Any bible scholars out there?

Can a christian deny the old testament?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#21  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 5:27 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
theropod wrote:Without the Old Testament notion of original sin there is no need for the perfect sacrifice of the Christ to atone for said sin.

RS


"Original Sin" isn't a requirement to make sense of the crucifixion.

It is. It is the whole reason for the crucifixion and worship of Jesus.


There are whole denominations that will disagree with you. The topic of "original sin" is highly controversial. Some believe that a person can live their entire life without ever sinning. Yet, they still follow Christ... thus they are Christians. I'm not arguing that they are right... just that that is how they interpret it. To say that someone isn't a Christian if they reject original sin (a concept conceived centuries after the death of christ), is a very narrow definition of the word.

I consider Quakers, Mormans, JWs, Adventists, Methodists, Calvinists, Catholics, all Christian. But they are all very different too.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#22  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 5:34 pm

Alan B wrote:I think that when Jesus 'confirmed' the laws of what we call the Old Testament, he was trying to placate the priests and temple elders. They could see that the followers he was gathering meant less followers for them - and that their revenue was falling.

The later writers of the Bible used this 'confirmation' (out of context) in order to justify including the Torah as part of canonical law. Since Christianity, being a new religion with which to control the populace, seemed to have no 'built-in' laws derived from the teachings of Jesus, adding the Torah (with it's 'built-in' laws) became quite convenient. :think:


I think your comment has much validity. It is certainly a viable consideration. They might have stoned him on the spot if he'd said anything different. There is such a huge disparity between the old testament and Jesus' purported teachings that it really hard to reconcile them, imo. It's reminiscent of Mohamed's abrogation as a means to reconcile his own contradictory teachings. The recognition that the old and new didn't jive did not elude Jesus or Mohamed. They just used different approaches to fix it.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#23  Postby theropod » Apr 21, 2017 5:58 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
theropod wrote:You didn't answer the question. Was Jim Jones teaching Christianity or not? I didn't compare him to your church, that is your evasive misrepresentation of my query. It seems rather clear you avoided a response because if YOU deny his way was Christianity then your accusation of strawmanning on my part becomes a reflection of your own. If you claim he was teaching Christianity then the baggage of his murderous shit becomes the baggage of all Christianty, and from that point on anything and everything can be called Christianity. Which do you choose? Your thread title asks opinion of bible experts. I studied Bible in Religious Education in college as my major. If you don't actually want the input of a Bible scholar why start a thread asking for such?

RS


I'm sorry if I didn't answer your question(s). There was no "evasiveness" on my part intended. I thought all your questions were rhetorical. Whether Jones taught Christianity or not I wouldn't know or care. Nor do I see the question or my answer to it as pertinent to the op. It's so rare to find any two people who agree on what the bible means, let alone what defines a "christian," I would have thought that obvious... especially for a bible scholar. I'm inclined to let people self-describe themselves as christian and leave it at that. Whether or not they are is of no interest to me. I'm guessing, by the sound of your posts here, that you don't consider Mormons, JWs, 7th day Adventists, etc etc to be christian either. That's fine and again, not the topic of the thread.

I'm also sorry if my playing devil's advocate to your remarks is offending you. I assure you, I intended you no offense.


What I find offensive is the continued evasion even as you deny being evasive. You accused me of errecting a no-true-Scotsman fallacy, and my question highlights how it is you doing so. If you can't see the point of the question, and want anything and everything to be classified as Christian, the word no longer has any meaning. Without that meaning your whole line of questioning, and the purpose of this thread, is no more than an exercise in eliciting emotional responses. What is obvious is that Jesus supposedly died as an atonement for sin that entered the world when Adam partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as is related in Genesis and throughout the New Testament. This is not open to whimsical interpretations of fringe religions, for the reasons I have already repeatedly given. Whether you were taught this or not is not germane to the issue. If Jim Jones was a Christian then the teachings of Christ allow any insanity to be called Christianity. If this be the case then the whole issue is one of stacking BB's, or counting angels dancing on pinheads.

I strongly suggest you stop guessing my intentions, and making personalizations of an irrelevant nature altogether. It seems you don't like the answers given in response to your questions so you choose to define Christianity to suit your whims. Go for it.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 66
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#24  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 6:05 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
theropod wrote:Without the Old Testament notion of original sin there is no need for the perfect sacrifice of the Christ to atone for said sin.

