Ex Christians

[Alceste]

The greek word is phoneuo which means to be a murderer. My church doesn't teach that the N.T is written Hebrew.


No, I'm not both instances are refering to murder not killing.

Your capacity for denial is astonishing.

 

[InChrist]

[FONT=&quot]The laws and consequences for breaking them given to Israel were extremely detailed and precise and from our perspective today seen harsh, but there were reasons for this. First off, these laws were specifically fort the nation of Israel to distinguish and separate it from the surrounding nations and for a specific time…before the coming of Christ. These laws were also so extreme in physical detail to give the people a picture of the absolute holiness of God and His intolerance for sin. Because God chose the nation of Israel to bring forth the Messiah the laws concerning sexual purity along with the strict consequences were very important.[/FONT]

 

[Vadergirl123]

Your capacity for denial is astonishing.

I gave you two words that show murder's being refered to not killing. I don't see that as being in denial. Do you not believe those are the actual Hebrew/greek words. You don't have to take my word for it. Just look them up, but please don't say I'm in denial for pointing the difference out.

 

[Vadergirl123]

[FONT=&quot]The laws and consequences for breaking them given to Israel were extremely detailed and precise and from our perspective today seen harsh, but there were reasons for this. First off, these laws were specifically fort the nation of Israel to distinguish and separate it from the surrounding nations and for a specific time…before the coming of Christ. These laws were also so extreme in physical detail to give the people a picture of the absolute holiness of God and His intolerance for sin. Because God chose the nation of Israel to bring forth the Messiah the laws concerning sexual purity along with the strict consequences were very important.[/FONT]

I wish I had frubals to give

 

[Shermana]

Christ came to die for our sins and to show us that we no longer have to be under the law

Jesus never said anything close to the idea that his followers were no longer under the Law. This idea is purely the result of the Pauline Schism.

[FONT="], but there were reasons for this. First off, these laws were specifically fort the nation of Israel to distinguish and separate it from the surrounding nations and for a specific time…before the coming of Christ[/FONT]

My translation says the Laws are for "All generations", not "50 generations". This idea basically goes by some strange translation that doesn't say "For all generations" or calls God a liar.

Also Jesus is God, so he can do whatever he wants with the law.

This statement as well is incorrect, Jesus was not God. That's just Trinitarian/Modalist dogma (whether it is the mainstream view or not). He was a god, i.e. an angel incarnated, the highest angel. He is the messenger of the Will of the Father. He doesn't decide whether to cancel the Law he made "For all generations", God does.

 

[Nakosis]

[FONT=&quot]The laws and consequences for breaking them given to Israel were extremely detailed and precise and from our perspective today seen harsh, but there were reasons for this. First off, these laws were specifically fort the nation of Israel to distinguish and separate it from the surrounding nations and for a specific time…before the coming of Christ. These laws were also so extreme in physical detail to give the people a picture of the absolute holiness of God and His intolerance for sin. Because God chose the nation of Israel to bring forth the Messiah the laws concerning sexual purity along with the strict consequences were very important.[/FONT]

The problem with your argument is you are assuming to know God's reasoning.

It just ends up not being very persuasive unless you're going to claim the authority to speak on God's behalf. Otherwise maybe you can support this knowledge of God's reasoning from passages that actually imply it as such.

 

[Shermana]

Unfortunately, the "murder" and "kill" argument has some limitations. The word for "kill" can in fact mean "murder" as well.


Word for Murder as in "Thou shalt not murder" used in Exodus 20:13

7523. ????? (ratsach) -- to murder, slay

Other examples in usage:

http://biblos.com/numbers/35-16.htm

Numbers 35:16

BIB: הִכָּ֛הוּ וַיָּמֹ֖ת רֹצֵ֣חַֽ ה֑וּא מ֥וֹת
NAS: so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer

Context with usage as noun: Murderer.

Even the KJV made this distinction:

Numbers 35:31

KJV: for the life of a murderer, which [is] guilty

Word for "Kill" as in warfare used in 1 Chronicles 19:18

2026. ????? (harag) -- to kill, slay

Examples in usage:

Genesis 49:6

KJV: for in their anger they slew a man,

So unfortunately, the distinction is not necessarily so clear. So, because "Harag" can be used for warfare wheras Ratsach can also be used for "Manslay" as in unintentional killing, the distinction is not as clear cut as apologists would like to think. I'd say however that Harag could be used when referencing for combat kills whereas Ratsach wouldn't, and that may be an indicator.

 

[InChrist]

The problem with your argument is you are assuming to know God's reasoning.

It just ends up not being very persuasive unless you're going to claim the authority to speak on God's behalf. Otherwise maybe you can support this knowledge of God's reasoning from passages that actually imply it as such.

