Posted: Apr 21, 2017 8:10 pm
by PensivePenny
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

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.

Why do you insist on arguing the bible? I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that many many Christians will argue with you. Not me. I don't believe one way or the other or care.

Because as I pointed out before, those Christians would be cherry-pickers.
Your OP was about whether the OT is still valid. How can you discuss that without discussing the book of which the OT is a part: the bible?

LOL, I'd never say that. IMO, nothing in the bible is "valid." What is asked is, "I was wondering if there is any requirement in the new testament that requires a belief in the old testament."

I wasn't looking for an argument. I was asking if people here might share their scriptural knowledge to answer the question. Reason? Because I was wondering why apologists haven't hit on this notion of divorcing the NT and OT as it would certainly strengthen their argument. I say it would strengthen their argument because every debate I've seen with Christians always devolves into them defending the OT... clearly it is a weakness and a favorite Achilles heal in debate. There've been a couple citations given, which I appreciate. I am merely imagining how they might argue against them, twist them, apologize their way through it to protect their weakest flank. I'm not invalidating the citations nor am I arguing that those provided are "wrong."

I was provided exactly what I asked for. Any "argument" provided was in the hopes of having an intellectual conversation about what might transpire in a debate if one was to divorce the OT and NT. All I get in answer to that is, "cherry picking christians aren't real christians," or some paraphrased version of it.

PensivePenny wrote:
But I am telling you for a fact... there are numerous people with compelling arguments arguing that satan and lucifer are not enemies of god. Rather, their mention in the bible refers to something entirely different (like ordinary men for example). Seriously, there are infinite ways to interpret the bible and all be equally compelling. That isn't to say that fevered dreams and wishful arguments can't be made, but I exclude them from the infinite number. I really have a hard time understanding how anyone can make any argument with certitude that any one interpretation is the only right one on any given point when the sole source of "evidence" is a collection of myths written by a myriad of men 4000 years ago. Any argument can be made, even the sanction of murder and rape, if your cherry-picker has a long enough reach.

There's such a thing as Occam's Razor for example.
And why are you asking for biblical scholars if you've already decided that any and all interpetations are equally valid?

Hopefully the "why" is clear from what I posted previously in this post. If not, "all interpretations are equally valid" is oversimplifying what I've said here. They are equally valid but in what way? Well, in determining what is and is not a follower of Christ, a "christian". How people choose to follow christ doesn't determine if their a christian (imo)... rather that they chose to follow him is qualifying enough. I place no particular qualitative value on their success in that endeavor. I'll extend the moniker to whoever claims it because in the end, no two of them can agree on what the fuck any one scripture means (slight over-exaggeration).