RS


"Original Sin" isn't a requirement to make sense of the crucifixion.

It is. It is the whole reason for the crucifixion and worship of Jesus.


There are whole denominations that will disagree with you.

I am well aware that there are whole denominations that haven't actually read the bible.

PensivePenny wrote: The topic of "original sin" is highly controversial.

In the same way that climate change is highly 'controversial'.

PensivePenny wrote: Some believe that a person can live their entire life without ever sinning. Yet, they still follow Christ... thus they are Christians. I'm not arguing that they are right... just that that is how they interpret it. To say that someone isn't a Christian if they reject original sin (a concept conceived centuries after the death of christ), is a very narrow definition of the word.

I consider Quakers, Mormans, JWs, Adventists, Methodists, Calvinists, Catholics, all Christian. But they are all very different too.

It's called cherry-picking.
And doubly so when people apply it to make a No True Christian argument.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30916
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#25  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 6:40 pm

theropod wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
theropod wrote:You didn't answer the question. Was Jim Jones teaching Christianity or not? I didn't compare him to your church, that is your evasive misrepresentation of my query. It seems rather clear you avoided a response because if YOU deny his way was Christianity then your accusation of strawmanning on my part becomes a reflection of your own. If you claim he was teaching Christianity then the baggage of his murderous shit becomes the baggage of all Christianty, and from that point on anything and everything can be called Christianity. Which do you choose? Your thread title asks opinion of bible experts. I studied Bible in Religious Education in college as my major. If you don't actually want the input of a Bible scholar why start a thread asking for such?

RS


I'm sorry if I didn't answer your question(s). There was no "evasiveness" on my part intended. I thought all your questions were rhetorical. Whether Jones taught Christianity or not I wouldn't know or care. Nor do I see the question or my answer to it as pertinent to the op. It's so rare to find any two people who agree on what the bible means, let alone what defines a "christian," I would have thought that obvious... especially for a bible scholar. I'm inclined to let people self-describe themselves as christian and leave it at that. Whether or not they are is of no interest to me. I'm guessing, by the sound of your posts here, that you don't consider Mormons, JWs, 7th day Adventists, etc etc to be christian either. That's fine and again, not the topic of the thread.

I'm also sorry if my playing devil's advocate to your remarks is offending you. I assure you, I intended you no offense.


What I find offensive

Then this is your problem, not mine. Getting offended from anything I said is wholly unwarranted. Frankly, being offended at anything anyone says on a forum should be concerning.

is the continued evasion even as you deny being evasive. You accused me of errecting a no-true-Scotsman fallacy, and my question highlights how it is you doing so. If you can't see the point of the question, and want anything and everything to be classified as Christian, the word no longer has any meaning. Without that meaning your whole line of questioning, and the purpose of this thread, is no more than an exercise in eliciting emotional responses.

I only emotional I see isn't coming from me.

What is obvious is that Jesus supposedly died as an atonement for sin that entered the world when Adam partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as is related in Genesis and throughout the New Testament.

On the blue part we can agree. The green part is what I find superfluous. Why does it matter how the sin came into being or what it's called? I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying a valid argument (as valid as is ANY argument made about the meaning of the bible) can be made that what is called "original sin" (depending on your definition I suppose) is denied by many mainstream Christian religions. Period. You don't want to accept that fact, that's fine by me. Truly. I don't know why you're getting upset and "offended."

This is not open to whimsical interpretations of fringe religions, for the reasons I have already repeatedly given. Whether you were taught this or not is not germane to the issue. If Jim Jones was a Christian then the teachings of Christ allow any insanity to be called Christianity. If this be the case then the whole issue is one of stacking BB's, or counting angels dancing on pinheads.

My emphasis... yes, exactly right. Insanity by any other name doth... Is there any Christianity that doesn't technically qualify as "insanity??" Does it offend you that Jim Jones followers call themselves Christian? Just curious.

I strongly suggest you stop guessing my intentions, and making personalizations of an irrelevant nature altogether. It seems you don't like the answers given in response to your questions so you choose to define Christianity to suit your whims. Go for it.

RS

LOL... I'm not the one trying to define Christianity here. I'm loosely accepting whatever definition people want to use for it. Even yours. I just find it humorous that yours seeks to exclude tens of millions of people who would take exception to your definition. I really don't care one way or the other. Personally, I find very few defacto "christians" that actually adhere to much of anything Jesus supposedly taught. That's just my personal perception, but ultimately also not the point of the OP... just a side opinion.

