Sincerety of Christian beliefs

Mark Hamill

Continued from here.

philologos wrote: »

Edit: Can I ask you to address the original question I put to you, claiming that Christians are insincere in their beliefs. This is going a bit off on a tangent. Why do you believe that? Do you think for example that I'm not straight with you about my Christianity?

I already said that Zilla explained it fine, but if you need me to say it again: Christians have a tendency to say one they believe one thing (something usually nice and benevolent sounding), but either act more according to a more malevolent interpretation, or simply not at all. An example of the former would be the the pope saying things like "hate the sin, not the sinner" but then blessing, in person, the woman who came up with the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda. An example of the latter would the extensive number of people in this country who call themselves "Catholic" despite barely being theistic at all.
I'm not saying you, or every christian, is like this, but in general the likelyhood of an anonymous christian actually believing something exactly as they say it is pretty low, and so its better to go by their actions.

philologos wrote: »

No. I'm referring to Zillah focussing what seems to be exclusively on nominal Christians rather than practising ones.

But its relevant to my point. The reason we can't trust a christian (we don't know personally) in what they say is because there are so many nominal christians that its impossible to know if they are being sincere or not, just going by what they say.

philologos wrote: »

How many Christians do I personally know, I'd say easily over a hundred from a number of different denominations.

So 100 christians, from the over 2 billion in the world. You numbers of course being skewed by the fact that evangelical theists of any sort are slightly more likely to have sincerely described beliefs, given that they bother to discuss them more than nominal christians, which greatly out number them.

philologos wrote: »

Romans 1:26 doesn't explain what you claim it does. What it does describe is God's attitude towards sin, and His impending wrath concerning it. Perhaps you should read Romans as a whole rather than isolating passages out of it?

Romans 1:26/27:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
God makes people gay and then punishes them for it?

philologos wrote: »

if I have been forgiven by Jesus and His saving death on the cross, how can I expect to condemn someone else in turn? (Matthew 18 explains this perfectly).

You would have to ask Paul, the apostle, who still advocate death for homosexuality, and other sins which god made them do (Romans 1:24,26,28), even after Jesus died for their sins too.

philologos wrote: »

Christians have since the beginning of Christianity read the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Jesus and what He did. So, essentially we read the Old Testament while considering what Jesus did for humanity. Christians believe that the Torah was fulfilled by Jesus, and Christians believe that the Old Testament was a shadow of what was to come in Jesus. So isolating passages again without this understanding is also disingenuous.

Odd that christians think that Jesus somehow negates the rules of the Torah, Jesus certainly didn't think so:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

2)"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I already said that Zilla explained it fine, but if you need me to say it again: Christians have a tendency to say one they believe one thing (something usually nice and benevolent sounding), but either act more according to a more malevolent interpretation, or simply not at all. An example of the former would be the the pope saying things like "hate the sin, not the sinner" but then blessing, in person, the woman who came up with the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda. An example of the latter would the extensive number of people in this country who call themselves "Catholic" despite barely being theistic at all.
I'm not saying you, or every christian, is like this, but in general the likelyhood of an anonymous christian actually believing something exactly as they say it is pretty low, and so its better to go by their actions.

First off - what do you mean by Christian, or Christianity?

A Christian is one who believes in one God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) who created the heavens and the earth, that mankind has rebelled against God and His standards and as a result each one of us is guilty of sin, and that Jesus Christ came into the world to rescue mankind from sin by standing in their place on the cross, taking God's righteous wrath upon Himself, and rising again on the third day to bring new life in His name. Hence the common cliché being "born again". As a result of this process one is restored bit by bit to be the person they were created to be until Jesus comes again to judge the world. That's 101.

If one doesn't believe in those fundamental things, then I don't know in what meaningful sense they believe in Christianity. I'm aware that there are a lot of people who would nominally call themselves Christians but who might not believe in the Gospel. I share that concern with you. From my perspective, I'd hope to welcome them into Christian community, and introduce them more and more to what the Bible has to say and the great news of Jesus so that they would come to believe and have life in His name.

