But when he follows commandments only given to Israel (sabbath, passover, feast of tabernacles etc...) it doesnt count for some reason. He says you can eat without washing your hands and that means he's denouncing the dietary laws...

He didn't say just that. He said whatever goes into the mouth and into the belly ends up in the privy. Only things that go outside a man and defile the heart defile a man, not what goes in. Everything you eat turns into the same waste you expel, whether it is pork or an apple. For me this cannot be a clearer rejection of the dietary laws.

What did He eat from the passover lamb? All we read is "this bread" is His body and "this wine" is His blood. Where does He say anything about "this lamb"? Where does it say anything about eating the lamb? If Jesus is the lamb of God, why isn't the lamb's meat His body, why isn't the lamb's blood His blood? For me this is symbolic of how Christ reversed Passover forever. Prepare the lamb, He's not described as eating from it, He shares bread and wine and offers himself as the lamb to once and for all turn Passover into a day to commemorate His sacrifice instead of the sacrifice of the Egyptian firstborn.

That said, there's no passage in the entire Gospel where Jesus is described as eating meat other than fish.

Yea and theres bible verse after bible verse that condemns the act of human sacrifice and THEM committing human sacrifice. So they did that in disobedience.

How is it disobedient when it was clearly ordained. Again:

That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD’s. – Exodus 13:12

For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine, both man and beast: on the day that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for myself. – Numbers 8:17

I will not deny that there were prophets who condemned human sacrifice. Nor will I deny that "God" also prohibited child sacrifice to Moloch:

Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. - Leviticus 18:21

How do you explain this schizophrenic behaviour of the Lord without acknowledging this is a clear amalgam of two different laws / deities?

The US from its inception to lets pretend and say the 60's. They treated blacks and native americans negatively because they werent of the "white" tribe and not even as proverbial enemies. These were citizens of their own nation. But for whatever reason that isnt bigger than what Israel did in past times

It is different because it wasn't justified by their orthodox religion. Neither was there a "white tribe" considering whites have also been slaves in the US. They're just called indented servants for some no doubt honourable reason. But the US is also lost, there's also child sacrifice, there's also materialism, there are also hypocritical priests of modern-day ethics not living up to the standards they preach. There's no argument there.

Because if He's God, what else would he be doing? Didnt God exist in the beginning? Isnt your position that people over time, stopped following God? Isnt your position that there is God and the devil in all religions or if not, the bible? Jesus came to clarify truth from the lies. To Israel that is.

I personally believe man is in a fallen state and can only try to get back to God. They never truly stopped following God because Man in its very nature is a fallen being. That is what the story of Adam describes. There have of course been attempts by wise men to pave the way for a life closer to God, but sin in this world is inevitable due to our fallen nature. The Son of God didn't just show the way to a life closer to God, He showed the way to be with God, no longer separated but in perfect union.

For me the best definition for Christianity is the Knowledge of Good and Evil (that's what gnosis actually is). You do not know good and evil from reading rules written on stone or paper. The Ten Commandments, for instance, they are not Good. They are generally a reaction to Evil. Jesus' antithesis on the mount is a good illustration: "You have heard it said" (eg. an eye for an eye) - "But I say unto you" (turn the other cheek), completing temporal laws suffering from the corrupted state of the world with laws that would set us free of, raise us above that corruption.

Yea everyone going by whats "in their heart" will lead everybody in different directions while just having it in stone (on paper), lets EVERYONE know what they are supposed to abide by.

Following a written law is not knowledge of Good. You pay your taxes because it's the law and else you'll get into trouble, while your taxes are being spent on horrific policies. The law written on one's heart is not different from every other individual. It's not meant as a subjective standard, but as a universal code encrypted on our very souls that individuals need to stimulate. Moralist relativism is an invention of the Enlightenment; has nothing to do with Christianity. As I said, written law is at best a parapet to prevent one from going off-track, but it can never - never - transform the heart.

Also, in a time when evil was a strange concept, evil has to be laid bare first. The revelation of Evil is not equal to the revelation of Good. In fact, I think that might be a good way to describe the difference between the Old Testament and the New.

Well since you dont care for the OT, then you dont know why theres an emphasis on Israel. Take that into account, and how am I wrong? The bible is the one that placed the emphasis on Israel. The apocrypha does as well. Jesus then came and said He came to save the lost sheep of Israel. THATS what I go by and thats why I believe theres a emphasis on Israel.

You mean the Torah puts emphasis on Israel. Israel is not mentioned in most apocrypha (only the Book of James I think) and if it is mentioned, it is only mentioned in the context of location, never mentioned as the land of God, YHVH or Yahweh is mentioned not once in the entirety of Christian scripture and the Lord almost unanimously refers to Jesus Christ, not God.

As well, NO, they did not look mediterranean since the Egyptians didnt look mediterranean. And the bible that is supposed to be speaking of the "Jewish" people, is the one that says the Egyptians could be mistaken for Israelites and vice versa. The modern Jewish people could not be mistaken for ancient Egyptians. And I bring this up, because you try connecting the Jewish people with the people of the bible when they dont fit. I cant really respond to what you say without bringing that point up

Lower Egypt. Ramses II was seated in Lower Egypt, in the Nile Delta. These people looked mediterranean, not Nubian. The Egyptians under Ramses had military excursions both to the South (into black Egypt, Higher Egypt) and into the Levant. They were not black themselves. Since long before the Jews escaped Egypt to Canaan, Canaan had been under Egyptian control for a long time (16th–11th centuries BC). This is the exact period in which the Exodus supposedly took place. Israelites and Egyptians were probably mistaken for one another because they were both mediterranean looking semitic people, living under Egyption control. You don't need the Black Hebrew theory to explain this.