I neither like nor dislike your "answers given." I just think they're myopic.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#26  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 6:42 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

"Original Sin" isn't a requirement to make sense of the crucifixion.

It is. It is the whole reason for the crucifixion and worship of Jesus.


There are whole denominations that will disagree with you.

I am well aware that there are whole denominations that haven't actually read the bible.

PensivePenny wrote: The topic of "original sin" is highly controversial.

In the same way that climate change is highly 'controversial'.

PensivePenny wrote: Some believe that a person can live their entire life without ever sinning. Yet, they still follow Christ... thus they are Christians. I'm not arguing that they are right... just that that is how they interpret it. To say that someone isn't a Christian if they reject original sin (a concept conceived centuries after the death of christ), is a very narrow definition of the word.

I consider Quakers, Mormans, JWs, Adventists, Methodists, Calvinists, Catholics, all Christian. But they are all very different too.

It's called cherry-picking.
And doubly so when people apply it to make a No True Christian argument.


Please expound on the "No true christian" comment? It sounds like you're accusing me of something I didn't do.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#27  Postby Animavore » Apr 21, 2017 6:44 pm

Surely all Christians deny the OT, given that they all reject the Jewish interpretation?
Original sin. Lucifer/Satan as God's adversary. Hell etc. Seriously, where is all that stuff?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44197
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#28  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 6:51 pm

Animavore wrote:Surely all Christians deny the OT, given that they all reject the Jewish interpretation?
Original sin. Lucifer/Satan as God's adversary. Hell etc. Seriously, where is all that stuff?


Hollywood?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#29  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 6:52 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:[*]
PensivePenny wrote:Thanks zulu.
The full verse (I had to look it up):
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Don't a lot of christians already claim that all the old testament has been "fulfilled?" In terms of prophecy? Or am I misreading that?

If something is fulfilled it's done. Go ask those Christians whether we can chuck out all the OT laws, including the 10 commandments since there's supposedly done.
Alternatively point out that laws can never be permantly fulfilled. They can only be contiously fulfilled by obeying them and executing the appropriate punishment.


Yeah, this is getting way more theological than I intended.... but....

There's nothing theological about it.
It's about language, laws and reason.
If something is fulfilled, it's done and over with.

PensivePenny wrote:
"Fulfilled." What does it mean? Depends on the individual I suppose.

Nope, that's not how language works.
I can start defining chairs as 'four legged animal', but that will mean I cannot participate in conversations about chairs or mammals.


PensivePenny wrote: I take it that it isn't referring to "laws" being fulfilled, rather the prophecies.

Then it is irrelevant to the question of whether the OT is still valid.
Because that's what that verse is being used as an excuse for.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30916
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#30  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 6:54 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:Crank, I'm not so sure. A multitude of apologists have proven that enough verbal gymnastics can change entire meanings.

That's not changing the meaning, that's changing the interpetation.
And unless those apologist can provide evidence that their interpetation is the way it was intended by the biblical authors/god, they haven't got anything to go on.


Isn't that just it? Most DO provide "evidence" inasmuch as can be derived from a fallible collection of translated and cherry picked ancient scrolls.

No, as I pointed out in my original response, they interpet texts and to support their interpetation offer either faith (translation: reading the bible to fit with own preconceived beliefs) or interpetations of other texts as support.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30916
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#31  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 6:54 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:[*]
PensivePenny wrote:Thanks zulu.
The full verse (I had to look it up):

Don't a lot of christians already claim that all the old testament has been "fulfilled?" In terms of prophecy? Or am I misreading that?

If something is fulfilled it's done. Go ask those Christians whether we can chuck out all the OT laws, including the 10 commandments since there's supposedly done.
Alternatively point out that laws can never be permantly fulfilled. They can only be contiously fulfilled by obeying them and executing the appropriate punishment.


Yeah, this is getting way more theological than I intended.... but....

There's nothing theological about it.
It's about language, laws and reason.
If something is fulfilled, it's done and over with.

PensivePenny wrote:
"Fulfilled." What does it mean? Depends on the individual I suppose.

Nope, that's not how language works.
I can start defining chairs as 'four legged animal', but that will mean I cannot participate in conversations about chairs or mammals.


