The Threat of Atheism

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

This passage is saying they have not come to pass (fulfilled) until heaven and earth themselves disappear, and is specifically warning followers from believing that simply because Jesus is here the Law is irrelevant now.

No it isn't. It says that the words of the Law won't dissappear or become irrelevant in our lives. I read the Torah and still seek moral instruction from it as with the rest of the Bible. The meaning of certain sections for Christians are not the same as they were for the Jews at the time though. Animal sacrifice is a notable example. The practice of sacrifice still remains in the Eucharist and in the sacrifice that Jesus made for us on the cross. These things just took on new understandings for Christians. God revealed what was hidden as He promised.

philologos

Naz_st wrote: »

But didn't Jesus himself specifically reinforce the OT laws when he said for example:

"He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." [Matthew 15:4-7] and
"For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death" [Mark 7:9-10]

which is directly reinforcing Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (for example) and the punishment there defined?

Jesus was quoting the Torah and he was showing the Pharisees their hypocrisy in worship. It's best to use the context. According to Christianity, Christ's death was our death if we believe in Him, and His Ressurection was our resurrection (Romans 6, 1 Corinthians 15). I have already received my penalty for my sins, because Jesus paid it in full. If I have claimed this mercy, I should also show mercy to others. Jesus has an entire parable concerning debt where he says that a master forgives the debt of a servant, and the servant goes out and seeks the debt of someone who owes him. The master has him punished for his hypocrisy. If we are in mercy and if we have been truly saved by grace by faith (Ephesians 2) in Jesus Christ we cannot do the same to others without being hypocrites.

TheInquisitor

Tigger wrote: »

1)no such anthromorphic personality tbh

2)his noodleness dosen't interfeer with such matters

3)but who created the asthenosphere?

4)why would he activate a volcano? sure its written; thats how he turned lott's wife into salt , according to the bible and the History Channel.

5)if you are can i have the eurolotto numbers for tonite pls

1) There's as much a chance as there is in any god. Prove to me conclusively that there isn't a mother earth out there!

2) God can't either because he/she it doesn't exist

3)When asteroids and comments surrording the sun came together because of their own magetic pull eventually creating all the planets including earth which because of extreme heat the at the centre of earth the core is molten, and moving because of the magnetic field which the tectonic plates float on and where they collide create volcanos. Why doesn't god create a volcano in ireland? because there are no plates meeting or separting here.

4) Didn't turn them into salt but into stone when they got hit by a pyroclastic flow caused by the volcanic eruption. You can't use the history channel in this case as a source as all it was doing is going through christianity's version of events using the bible as a reference. That would be like me saying something, rte quoting me and then me quoting rte quoting me. Bit ridiculous

5) No only got the lotto numbers

Tigger

TheInquisitor wrote: »

1) There's as much a chance as there is in any god. Prove to me conclusively that there isn't a mother earth out there!

can't prove a negative thats why the choclate teapot analogy works

2) God can't either because he/she it doesn't exist

he existes as much as any non-corperoeal being in the minds of the faithfull

3)When asteroids and comments surrording the sun came together because of their own magetic pull eventually creating all the planets including earth which because of extreme heat the at the centre of earth the core is molten, and moving because of the magnetic field which the tectonic plates float on and where they collide create volcanos. Why doesn't god create a volcano in ireland? because there are no plates meeting or separting here.

ok first it was gravity not electromagnitigsim that melded the planets

the techtonic plates float on magma not on magnatisim and the sugar loaf was a volcano

4) Didn't turn them into salt but into stone when they got hit by a pyroclastic flow caused by the volcanic eruption. You can't use the history channel in this case as a source as all it was doing is going through christianity's version of events using the bible as a reference. That would be like me saying something, rte quoting me and then me quoting rte quoting me. Bit ridiculous

do you think i'm a christian? i don't even believe in christmas cards

5) No only got the lotto numbers

not god then

philologos

TheInquisitor wrote: »

1) There's as much a chance as there is in any god. Prove to me conclusively that there isn't a mother earth out there!

God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. I.E we cannot provide conclusive proof. We can only indicate for God's existence or lack thereof. What suggests that God exists, or what doesn't is the only way we can conduct a discussion on it.

