Posted: Apr 23, 2017 3:12 pm
Thomas Eshuis wrote:PensivePenny wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:PensivePenny wrote:Agrippina, yours may be the best argument so far. Simple. Obvious. Claiming to be the son of God does make it difficult to deny the OT.
I started this thread because I wanted to "imagine" potential arguments that christians might make in the future. As more and more holes are exposed in their holy text, the pool of biblical arguments remaining at their disposal, being insufficient, are often being shored-up by some creative mental gymnastics to adequately explain the bible. I give up trying to keep up with all of them.
So, the OP was about identifying those elements that inextricably link the OT and NT. Obviously, there are some. I think we have 3, maybe 4 that have been offered. That's not a lot.
That's a bit odd. Would you expect more than one instance in a law book that it is illegal to steal stuff?
Now who's making use of straw men? I think you just like to fight.
<eta: fix your quote tags>
Except that it isnt a straw-man.
You explicitely mention that's not a lot, implying that there either should be more or you'd expect more.
I am asking you why you would expect that.
It's a straw man because you are comparing a "law book" (whatever that is) to a collection of fictional works containing a plethora of stories spattered with "laws" that range from being limited to the ten commandments to every parable and example set by Jesus himself. By implying that my statement should also be applicable to the rule of law whereby contradictory laws are stricken from the "law book" by legislative action IS most certainly a straw man when no such mechanism exists in the bible where there are contradictions upon contradiction. So, yeah 3 or 4 are not a lot. That is what we call an opinion. You don't like that, well I'm okay with that
