Stand aside Sharia – here comes biblical law

the bible says "Kill the homosexuals" who cant agree with that?
line 2

People must understand that a 2000 year old book will have 2000 year old laws. You may argue those are Christian laws, but we must also follow current laws.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1-7)

So even though the OP is trying to say this is what Christians believe, he is wrong. We must obey the laws which were put in place by society. Those laws might have been the norm back than, it sure is futile now.

God Bless.

reply to post by Equinox99

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

So every and any authority is your gods' authority .

The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1-7)

So by your reasoning then Islamic authority is established by your god and you should submit to Islamic authority.

This also raises the issue of a god that changes its' mind, if laws that are established by a god change the one cannot get around the fact that the god has changed it's mind.


Since the yahwhe /jesus god is alleged to be unchanging you've created a contradiction either your god is or is not unchanging.

Your trying to have your cake and eat it my friend and it simply doesn't work it simply digs you a bigger hole.

If you decided for whatever reason to live in Iran you agree to submit yourself to the Iranian authority, as by your own reason this authority is established by yawhe/jesus.

The authority in question rejects your "holy" spirit and also "jesus" as its' savior so by your own reasoning your god is instructing you to commit yourself to an eternity of torment.

What a repugnant creature your god seems to be my friend .

reply to post by The Djin


Hmmm, shouldn't this be a thread bashing Judaism??


Christians have embraced and been operating under the New Covenant with God for 2,000 years now.

Re: NoturTypical

What 'christians' are you talking about? Or do you mean 'Paulinites'. To my knowledge the 'christian' sect based on the teachings of Peter and James (Jesus' disciples) was declared more or less heretical 325.

It should be expected, that Jesus' direct disciples would be in a position of knowing, what the man talked about, so this implies, that 'christianity' consider Jesus' teachings heretic also.

Forum got hiccups and placed my post two times.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by bogomil]

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Hmmm, shouldn't this be a thread bashing Judaism??

Naw, I've never had a jew try and tell me how to live, this is a good (and just) old christian bash.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re: NoturTypical

What 'christians' are you talking about? Or do you mean 'Paulinites'. To my knowledge the 'christian' sect based on the teachings of Peter and James (Jesus' disciples) was declared more or less heretical 325.

It should be expected, that Jesus' direct disciples would be in a position of knowing, what the man talked about, so this implies, that 'christianity' consider Jesus' teachings heretic also.

Are you attempting to declare here in this thread that Peter and Paul were in disagreement over the doctrine of grace and the new covenant we have through Jesus Christ? Are you really trying to claim Peter and Paul taught different things???

LOL

[edit on 27-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Hmmm, shouldn't this be a thread bashing Judaism??

Naw, I've never had a jew try and tell me how to live, this is a good (and just) old christian bash.

Then you have a problem with RELIGIOUS people. They care how you live or don't live. They are the ones who say you need to be "good" like they are. They are the ones trying to justify themselves before God. They are the ones practicing and preaching self-righteousness. *pukes*

Religious people also killed Jesus, and we are not saved by what we do or don't do, we're saved by what Jesus already DID 2,000 years ago. That's kinda what He meant when He said "It is finished!" Perhaps you think Jesus was lying when He said "Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.."

You seem to hate what religion teaches. We have something to agree upon sir, so do I.

Why I HATE Religion

[edit on 27-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Re: NOTurTypical

It was James and Paulus, who really couldn't stand each other, leading to Paulus' estrangement from the original Jesus-crowd (in normal language: He was kicked out).

This is ONE typical example of the 'christian' paranoia/megalomania (vicitim/perpetrator) syndrome, where 'christians' seem to be unable to get along with anybody, not even other 'christians'.

Paulus fabricated his own theology of grace, redemption and trinity, starting with OT material. Without this OT material, his whole system would come crashing down in ten seconds flat.

Peter and James interpretated the OT material differently, and this conflict lasted until Constantine supported the Pauline group politically. and excommunicated the remaining judeo-christians from 'THE church'.

According to your own statements in your answer to Djinnie, you must be a Paulinite. I.e. not a 'real' christian. Does the new covenant, which Jesus allegedly made, also include Paulinites? JUst asking.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re: NOTurTypical

It was James and Paulus, who really couldn't stand each other, leading to Paulus' estrangement from the original Jesus-crowd (in normal language: He was kicked out).

Source? Or do you just have arbitrary opinions?