Again, white supremacy is a perfect example of the "chosen people" doctrine which is what I was pointing out. You're the one that was calling out tribalism, yet when its America or the UK, you sweep theirs under the rug? So I ask you again, when is God's judgement going to come down on them for their tribalistic acts not to mention possible human sacrifice?

This is irrelevant. Your view is biased against "whites" and the "West".

Well, the passover doesnt count
Feast of tabernacles doesnt count
Him attending synagogue doesnt count
Him quoting the God of Israel word for word doesnt count
Him quoting the God of Israel's prophets word for word doesnt count
Him quoting the God of Israel's commandments word for word doesnt count either

Passover has been answered. Feast of tabernacles has been put in context of Hebrew tradition.

So is visiting the synagogue. Religious men enter their houses of prayer do they not? Why would Jesus not enter the house of prayer of His people? When approaching His final days before crucifixion, He sure changed the synagogue, did He not? Something that probably prompted the priesthood to act against Him.

He doesn't quote word for word prophets and commandments. Secondly, when he's quoting parts of those words, it's because they contain truth or in other occasions, he's quoting them to correct them (see the sermon on the mount). See how muslims always quote Christians that "God is One"? Do you see them quote Jesus whenever it suits them? Is Islam therefore the fulfilment or continuation of Christian scripture?

So I dont know what you're even asking for. The top two are perfect examples as they ONLY apply to the Hebrews, yet you have some reason that it doesnt count. So I dont know what you're even looking for to be honest.

613 laws and you can't give me one that isn't a cultural holiday?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Mr Blah, ether by accident of on purpose, encouraged me to go to Church this morning. This is what was preached on, written by Paul from 2 Corinthians 3. It compares and contrasts the old and the new covenants. Perhaps this was meant for someone.


Ministers of a New Covenant

1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Exodus 34:29-35)



7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:13And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.18But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[KoncreteMind]

He didn't say just that. He said whatever goes into the mouth and into the belly ends up in the privy. Only things that go outside a man and defile the heart defile a man, not what goes in. Everything you eat turns into the same waste you expel, whether it is pork or an apple. For me this cannot be a clearer rejection of the dietary laws.

For you it cannot be clearer. The context of the verse cannot be clearer though and that shows that he was not talking about dietary laws, since they specifically asked him about eating without washing hands and thats how he finished his answer. If he did reject the dietary laws, then drugs are okay right? I can feed my children McDonalds 4 times a week as long as I tell them to let good come out of their mouths? Nothing will defile them right but only that which comes out of their mouth? Because Israel wasnt told to stay away from certain foods just because, but because they were unhealthy. Example, pork.. But if he says everything is okay, then that opens the door for EVERYTHING doesnt it? Including drugs?

What did He eat from the passover lamb? All we read is "this bread" is His body and "this wine" is His blood. Where does He say anything about "this lamb"? Where does it say anything about eating the lamb? If Jesus is the lamb of God, why isn't the lamb's meat His body, why isn't the lamb's blood His blood? For me this is symbolic of how Christ reversed Passover forever. Prepare the lamb, He's not described as eating from it, He shares bread and wine and offers himself as the lamb to once and for all turn Passover into a day to commemorate His sacrifice instead of the sacrifice of the Egyptian firstborn.

That said, there's no passage in the entire Gospel where Jesus is described as eating meat other than fish.

Since the passover was a commandment, and they came together to commemorate the commandment/historical occurrence, its safe to assume that there was lamb present at the meal. I mean that is a safe assumption and not a leap because every detail isnt spelled out in the gospels.

How is it disobedient when it was clearly ordained. Again:

That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD’s. – Exodus 13:12

For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine, both man and beast: on the day that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for myself. – Numbers 8:17

I will not deny that there were prophets who condemned human sacrifice. Nor will I deny that "God" also prohibited child sacrifice to Moloch:

Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. - Leviticus 18:21

How do you explain this schizophrenic behaviour of the Lord without acknowledging this is a clear amalgam of two different laws / deities?

Thats not "schizo" behavior because He wasnt saying to sacrifice the first born to Him but to CONSECRATE (make or declare something sacred; dedicate formally to a religious or divine purpose.) them to Him. In the law of the God of Israel He says that they should NOT offer up their sons and daughters onto Him as the foreign nations did to their gods and that He considers it an abomination (Deut 12:31). So why would they say that in one book, then in the very next book or the one before it say something else? Like theres really no argument for their being SUPPORT of human sacrifice in the bible. Now did Israel engage in it? Yes. But only in disobedience and not in a "following commandments" type of way.

It is different because it wasn't justified by their orthodox religion. Neither was there a "white tribe" considering whites have also been slaves in the US. They're just called indented servants for some no doubt honourable reason. But the US is also lost, there's also child sacrifice, there's also materialism, there are also hypocritical priests of modern-day ethics not living up to the standards they preach. There's no argument there.

