A number of secular atheists at my blog have been insisting that New Testament Christians who interpret the Bible on a literal level should hate and kill homosexuals because of their interpretation of a few scriptures. This is perhaps the top myth being promoted in the ongoing campaign to institute homosexuality and homosexual marriage as a civil right. This post relates to another recent post, 10 Myths and facts about gay rights and marriage and will take on one aspect of the hermeneutics of homosexuality. According to the verses I'll present in context, a proper interpretation of scripture does not leave any room for the hatred and killing of homosexuals in our day and age. This can be demonstrated using both Old and New Testament verses. I'll offer an outline of key points and then a summarized logical argument on this issue.Key points regarding the law in the Old and New Testaments
1. The first purpose of the law in the OT was to help define a certain people as "set apart" and holy unto God.
2. The second purpose of the law in the OT was to enable a fledgling nation to stay pure, survive, prosper and grow.
3. The first purpose of the law in the NT is to identify sin and make people consciously aware of it.
4. The second purpose of the law in the NT is to point out our inadequacy with the sin nature in keeping the entire law.
5. The third purpose of the law in the NT is to drive us to Christ as the only possible solution for our sin through the grace and atonement of the cross.
6. The purpose of the law in the OT is more punitive in nature. The purpose of the law in the NT is more redemptive in nature.
7. The NT is a new covenant, a new legal code that supersedes the OT old covenant legal code.
8. The Apostle Paul underscored that we live by grace and that the legal requirements of the law have been "abolished" in Christ.
9. Therefore, if points 1 through 8 are true, there is no room for the view that NT Christians are to hate and kill homosexuals today in accordance with scripture.
10. On the contrary, if points 1-8 are true, then NT Christians are to share the love and truth of Christ, as salt and light, in the hope that practicing homosexuals will repent and model Christ in purity.
And a little more detail...
1. Leviticus 20.26 states, "You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own." (NIV) When the OT law was given, a consecration occurred emphasizing an exterior cleansing. Exodus 19.10 states, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes." (NIV)
2. Deuteronomy 4.1 states, "Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the LORD, the God of your ancestors, is giving you." (NIV)
3. In II Corinthians 3.9, Paul defined the Old Testament and the law as "a ministry of condemnation" as such, "If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!" (NIV)
4. James 2.10 states, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." Jesus upped the ante in the Sermon on the Mount showing that internal anger is likened to murder and lust is likened to adultery. See Matthew 5.27-28 as an example, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (NIV) Jesus raised the bar by demanding the kind of perfection that a person following the law alone could not achieve, as noted in Matthew 5.48: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (NIV)
5. In Galatians 3.24, Paul states, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." (NASB)
6. The redemptive nature of the NT interpretation of the law was summarized in the previous verse, Galatians 3.24. The New Testament emphasizes spiritual empowerment to fulfill the law through a personal relationship with God. This aspect of the New Testament was foretold in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 31.34: “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. I will put my law in their mind and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord."
7. In Matthew 5.17 Jesus states, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (NIV) Homosexual advocates will often claim this means that all the points of the Old Testament remain in effect. But the word "fulfill" has no such meaning in the context of the NT. Paul spelled out the proper interpretation of the law in the NT using the exact same word, "fulfill" in Romans 13.8 as noted, "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law." (NIV). Jesus helped fulfill the law and the prophets by loving the world enough to lay down his life as a sacrifice for sin. Matthew 22. 36-40 offers a dialogue, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
8. The apostle Paul emphasized that Christians live by grace and are not under the legal requirements of the law in Romans 6.14: "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace?" He was even more explicit in stating the law was "abolished" for NT believers. Ephesians 2.14-16 states, "For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh, abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it." (NASB - emphasis added.) In Christ the law is abolished, of no effect. See point 7 to understand how Christ fulfilled the law.
9. The only way in which a person can propose that NT Christians are supposed to hate and kill homosexuals is by misinterpreting scripture and taking verses out of context. If you disagree with any of these points, do post scriptures in context to explain your view in the comment section.
10. Instead of hating and killing, Jesus advises his followers to be salt and light. Matthew 5.13-16 states, "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." (NIV) NT Christians are to be light and salt in a dark and decaying world.
According to the theocratic legal system of the Old Testament, incest was a sin that warranted the death penalty in Israel (
A logical argument against Christian capital punishment for homosexuals.
1. There is a case in the New Testament where capital punishment would have been demanded according to the OT law for a sexual sin, but an Apostle recommended a restorative approach (I Corinthians 5).
2. There is no case in the NT where OT-style capital punishment was demanded by Christians for sexual sins.
3. Therefore, the Christian example set forth in the New Testament supports a more restorative approach to the law, as outlined and underscored by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.
4. Therefore, we can conclude that the killing of homosexuals is not in accordance with NT practices.
Many societies today support the idea that capital punishment is justified by the government in cases where a person is a convicted murderer. This is justified in accordance with Romans 13.4: "For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (NIV) However, as noted in I Corinthians 5, the early church did not support the idea of capital punishment for sexual sins. On the contrary, a restorative approach was recommended.
One of the key points of the New Testament is that we Christians cannot live the New Testament life by willpower alone. It is by the saving grace of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that we become free from the slavery of sin, as outlined in Romans 8. Until a person repents and is born again, as outlined in John 3, there is no hope of addressing the sin nature and overcoming the most challenging obstacle in life, which is our own sinful nature. Even the Catholic Church, which had a history of emphasizing works-based righteousness, has come to affirm that salvation comes by grace and justification by faith, and that spiritual rebirth is a key to redemption. Cathechisms in the 1990's offer clauses such as these: "Our justification comes from the grace of God." and "The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," justification entails the sanctification of his whole being." All the main Christian branches have acknowledged that New Testament understandings of grace, faith and love are presented in a manner that supersedes the Old Testament legal requirements of the law presented to Israel. People who wish to deny this truth often contend that the word "covenant' has no significant meaning.
The 1966 photo of the gay activist picketing displays a sign reading, "Homosexuals should be judged as individuals." According to scripture, it is the word of God that will judge all men, not people. And, in the mean time, Christians are to offer love and truth, not hatred and condemnation. And there are many examples of Christians who had lived a gay lifestyle who have come to recognize God's true plan for their lives. The Apostle Paul described this phenomenon in the early church:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)
A 1980 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry outlines eleven men who were former homosexuals that became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a Pentecostal church. The study is titled, "Ex-Gays": Religiously mediated change in homosexuals"
Michael Glatz is a Christian ex-gay activist who has described his experiences in an autobiographical account.
Photo is non-copyright - Barbara Gittings picketing the White House in 1965, photo taken by Kay Tobin Lahusen
(updated 05/25/13)
Tags: Homosexuality and Old Testament - New Testament, hermeneutics and homosexuality
Related:
Isn it ironic that with that "clear" instructions dozens of theistic views on gay marriages exist?