This is ONE typical example of the 'christian' paranoia/megalomania (vicitim/perpetrator) syndrome, where 'christians' seem to be unable to get along with anybody, not even other 'christians'.

Why not? The Lord said to be watching for "wolves in sheeps clothing". One would logically assume that when the Lord said they'd be in "sheeps clothing", they would walk, talk, and claim to be Christians.

Paulus fabricated his own theology of grace, redemption and trinity, starting with OT material. Without this OT material, his whole system would come crashing down in ten seconds flat.

LOL! The Trinity was revealed in Genesis at creation, it was present again at Jesus's baptism, and again at the garden of Gethsemane when Christ was transfigured. But sure, Paul made it all up. *drinks Kool Aid* And Jesus Christ spoke first of regeneration, not Paul. Read the Bible sometime in your free time.

Peter and James interpretated the OT material differently, and this conflict lasted until Constantine supported the Pauline group politically. and excommunicated the remaining judeo-christians from 'THE church'.

Really Peter interpreted things differently than Paul? Interesting..

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." ~ Peter (written 2 days before his crucifixion in Rome)

According to your own statements in your answer to Djinnie, you must be a Paulinite. I.e. not a 'real' christian. Does the new covenant, which Jesus allegedly made, also include Paulinites? JUst asking.

This New Covenant you mock was prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31-34:

"Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh-Elohim, that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah: NOT according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers (the Old Covenant) in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My Covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith Yahweh-, But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel: AFTER THOSE DAYS (after the Birth, Life, Death, Burial, Resurrection and Ascension of Yahshua the Messiah), saith Yahweh, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their Yahweh Elohim and they shall be my people."

And this prophecy is confirmed in Hebrews 10:16-17:

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

Isaiah also spoke of the coming redeemer and the new covenant: Isaiah 59:20-21

"And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; 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, from henceforth and for ever."

Jesus initiated the New Covenant at passover, when He and His disciples partook of communion for the first time. Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, check out Daniel chapter 7 sometime and remember Jesus refereed to Himself as the Son of Man 88 times in the Gospels.

Another point to mention. Why does Peter's direct disciple (Clement of Rome) quote extensively from the Pauline epistles and Peter's 2 epistles? One would logically think if Peter was dead set against the "heresies" of Paul he might have mentioned it a time or two to his PERSONAL UNDERSTUDY.







[edit on 28-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Re: NOTurTypical

How did you get the impression, that I'm even slightly interested in being exposed to sermons from you?

What happens inside the one-way bubble of 'christian' circular argumentation is of no consequence for me, my only point here is to demonstrate a general 'christian' inability to interpretate the bible in common agreement.

But as an exception I will for once use the bible (which I consider nonsense) and 'christian' doctrines as 'homeground'. Not for theological debate, but to demonstrate that 'christians' quibble and quarrel endlessly.

If you wish to respond to my posts, stay with the subject and relate to what I write. I could also suggest, that you wait with commenting on my proficiency as a 'scholar', until you know more.

1/ Controversy on 'faith versus deed' between James and Paulus.

James:

2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone
2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Paulus:

Romans

3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
(Many more examples of the same 'faith above deed' exist).

2/ Paulus' relationship to the original apostels

Colossians
4:11....These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.

religioustolerance:

"Immediately after Jesus' death, his disciples formed a reform group within Judaism, often referred to as Jewish Christianity. It was centered in Jerusalem. By about 36 CE, there were 3 active Christian movements: Jewish Christianity, Gnostic Christianity, and Pauline Christianity."

www.religioustolerance.org...

"The Gentile Christians were led by Paul who went on three missionary journeys, founded many churches, and preached the gospel throughout much of the Roman Empire. "Luke" describes Paul's conversion to Christianity in Acts 9. Throughout his career, Paul experiences continual of conflict with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Paul was spreading the gospel to Gentiles, but without requiring that they be circumcised or follow the dietary and behavioral rules of the Mosaic law."

"Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem (circa 46 CE) for a heated discussion with Jewish Christians, led by James."

(Paulus also had a serious row with Barnabas: Acts 15:39)

"Friction is experienced with the Jewish Christians, who believe that Paul is teaching Christians of Jewish origin to abandon the Mosaic law and circumcision."

www.religioustolerance.org...

"The Roman Empire recognized Pauline Christianity as a valid religion in 313 CE. Circa 387 CE, it became the official religion of the Empire."

=The Arian controversy (my comment).