The criteria for Christian belief and what it constitutes is from Scripture. If we depart from Scripture, then we are dealing on the speculation of individuals. The only thing that can keep us grounded is if we look to what Christians accept to be God's word.

Claiming that the likelihood of an anonymous Christian believing what I do is rather low depends very strongly on what the criteria for what Christianity is. I'd argue very clearly from Scripture that given that Jesus has come to bring salvation to all people by becoming cursed by being hung to a cross for me, that it is entirely improper for me advocate the same in respect to others. Rather what I'd hope and long for is that people came to a living faith in Jesus.

Perhaps a lot of the confusion comes down to mixing up nominal Christianity with a belief in Biblical truth.

I guess my concern is this. We can't really have a decent discussion on this forum if you can't trust me in being sincere in terms of what I believe. I agree with you that nominalism is a problem that needs to be addressed within Christian community and Christian churches.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But its relevant to my point. The reason we can't trust a christian (we don't know personally) in what they say is because there are so many nominal christians that its impossible to know if they are being sincere or not, just going by what they say.

Can you trust me? - That's really one of the questions I want to ask. The pointless

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So 100 christians, from the over 2 billion in the world. You numbers of course being skewed by the fact that evangelical theists of any sort are slightly more likely to have sincerely described beliefs, given that they bother to discuss them more than nominal christians, which greatly out number them.

The problem is whether or not people who claim to be "Christians" nominally really believe and trust in Jesus. The only polls that will be able to show us these are the rigidly theological.

I don't know if they are skewered towards the evangelical by the by. Evangelical Christians in the Republic of Ireland are few and far between. I guess the tricky part is that evangelicals find themselves in a lot of different denominations of Christianity. For example, I'm involved with a Church of England church.

Here's some starters of what I'd ask:

1) Do you believe that God created the heavens and the earth?
2) Do you believe that mankind fell into sin and as a result liable to God's wrath?
3) Do you believe that Jesus came to die for mankind's sin on the cross?
4) Do you believe that Jesus rose again from the dead?
5) Do you believe in the Trinity?
6) Do you believe that Jesus was God in human flesh, and that He existed before the creation of the world?
7) Do you believe that Jesus will return to judge the world in righteousness?
8) Do you believe the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ?
9) Was Jesus born of the Virgin Mary via the Holy Spirit?

This is probably the only way to know this. I agree with you that Christian churches haven't done enough to teach Christians about even the most rudimentary Christian beliefs, and moreover I agree with you that the responses would be in the clear minority.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Romans 1:26/27:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
God makes people gay and then punishes them for it?

Let's look at the whole section Mark rather than isolating verses:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

God created mankind. He created people. What people do is another matter. Romans 1 doesn't speak just about homosexuality, it speaks of all sin and disobedience towards God.

Where you are right is that the wrath of God is revealed by the very fact that God gives people over to their dishonourable passions. The very fact that God allows for sin to continue is a sign that the wrath of God is revealed, and that the day of judgement will come.

If you look to Romans chapter 2 you'll see that it talks about the ultimate judgement of God. So, the very fact that sin in general exists is a sign of God's wrath to come. Sin manifests itself in many ways, but mankinds real problem is that they are unrighteous, ungodly and they suppress the truth. I personally did this for years of my life. I'm not any better or any worse, but God showed me His mercy (see Romans 3) through it.

I wish you'd actually read Romans as a whole rather than poring through it to isolate quotes, you might actually get the point of why Paul wrote it to begin with.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You would have to ask Paul, the apostle, who still advocate death for homosexuality, and other sins which god made them do (Romans 1:24,26,28), even after Jesus died for their sins too.