ReplyDeleteen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality
So let me ask the same eternal question that Rick refuses to answer. What makes his interpretantio of scipture the right one while the other are wrong?
Most of your article is repeating the same points from before. Failing again and again... Sigh... Let us try from the top:
R:The NT is a new covenant, a new legal code that supersedes the OT old covenant legal code.
Rick... Did you read the short wikipedia article about different types of supersessionism or you still are going to hide in lalala land?
You need to prove it a new legal code that makes the old one completely obsolete. For now you have been asserting the same thing over and over.
R:Therefore, if points 1 through 8 are true, there is no room for the view that NT Christians are to hate and kill homosexuals today in accordance with scritpure.
Yes, let us ignore again the fact that Jesus himself claimed he came to enforce the law of the OT. Let us ignore that you do not have even the slightest verse, where the OT laws are canceled.
R:The redemptive nature of the NT interpretation of the law was summarized in the previous verse, Galatians 3.24. The New Testament emphasizes spiritual empowerment to fulfill the law through a personal relationship with God. This aspect of the New Testament was foretold in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 31.34
Sigh... Again I repeat for the mentally challenged the same thing:
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord.“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people"
The only difference from the Old Covenant - the laws are written in your "heart", not just in a moldy book.
R:Homosexual advocates will often claim this means that all the points of the Old Testament remain in effect. But the word "fulfill" has no such meaning in the context of the NT. Paul spelled out the proper interpretation of the law in the NT using the exact same word, "fulfill" in Romans 13.8
Congratulation! It took you a month to find a remotely relevant verse to back up your position.
Unfortunately for you, your mentally gifted collegues will claim that following the OT laws in an act of love to your neighbor. That includes the killing of homosexuals. bBy killing your "sinful" neighbor you prevent them to acumulating even more sins 8)
R:The only way in which a person can propose that NT Christians are supposed to hate and kill homosexuals is by misinterpreting scripture and taking verses out of context
What proof do you have that you are not taking verses out of context? Do tell, you have been evading that question for an eternity.
R:NT Christians are to share the love and truth of Christ, as salt and light, in the hope that practicing homosexuals will repent and model Christ in purity.
Thank you again for proving your hypocrisy and that you are not a "true Christian". By that verse you should not have the right to actively oppose gay marriages as you do.
R:According to scripture, it is the word of God that will judge all men, not people.
Liar. There is a clear instruction for christians to judge sinners in the OT. The fact that god will judge sinners again after their death is irrelevant.
>Isn it ironic that with that "clear" instructions dozens of theistic views on gay marriages exist?
Delete- It's not ironic at all. It's another indication that the sin nature is alive and well, especially with regard to the belief that the several verses in the New Testament clearly stating that homosexual behavior is considered a sin.
>So let me ask the same eternal question that Rick refuses to answer. What makes his interpretantio of scipture the right one while the other are wrong?
- With regard to the fact that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, all the main branches are in agreement on this basic idea, as I've already pointed this out here:
"- You are not addressing the outline of scripture I've provided. That would help you to answer your own question. A new covenant is a new covenant. That means a new covenant. The million dollar question seems to be: "Why don't you want to accept the English language?"
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/04/truth-in-love-equals-love-in-truth.html?showComment=1368876324468#c3832326153017826737
In that same answer I offered days ago I offered specific points you have yet to address:
Outline of basic Christian supersessionism
1. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions embrace the doctrine of basic supersessionism.
2. The New Testament is based on a new covenant.
3. The new covenant is supersedes the old covenant.
4. The new covenant emphasizes grace over the law.
5. The new covenant emphasizes changed relationships and attitudes with God and among fellow citizens.
6. These changed attitudes reflect proactive love-based ethics over vindictive law-based ethics, as outlined by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the introduction of the New Testament.
In summary, Anonymous cannot bring up any specific scriptures in a cohesive context that supports his contention that my interpretation is wrong, so he falls back on the lame excuse..."What makes his interpretantio of scipture the right one?"
For staters, my points have been supported based on specific verses from both the Old and New Testaments in a cohesive logical presentation whereas you and Rian only seem to be able to offer pot shot single verses out of context with the Bible as a whole.
R:It's not ironic at all. It's another indication that the sin nature is alive and well...
DeleteYet you fail again and again to explain why the understanding of the bible from other scholars is wrong and yours is the only right one.
R:With regard to the fact that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, all the main branches are in agreement on this basic idea, as I've already pointed this out here
Sigh... What can I say, Rick? Good luck in lalala land. Since you even refuse to read the smallest article from wikipedia I cannot help you.
I repeat again for the thousand time. There is no universally agreed upon the definition of supersessionism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism
R:In that same answer I offered days ago I offered specific points you have yet to address
I did address it several times. The fact that you chose to ignore my answer is your own problem. I repeat - There is no universally agreed upon the definition of supersessionism.
You also ignored my point that you have no verses that clearly state laws from the OT are no longer in place.
R:In summary, Anonymous cannot bring up any specific scriptures in a cohesive context that supports his contention that my interpretation is wrong, so he falls back on the lame excuse..."What makes his interpretantio of scipture the right one?"
Nope, that is your reading disability showing again and again. I specifically argued that the New covenant has little to do with the laws from the OT and that supersessionism does not mean the abolishment of OT laws.
R:For staters, my points have been supported based on specific verses from both the Old and New Testaments in a cohesive logical presentation
Each verse from you has been dismantled and shown to be either irrelevant to the problem or just plain interpretention that contradicts other verses from scripture. Each time you just ignored your opponent
Again, good luck in lalala land, Rick. No one can force you to engage.
>There is no universally agreed upon the definition of supersessionism.
Delete- I never stated there was. Though there are disagreements about specifics, all three main historical traditions within Christianity — Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, have acknowledged the same basics.
In the 1990's, the Catholic church officially underscored the biblical emphasis of grace over law in their catechisms. Two example of many: "Our justification comes from the grace of God." and "The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," justification entails the sanctification of his whole being."
Outline of basic Christian supersessionism
1. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions acknowledge New Testament supersessionism.
2. The New Testament is based on a new covenant.
3. The new covenant is supersedes the old covenant.
4. The new covenant emphasizes grace over the law.
5. The new covenant emphasizes changed relationships and attitudes with God and among fellow citizens.
6. These changed attitudes reflect proactive love-based ethics over vindictive law-based ethics, as outlined by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the introduction of the New Testament.
You have yet to discredit any one of the above points with actual scripture. It's the same posturing with you as usual.
>I did address it several times.
- Then it should be easy for you to post a link to just one comment you've made which discredits one of the above points. So let's see it...
>you have no verses that clearly state laws from the OT are no longer in place.
DeleteWrong again. Point seven addresses this point:
7. In Matthew 5.17 Jesus states, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (NIV) Homosexual advocates will often claim this means that all the points of the Old Testament remain in effect. But the word "fulfill" has no such meaning in the context of the NT. Paul spelled out the proper interpretation of the law in the NT using the exact same word, "fulfill" in Romans 13.8 as noted, "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law." (NIV). Jesus helped fulfill the law and the prophets by loving the world enough to lay down his life as a sacrifice for sin. Matthew 22. 36-40 offers a dialogue, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Those specific verses point out how love fulfills the law, not hatred and killing.