Oh so tribalism is bad when "religion" is involved, but not when economic reasons are? And lets not get into comparing indentured servants to slaves, or the experiences of the descendants of the indentured servants to experiences of the desendants of the the slaves. I dont remember indentured servants being hung on trees with groups of people around them smiling. With that said there were white slaves probably here and definitely in Europe. The word slave actually refers to the Eastern European slavs.. The big difference is that they werent treated in such a negative manner. I brought all of this up, not to have a discussion on race, but to explain to you that Israel didnt treat the foreigners AMONGST THEM in such a manner as America treated those outside of its "in group". They treated their foreigners as one of their own. Well at least they were supposed to by law. Yet God pinpoints them to make a point about tribalism according to you? So I then asked, what do you feel God is going to do about that type of tribalism in the West and you sweep it under the rug when you dont do the same with Israel... Just pointing out the inconsistency

I personally believe man is in a fallen state and can only try to get back to God. They never truly stopped following God because Man in its very nature is a fallen being. That is what the story of Adam describes. There have of course been attempts by wise men to pave the way for a life closer to God, but sin in this world is inevitable due to our fallen nature. The Son of God didn't just show the way to a life closer to God, He showed the way to be with God, no longer separated but in perfect union.

For me the best definition for Christianity is the Knowledge of Good and Evil (that's what gnosis actually is). You do not know good and evil from reading rules written on stone or paper. The Ten Commandments, for instance, they are not Good. They are generally a reaction to Evil. Jesus' antithesis on the mount is a good illustration: "You have heard it said" (eg. an eye for an eye) - "But I say unto you" (turn the other cheek), completing temporal laws suffering from the corrupted state of the world with laws that would set us free of, raise us above that corruption.


Following a written law is not knowledge of Good. You pay your taxes because it's the law and else you'll get into trouble, while your taxes are being spent on horrific policies. The law written on one's heart is not different from every other individual. It's not meant as a subjective standard, but as a universal code encrypted on our very souls that individuals need to stimulate. Moralist relativism is an invention of the Enlightenment; has nothing to do with Christianity. As I said, written law is at best a parapet to prevent one from going off-track, but it can never - never - transform the heart.

Also, in a time when evil was a strange concept, evil has to be laid bare first. The revelation of Evil is not equal to the revelation of Good. In fact, I think that might be a good way to describe the difference between the Old Testament and the New.


You mean the Torah puts emphasis on Israel. Israel is not mentioned in most apocrypha (only the Book of James I think) and if it is mentioned, it is only mentioned in the context of location, never mentioned as the land of God, YHVH or Yahweh is mentioned not once in the entirety of Christian scripture and the Lord almost unanimously refers to Jesus Christ, not God.

Well yes I do mean the Torah puts emphasis on Israel. But also the OT in general and the KING JAMES apocrypha in the 1611 version that they took out of every bible afterwards. These scriptures make it clear that the law, which was really simply instructions from their God to THEM, was ultimately best for THEM to obey and not disobey. And in the apocrypha, it talks about foreigners coming to them and getting them to not follow the laws as they were supposed to while they themselves took up customs to follow. Then Jesus comes and follows the holy days without giving the "cultural" reasons you are (which is all speculation when considering the bible alone), while also saying that those that follow the law and taught others to do so would be called great in heaven, while those who did opposite would be called least. You telling me or christianity saying "we dont have to do that anymore" (or never did in your case) is similar to what foreigners (allegedly) did according to the apocrypha in the 1611 KJV. While Jesus according to the bible simply came and followed the law and left no suggestion not to... I'll go with that way over the "law isnt good or in effect anymore" path

Lower Egypt. Ramses II was seated in Lower Egypt, in the Nile Delta. These people looked mediterranean, not Nubian. The Egyptians under Ramses had military excursions both to the South (into black Egypt, Higher Egypt) and into the Levant. They were not black themselves. Since long before the Jews escaped Egypt to Canaan, Canaan had been under Egyptian control for a long time (16th–11th centuries BC). This is the exact period in which the Exodus supposedly took place. Israelites and Egyptians were probably mistaken for one another because they were both mediterranean looking semitic people, living under Egyption control. You don't need the Black Hebrew theory to explain this.


This is irrelevant. Your view is biased against "whites" and the "West".

Well when you ignore how the Egyptians depicted themselves, which was more like Africans than "Mediterraneans", when you look at their customs which were more "African" than "Mediterranean", and when you look at how the people around their vicinity depicted themselves (Kush/Nubians/Ethiopians etc...) which was similar as to how the Egyptians did, and when you look at how science has said that climate is what differentiates our different appearances yet ignore that when it comes to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and when you look at the Russian icons/Roman catacombs and how they depicted Israel, and when you look at how christianity historically said Ham was black but made an exception for his son Egypt (?), etc... I mean when you take into account ALL these things, the answer is no, Egypt wasnt some half mediterranean half african state. Like every other nation throughout history (when considering its origin) it was homogeneous. And going by these different things, is where I get my conclusion on what Egypt, and by connection Israel, looked like. Then when the bible predicts certain things that happen to certain people that are similar in appearance, well thats like the capstone to my belief for lack of a better word.. And to reiterate, I didnt bring this up to delve into the topic originally but just to clarify that you cant connect the people over there (Israel) to the people of the book. They have no connection to them

And as I said before, I was bringing up the "West" to show how you're being hypocritical by saying that Jesus came to Israel because of their tribalism, when there were more tribalistic nations THEN, and NOW than them. So I asked what you felt God would do about their tribalism and you sweep it under the rug and say Im biased against whites lol. I judge everyone, even those that look like me, on a individual basis but thats besides the point. You want to call out Israel for their "tribalism" when they left Egypt during the exodus WITH foreigners amongst them (Exodus 12:38) and then later say that foreigners were to be treated just as Israelites were. So your "reasons" as to why God came to who you call the Devil's people, does not fit. Other people were more tribalistic, committed more colonialist acts on greater scales,more human sacrifice, and greed... Yet you dont have an answer as to what you feel God is going to do about that like you say He did small ol Israel... THAT was my point. Not to bring up a discussion about race...