PensivePenny wrote: I take it that it isn't referring to "laws" being fulfilled, rather the prophecies.

Then it is irrelevant to the question of whether the OT is still valid.
Because that's what that verse is being used as an excuse for.


So there is only one possible interpretation?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#32  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 6:58 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It is. It is the whole reason for the crucifixion and worship of Jesus.


There are whole denominations that will disagree with you.

I am well aware that there are whole denominations that haven't actually read the bible.

PensivePenny wrote: The topic of "original sin" is highly controversial.

In the same way that climate change is highly 'controversial'.

PensivePenny wrote: Some believe that a person can live their entire life without ever sinning. Yet, they still follow Christ... thus they are Christians. I'm not arguing that they are right... just that that is how they interpret it. To say that someone isn't a Christian if they reject original sin (a concept conceived centuries after the death of christ), is a very narrow definition of the word.

I consider Quakers, Mormans, JWs, Adventists, Methodists, Calvinists, Catholics, all Christian. But they are all very different too.

It's called cherry-picking.
And doubly so when people apply it to make a No True Christian argument.


Please expound on the "No true christian" comment? It sounds like you're accusing me of something I didn't do.

No, I am pointing out that claiming that anyone who claims to be, is a Christian leads to unfortunate consequences and that Christians often have to resort to fallacious No True Christian cherry-picking to avoid that.
In other words by cherry-picking the bible and then claiming the core message of Christianity isn't what the book says it is, and still claiming to be a Christian is silly.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30916
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#33  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 7:00 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:[*]
If something is fulfilled it's done. Go ask those Christians whether we can chuck out all the OT laws, including the 10 commandments since there's supposedly done.
Alternatively point out that laws can never be permantly fulfilled. They can only be contiously fulfilled by obeying them and executing the appropriate punishment.


Yeah, this is getting way more theological than I intended.... but....

There's nothing theological about it.
It's about language, laws and reason.
If something is fulfilled, it's done and over with.

PensivePenny wrote:
"Fulfilled." What does it mean? Depends on the individual I suppose.

Nope, that's not how language works.
I can start defining chairs as 'four legged animal', but that will mean I cannot participate in conversations about chairs or mammals.


PensivePenny wrote: I take it that it isn't referring to "laws" being fulfilled, rather the prophecies.

Then it is irrelevant to the question of whether the OT is still valid.
Because that's what that verse is being used as an excuse for.


So there is only one possible interpretation?

No. The point is that apologists bring up the bit about 'fulfill' to claim that Jesus fulfilled the laws of the OT and for that reason the bits of the OT they don't like, can be ignored. Which is cherry-picking, because when you point out that also invalidates the 10 commandments, they start all manner of mental gymnastics to square the circle.
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Apr 21, 2017 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30916
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#34  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 7:04 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Animavore wrote:Surely all Christians deny the OT, given that they all reject the Jewish interpretation?
Original sin. Lucifer/Satan as God's adversary. Hell etc. Seriously, where is all that stuff?


Hollywood?

Nope, the Old Testament.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30916
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#35  Postby Animavore » Apr 21, 2017 7:08 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Animavore wrote:Surely all Christians deny the OT, given that they all reject the Jewish interpretation?
Original sin. Lucifer/Satan as God's adversary. Hell etc. Seriously, where is all that stuff?


Hollywood?

Nope, the Old Testament.

A warped interpretation. There's nothing in there about inherent sin and Lucifer and Satan aren't even the same being. Neither are "fallen angels" out to disobey God and lead us to follow in their rebellion.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44197
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#36  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 7:14 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

There are whole denominations that will disagree with you.

I am well aware that there are whole denominations that haven't actually read the bible.

PensivePenny wrote: The topic of "original sin" is highly controversial.

In the same way that climate change is highly 'controversial'.

PensivePenny wrote: Some believe that a person can live their entire life without ever sinning. Yet, they still follow Christ... thus they are Christians. I'm not arguing that they are right... just that that is how they interpret it. To say that someone isn't a Christian if they reject original sin (a concept conceived centuries after the death of christ), is a very narrow definition of the word.

I consider Quakers, Mormans, JWs, Adventists, Methodists, Calvinists, Catholics, all Christian. But they are all very different too.

It's called cherry-picking.
And doubly so when people apply it to make a No True Christian argument.