Point nine underscores the non-violent theme:
9. Instead of hating and killing, Jesus advises his followers to be salt and light. Matthew 5.13-16 states, "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." (NIV) NT Christians are to be light and salt in a dark and decaying world.
Several verse have been presented demonstrating that the New Testament does not operate on the same basis as the old but offers a new legal code.
>I have argued...and that supersessionism does not mean the abolishment of OT laws.
- If all the OT laws have been supposedly in effect in the church since the beginning of the NT, as you seem to be arguing, then why did God tell Peter to break the dietary laws and eat "unclean" foods in Acts 10.14
http://biblehub.com/acts/10-14.htm
>Each verse from you has been dismantled and shown to be either irrelevant
- I know, I know, the verses I presented about love fulfilling all the law really mean that hate fulfills all the law. You make a good Communist relativist.
So what was at least one specific point that you had supposedly refuted here with relevant scriptures?...
DeleteOutline of basic Christian supersessionism
1. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions acknowledge New Testament supersessionism.
2. The New Testament is based on a new covenant.
3. The new covenant supersedes the old covenant.
4. The new covenant emphasizes grace over the law.
5. The new covenant emphasizes changed relationships and attitudes with God and among fellow citizens.
6. These changed attitudes reflect proactive love-based ethics over vindictive law-based ethics, as outlined by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the introduction of the New Testament.
And what was the example of at least one relevant point here that you had supposedly undermined using scripture?...
1. The first purpose of the law in the OT was to help define a certain people as "set apart" and holy unto God.
2. The second purpose of the law in the OT was to enable a fledgling nation to stay pure, survive, prosper and grow.
3. The first purpose of the law in the NT is to identify sin and make people consciously aware of it.
4. The second purpose of the law in the NT is to point out our inadequacy with the sin nature in keeping the entire law.
5. The third purpose of the law in the NT is to drive us to Christ as the only possible solution for our sin through the grace and atonement of the cross.
6. The purpose of the law in the OT is more punitive in nature. The purpose of the law in the NT is more redemptive in nature.
7. The NT is a new covenant, a new legal code that supersedes the OT old covenant legal code.
8. Therefore, if points 1 through 8 are true, there is no room for the view that NT Christians are to hate and kill homosexuals today in accordance with scritpure.
9. On the contrary, if points 1-8 are true, then NT Christians are to share the love and truth of Christ, as salt and light, in the hope that practicing homosexuals will repent and model Christ in purity.
Anonymous, You haven't yet brought up one valid specific point that was actually based on a somewhat coherent understanding of scripture to challenge all these cohesive points that form a logical conclusion.
If there is a Cavalry to come to the rescue of Anonymous, now would be a good time to show up. Posturing and bluffing are all he has left.
Ironically, all this is based on an extremely narrow view from your last article; I know several gay Christians, and many more Christians who have no problem with homosexuality.
DeleteNow, I suppose you're going to argue that they're not "Christian" -- but I would find them much brighter light, and much better salt, than "Christians" who advocate the destruction of Jews (Luther) or the "merciful" execution of homosexuals (LaHaye).
7. The NT is a new covenant, a new legal code that supersedes the OT old covenant legal code.
Ironically, there are lots of assertions of what is "wrong" or "sinful", but very little "law" in the NT. Which perhaps should be a guide to you as to the appropriate involvement of Christian dogma in legal structures.
8. Therefore, if points 1 through 8 are true, there is no room for the view that NT Christians are to hate and kill homosexuals today in accordance with scritpure.
Actually, you have failed to present an example of *which* OT law is to be ignored -- and, as I have frequently cited here, there are Christians who believe that it is more "merciful" and "loving" to execute gay people rather than let them live.
Your citations mean nothing against that assertion; do you then disavow the people who make it as Christians?
9. On the contrary, if points 1-8 are true, then NT Christians are to share the love and truth of Christ, as salt and light, in the hope that practicing homosexuals will repent and model Christ in purity.
No one is preventing you from sharing your "love" and "truth", save in places where sharing religious beliefs in general is inappropriate. (And where, if the beliefs were not Christian, I think you would agree with the inappropriateness of that sharing.)
However, when you use those views to deny the equal rights of humans, what form of sharing of "love" and "truth" is that? Especially for people who don't believe what you do.
If you don't want to have homosexual sex, don't have it; don't want to marry a man, don't do it.
But you are the one who insists on injecting your allegedly "objective" morality into other people's lives; a morality you can't define with an objective hermeneutic, based on things you can't detect, and a text without a definitive version.
R:I never stated there was. Though there are disagreements about specifics, all three main historical traditions within Christianity — Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, have acknowledged the same basics.
DeleteYou do understand that we are talking about "specifics" here? If people cannot agree upon those "specifics" your whole argument becomes useless, since people embrace different types of supersessionism that have little to do with each other.
Furthermore, if you want to claim that since the majority thinks so, then it must be true, you are just using a fallacy here.
R:In the 1990's, the Catholic church officially underscored the biblical emphasis of grace over law in their catechisms
Funny how you claim that disagreement with you is evidence for the sinful nature of humanity, but agreement with you is evidence of an objective word of god. Note that you often use that tactic with the same people 8)
R:You have yet to discredit any one of the above points with actual scripture. It's the same posturing with you as usual.
Again, no one can force you to engage. Criticism was presented to you, it is up to you what to do afterwards.
R:Then it should be easy for you to post a link to just one comment you've made which discredits one of the above points.
I just did for the thousand time in my previous post. No link is going to help you, Rick, if scrolling up and reading my previous post is not enough.
R:Wrong again. Point seven addresses this point
Reading disability showing up?
"Each verse from you has been dismantled and shown to be either irrelevant to the problem or just plain interpretention"
Do you want to do the same thing again? Ok, I have time to waste.
R:But the word "fulfill" has no such meaning in the context of the NT. Paul spelled out the proper interpretation of the law in the NT using the exact same word, "fulfill" in Romans 13.8 as noted
And how does love fulfills the law? By following it. For example, by killing homosexuals.
R:Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
And here you have it from the horse s mouth itself. ALL THE LAWS ARE BASED ON LOVE. That include the law about the killing of homosexuals.
R:Instead of hating and killing, Jesus advises his followers to be salt and light. Matthew 5.13-16 states...
Basically what Jesus is saying here that Christians should be an example to others. Agreed? So what is the best kind of example? A law-abiding and god loving way of life that includes the execution of homosexuals.
R:the New Testament does not operate on the same basis as the old but offers a new legal code
DeleteSorry, you must be mistaking phantasy with reality.
R:If all the OT laws have been supposedly in effect in the church since the beginning of the NT, as you seem to be arguing, then why did God tell...