Passover has been answered. Feast of tabernacles has been put in context of Hebrew tradition.

So is visiting the synagogue. Religious men enter their houses of prayer do they not? Why would Jesus not enter the house of prayer of His people? When approaching His final days before crucifixion, He sure changed the synagogue, did He not? Something that probably prompted the priesthood to act against Him.

He doesn't quote word for word prophets and commandments. Secondly, when he's quoting parts of those words, it's because they contain truth or in other occasions, he's quoting them to correct them (see the sermon on the mount). See how muslims always quote Christians that "God is One"? Do you see them quote Jesus whenever it suits them? Is Islam therefore the fulfilment or continuation of Christian scripture?

613 laws and you can't give me one that isn't a cultural holiday?

If I said "honour your father and mother" you'd say "Well (enter ancient civilization) had a law like that!" If I said, "okay, Jesus supported thou shalt not steal" you'd say "Well (enter ancient civilization) did too" and so forth. So I pick the commandment, because it was a COMMANDMENT to observe the Passover/Feast of Tabernacles, and you make excuses and cast those COMMANDMENTS that were ONLY given to the Hebrews, as cultural? Like I said, this is a position you WANT to come to and not one you're logically coming to..Those are the best examples because they ONLY pertain to Israel and Jesus came and observed them without even hinting that people after him should not. So all you have is your own speculation (when we're only considering the bible that is)...

And as I've said before in this post, besides saying that not ONE jot or tittle would pass from the law till all things are fulfilled and that those who follow/teach others to follow would be called great in heaven while those that did opposite would be called least, he also said this:

Luke 24
44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures

The very things you're saying is from Satan, he's telling us SPEAKS of him and his coming. And that it must be fulfilled. Yet you're trying to separate him from just that, based really on the (NT) apocrypha. Which is cool if thats where you want to take your faith. But lets not pretend that the "Jesus" described in the bible supports that position because he doesnt. Paul gets kinda gnosticky but it all depends on how you look at it which is probably why "Peter" said that people wrestle with his letters to their destruction...

 

[Serveto]

... gnosticky ...

Good one!

 

[Artful Revealer]

For you it cannot be clearer. The context of the verse cannot be clearer though and that shows that he was not talking about dietary laws, since they specifically asked him about eating without washing hands and thats how he finished his answer. If he did reject the dietary laws, then drugs are okay right? I can feed my children McDonalds 4 times a week as long as I tell them to let good come out of their mouths? Nothing will defile them right but only that which comes out of their mouth? Because Israel wasnt told to stay away from certain foods just because, but because they were unhealthy. Example, pork.. But if he says everything is okay, then that opens the door for EVERYTHING doesnt it? Including drugs?

Your argument is basically an admittance of defeat. Where is the Torah law against the consumption of drugs? So let's drop that.

One can argue that if dietary laws of the Torah are meant to keep a man healthy, then the consumption of damaging goods such as drugs would not be recommended.

Since the Gospel speaks against gluttony, the excessive consumption of any goods, it would logically disapprove of highly addictive substances. The Gospel contains enough guidelines against gluttony:
make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires; walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other; For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

And doesn't Jesus here make Paul's writings correct?

“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on."

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

Regarding the washing of hands. You claim the reason for dietary laws was to preserve health, yet the washing of hands was meant to prevent the holy bread from becoming spoilt, unclean and "unhealthy". If Jesus rejects the necessity to wash hands before eating the bread, he basically rejects the entire chapter 15 of Leviticus, which already contains 30 or so laws.

Moreover, purely logically, the verse:
Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy?

... cannot simply be a rebuttal of the washing of hands, since the washing or not washing of hands doesn't change a iota about whether or not that which enters the mouth and belly is cast out into the privy. I consider everything Jesus says as Logos, ie. it is first and foremost logical. A logical reply to Jesus would be: "So we can eat all foods?" If Jesus would say "No" then the following logical reply would be: "But You said that whatsoever enters the mouth and belly is cast out into the privy. Is there food that enters the mouth and belly and is not cast out into the privy?" which would leave Jesus with a contradiction, which would mean He's not the Logos!

Since the passover was a commandment, and they came together to commemorate the commandment/historical occurrence, its safe to assume that there was lamb present at the meal. I mean that is a safe assumption and not a leap because every detail isnt spelled out in the gospels.

I didn't say there was no lamb present. The disciples probably did eat lamb. But there's nothing that says Jesus did, and nowhere is the actual lamb used as a sacrament, instead bread is used for the Lamb of God.

Thats not "schizo" behavior because He wasnt saying to sacrifice the first born to Him but to CONSECRATE (make or declare something sacred; dedicate formally to a religious or divine purpose.) them to Him. In the law of the God of Israel He says that they should NOT offer up their sons and daughters onto Him as the foreign nations did to their gods and that He considers it an abomination (Deut 12:31). So why would they say that in one book, then in the very next book or the one before it say something else? Like theres really no argument for their being SUPPORT of human sacrifice in the bible. Now did Israel engage in it? Yes. But only in disobedience and not in a "following commandments" type of way.

I've given two verses that explicitly ordain the sacrifice of the firstborn. A possible and academically sound reason to explain away the discrepancies between God deeming that sacrifice an abomination and the other literally claiming it for himself would be the acknowledgment that there are two gods in the OT who have been amalgamated by the forces of religious syncretism and monolatry. El probably did not condone those sacrifices. Yahweh, however, most certainly did, since he is the Melek / King those sacrifices were offered to.

Oh so tribalism is bad when "religion" is involved, but not when economic reasons are?