TheInquisitor wrote: »

2) God can't either because he/she it doesn't exist

Come on this is about as childish as saying "God can because God exists" as factual. It isn't and if you are going to get into a discussion about it you will have to at least recognise that the God question isn't as closed as you make it out to be. This is equivalent to the faith statements you criticise.

TheInquisitor wrote: »

4) Didn't turn them into salt but into stone when they got hit by a pyroclastic flow caused by the volcanic eruption. You can't use the history channel in this case as a source as all it was doing is going through christianity's version of events using the bible as a reference. That would be like me saying something, rte quoting me and then me quoting rte quoting me. Bit ridiculous

It's not really. The Bible is the hypothesis, one must appeal to external sources to make in anyway an effective indication of events. I.E The Bible alone isn't enough for someone who doesn't believe in God. I can recognise that much.

TheInquisitor

Tigger wrote: »

not god then

I'm god to the ants i crush, but at least they can see me.

TheInquisitor

Jakkass wrote: »

Come on this is about as childish as saying "God can because God exists" as factual. It isn't and if you are going to get into a discussion about it you will have to at least recognise that the God question isn't as closed as you make it out to be. This is equivalent to the faith statements you criticise.

Agreed childish statement will try not to make it in future!

Popinjay

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus brought hundreds of prophesies about Him in the Old Testament into actuality. There are more than just laws in the Old Testament it's about a personal relationship with God. Atheists somehow think the only thing in the Bible is laws. No, it's a work of poetry, wisdom and history too.



Jesus carried out His role as Messiah. He fulfilled the Torah when it said that God would raise one from their own people to preach the truth with authority (Deuteronomy 18). Muslims argue that this was Muhammad, however Muhammad was not of the Jewish people. Jesus was. Jesus didn't break Shabbat laws, He gave them their true meaning which the Pharisees had distorted. The Shabbat is for man, not man for the Shabbat.



See definition 1. Measuring up to Messianic standards.



No I don't. The Torah remains with us, Jesus revealed the true meaning of the Torah that the Jews had not received. Isaiah 49 says that God would reveal new things to His people, things that were hidden would become apparent. Jesus was what was hidden, and Jesus was what became apparent. The Messiah they had been told about was mysterious. This mystery was unleashed, not in the way that a lot of Jews expected it.



Yes, it wasn't removed, it was fulfilled. You seem to be confused about this notion. We still sacrifice to God when we celebrate the Eucharist (See Genesis 14 this is biblical prophesy fulfilled, the Sacrifice of Abraham (Genesis 22) was a sign of what was to come, God giving up His own son for the sins of the world). We still have God's authority ruling over our nations as God has appointed leaders (Romans 13:1). We still remember Passover, as Jesus was crucified for our sins as the Lamb of God just as the lamb was placed on the doors of the Israelites in Egypt. The Torah remains with us and is crucial revelation. It's moral truth in it's moral law is the same as it was when Moses revealed it to the Israelites. In the New Covenant of Jesus Christ the concept of atonement and of ceremony still exists, just in a different way than it existed for the Jews. All of these things are continuations of what has gone before but is also new because of the prophesy of God having come to fruition.

Had a long response done up but got logged out. Here's the jist:

Paragraph 1 = Irrelevent. Nobody here has claimed (or indicated in any way that they believe) that the bible, and the OT in particular, is just a load of laws. I find it rather insulting that you would think me that stupid. Besdie the point though because this discussion is about the laws and is in response to your claim that the laws have been fulfilled, which you take to mean (with the exception of 'moral laws') they no longer apply.

Firstly, you are the one making this distinction which is rather innacurate as Jesus never seperated moral, ceremonial or judicial laws. He referred to the law, the law alone and unless you can cite otherwise, the law as a whole (Allowing for some instances where he discusssed a specific law, which, from preceding passages, is clearly not the case in this instance).

Paragraph 2 = Again irrelvent. It doesn't matter what prophecies you thinkwere fulfilled. As I said, this discussion is about the law. I think many jews would hold a differentn interpretation of what messianic prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus but that's a whole other conversation and has no place in this one.

Therefore, in relation to this discussion about the law, you're going to have to do a bit better to describe how all four meanings of the word 'fulfill' can be applied to what Jesus did with the law.