"he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!”But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.”Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky."
Because he cleaned the "impurities" from the food. Those were "special" pigs from heaven that have nothing to do with regular filthy pigs 8)
R:I know, I know, the verses I presented about love fulfilling all the law really mean that hate fulfills all the law.
Each of these vereses was dismantled. Again, no one can force you to engage with your opponent, but do not pretend that criticism was not offered.
R:So what was at least one specific point that you had supposedly refuted here with relevant scriptures?...
Yes, let us try once again for the mentally challenged
R:Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions acknowledge New Testament supersessionism.
There is no agrred upon definition of the term "supersessionism". You acknowledged this yourself by pointing out the disagreement on "specifics". Yet, those specifics do turn supersessionism in completely different concepts. Furthermore, you are trying to push for a fallacy from popularity. The fact that the majority agrees on a specific point does not make it right.
R:The new covenant supersedes the old covenant.
But a new covenant does not concern the content of the law. It is just about the fact that everyone "knows" the unchanged law apriori, as it is described in scripture.
R:The NT is a new covenant, a new legal code that supersedes the OT old covenant legal code.
Nowhere it is stated that the NT is a new legal code. On the contrary, Jesus himself said that he came to enforce the law of the OT. He added a couple of laws, but the legal code remains mostly the same.
R:Anonymous, You haven't yet brought up one valid specific point...
Denial is not a river in Egypt. Again, no one can force you to engage.
>If people cannot agree upon those "specifics" your whole argument becomes useless,
Delete- No. The main discrepancies with supercessionism have to do with the assessment of Jews today. This one issue does not determine whether 100% of OT law is 100% obligatory for Christians today.
>Funny how you claim that disagreement with you is evidence for the sinful nature of humanity
- When people deny the basic meaning of words in an attempt to skirt an issue then denial is quite evident. Such is the case with your attempt to equate the law "fulfilled" with your misunderstanding that Jesus came to "enforce" the law, as noted in your comment, as I pointed out May 24:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/04/truth-in-love-equals-love-in-truth.html?showComment=1369392912083#c7256936626936570550
>Criticism was presented to you
- Yes, oblique comments not backed up with any relevant scriptural support. I'm still waiting for you to address just one of the listed points in the above article. Which one would you prefer to start with? I added one that might be helpful for you to consider, point 8:
8. The apostle Paul emphasized that Christians live by grace and are not under the legal requirements of the law in Romans 6.14: "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace?" He was even more explicit in stating the law was "abolished" for NT believers. Ephesins 2.14-16 states, "For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh, abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it." (NASB - emphasis added.)
I'm sure that you will claim that Paul says the law is "abolished" is abolished by grace that this means that Paul means the law is "enforced" - isn't that the kind of Newspeak we are becoming familiar with?...
"And how does love fulfills the law? By following it. For example, by killing homosexuals."
The biblical approach for Christians with regard to sins such as homosexuality means "being salt and light" - just as Jesus explained in the intro to the New Testament. Of course, in your mind being salt and light must metaphorically mean killing all sinners because of your misinterpretation of one verse - Jesus came to fulfill the law.
>Basically what Jesus is saying here that Christians should be an example to others. Agreed? So what is the best kind of example? A law-abiding and god loving way of life that includes the execution of homosexuals.
- Not quite. No logical connection at all.
And I suppose when Paul wrote in Ephesins 2.14-16 that Jesus came "abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims" that this means he came to "enforce" the law? Isn't this another verse in your "Newspeak Bible Translation"? You should really write and publish your own secular atheist Bible translation, the NBT, and I'm sure it would be quite popular with other secular atheists.
>Nowhere it is stated that the NT is a new legal code.
- The following is the accepted definition of the word covenant:
Noun An agreement.
Verb Agree, esp. by lease, deed, or other legal contract.
But, of course, in the Newspeak Bible Translation (NBT) the word "covenant" has whatever meaning you want it to have, just like the words "fulfill" and "love" Your word games are beginning to get old.
R:The main discrepancies with supercessionism have to do with the assessment of Jews today
DeleteGood luck in lalala land, Rick. I see that you still fail to read that small wikipedia article. Let me at least quote a part for you:
"Many traditional Christians have the view that only parts [of the Mosaic law] are applicable, many Protestants have the view that none is applicable, dual-covenant theologians have the view that only Noahide Laws apply to Gentiles, and a minority have the view that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant."
"However, there are differences of opinion as to how the New Covenant affects the validity of the Old Covenant, how many Old Covenant laws such as the Ten Commandments are continued or renewed in the New Covenant, and related issues. The differences are mainly as a result of attempts to harmonize biblical statements to the effect that the Old Covenant and its law is "perpetual" or "everlasting" or "lasting" with biblical statements to the effect that it does not apply anymore (in the current dispensation) or at least does not fully apply. The topic of Paul and the Old Covenant is still frequently debated among New Testament scholars leading to many views."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_old_covenant
So nope. Those pesky "details" are not just about the Jews. Are you still going to deny reality?
R:When people deny the basic meaning of words in an attempt to skirt an issue then denial is quite evident.
Are you speaking about yourself and the different meaning of supersessionism?
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
Hmm... What do we have here? The words of Jesus himself telling that tha laws are in place unchanged and anyone who relaxes any of these laws (like the killing of homosexuals) is unwelcomed in heaven, but a gay murderer will be seen as a saint. Are you going to respond to those two vereses in context or are you just going to ignore them as usual?
R:Yes, oblique comments not backed up with any relevant scriptural support. I'm still waiting for you to address just one of the listed points in the above article.
Rick, you have been adding one verse after another, while you just ignore the verses presented to you or just engage with a small irrelevant part of it. I addressed your previous verses and as always you add another one after it turns out that you failed. Now you claim that I never addressed any of your verses. A little dishonest, don t you think?
R:Which one would you prefer to start with? I added one that might be helpful for you to consider, point 8:
I am just going to claim your translation is inacurate. Here is the verses from the bible s translation The Voice.
"He offered His body on the sacrificial altar to bring an end to the law’s ordinances and dictations THAT SEPERATED Jews from the outside nations."
That only concerns the laws that SEPERATE the gentils from the jews. The rest (like the execution of homosexuals)are still in effect.
"So what do we do now? Throw ourselves into lives of sin because we are cloaked in grace and don’t have to answer to the law?"
Notice we may choose not to ANSWER to the law because we have grace. It does NOT say that the law has been abolished. It just says that grace is more important than the law.
R:isn't that the kind of Newspeak we are becoming familiar with?
DeleteNope, this is just the kind of "sinful and heretical" translation you use.
R:The biblical approach for Christians with regard to sins such as homosexuality...
Liar. I have shown before there is no common christian biblical approach to homosexuality.
R:Of course, in your mind being salt and light must metaphorically mean killing all sinners because of your misinterpretation of one verse
I see your straw man factory is doing well. What I said is that christians are supposed to be an example for sinners. And they should follow the law to be a good example. Meaning - they should execute homosexuals.