Complete straw man. We're talking about using God and religion to deem oneself and his brothers in blood and faith superior to other peoples. That certainly needs to be addressed by the Son of Man.

And lets not get into comparing indentured servants to slaves, or the experiences of the descendants of the indentured servants to experiences of the desendants of the the slaves. I dont remember indentured servants being hung on trees with groups of people around them smiling. With that said there were white slaves probably here and definitely in Europe. The word slave actually refers to the Eastern European slavs.. The big difference is that they werent treated in such a negative manner. I brought all of this up, not to have a discussion on race, but to explain to you that Israel didnt treat the foreigners AMONGST THEM in such a manner as America treated those outside of its "in group". They treated their foreigners as one of their own. Well at least they were supposed to by law. Yet God pinpoints them to make a point about tribalism according to you?

Yes, but not just tribalism. I also included materialism, the law of the letter, blood sacrifice, hypocrisy of the priestly class pretending to guard the word of God, etc.

Well yes I do mean the Torah puts emphasis on Israel. But also the OT in general and the KING JAMES apocrypha in the 1611 version that they took out of every bible afterwards. These scriptures make it clear that the law, which was really simply instructions from their God to THEM, was ultimately best for THEM to obey and not disobey. And in the apocrypha, it talks about foreigners coming to them and getting them to not follow the laws as they were supposed to while they themselves took up customs to follow. Then Jesus comes and follows the holy days without giving the "cultural" reasons you are (which is all speculation when considering the bible alone), while also saying that those that follow the law and taught others to do so would be called great in heaven, while those who did opposite would be called least. You telling me or christianity saying "we dont have to do that anymore" (or never did in your case) is similar to what foreigners (allegedly) did according to the apocrypha in the 1611 KJV. While Jesus according to the bible simply came and followed the law and left no suggestion not to... I'll go with that way over the "law isnt good or in effect anymore" path

So His disciples didn't wash their hands before eating bread, as commanded by Leviticus. Jesus healed a man on Sabbath as forbidden by the law. Double the amount of sacrifices are required on the day of Sabbath yet there's no account of Jesus performing or having let someone perform a sacrifice. He went into the Temple of Solomon and removed all livestock that were used to perform sacrifices, yet you keep clinging onto what can only be described as a confirmation bias that Jesus followed the law. And to top it off, this should all be seen in a context of Judaization of scripture and Christianity, where the Judaizers have won the theological battle, yet in spite of their victory, these inconsistensies cannot be erased.

I will also stand by my point that Jesus grew up in a Hebrew society and that it is completely normal for Him to have participated in the holidays of that society. You would rather have seen Him condemn those holidays from the cradle to give credit to my position apparently, which is obviously absurd.

And as I said before, I was bringing up the "West" to show how you're being hypocritical by saying that Jesus came to Israel because of their tribalism, when there were more tribalistic nations THEN, and NOW than them. So I asked what you felt God would do about their tribalism and you sweep it under the rug and say Im biased against whites lol. I judge everyone, even those that look like me, on a individual basis but thats besides the point. You want to call out Israel for their "tribalism" when they left Egypt during the exodus WITH foreigners amongst them (Exodus 12:38) and then later say that foreigners were to be treated just as Israelites were. So your "reasons" as to why God came to who you call the Devil's people, does not fit. Other people were more tribalistic, committed more colonialist acts on greater scales,more human sacrifice, and greed... Yet you dont have an answer as to what you feel God is going to do about that like you say He did small ol Israel... THAT was my point. Not to bring up a discussion about race...

Jerusalem is still at the heart of the world and at the heart of Abrahamic religion. I've already addressed that Jerusalem is the lair of demons, that Jerusalem was built by the powers of the demons, that Yahweh, the arch demon playing God had his throne there and will be enthroned there again, so if, as God, you want to send the savior to free the people submitted to the Devil in Jerusalem, to Poughkeepsie, New York, you need to reassess your strategy.

If I said "honour your father and mother" you'd say "Well (enter ancient civilization) had a law like that!" If I said, "okay, Jesus supported thou shalt not steal" you'd say "Well (enter ancient civilization) did too" and so forth. So I pick the commandment, because it was a COMMANDMENT to observe the Passover/Feast of Tabernacles, and you make excuses and cast those COMMANDMENTS that were ONLY given to the Hebrews, as cultural? Like I said, this is a position you WANT to come to and not one you're logically coming to..Those are the best examples because they ONLY pertain to Israel and Jesus came and observed them without even hinting that people after him should not. So all you have is your own speculation (when we're only considering the bible that is)...

It is entirely logical. It makes no sense for Jesus to contradict the Ten Commandments because they concern belief in one God and prohibit things like murder and theft, nothing of the sort that Jesus wouldn't approve of. But he most certainly did not approve of all of the other laws, as aforementioned examples have shown. Jesus cannot be contradictory. So if Jesus breaks a law (eg. healing on Sabbath) and says: "He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." he would teach unto others what He Himself has not lived up to. That is impossible!

And as I've said before in this post, besides saying that not ONE jot or tittle would pass from the law till all things are fulfilled and that those who follow/teach others to follow would be called great in heaven while those that did opposite would be called least, he also said this:

Luke 24
44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures

The very things you're saying is from Satan, he's telling us SPEAKS of him and his coming. And that it must be fulfilled. Yet you're trying to separate him from just that, based really on the (NT) apocrypha. Which is cool if thats where you want to take your faith. But lets not pretend that the "Jesus" described in the bible supports that position because he doesnt. Paul gets kinda gnosticky but it all depends on how you look at it which is probably why "Peter" said that people wrestle with his letters to their destruction...