Second part of Par. 2 = He definintely broke the letter of the law regarding healing on the sabbath and allowable travel distance on the sabbath. The fact that he argued his way out of it does not negate the fact that the law said one thing and he did another. I would personally argue that as he is both Jesus and god that he doesn't need to keep hisown laws (a point you've made before). I disagree with the point but it's a better defence than the one you've provided.

Paragraph 3 = What other meaning is there in relation to 'Don't wear mixed fabrics'. It's fairly self-explanatory and it is a law. Nothing to be revealed.

Paragraph 4 = This is where we get to the point of the discussion. Jesus said the law would not be removed or changed in any way (jot or tittle) until heaven and earth came to an end. This is a remarkably straightforward remark. Heaven and earth are not at an end (yet) the law (all of it) still applies. There can be no contradiction with the words of Jesus. He is both man and god and a lovely earleir quote I threw in (Matthew 4:4 - "Every word of God"), suggests that what god says man cannot ignore. You're ignoring the exact words Jesus said.

I appreciate that you're the only Christian engaging in this discussion so I know post volume can get on top of you. Thanks for taking the time so far, I'm enjoying this debate as it's something I've always felt regarding that interpretation of what Jesus says in Matthew.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

No it isn't. It says that the words of the Law won't dissappear or become irrelevant in our lives. I read the Torah and still seek moral instruction from it as with the rest of the Bible.

Reading the Law is not the same as following it, though is it. You do not follow the majority of the Old Testament laws, most Christians don't.

This, to me, would be what Jesus means by the laws disappearing. What is the point of the Law if it is not followed.

Jakkass wrote: »

The meaning of certain sections for Christians are not the same as they were for the Jews at the time though. Animal sacrifice is a notable example. The practice of sacrifice still remains in the Eucharist and in the sacrifice that Jesus made for us on the cross.

Again that would seem to be the type of interpretation that Jesus is warning about. Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will disappear. Changing the entire context of sacrifice would qualify as the smallest letter disappearing. The argument that well the broad sentiment remains would be exactly what Jesus is railing about here. Otherwise why use such exact phrasing.

Or to put it another, what in your opinion would qualify as a letter disappearing from the Law if what later Christians did isn't considered this?

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus was quoting the Torah and he was showing the Pharisees their hypocrisy in worship. It's best to use the context.

It seems to me that the context is Jesus berating the Pharisees for being more concerned with their own man-made traditions and thereby ignoring "God's Law" (OT)? Implying that it should still be adhered to?

Mark 7:8-9 :"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

philologos

I agree he is saying that. The penalty is different in the New Testament due to the Crucifixion. Otherwise it would have been worthless. (1 Corinthians 15:14) We are deemed punished for our sins when we believe in Jesus, we are considered a new creation when we are Resurrected with Him (2 Corinthians 5:17). I've explained the role of forgiveness adequately. If we have received grace, we are accountable for our own sins if we do not forgive others (See the end of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6).

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree he is saying that. The penalty is different in the New Testament due to the Crucifixion.

So then, to summarise:

All the OT laws are still morally correct, and should be adhered to - it's only the punishment that is different? (Essentially, because Christ was punished for the sin instead).

If this is correct, shouldn't modern Christians still be trying to adhere to all the crazy Old Testament laws? (Just because the punishment has changed shouldn't mean the laws should be ignored right?).

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

We are deemed punished for our sins when we believe in Jesus

This phrase seemed oddly appropriate to both sides of the debate...

rantyface

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity doesn't support slavery. It permits it if it is done with respect to the one who is serving the master (Ephesians chapter 6, Colossians chapter 4).

So it acknowledges slavery, comments on it, doesn't condemn it.
The point is, even most atheists would be more ethical than that. I know everyone brings it up, but there is also support for rape in the bible.

I just don't see why you defend every bit of it, even when it's clearly monstrous. It's good that you like the nice appealing bits like "love your neighbour", and maybe you wouldn't be able to be a good person without it, but to defend every passage and say it's god's word is ludicrous.

For it's time it is a good piece of work, but it's dated. I won't condemn it outright, but it was made up at a time when slavery and rape, cruelty and oppression were cultural norms and we've moved on

Popinjay

Naz_st wrote: »

So then, to summarise:

All the OT laws are still morally correct, and should be adhered to - it's only the punishment that is different? (Essentially, because Christ was punished for the sin instead).