R:Isn't this another verse in your "Newspeak Bible Translation"?
Hm...Let me think... You spent a whole month looking for that precise verse, you do not let me the chance to respond to it and now you accuse me of orwelian newspeak. Ad hominem anyone?
R:Not quite. No logical connection at all.
You know, Rick. That is just an assertion, not an argument. But since you seem to be mentally challenged I will even present that argument in the form of a syllogism.
1. All True Christians are an example of a moral conduct (All A have B property)
2. Laws from the OT are supposed to explain which actions are sinful and which are moral. (All B have C property)
3. The law specifically points out that killing homosexuals is moral (All C have D property)
4. Hence True Christians are supposed to kill homosexuals (All A have D property)
Now do try to point which part is illogical?
R:You should really write and publish your own secular atheist Bible translation...
No need for that, the translation from your religious nutcases is plenty enough.
You still refuse to address the two vereses, where jesus himself says the laws are unchanged from the OT and that those who follow the laws will be welcomed in heaven with open arms.
R:The following is the accepted definition of the word covenant
Sorry, but you need the specific theological definition here. From The Oxford dictionnary:
Theology - an agreement which brings about a relationship of commitment between God and his people. The Jewish faith is based on the biblical covenants made with Abraham, Moses, and David.
See? It is about a special agreement about the relationship with god (chosen people, ect.), NOT about laws.
R:But, of course, in the Newspeak Bible Translation (NBT) the word "covenant" has whatever meaning you want it to have
Rick, DO educate yourself and learn that the same words can have different meaning in different fields.
From Rick:
Delete>Nowhere it is stated that the NT is a new legal code.
- The following is the accepted definition of the word covenant:
Noun An agreement.
Verb Agree, esp. by lease, deed, or other legal contract.
But, of course, in the Newspeak Bible Translation (NBT) the word "covenant" has whatever meaning you want it to have, just like the words "fulfill" and "love" Your word games are beginning to get old.
"Legal agreement" and "legal code" are not the same thing, Rick.
Indeed, it's a legal agreement when you pay for somethign with a credit card -- a covenant. Would you say that each time you are paying with a credit card, you're establishing a legal code?
This whole argument is coming from the fact that, using the NT, one can reach very different conclusions as to what of the OT law is still in effect, and what isn't.
Are you arguing that *none* of the OT law is valid, and only what is explicitly set down in the NT as law is law? If so, that's a) an awfully sparse code you've established there, and b) a whole lot of capitalists are in a lot of trouble. ;)
From Anonymous:
That only concerns the laws that SEPERATE the gentils from the jews. The rest (like the execution of homosexuals)are still in effect.
Which means we're back to the Noahide laws, which, in some people's view, include laws against adultery. And the violation of them? The penalty is death.
By the way... Don t you think it is strange for Peter, one of the closest disciples of Jesus, not be aware that dietary laws have supposedely been lifted? After all, for years after the death of Jesus he ate only kosher food. You know, it might have been a good idea for Jesus to have informed him about
Deletethat small detail.
Also from wikipedia an interesting fact about Paul and the faulty translation of your moldy book:
"Modern differences over the interpretation of this come from the understanding of the use of the word "Law" in Paul's writings (example: Gal 3:10) as referring only to Mosaic Law (Torah) but in 1st century Hebrew understanding had multiple meanings which also included Jewish and Roman civil laws. At the time, the Christian community would have considered itself a part of the wider Jewish community, with most of the leaders of the Church being Jewish or Jewish proselytes. The decision of the Council came to be called the Apostolic Decree and was that most Mosaic law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for Gentile converts, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement. However, the Council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing "blood", or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and "idol worship". Some scholars claim that "fornication" is an incorrect translation of the Biblical Greek. Beginning with Augustine of Hippo, many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars reject the connection to Noahide Law and instead see Lev 17-18 as the basis."
So nope, some humans have gathered and did decide that some of the laws are no longer aplicable. Which is kinda contradicting Jesus. And even then, they did not dare to get rid of all the laws. Furthermore, because the bible is a translation, we still do not know exactly what Paul meant with his terms 8)
P.S. Oh! And Mosaic laws have nothing to do with the old convenant. The Old Convenant was established under Abraham centuries before the Mosaic law. Hence, the laws are not part of the old covenant.
Delete>Liar. I have shown before there is no common christian biblical approach to homosexuality.
Delete- Let the Slander Games begin...
So which point exactly did you successfully challenge in the outline of common Christian precepts?...
Outline of basic Christian supersessionism
1. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions acknowledge New Testament supersessionism.
2. The New Testament is based on a new covenant.
3. The new covenant is supersedes the old covenant.
4. The new covenant emphasizes grace over the law.
5. The new covenant emphasizes changed relationships and attitudes with God and among fellow citizens.
6. These changed attitudes reflect proactive love-based ethics over vindictive law-based ethics, as outlined by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the introduction of the New Testament.
Even the Catholic church, known for its more religious and legalistic approach to sin, stated in the 1990's that the law does not justify anyone before God, only spiritual re-birth does:
"The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," justification entails the sanctification of his whole being."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
>And they should follow the law to be a good example. Meaning - they should execute homosexuals.
- That must be why the Apostle Paul did not demand execution for the churchgoers caught in incest, a crime that demands execution according to Leviticus 18:7-17, 29; 20:11-12
What did Paul actually recommend? A little loving church discipline, that's all. See I Corinthians 5 for the account. Surely you have an example of Christians demanding execution in the New Testament to support or position. Or will you claim that the Apostle Paul was not a valid authority in the Church? What will it be?
>1. All True Christians are an example of a moral conduct (All A have B property)
- Perhaps a better summary would be, "All true Christians should try to live life with high moral standards." - Not all born-again Christians are necessarily good examples every day.
2. Laws from the OT are supposed to explain which actions are sinful and which are moral. (All B have C property)
- You are not differentiating between universal codes and laws for specific people at specific times in a manner the Bible describes.
The 10 Commandments focus on moral truths in a universal sense, while there were many laws and codes of conduct that were written specifically for the Israelites that were intended for application only to these people at a certain time.
Read I Cornithians 5 and see how the Apostle Paul does NOT call for capital punishment regarding a case of incest in a church.
>The law specifically points out that killing homosexuals is moral (All C have D property)
- As I just noted, this was not a universally applicable law that was intended to be true for all people at all times, but was intended for Israel at a certain period of time.
>4. Hence True Christians are supposed to kill homosexuals (All A have D property)
- Because you premises are not true your conclusion is not a reliable deduction.
See if you can find any fault with the following logical argument:
DeleteA logical argument against Christian capital punishment for homosexuals.
1. There is a case in the New Testament where capital punishment would have been demanded according to the OT law, but an Apostle recommended a restorative approach (I Corinthians 5).