3/ The 'trinity' you refer to in genesis is made of two entities, which indicates either a big semantic problem on your part, or forebodes endless, inconclusive theological speculations.

The specific and finally crystallized 'trinity', manifesting some centuries in CE, has no foundation in either OT or the gospels.




[edit on 28-8-2010 by bogomil]

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by Equinox99

So every and any authority is your gods' authority .

We must follow current laws. If current law conflicts with society's morals and ethics then society wins. If current authority conflicts with the commandments or pursues unethical behavior than that authority has broken God's laws.

So by your reasoning then Islamic authority is established by your god and you should submit to Islamic authority.

No. I will follow the laws but I will not submit to another religious authority. If that is who my God put in place of authority than I will follow those laws.

Make no mistake, following the laws is different than following the religion. Even though I am submitting to the laws I am not submitting to the religion.

This also raises the issue of a god that changes its' mind, if laws that are established by a god change the one cannot get around the fact that the god has changed it's mind.

The change in laws are inevitable. When we gain new technology and accumulate thoughts which pass down to the next generation, our ethics and moral compass change as well.

Since the yahwhe /jesus god is alleged to be unchanging you've created a contradiction either your god is or is not unchanging.

The 10 commandments are valid and unchanging.

There are of course laws that we have come up with because society has grown to what it is.

Your trying to have your cake and eat it my friend and it simply doesn't work it simply digs you a bigger hole.

If you decided for whatever reason to live in Iran you agree to submit yourself to the Iranian authority, as by your own reason this authority is established by yawhe/jesus.

If I lived in Iran I would submit to Iranian authorities, I am sure you would have to as well. Either that or suffering the consequences.

The authority in question rejects your "holy" spirit and also "jesus" as its' savior so by your own reasoning your god is instructing you to commit yourself to an eternity of torment.

That is their problem not mine. I can only try to live by the rules governing where I live. If that authority rejects Jesus I still accept him as my savior. I will submit unless of course there is a reason behind being defiant.

IE. Corruption, unethical behavior, immoral behavior, and etc.

What a repugnant creature your god seems to be my friend .

There is a plan in place that surpasses our understanding. If that is what you think than I will leave you to your thoughts.

G'day.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Equinox99]

Most western law has it's foundation in Biblical "principles ". In a theocratic society there would be the institution of Biblical law, and it has been done before, but not so today. Today, theocracy is most demonstrated in Islamic nations and kingdoms where Sharia is instituted.

The Biblical principles that most western nations adopt have to do with murder, theft, perjury, assault, rape, incest, etc. Western style nations today do not require that you need to convert or die, and that you must be Sharia compliant.

So attempting to equate Christian-Judaic principles to oppressive and dehumanizing Sharia law would be a stretch. A very long stretch.

reply to post by bogomil


Go ahead and consider it "nonsense". I have just proved your theory NONSENSE that Paul differed from James and Peter, with PETER'S OWN WORDS REGARDING PAUL.

But Hey!! Who am I to let facts get in the way of a half-assed, hastily thought through anti-Christian rant??

Go ahead, there is nothing more I can respond with to show you you're completely ignorant that will trump Peter's OWN WORDS on the matter. Or his direct disciple's own words.

So yeah, carry on!!

"Petew good and twuuuue, Paul baaaaad, unless Petew say he love Paul and Paul is true, den me hates Petew too."




[edit on 28-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Re: NOTurTypical

I like your debate-technique. It's certainly persuasive. Both the way you don't read my posts and also your hilarious humour.

Re: Fromabove

If I was a christian, I would love secular law. It gives a certain safety from being murdered in your bed by other christians.

reply to post by bogomil
Hmmm, quite odd you'd say that I 'don't read YOUR posts'. But when you originally claimed that Peter and Paul taught different doctrines and I presented Peter's own words on the matter it flew over your head. Peter's own words undeniably refute your position on Peter. Helloooo McFly.



Peter discussing Paul:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Layman's terms for you sir...

"Everything Paul said in all his letters was given to him by the Lord and are true even if you have trouble understanding them. So don't twist his teachings like the unstable and ignorant do, just like they do to all the other scriptures."

The absurd claim that Paul taught some things that Peter disagreed with is refuted by peter's own words on the matter.

Case closed.

Peter thought Paulus was a weird duck, but though frothing around the mouth seems to be popular amongst very holy people, he (Peter) did show an unusual amount of diplomacy and just tried to keep the peace, whilst still disagreeing.