If this is correct, shouldn't modern Christians still be trying to adhere to all the crazy Old Testament laws? (Just because the punishment has changed shouldn't mean the laws should be ignored right?).

Essentially... this! ^^^^^^^^^^

Jakkass, from what you have been saying, and what Jesus himself says in Matthew, this seems to be the case (or at least as close to your definition of the situation as is possible*).

Not following all of the laws of the Torah because the punishment has changed appears to be comparable to saying "Of course speeding while drunk is against the law, but the guard won't give me a fine, sure I'm seeing his sister. I'll have a few more pints so."

*Edit: In my opinion, changing the punishment is changing the law. Some of the laws regularly prescribed certain distinct punishments for distinct breaches. Therefore, I find this incompatible with Jesus' words in Matthew.

I'm under the impression that your attitude to this area stems from Pauline teaching (I could be wrong and if I am, my bad, apologies), but I would be more inclined to take the words of Jesus himself.

Is there a specific rule in theology which dictates the importance of differing teachings (like the chronology issue in the Koran- later=better) or is a hierarchy of God(The trinity) on down in importance of words generally accepted?

philologos

Popinjay: I will leave a longer explanation for you later.

Animal sacrifice is done away with as Jesus does away with our sins. The Father has given all authority to Him. He is the only High Priest of Christianity and as such He is the only one who could rule in Torah. When he was doing the Sermon of the Mount, He was ruling on the Torah, giving the final word on several key aspects of Jewish life and leaving an example for His followers to follow on from. As such yes, we advocate following all laws of the Torah except for those which have been further elaborated upon by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament.

Jeremiah said the New Covenant would differ from the Old Covenant. This is to be expected when the Old Covenant is for Jews only, and the New Covenant is for the entire world. As I say the New Testament explains my position perfectly. Elements have been fulfilled. Such as animal sacrifice which we still follow by accepting Jesus' sacrifice. The Passover which we still recognise by following Jesus' crucifixion (which has parallels to the Jewish passover). The Old Testament contains many many laws which are perfectly binding on Christians. Laws which were intended to separate Jews from Gentiles have been fulfilled as we have been made one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

Popinjay

Jakkass wrote: »

Popinjay: I will leave a longer explanation for you later.

Cool. I don't know how often I'll get on over the weekend but I'll try to check it out.

(Galatians 3:28).

I read the rest of that section regarding the law, seems to pretty much outline your own position on it. I notice none of the references throughout the letter ("It is written...") referred to actual teachings of Jesus according to the gospels but were largely OT from the prophets. Odd that considering the importance that very letter places on Jesus.

I would have liked to ask him his opinion of the passage in Matthew we're discussing. Another reason to keep working on that time-machine.:)

bnt

Jakkass wrote: »

Popinjay: I will leave a longer explanation for you later.

Animal sacrifice is done away with as Jesus does away with our sins.

...

Laws which were intended to separate Jews from Gentiles have been fulfilled as we have been made one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

Jakkass, can you put yourself in my shoes for a minute? I'm an atheist: I've seen that kind of explanation before, and it doesn't do anything for me. I've read it, and your other responses, and I'm none-the-wiser, because I do not share the underlying assumptions behind your posts i.e. the validity of Christianity (or any other religion). Maybe people are "playing along" with you here, but that doesn't mean we believe what you're preaching in any fundamental sense.

I honestly don't see how that helps answer the claims made in the original post. This is, after all, a forum for atheists & agnostics to use. Christians and those of other religions have their own forums. If the aim is to convert people, you're not going to do it by preaching at them. You're talking to people who do not accept words (or "testimony") alone as evidence of anything, never mind the kind of evidence that would be necessary for us to start believing in your particular religion.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

The Old Testament contains many many laws which are perfectly binding on Christians. Laws which were intended to separate Jews from Gentiles have been fulfilled as we have been made one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

I'm not sure if you aren't following the objections or what, but this is exactly what a reading of Matthew would seem to contradict. Jesus associates fulfilment of the Law with the end times and that not a single letter of the law will disappear until this has taken place. The assumption being that when this happens all of the laws will disappear because they are fulfilled. The idea that some laws can be fulfilled now and some later at the end would seem to directly contradict this.