2. There is no case in the NT where OT style capital punishment was demanded by Christians.
3. Therefore, the Christian example set forth in the New Testament supports a new restorative approach to the law as outlined by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.
4. Therefore, in light of this example, the killing of homosexuals is not in accordance with NT practices.
> (covenant definition) Theology - an agreement which brings about a relationship of commitment between God and his people. The Jewish faith is based on the biblical covenants made with Abraham, Moses, and David.
- Yes, and according to the "commitment" and "agreement" that Jesus brought, there is no need to enforce the killing of people for sexual sins. As Paul demonstrated in I Corinthians 5, grace and love offer a superior approach to moral questions than the law and death.
So, are you prepared to declare either in error or not "true Christians" anyone claiming the name of Christian who believes in the death penalty for homsexual behavior?
DeleteSince you've been arguing so strongly that the NT doesn't support it, you should have no problem with that.
Great, Rick! You ran away from most of my points and ignored crucial questions from me. I will repeat them again:
Delete"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
Hmm... What do we have here? The words of Jesus himself telling that tha laws are in place unchanged and anyone who relaxes any of these laws (like the killing of homosexuals) is unwelcomed in heaven, but a gay murderer will be seen as a saint. Are you going to respond to those two vereses in context or are you just going to ignore them as usual?
Why did Peter eat only kosher food for years after the death of Jesus if the laws from the OT were lifted?
R:So which point exactly did you successfully challenge in the outline of common Christian precepts?...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality
All Christians have a biblical approach to sin. Christians disagree on a common biblical approach to homosexuality. Fact. That was pointed out to you before, so you were aware of that. But you still knowingly pushed disinformation. Hence - you are a liar.
R:Outline of basic Christian supersessionism
If you refuse to accept reality, I cannot help you, Rick. Each nomination has a very different understanding of supersessionism and what are about the mosaic laws.
I gave you a link to different christian approaches to the OT laws. That includes a different approach from catholics and protestants. If you want to ignore this, good luck in lala land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_old_covenant
R:That must be why the Apostle Paul did not demand execution for the churchgoers caught in incest
"So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? GET RID OF THE OLD YEST, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are."
So how do we hand over the sinner to Satan, Rick? How do we get rid of the "old yest"? By executing the despicable sinner.
R:Or will you claim that the Apostle Paul was not a valid authority in the Church? What will it be?
So who is the bigger authority? Paul or Jesus? 8)
R:Not all born-again Christians are necessarily good examples every day.
DeleteWe are speaking about the ideal picture here. Hence, all true christians are an example of morality 8)
R:The 10 Commandments focus on moral truths in a universal sense, while there were many laws and codes of conduct that were written specifically for the Israelites that were intended for application only to these people at a certain time.
My dear, Rick... You need to prove your point, not just assert it.
R:As I just noted, this was not a universally applicable law that was intended to be true for all people at all times, but was intended for Israel at a certain period of time
Prove it, do not just assert this. You still hold to the ten commandemants today, but for some reason you pick the killing of homosexuals as exclusive for the OT. Prove that the execution of homosexuals is not an act of love that prevent them to sin even further.
R:Because you premises are not true your conclusion is not a reliable deduction.
You claimed that my argument was illogical. You failed to point anything inconsistent in the structure. Are you going to apologize for your accusations?
R:...but an Apostle recommended a restorative approach (I Corinthians 5).
He did no such thing. He was demanding the merciful execution of the sinner so that he could be saved later on by Jesus.
R:As Paul demonstrated in I Corinthians 5, grace and love offer a superior approach to moral questions than the law and death.
Again, that is your own sinful misunderstanding of the "true word" of god.
I:So, are you prepared to declare either in error or not "true Christians" anyone claiming the name of Christian who believes in the death penalty for homsexual behavior?
DeleteWell, since Rick is arguing AGAINST capital punishment for gays, he must think those who oppose him are in error. And since even "True Cristians" can make mistakes by calling for the execution of gays and jews, they do make mistakes, but they will still achieve heaven since it is a small point anyway. I guess that Hitler should be in heaven now since he was sincere in his genocide and did accept Jesus as his savior.
>I have come not to abolish but to fulfill...
Delete- It seems that you will not be able to understand the difference between "enforce" and "fulfill" in this case unless you are born again spiritually have receive a sense of fresh revelation from God.
1. Jesus raised the bar in the Sermon on the Mount offering that even evil thoughts make one worthy of death according to the law.
2. Therefore, no one can be justified by the law alone.
3. In offering himself as a sacrifice for sin Jesus offered a fulfillment of the law. Jesus did not abolish the requirements of the law - perfection - but offered us his own perfection, a sinless life, as a sacrificial atonement on the cross.
This is the basic gospel underscored by numerous verses. If you wish to pretend that this verse means Christians have to kill others to enforce the law then you are running counter to actual examples in scripture, such as when Paul forgave the person in incest in I Corinthians 5.
>So how do we hand over the sinner to Satan, Rick? How do we get rid of the "old yest"? By executing the despicable sinner.
- No the person who was committing incest was expelled from the church for the behavior in the hope of repentance and restoration. The destruction of the flesh, that is, the destruction of the sinful nature by the Spirit. This is the common interpretation, as noted at the following link. If you have another interpretation by a reputable source, do present it.
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2008/09/implications-of-1-corinthians-55
>So who is the bigger authority? Paul or Jesus? 8)
- As I've pointed out, they both promote love and grace, not hatred and killing.
- It seems that you will not be able to understand the difference between "enforce" and "fulfill" in this case unless you are born again spiritually have receive a sense of fresh revelation from God.
DeleteIn other words, there is no objective distinction -- it requires some internal "knowledge" to get. Which makes it a useless distinction unless you already agree with it.
>My dear, Rick... You need to prove your point, not just assert it. (...many laws and codes of conduct that were written specifically for the Israelites that were intended for application only to these people at a certain time.)
DeleteI did support my point. It's in the outline in the post with specific references:
2. Deuteronomy 4.1 states, "Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the LORD, the God of your ancestors, is giving you." (NIV)
This theme is continued in Deuteronomy 6.24
The Lord commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the Lord our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today. 25 And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.
>You claimed that my argument was illogical.
- No. I stated the conclusion was not reliable because the premises are not true:
"R:Because you premises are not true your conclusion is not a reliable deduction."
There is a difference between an illogical argument and one with false premises.
I'll repeat a point. Your premise 2 is not accurate because you are failing to discern laws that are timeless with those specific to a certain people for a certain time and purpose. You wrote the following:
2. Laws from the OT are supposed to explain which actions are sinful and which are moral. (All B have C property)
- Now, according to Deuteronomy 4.41-43 there were supposed to be "cities of refuge" where people could run to for legal amnesty.
According to your opinion, Christians in the NT under Roman law were supposed to do what was not in their means to do. And neither is this practical today in the US, as is the case with many laws specific to Israel...