Yes and this is the core of the problem. You are a Judaizer. I am not. I am a Marcionist and in Marcion's Gospel of the Lord, those verse referring to Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms and the Scriptures do not exist.

We'll have to wait until Time or God sends either of us into the other direction.

 

[God_Is_Formless]

Where is the Torah law against the consumption of drugs?

I don't know about the Torah but since the Qur'an Mentions the Torah and Is Itself against intoxicants, i'd vouch that Torah law is against.

Conscience-wise, if drugs were okay, they'd be free. You wouldn't need money to get them. Also, why seek for another state of mind than the one currently being Granted by God Almighty if not for ungratefulness and/or seeking pleasure? Needless to add that God Is The Creator of all highs and Certainly Doesn't Depend on a drug to Grant you a high sensation, if it's indeed good for you. The drug's only a means to an end.

 

[KoncreteMind]

So His disciples didn't wash their hands before eating bread, as commanded by Leviticus. Jesus healed a man on Sabbath as forbidden by the law. Double the amount of sacrifices are required on the day of Sabbath yet there's no account of Jesus performing or having let someone perform a sacrifice. He went into the Temple of Solomon and removed all livestock that were used to perform sacrifices, yet you keep clinging onto what can only be described as a confirmation bias that Jesus followed the law. And to top it off, this should all be seen in a context of Judaization of scripture and Christianity, where the Judaizers have won the theological battle, yet in spite of their victory, these inconsistensies cannot be erased.

I will also stand by my point that Jesus grew up in a Hebrew society and that it is completely normal for Him to have participated in the holidays of that society. You would rather have seen Him condemn those holidays from the cradle to give credit to my position apparently, which is obviously absurd.


Jerusalem is still at the heart of the world and at the heart of Abrahamic religion. I've already addressed that Jerusalem is the lair of demons, that Jerusalem was built by the powers of the demons, that Yahweh, the arch demon playing God had his throne there and will be enthroned there again, so if, as God, you want to send the savior to free the people submitted to the Devil in Jerusalem, to Poughkeepsie, New York, you need to reassess your strategy.


It is entirely logical. It makes no sense for Jesus to contradict the Ten Commandments because they concern belief in one God and prohibit things like murder and theft, nothing of the sort that Jesus wouldn't approve of. But he most certainly did not approve of all of the other laws, as aforementioned examples have shown. Jesus cannot be contradictory. So if Jesus breaks a law (eg. healing on Sabbath) and says: "He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." he would teach unto others what He Himself has not lived up to. That is impossible!

The god you're presenting seems to be weak. Comes here to claim he created us, but follows customs because of peer pressure. Customs of the one he is supposed to be saving us from. And not only did he not explain why he followed it but didnt want us to, but he didnt even denounce the practices themselves. Well biblically that is. Which brings up the point that it makes no sense that you try to make your points biblically, when you cant fully make your point without referring to the gnostic gospels. Because without referring to the source of your speculation, than thats all it is. Speculation. Its speculation to say that Jesus followed the Hebrew commandments of the Feast of Passover/Tabernacles because of just going with the flow. Especially when you say this person was God sent to save us from the God of Israel. And thats just speaking of your interpretation of the biblical Jesus. When you go to the gnostic gospels, you see Jesus preaching one thing in public, and one thing in secret. Or one thing in public, another thing to the disciples, and another thing to a specific disciple. Its all "secret" and speculative. Which sounds like the devil while I'd assume God would come and speak openly about Hisself and His intentions/expectations for/of us. Which is also why I dont believe Jesus to be "man and God"...

Theres no commandment in Leviticus 15 or the Torah at all about washing hands before eating. Which is why right after they accused the disciples of breaking it, Jesus called it a TRADITION. Because there was no commandment for it. Which again ties into why he said the sabbath was made for man and not the man for sabbath, because of all the TRADITIONS that were being placed on the sabbath instead of letting it ride as originally intended. So you keep saying "he broke the law" when he didnt. He broke the traditions of the pharisees who were not righteous, even in the sense of the Torah..

As far as the dietary laws, I think you need to be honest with what you open up when you say nothing and absolutely nothing that goes into the body defiles a person. I mean common sense, says that eating unhealthy does just that to a person, but you think Jesus was saying otherwise? If nothing that goes into the body defiles a person, than that means NOTHING. Well as long as "good" comes out of my mouth, I can cover the bad that I ingest. That means drugs, McDonalds, sodas, candy etc... because I'll be okay as long as good comes out of my mouth. I dont get it, but I guess I do now that you bring up Marcion. Anything Hebrew is false, which is very convenient to say the least...I think it makes sense that God would want us to be at a just weight and not overweight. I think it makes sense that He'd create certain animals for us to eat, and certain animals that exist to help maintain the ecosystem. But people dont want to obey commandments and want to go with their "heart" which can lead anywhere. But Im only speaking from the perspective of the OT, BIBLICAL Jesus, James, and Revelation. This is what causes me to disagree.

Yes and this is the core of the problem. You are a Judaizer. I am not. I am a Marcionist and in Marcion's Gospel of the Lord, those verse referring to Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms and the Scriptures do not exist.

We'll have to wait until Time or God sends either of us into the other direction.