Basically no law has been fulfilled until they all have and that will not take place until heaven and earth disappear. Jesus has come to do this but has not done it and it won't be done until the end. He is specifically telling these people that his coming will not change anything until it is all changed.

This sort of interpretation that some laws do not apply any more seems to be exactly what Jesus is complaining about. I appreciate you disagree but can you tell us why you disagree rather than simply stating that some laws have been fulfilled, something that would appear to contract these passages.

Popinjay

bnt wrote: »

Jakkass, can you put yourself in my shoes for a minute? I'm an atheist: I've seen that kind of explanation before, and it doesn't do anything for me. I've read it, and your other responses, and I'm none-the-wiser, because I do not share the underlying assumptions behind your posts i.e. the validity of Christianity (or any other religion). Maybe people are "playing along" with you here, but that doesn't mean we believe what you're preaching in any fundamental sense.

I honestly don't see how that helps answer the claims made in the original post. This is, after all, a forum for atheists & agnostics to use. Christians and those of other religions have their own forums. If the aim is to convert people, you're not going to do it by preaching at them. You're talking to people who do not accept words (or "testimony") alone as evidence of anything, never mind the kind of evidence that would be necessary for us to start believing in your particular religion.

FWIW I'm essentially suspending disbelief for the purposes of this discussion. Yes, I'm an athiest. I also don't believe the events Dickens, Dumas or Banks write about either. That doesn't stop me from being able to discuss the words and actions of characters in their books. I see no reason why it should in this case.

TheInquisitor

Ah now, fine i disagree with Jakkass on almost everything but still he's the only christain over here and we can't exactly have a debate if we all believe the same thing! Also i think slowly but surely we'll turn him ( JOKIN)

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

As such yes, we advocate following all laws of the Torah except for those which have been further elaborated upon by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament.

Ok, well then if we just take one of the books of the Torah, say Deuteronomy, then you believe that modern Christians:

Should destroy the altars, images, and places of worship of those with different religions. 7:5

Should kill everyone with religious beliefs that are different than your own. (Including their family, friends, and neighbors) 13:6-10, 13:12-16, 17:2-7

Shouldn't plough a field with both an ox and an ass together 22:10

Shouldn't wear garments made with two different threads 22:11

Shouldn't go to church if they have been kicked in the balls 23:1

Shouldn't go to church if they are a bastard (and all their sons for ten generations) 23:2

and modern Christian Women:

Shouldn't wear mens clothes 22:5

Should be sure to keep the "tokens" of their wedding night virginity 22:13-21

And then the only difference from an enforcement perspective is that instead of the punishment in the OT for not abiding by these things (namely that God will, among other things: smite you with hemorrhoids, madness, and blindness, burn or starve you to death, have you eaten by animals, have snakes bite you and then force you eat your own children. 28:15-68), Jesus has been tortured and killed instead?

Also, don't you think it cheapens the whole concept of Jesus dying for our sins when he was tortured and killed so that we wouldn't have to be put to death for such banalities as wearing clothes made from two different threads?

mewso

This guy does a great job of answering the OP in terms of the question of why atheists are unelectable in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwUXNZGv0JI

philologos

bnt wrote: »

Jakkass, can you put yourself in my shoes for a minute? I'm an atheist: I've seen that kind of explanation before, and it doesn't do anything for me. I've read it, and your other responses, and I'm none-the-wiser, because I do not share the underlying assumptions behind your posts i.e. the validity of Christianity (or any other religion). Maybe people are "playing along" with you here, but that doesn't mean we believe what you're preaching in any fundamental sense.

I'm aware that you are an atheist. I'm responding to other peoples queries, not yours. Therefore I can't expect my replies to please everyone because they are not intended to satisfy everyones questions.

bnt wrote: »

I honestly don't see how that helps answer the claims made in the original post. This is, after all, a forum for atheists & agnostics to use. Christians and those of other religions have their own forums. If the aim is to convert people, you're not going to do it by preaching at them. You're talking to people who do not accept words (or "testimony") alone as evidence of anything, never mind the kind of evidence that would be necessary for us to start believing in your particular religion.