So you point fails.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4&version=NIV
Rick...Why did you delete my posts from before? Did you have nothing to resond? If you are not interested in a discussion, just say so.
Delete>Rick...Why did you delete my posts from before?
Delete- I'm not sure which posts you are referring to. I had a lot of spam that I deleted and perhaps one of your comments appeared to be spam.
If there was a relevant and cogent point that had not been addressed, I apologize for accidentally deleting it. If so, do re-post the point or points you are referring to.
Sigh... Ok, I guess I need to start over then...
DeleteFirst of al for the second time you ignored my question. Why did Peter eat only kosher food years after the death of Jesus if the laws were abolished?
R:It seems that you will not be able to understand the difference between "enforce" and "fulfill" in this case...
Maybe we should check other variants of translation of that passage?
"Do not think that I have come to take away the law and the writings of the prophets. No, I have not come to take them away. But I have come TO DO WHAT THEY SAY must be done." (Worldwide English New Testament) - And what the Mosaic law says about homosexuals?
“Don’t think that I have come to destroy the law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but TO BRING ABOUT WHAT THEY SAID".(New Century version) - and what is written about homosexuals in the bible? How should they be dealt with?
“Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to MAKE THEIR TEACHINGS COME TRUE." (Good News Translation) - And what does the bible teachs us about how we should deal with homosexuals?
R:In offering himself as a sacrifice for sin Jesus offered a fulfillment of the law.
And you need to prove that it was the complete fulfillment of the law and that no laws whatsoever from the OT are no longer in effect, not just assert it. You also ignore the controversial verse from Jesus for the who-knows-which time:
"...Whoever then RELAXES one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who DOES THEM and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) - so how do you relax a law that has been canceled, Rick? How do you follow a law that has been abolished?
R:This is the common interpretation, as noted at the following link. If you have another interpretation by a reputable source, do present it.
Ehhh....Rick...Are really trying to say that my opinion on scripture is wrong because some different one exists?
And if you want to play the "Appeal to authority game"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy
With prominent theologians like Cornelius Van Til, Paul Tilich, Greg Bahnsen, John Rushdoony and others,,,
R:I did support my point. It's in the outline in the post with specific references
Sorry, you fail. Those vereses only point to the fact that those laws were given to the Jews. The same way as the 10 commandmants. You need to prove those laws are no longer in effect, but the 10 commandmants are.
R:No. I stated the conclusion was not reliable because the premises are not true
On May 25th at 9:41 AM you said about my argument:
"Not quite. No logical connection at all"
So I presented my argument in the form of a syllogism and asked you to point out what was illogical about it, i.e. where the logical connections were missing. You failed to do so. So are you going to apologize or not for your false statement?
R:As I've pointed out, they both promote love and grace, not hatred and killing.
That is not an answer to my question. I am asking who is the bigger authority, not what they preached.
R:According to your opinion, Christians in the NT under Roman law were supposed to do what was not in their means to do...So you point fails.
How does my point fail? The fact that these laws are impractical, immoral or idiotic has no bearing on what god has commanded.
Example: There is a law that claims breathing is a capital offense. The fact that everyone is breaking the law has no bearing on the fact they deserve to be killed according to the law.
And, since you deleted it in your massive spam purge:
Deletehttp://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2013/02/why-i-outed-ex-gay-matt-moore/
In reference to Matt Moore's credibility and usefulness as an "example".
P.S. Oh! And Paul did NOT forgive the sinner. First of all, that is an interpretation of a verse from you that does not clearly state such thing. Secondly, Paul does not have the authority in the matter, only god can forgive sins.
Delete>Why did Peter eat only kosher food years after the death of Jesus if the laws were abolished?
Delete- The early church was made up of mostly Jewish people, like Jesus by the way.
- Though the new covenant removed the legal requirements of the old law, it did not necessitate not following it, which would also be legalism. :)
A main point is that Christians are to be mainly led by relationship - not rules. (See Jeremiah 31.32)
Paul wrote we are to be guided by our conscience - which is guided by the Spirit.
The Old Testament forbids eating foods offered to idols. But in the NT Paul says this:
But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+8&version=NIV
There were Christian debates and arguments in the NT about circumcision, meat offered to idols, and kosher food, as you pointed out.
Knowledge is pointed out as an issue in I Corinthians 8.7: "But not everyone possesses this knowledge."
Peter and many others simply did not know that they were allowed to eat non-kosher foods as believers.
Why didn't God bring this revelation earlier? The change of lifestyle was so radical for these early believers that it may have simply been to much to handle to give all the revelation at one point in time.
Revelation usually happens by degrees. The most important revelation was to know that Jesus the Christ is the Messiah. Once that revelation is received, then more lighter ones may be received as well.
Receiving this revelation would probably help you substantially in your understanding of the Bible.
>"Do not think that I have come to take away the law and the writings of the prophets. No, I have not come to take them away. But I have come TO DO WHAT THEY SAY must be done."
Delete- It seems I will need to write a separate blog post to outline the many ways in which Jesus fulfilled both the prophecies and the requirements of the Law.
>And you need to prove that it was the complete fulfillment of the law and that no laws whatsoever from the OT are no longer in effect, not just assert it.
- Sure, no problem, when I write the next post.
>So I presented my argument in the form of a syllogism and asked you to point out what was illogical about it, i.e. where the logical connections were missing. You failed to do so. So are you going to apologize or not for your false statement?
Delete- The comment I made on the 25the was a direct reply to one of your comments:
>Basically what Jesus is saying here that Christians should be an example to others. Agreed? So what is the best kind of example? A law-abiding and god loving way of life that includes the execution of homosexuals.
- Not quite. No logical connection at all.
I was not referring to your elaborate argument.
Interesting that you want an apology for this and you have yet to offer one to me after calling me a liar (wrongly) throughout the comments of 5 consecutive blog posts:
"This past week, however, the slander level at my blog seemed to reach a crescendo with a comment poster from Russia calling me a liar from one post to the next for the duration of five consecutive blog article posts."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html
Do post a link to your apology for this, Anonymous.
R:The early church was made up of mostly Jewish people, like Jesus by the way.
DeleteSo you agree that it is still desirable to follow the laws from the OT since Peter, one of the closest disciples, was following it till the end?
R:Though the new covenant removed the legal requirements of the old law, it did not necessitate not following it, which would also be legalism. :)
You are pushing for a straw man here. I never claimed that it is necessary to follow the law to the letter to be "saved". However, I did claim that following the law is desirable and moral. Hence, killing homosexuals is desirable and moral for christians.
R:Paul wrote we are to be guided by our conscience - which is guided by the Spirit.
Yes, and Hitler was guided by his conscience saying that he should kill of the Jews and homosexuals. How are you going to argue that his conscience is wrong?
R:The Old Testament forbids eating foods offered to idols.
What about "unclean" foods like pork? That verse has nothing to do with kosher food, it is purely about eating ceremonial food 8)
R:There were Christian debates and arguments in the NT about circumcision, meat offered to idols, and kosher food, as you pointed out.