Please expound on the "No true christian" comment? It sounds like you're accusing me of something I didn't do.

No, I am pointing out that claiming that anyone who claims to be, is a Christian leads to unfortunate consequences and that Christians often have to resort to fallacious No True Christian cherry-picking to avoid that.
In other words by cherry-picking the bible and then claiming the core message of Christianity isn't what the book says it is, and still claiming to be a Christian is silly.


Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

First, I'm not making the "claim" that a Christian is anyone who claims to be one, per se. However, just like the evolution of language words, like "christian," can change in meaning as a defacto standard. I don't see any extant definition of Christianity being objective. Certainly some definitions of the word can be more christ like or christ-adherent than some others, I suppose, but to completely extract whole swaths of the population from the christian set simply because of this or that minor point is also silly. Nowhere in the bible does it suggest one should pray to Mary. In fact, the argument is strong that to do so is a sin... yet millions of catholics do it often. Some denominations see crucifixes or statues of the Virgin Mary as idols... clearly not in keeping with the teachings of christ... and absolutely a violation of the OT. Many protestant religions actually consider the catholic church to be run by demons as a result... so not christian, if we accept their argument. All I'm saying is that the set of people self-identifying as christian practice in sometimes extremely different ways. Anyone within a certain envelope fall within that definition of 'christian' comfortably... others do not. From what I've seen, that 'envelope' is quite large and getting bigger all the time.

I know from personal experience, as well as my own reading, that not all christians agree with "original sin." It is mainstream and perfectly acceptable. A dog with 3 legs is still a dog.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#37  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

Yeah, this is getting way more theological than I intended.... but....

There's nothing theological about it.
It's about language, laws and reason.
If something is fulfilled, it's done and over with.

PensivePenny wrote:
"Fulfilled." What does it mean? Depends on the individual I suppose.

Nope, that's not how language works.
I can start defining chairs as 'four legged animal', but that will mean I cannot participate in conversations about chairs or mammals.


PensivePenny wrote: I take it that it isn't referring to "laws" being fulfilled, rather the prophecies.

Then it is irrelevant to the question of whether the OT is still valid.
Because that's what that verse is being used as an excuse for.


So there is only one possible interpretation?

No. The point is that apologists bring up the bit about 'fulfill' to claim that Jesus fulfilled the laws of the OT and for that reason the bits of the OT they don't like, can be ignored. Which is cherry-picking, because when you pointed that also invalidates the 10 commandments, they start all manner of mental gymnastics to square the circle.


I agree! But, are they any less Christian, these apologists? Aren't they paring down the bible? Should that disqualify them from use of the christian moniker?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#38  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Animavore wrote:Surely all Christians deny the OT, given that they all reject the Jewish interpretation?
Original sin. Lucifer/Satan as God's adversary. Hell etc. Seriously, where is all that stuff?


Hollywood?

Nope, the Old Testament.


Depends on which christian you ask ;)
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#39  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 7:21 pm

Animavore wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Animavore wrote:Surely all Christians deny the OT, given that they all reject the Jewish interpretation?
Original sin. Lucifer/Satan as God's adversary. Hell etc. Seriously, where is all that stuff?


Hollywood?

Nope, the Old Testament.

A warped interpretation. There's nothing in there about inherent sin

While the word sin isn't used, it's stated pretty clearly that all the descendants of Adam and Eve, ie humanity as a whole, were cursed by Yaweh for the crime committed by A&E.

Animavore wrote: and Lucifer and Satan aren't even the same being.

Not in the Torah, they have been combined in the bible.
They still have a basis in Judaism though and are not wholesale inventions of Christians.

Animavore wrote:Neither are "fallen angels" out to disobey God and lead us to follow in their rebellion.

Lucifer however, is presented, almost identical to Prometheus, as rebelling against the strictness/unfair laws of Yaweh.
And Satan is literally 'the hinderer' in Judaic texts.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30916
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#40  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 7:21 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Animavore wrote:Surely all Christians deny the OT, given that they all reject the Jewish interpretation?
Original sin. Lucifer/Satan as God's adversary. Hell etc. Seriously, where is all that stuff?


Hollywood?

Nope, the Old Testament.


Depends on which christian you ask ;)

Nope, both are expliticely named in the OT, although not in the exact way they're discussed in the NT.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30916
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest