For the Bible Tells Me So...

Uncle Bill (Bishop of North Queensland), Uncle Chris (Retired Priest, studies the bible and looks after cattle), and Philip Freier (The Bishop of The Northern Territory), and dad, all agree that the quote from Matthew reaffirms the first covenant as being still in effect.
 
The beautiful thing is that anything I need to know to win a bible argument, that I don't already know, is easy to find out by calling one of my uncles.
 
I'll have to pull some research about covenants out. I'll get back on this later tonight.
 
Shai Gar said:
Uncle Bill (Bishop of North Queensland), Uncle Chris (Retired Priest, studies the bible and looks after cattle), and Philip Freier (The Bishop of The Northern Territory), and dad, all agree that the quote from Matthew reaffirms the first covenant as being still in effect.
Click to expand...

Would you mind asking those fellows a few specifics about the old covenant? Do they support the execution of adulterers, for example?
 
They SHOULD, but they don't. Uncle Ian has a dark sense of humour so he'd probably say yes, execution by nuking... but the other two are a lot more... peaceful and law abiding (bill is ENFJ, and phil is ISFJ), so they probably wouldn't.

That doesn't mean that JESUS doesn't support it. It's just one of the inconsistencies in Christians. They want to obey mans law, and gods law at the same time.
 
Hmm. Don't have verses out yet, but I can sum up the idea.
A covenant, by definition, is a two way, conditional deal. If the conditions are broken, then the covenant is broken. As of such, given the Isrealites track record, they did not create a single covenant with God. Once they had broken it once, they reset the covenant deal before entering Canaan. Centuries later, it had to be renewed under Hezekiah and later under Josiah. The law was not an absolute, permanent, universal thing. It was set, at different times, for a single people, litterally a "fettering" between God and Israel. Jesus, again, established a covenant, except with new terms and for all people. Furthermore, those outside of the law (gentiles) were not subject to the law, but to morality as is self evident (Rom. 1).
That was not a complete explaination, and is bound to have something innacurate in it, but it's mostly accurate and should somewhat explain the point.
 
explain but doesn't prove your point. when did jesus say that gentiles were not subject to the law?
 
Shai Gar said:
That doesn't mean that JESUS doesn't support it.
Click to expand...

John 8:3-11
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...
 
and if there was a person there who had sinned jesus would have let the child cast the first stone. he didn't say if you have sinned you may not throw a stone. merely not the FIRST one.
 
Shai Gar said:
he didn't say if you have sinned you may not throw a stone. merely not the FIRST one.
Click to expand...

Oh right, so as soon as a bad-tempered six-year-old hurls a pebble, it's a free-for-all. Now I understand the profound truth of Jesus's message.

:frusty:
 
Paul said that the gentiles were not subject to the law, in Romans I believe.

More stuff for you to nitpick:
Matt. 12:1-8?
"At the time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, 'Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!' But He said to them, 'Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?'"
Or, another fun one: Luke 16:16
"The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."

Hmmhmm?:m080:Lets hear it, your wonderful words of wisdom!
 
Once again you're quoting a guy who never met Jesus, and yet is given the same level of devotion that Jesus is. I swear that man was just an ESTJ who wanted power, but decided to steal it from an up and coming cult.
 
Quoting a guy who never met Jesus? I'm quoting Jesus himself, from the gospels Matthew and Luke, unless you don't count those as Jesus, in which case your entire argument is self defeating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top