Oh! So you admit that the decision to abolish circumsition and so on was a human decision and not a divine one?
R:Peter and many others simply did not know that they were allowed to eat non-kosher foods as believers.
How come the almighty god was so sloppy in his teachings that only Paul knew about the "abolishment" of OT laws?
R:Revelation usually happens by degrees. The most important revelation was to know that Jesus the Christ is the Messiah.
Revelations are not an objective way to interpret the bible, Rick. You cannot claim that Luther s or Hitler s revelation is inferior to yours objectively.
R:I was not referring to your elaborate argument.
So what were you refering to? I post my argument and then out of the blue you say - "Not quite. No logical connection at all". What should a sane person think of that?
R:Interesting that you want an apology for this and you have yet to offer one to me after calling me a liar (wrongly) throughout the comments of 5 consecutive blog posts
Nope, I was completely right to call you a liar. You could not claim that Singer did support infanticide based on the quotes you provided. Furthermore, you distorted his position, fact
>So you agree that it is still desirable to follow the laws from the OT since Peter, one of the closest disciples, was following it till the end?
Delete- No, that is not at all what I implied.
I am very busy this week so I won't be able to comment much.
It's been nearly a month -- just checking in to see if you're OK; hope you and yours are in good health and not o'erwhelmed by the world.
DeleteThanks for your concern. We're all fine. I've been pretty busy lately, but can do a little blogging now.
DeleteRian,
ReplyDeleteYour comment in the previous post falls under the category of homosexuality and hermeneutics, so it would make sense to answer it at the post dealing specifically with this subject...
>well, you haven't shown that Christians are under a completely different "legal framework".
- That point is outlined in the argument in the above post, where it helps to cohesively explain all the other points related to this theme.
7. The NT is a new covenant, a new legal code that supersedes the OT old covenant legal code.
This point is carried over from a previous outline:
Outline of basic Christian supersessionism
1. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions acknowledge New Testament supersessionism.
2. The New Testament is based on a new covenant.
3. The new covenant is supersedes the old covenant.
4. The new covenant emphasizes grace over the law.
5. The new covenant emphasizes changed relationships and attitudes with God and among fellow citizens.
6. These changed attitudes reflect proactive love-based ethics over vindictive law-based ethics, as outlined by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the introduction of the New Testament.
Though I have asked you several times, you have so far been unable to find fault with any of the points in the outline. I've outlined scriptural verses to back up each point. Therefore, your claim is false: "you haven't shown that Christians are under a completely different "legal framework".
>Also, if there is a completely different legal framework in which judgement is left to god, why the opposition to same sex marriage?
- As noted in the scriptures in the above post, Christians are to be salt and light, to speak the truth in love as agents for positive change in society. This applies to helping gays to understand God's redeeming truth with regard to homosexuality.
Many practicing homosexuals do change their attitudes about God and sin. An example would be Matt Moore who says he was "inappropriately exposed" to pornography and sexuality at a young age and this was a factor leading up to his gay lifestyle. Moore says his homosexual desires are still present but have diminished as he has pursued God.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/homosexuality-is-caused-mainly-by.html#more
>I have been assessing the verses I've been "harping on about" in context. I'm sorry you are unable to understand that.
- I've already explained the biblical context of Romans 1:32, yet you continue to erroneously maintain that Paul is calling for Christians to put homosexuals to death. Your interpretation does not coincide with the basic context of the New Testament. If you believe that I am incorrect, please point out any of the 9 points in the above post outline that you disagree with.
Though I have asked you several times, you have so far been unable to find fault with any of the points in the outline.
DeleteExcept that both myself and anonymous have pointed to passages in the NT which indicate that the mosaic laws are still in effect for Christians (eg. Matt 5:17). You have failed to adequately address this.
As noted in the scriptures in the above post, Christians are to be salt and light, to speak the truth in love as agents for positive change in society. This applies to helping gays to understand God's redeeming truth with regard to homosexuality.
Which says nothing about denying homosexual couples the state rights associated with marriage. Christians can criticize homosexuality all they want, but they step beyond "speaking the truth" when they deny others equality.
What Christians like yourself, who appose SSM are doing is bigoted, not righteous.
Moore says his homosexual desires are still present but have diminished as he has pursued God.
Your points on that post have been thoroughly trashed. Not to mention that even if homosexuality were entirely a choice, like smoking, you're still being bigoted in opposing the freedom of those who choose this to enjoy the same rights of those who do not.
Not to mention the fact that you are trying to impose your own religious beliefs upon a secular state, something which is not only against your constitution, but should be opposed by anyone who values the benefits afforded by a secular state.
I've already explained the biblical context of Romans 1:32, yet you continue to erroneously maintain that Paul is calling for Christians to put homosexuals to death.
No, I was pointing out that under Christianity homosexulity (and child disobedience) are worthy of death, and since Jesus appears to claim the laws are still in effect (and Paul seems to agree, as both myself and anonymous have demonstrated in the previous post), that Christians, to be consistent, ought to be calling for the death penalty for these sins (as their god has commanded).
I also pointed out that even if the text DOES say what you claim, that your god is barbaric, condemning people to death (and far far worse) for things which are of no consequence. Your god, if it existed, has absolutely no sense of proportion.
Your interpretation does not coincide with the basic context of the New Testament.
The NT (and the OT for that matter) is not a single text by a single author, but rather a collection of different texts which have been written and redacted (somertimes quite frequently) and often by authors unknown. You cannot claim there is some "basic context" of the NT. There are obvious tensions between the different books (different theological views from the different authors), so this claim of yours is rubbish. Each of the texts should be treated as a separate work (possibly grouping the legitimate letters of Paul together).
If you believe that I am incorrect, please point out any of the 9 points in the above post outline that you disagree with.
I suspect given the diverse nature of the texts of the Christian Bible, and the diverse interpretations of them which exist, I could take issue with each and every point you make.
What makes you think your interpretation is correct, Rick?
>Except that both myself and anonymous have pointed to passages in the NT which indicate that the mosaic laws are still in effect for Christians (eg. Matt 5:17).
Delete- As noted in previous comments, the word "fulfill" does not mean "enforce" no matter how many times secular atheists may claim it does.
Likewise, "love" fulfilling the law in Galatians 5.14 does not mean killing homosexuals, no matter how many times a person may claim otherwise in the comments.
And, again, the establishment of a "new covenant" does imply that an old covenant has been superseded in some way, shape or form, no matter how many times a person may claim otherwise.
But if you want to join Anonymous in writing your own Newspeak Bible Translation, you are more than welcome to.
In answer to my question...
"If you believe that I am incorrect, please point out any of the 9 points in the above post outline that you disagree with."
- not one specific point was brought up. Let us know when your Newspeak Bible Translation is complete and then maybe you will have some published scriptural references available to support your claims. :)
Hope you're OK, Rick, since it's been more than a week.
ReplyDeleteBe well.