Have you read the Old Testament? Over the last few weeks I just read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and it is repeated over and over again that the laws were given for the nation of Israel.

 

[Shermana]

Have you read the Old Testament? Over the last few weeks I just read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and it is repeated over and over again that the laws were given for the nation of Israel.

It says the strangers dwelling in the land also have to obey them.

 

[InChrist]

It says the strangers dwelling in the land also have to obey them.

Yes, that's right anyone living in Israel had to live by the laws.

 

[Nakosis]

Jesus never said anything close to the idea that his followers were no longer under the Law. This idea is purely the result of the Pauline Schism.

Most Christians accept that Paul had the same authority as Jesus don't they?

That's kind of a choice in any of this. To accept any of the Prophets or Apostles had any authority to speak on God's behalf.

Personally I don't know why trust any one more then the others but people choose to do so.

If you toss Paul out then "traditional" Christianity (whatever you want to call it) doesn't have a lot of biblical support. But then what is to stop a individual from tossing out any prophet or apostle they don't happen to agree with?

 

[Nakosis]

Have you read the Old Testament? Over the last few weeks I just read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and it is repeated over and over again that the laws were given for the nation of Israel.

That maybe true but you seemed to imply knowing God's reasoning for this.

You being a Christian I'd think you look more to statements from Jesus to justify the position. He is the authority for Christians right?

Actually I'm familiar with the Christian position on these, just kind of wonder if it's justified by statements made by Jesus.

 

[Shermana]

If you toss Paul out then "traditional" Christianity (whatever you want to call it) doesn't have a lot of biblical support. But then what is to stop a individual from tossing out any prophet or apostle they don't happen to agree with?

[youtube]Ect-kgxBb4M[/youtube]
Sesame Street - One Of These Things - Letters and numbers - YouTube

 

[Nakosis]

Here's a good way to tell:

Ok, some Christians will argue that Moses is the odd man out.

For example, Moses provided the laws that was necessary until Jesus came along to redeem man. Then Jesus provided even more stringent commandments that man was not capable of at the time of Moses. So not that the laws of Moses were done away with but that they were not sufficient for entry into heaven.

 

[Shermana]

In such a situation, it becomes a matter of in depth specific detailed debate.

 

[InChrist]

Ok, some Christians will argue that Moses is the odd man out.

For example, Moses provided the laws that was necessary until Jesus came along to redeem man. Then Jesus provided even more stringent commandments that man was not capable of at the time of Moses. So not that the laws of Moses were done away with but that they were not sufficient for entry into heaven.

Or it is not that the laws were done away with at all, but that ONLY Jesus Christ was capable of completely fulfilling them so that all who come to Christ for salvation receive His fulfillment of the law applied to their life and therefore may enter into eternal life.

 

[F0uad]

Ok, some Christians will argue that Moses is the odd man out.

For example, Moses provided the laws that was necessary until Jesus came along to redeem man. Then Jesus provided even more stringent commandments that man was not capable of at the time of Moses. So not that the laws of Moses were done away with but that they were not sufficient for entry into heaven.

I would agree on that Jesus(p) was sent to learn the Jews to be merciful for one and another and teach them also Spirituality, but not to dismiss the law entirely. For example an Eye for a Eye was used for a quick justice when Moses(p) travelled the desert, but when Jesus(p) came everyone was save and were already settled therefore a less strict law was brought and many people were already following the law in the time of Jesus(p).

 

[CMike]

Have you read the Old Testament? Over the last few weeks I just read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and it is repeated over and over again that the laws were given for the nation of Israel.

That's true. Non jews are supposed to obey the 7 laws given to noah.

They are:
from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows:

1) to establish courts of justice;

2) not to commit blasphemy;

3) not to commit idolatry;

4) not to commit incest and adultery;

5) not to commit bloodshed;

6) not to commit robbery; and

7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal.

 

[CMike]

I would agree on that Jesus(p) was sent to learn the Jews to be merciful for one and another and teach them also Spirituality, but not to dismiss the law entirely. For example an Eye for a Eye was used for a quick justice when Moses(p) travelled the desert, but when Jesus(p) came everyone was save and were already settled therefore a less strict law was brought and many people were already following the law in the time of Jesus(p).

The last thing the jews needed was jesus, who tried to lead astray from their G-D.

Also an Eye for An Eye, isn't suppose to be taken literally. It's supposed to mean money as restitution.

 

[CMike]

Ok, some Christians will argue that Moses is the odd man out.

For example, Moses provided the laws that was necessary until Jesus came along to redeem man. Then Jesus provided even more stringent commandments that man was not capable of at the time of Moses. So not that the laws of Moses were done away with but that they were not sufficient for entry into heaven.

Jesus had no right to change any law given by G-D to the jews.

Deutoronomy 4

2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.