They don't intend to, they intend to respond to further questioning I have been subjected to in this thread.

I don't aim to convert any of you. I can't convert any of you. If you are going to seek God, it will be because God has called you. I can only lay the seeds in peoples lives, I can't actually cause them to sprout myself.

philologos

Naz_st wrote: »

Should destroy the altars, images, and places of worship of those with different religions. 7:5

The judicial law of the Torah bound State of Israel which does not exist. Christians are to follow the laws of their own respective States (Romans 13:1)

Naz_st wrote: »

Should kill everyone with religious beliefs that are different than your own. (Including their family, friends, and neighbors) 13:6-10, 13:12-16, 17:2-7

I've explained why the death penalty isn't applied any more in modern Christianity in several posts. It appears that you are being obtuse now. It is still against the law to believe in another religion, but the penalty is no longer to put them to death. So yes believing in other gods is a sin before Him and He will punish all those who do at the final judgement.

Naz_st wrote: »

Shouldn't plough a field with both an ox and an ass together 22:10

Thank God for mechanisation

Naz_st wrote: »

Shouldn't wear garments made with two different threads 22:11

Ceremonial laws aimed to separate Jews from Gentiles and to keep them culturally distinct. Jesus broke the barrier between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2).

Naz_st wrote: »

Shouldn't go to church if they have been kicked in the balls 23:1

Not church. The Jewish Temple is not the same thing as the church. These laws cannot apply as the Temple was destroyed in 66AD.

Naz_st wrote: »

Shouldn't go to church if they are a bastard (and all their sons for ten generations) 23:2

See above.

Naz_st wrote: »

Shouldn't wear mens clothes 22:5

Men shouldn't cross dress either. This could easily refer to what is culturally considered as "mens clothes" throughout the age. Many are unisex now however.

Naz_st wrote: »

Should be sure to keep the "tokens" of their wedding night virginity 22:13-2

Was this to verify that the woman had indeed been a virgin when they were married? Was often used in divorce cases in Torah Israel. I just got home from work and I don't have a Bible to hand, so I will read this later tomorrow.

Naz_st wrote: »

Also, don't you think it cheapens the whole concept of Jesus dying for our sins when he was tortured and killed so that we wouldn't have to be put to death for such banalities as wearing clothes made from two different threads?

Jesus did more for us than died for our sins. He preached the New Covenant that was prophesied by Jeremiah. Again I need to research this myself more before I comment. I have explained why we don't stone people to death however and the role of ceremonial law.

Dave!

F*cking hell Jakass, your sophistry is actually sickening. You'll perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that that bloody book is perfect. Laughable.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained why the death penalty isn't applied any more in modern Christianity in several posts. It appears that you are being obtuse now.

I wasn't being obtuse: what I interpreted from what you were saying was that the "divine punishment" for not obeying a commandment was mitigated by Jesus' crucifixion, but the commandment itself nonetheless retained its authority over Christians? Well, isn't Deuteronomy 13:6 a commandment, not a punishment? And didn't Jesus allude to this sort of familial strife of turning child against parent and brother againsts sister in the New Testament somewhere also (chapter & verse escapes me right now)?
Anyway - this whole line of contrived reasoning seems pretty obtuse to me and understanding it is hardly straightforward.

robindch

Folks -- politeness please

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

F*cking hell Jakass, your sophistry is actually sickening. You'll perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that that bloody book is perfect. Laughable.

It isn't sophistry, anyone who has read the New Testament and has a brain should be able to come to this conclusion.

philologos

Naz_st wrote: »

I wasn't being obtuse: what I interpreted from what you were saying was that the "divine punishment" for not obeying a commandment was mitigated by Jesus' crucifixion, but the commandment itself nonetheless retained its authority over Christians? Well, isn't Deuteronomy 13:6 a commandment, not a punishment? And didn't Jesus allude to this sort of familial strife of turning child against parent and brother againsts sister in the New Testament somewhere also (chapter & verse escapes me right now)?
Anyway - this whole line of contrived reasoning seems pretty obtuse to me and understanding it is hardly straightforward.

This doesn't mean violence. He said that He (Jesus Christ) would turn people from eachother. This is referring to when people start believing in the Gospel they may be rejected by their families. Indeed, this has happened, and it happens every day.