Well I did believe in gnosticism, which is pretty much what Marcionism is without the emphasis of Paul so I dont think the Most High will be sending me in that direction though I do appreciate some of the things I learned from the experience.With that said, you specifically bringing up Marcion makes sense. I mean strip the Hebrew off him and claim he came for another god...So any mention biblically about him and the Hebrew God, is a false insertion from "Judaizers". Again, its pretty convenient, but to each their own. But if you're going to call me one, blame it on the "Jesus" thats laid out in the gospels. Gospels are older than most if not all gnostic texts according to the scholars if you're into basing your opinion based on what the majority of scholars say.. I base my opinion of salvation and what Im to do about it on the OT, Jesus, James and Revelation and I dont really see reason to break that up because of gnostic gospels dug out of the ground thousands of years later

 

[Artful Revealer]

Your rebuttal is a caricature and that's unfortunate. I gave you gospel verses that state "do not gratify the desires of the flesh", "do not be anxious about what you will eat" (Jesus' words) and you come up with Big Macs and Coca-Cola? Where in the Torah are the laws against minced beef between buns or sugary drinks? If you give into the desires of the spirit, you don't sin, you will not enter gluttony, you will not start treating your body like a container. "Do not be anxious about your body" (again, Jesus' words) does not mean your body is not a temple of the Holy Spirit.

By the tone of your last reply, I don't regard it as desirable for it to continue. Good talk regardless.

 

[Paranoia Daily]

Geesh! 26 pages and still no verdict...I would say a hung jury....Retrial!

 

[Artful Revealer]

You came to the wrong place for verdicts.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Your rebuttal is a caricature and that's unfortunate. I gave you gospel verses that state "do not gratify the desires of the flesh", "do not be anxious about what you will eat" (Jesus' words) and you come up with Big Macs and Coca-Cola? Where in the Torah are the laws against minced beef between buns or sugary drinks? If you give into the desires of the spirit, you don't sin, you will not enter gluttony, you will not start treating your body like a container. "Do not be anxious about your body" (again, Jesus' words) does not mean your body is not a temple of the Holy Spirit.

By the tone of your last reply, I don't regard it as desirable for it to continue. Good talk regardless.

Thats the same tone I talk in every thread, and even the same one used all thread in this one lol. But it is what it is.

Theres also nothing that is a "caricature" about my post either. Its just you wanting to strip the Hebrew off Jesus and claim he came for someone else. Which causes you to have to strip the bible of many of his words. And you do this based on gnosticism/Marcion but of course, you dont use these sources when explaining your position. Which causes you to act as if what you're saying is biblically evident when its not in the slightest. This sounds more "caricature" like than me taking the bible as its read (for the most part). But as I said, it is what it is. Till next time

 

[Artful Revealer]

Its just you wanting to strip the Hebrew off Jesus and claim he came for someone else.

It's not nice to have the last word with a straw man. I never said that.

And you do this based on gnosticism/Marcion but of course, you dont use these sources when explaining your position.

I defend my position on Christian sources, ie. - listen carefully - sources that were written by Christians or for Christians.

The Torah was never written by Christians or for Christians.

 

[KoncreteMind]

It's not nice to have the last word with a straw man. I never said that.

Well you didnt explicitly say it, but what else was I supposed to take from this?

I am a Marcionist and in Marcion's Gospel of the Lord, those verse referring to Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms and the Scriptures do not exist.

Thats not a strawman. Taking out his mentions of Moses/the Prophets/Psalms/Scriptures is practically stripping the Hebrew off him. Its akin to pretending as if Hitler wasnt German or didnt come for/with a German cause

I defend my position on Christian sources, ie. - listen carefully - sources that were written by Christians or for Christians.

The Torah was never written by Christians or for Christians.

I only see you quoting that from the bible which supports your view. I've rarely (on this iteration of the board) seen you quote the gnostic gospels for support of your view. My point was that you cant say he came for another god using the bible but if you throw in the gnostic gospels then your position makes sense. This was all I was pointing out especially since you called my post "caricature" when it would seem that your position is closer to being that than mine.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Well you didnt explicitly say it, but what else was I supposed to take from this?

Thats not a strawman. Taking out his mentions of Moses/the Prophets/Psalms/Scriptures is practically stripping the Hebrew off him. Its akin to pretending as if Hitler wasnt German or didnt come for/with a German cause

I call myself a Marcionite because I believe Marcion had it right re the Old Testament. Those references to Moses etc are not in Marcion's Gospel of Luke. If a Judaizer like yourself can use the Torah, I can use Marcion.

I only see you quoting that from the bible which supports your view. I've rarely (on this iteration of the board) seen you quote the gnostic gospels for support of your view. My point was that you cant say he came for another god using the bible but if you throw in the gnostic gospels then your position makes sense. This was all I was pointing out especially since you called my post "caricature" when it would seem that your position is closer to being that than mine.

You use the argument of MacDo's and sodas against my position that Jesus declared all food clean while the Torah doesn't have laws against that kind of food either. Why can you use it against the Gospel but not against the Torah? Where's the Torah law against candy? Your argument is thus invalid.
Not to mention that you ignored the other scripture I showed that says one shouldn't gratify the desires of the flesh, where counsel against gluttony is implicit.

You also argue that my version of God is weak because He didn't reproach the Hebrew holidays while completely ignoring what I said. Jesus said He did not come to destroy. He transforms into good. He interprets everything differently. The example I gave is that people celebrated passover to commemorate YHVH sparing the Jewish firstborn so he could crush Egyptian babies. Jesus transformed passover into the commemoration of His Resurrection for the next 2,000 years. I gave you this argument, yet you choose to persist in arguing why He didn't condemn those holidays as if I didn't say anything at all. Moreover, Jesus' ministry began with his baptism and you keep asking why He didn't condemn, or did not partake in, those holidays when He was a boy. Again, Jesus did not come to destroy and Jesus' ministry began with his baptism.

So yeah, your rebuttal was a caricature.

 

[JoChris]

This was very interesting timing! Easier format to read than other websites with full text.
http://bibleblender.com/2017/biblical-lessons/biblical-history/ancient-texts/tertullian-the-five-books-against-marcion-books-i-iii

Tertullian the Christian apologist certainly did not do a mere caricature. He dissected the heretic Marcion's teachings exactly.

 

[Artful Revealer]

The biggest problem with these criticisms is that they tend to accuse gnostics of dualism by conflating the principle of just with the principle of evil. Even Cerdo who predates Marcion distinguished between a good god (unknown before Christ's revelation) and the just god (the creator of the world). A just god cannot be evil, which is why there are 3 principles, 3 natures (good, just & unjust), not 2 (good and evil). A very plausible reason why the early orthodox detractors of Marcion and gnosis accused them of being dualist is their lack of concept of a third nature, a third god next to the theos and demiourgos. They seemingly did not identify the distinction between the demiurge (El) and the son of the demiurge (YHVH), or in other words, two entities who had taken up the role of God in the Old Testament. Strong evidence for that is the lack of the tetragrammaton YHVH or the name of Yahweh/Yahu/Ywh in any Christian tractate or text during the early Christian period. In fact, the earliest scriptural reference to YHVH dates to the 9th century. The central debate concerned the creator of the world and whether or not the Father revealed by Christ transcended him. YHVH was completely irrelevant, as he should be.

 

[KoncreteMind]

I call myself a Marcionite because I believe Marcion had it right re the Old Testament. Those references to Moses etc are not in Marcion's Gospel of Luke. If a Judaizer like yourself can use the Torah, I can use Marcion.

Well I thought I was encouraging you to use Marcion/gnostic gospels instead of just picking the verses out of the bible that fit your viewpoint while ignoring or rearranging the interpretation of the rest. The gnostic Jesus explicitly says the God of Israel is who you say it is while the biblical "Jesus" does not. Yet you'll try to quote biblical Jesus to make that point which you cant without ignoring alot of what he said. Thats my only point in that regard

You use the argument of MacDo's and sodas against my position that Jesus declared all food clean while the Torah doesn't have laws against that kind of food either. Why can you use it against the Gospel but not against the Torah? Where's the Torah law against candy? Your argument is thus invalid.
Not to mention that you ignored the other scripture I showed that says one shouldn't gratify the desires of the flesh, where counsel against gluttony is implicit.

The Torah has laws on forbidden/allowed food. It doesnt have laws on everything that is healthy/unhealthy. So there may be unhealthy foods, say like certain breads, that are unhealthy but not forbidden. So you trying to turn what I said against me, doesnt really fit because YOU say nothing that enters the mouth defiles a person, while science disagrees. MAcDo's does defile the body just as soda, cigs, drugs etc... My point in saying this? Its obvious when taking into account the defiling that these things do to the body that stuff that enters the mouth DOES defile the body. Which exemplifies my point that Jesus wasnt saying that literally NOTHING can enter the body and defile a person. Especially when the context as him saying this in regards to eating with unwashed hands. You pointing to other verses that you feel support your position would be no different than me pointing to verses such as "I did not come to abolish the law/prophets but fulfill" or "heaven and earth will pass before the law does" but thats where we have to rearrange what that means to Israelites so that he cannot be talking about Israelites and their God. So it would be fruitless just as it was when you asked for a law that Jesus followed then rearranged the holy days to not being laws though they ONLY apply to the Hebrew people

At the end of the day, if your position is that all foods are clean, and that he LITERALLY meant NOTHING that enters the body, then there shouldnt be any foods that defile the body and there shouldnt be ANYTHING that enters the mouth yet defiles the body.. Yet of course, in reality the opposite is true.

You also argue that my version of God is weak because He didn't reproach the Hebrew holidays while completely ignoring what I said. Jesus said He did not come to destroy. He transforms into good. He interprets everything differently. The example I gave is that people celebrated passover to commemorate YHVH sparing the Jewish firstborn so he could crush Egyptian babies. Jesus transformed passover into the commemoration of His Resurrection for the next 2,000 years. I gave you this argument, yet you choose to persist in arguing why He didn't condemn those holidays as if I didn't say anything at all. Moreover, Jesus' ministry began with his baptism and you keep asking why He didn't condemn, or did not partake in, those holidays when He was a boy. Again, Jesus did not come to destroy and Jesus' ministry began with his baptism.

You say I ignored your argument when Im sure I asked how you get that explanation from Jesus' words. Because from what I've read, he NEVER insinuated to changing the commemoration of the Passover from celebrating God taking vengeance on the Egyptians to celebrating or commemorating his death. So if you cant support your explanation WITH his words, then yea Im going to assume its speculation. So giving me that reason is all good and well, but I'd think the next step when asked would be pointing out WHERE you drew your conclusion from. And of course you didnt draw from it biblically, so that kinda leads back to my point in the beginning about "sourcing"...

So yeah, your rebuttal was a caricature.

Yea I dont hide elements of where Im getting my info from like you do concerning the gnostic gospels. Which is fine I guess, but when you call posts "caricatures" it takes the crux of the conversation from being about a certain topic to discussing frivolous outside fluff. I think you only quoting the bible when it suits your argument but not when it doesnt, and not really quoting the gnostic gospels much (if at all) is more "caricature" like than me accepting the bible in general, as its written. Ultimately I think that was an unneccessary tidbit to add to your last post which is why in a roundabout way I say "pot meet kettle"....