No. If you actually read Romans. Paul is starting his argument from Romans chapter 1 to point to chapter 3. That despite the fact that all have sinned before God (Romans 3:23) and all deserve to die because of their sin (not just homosexuality) but that Jesus came to save them He died as a propitiation (Romans 3:21-31). That's the point of why Paul is writing. Why not genuinely try to find out what Christians believe first?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Odd that christians think that Jesus somehow negates the rules of the Torah, Jesus certainly didn't think so:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

2)"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

I don't believe that Jesus negated the rules. I believe that He fulfilled them. There's a key difference.

Jesus satisfied the Law of Moses on our behalf, because by it we are condemned already. All have sinned, the law can't save. Some of the Laws of Moses were intended so that the Jewish people would remain separate from Gentiles (Jesus speaks about these being fulfilled in Mark 7), some of them were legal and pertained only to the State of Israel, others were moral. For example, we don't have to sacrifice animals because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for sin, the Lamb of God who took the sin of the world upon Himself.

Mark, why not try and actually understand what Christians believe before criticising them?

Mark Hamill

philologos wrote: »

First off - what do you mean by Christian, or Christianity?

By christian, I mean someone who calls themselves christian.
I get what you are saying with the next few paragraphs, that chistians should believe X, Y and Z, but many don't, the nominal or the cultural christians. But without knowing someone, if all you have is them saying they are a christian and then stating some rehearsed rhetoric in defence of a belief, how can you tell if they are an actual christian or not? The vast majority in this country are not christian (IMO anyway, they certainly aren't really catholic), so a better gauge of their actual beliefs is their actions rather their culturally driven self-labelling.

philologos wrote: »

Can you trust me? - That's really one of the questions I want to ask.

Like, I said I'm not saying you, or everyone who calls themselves christian is like this, but you are in the minority.

philologos wrote: »

Here's some starters of what I'd ask:

You're slightly missing my point. Someone who says they are a christian, should be answering the majority of these questions simply by saying "I am a christian". The fact that such questions are needed to qualify the label, shows that the act of labelling is fairly meaningless, by itself. People say they are christian, but without reference to Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Trinity etc. People who don't even understand the label of christian, are not going to be dependable sources of information on why they supposedly believe in loosely held christian dogma. Hence my original poi

philologos wrote: »

Let's look at the whole section Mark rather than isolating verses:

So these people do something to make god angry, god then makes them gay, which will also make him angry, and then punishes them for the lot of it?

philologos wrote: »

No. If you actually read Romans. Paul is starting his argument from Romans chapter 1 to point to chapter 3. That despite the fact that all have sinned before God (Romans 3:23) and all deserve to die because of their sin (not just homosexuality) but that Jesus came to save them He died as a propitiation (Romans 3:21-31). That's the point of why Paul is writing. Why not genuinely try to find out what Christians believe first?

If Paul is saying that everyone are saved from their sins by Jesus dying on the cross, then why is anything still a sin?

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that Jesus negated the rules. I believe that He fulfilled them. There's a key difference.

So all the rules still apply, just like Jesus says they should. But just to Israel, is it? Do you belief that homosexuals should be executed in Israel? Or is that a moral law that applies to everyone?
Since when is animal sacrifice to do with sin? I would have thought that animal sacrifice has to do with giving god glory, or bargaining for favour, like it does in every other religion that has, or had, animal sacrifice.

philologos

Hi Mark, before I continue, I think you've answered my question to my satisfaction now. I think I get what you mean now.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By christian, I mean someone who calls themselves christian.
I get what you are saying with the next few paragraphs, that chistians should believe X, Y and Z, but many don't, the nominal or the cultural christians. But without knowing someone, if all you have is them saying they are a christian and then stating some rehearsed rhetoric in defence of a belief, how can you tell if they are an actual christian or not? The vast majority in this country are not christian (IMO anyway, they certainly aren't really catholic), so a better gauge of their actual beliefs is their actions rather their culturally driven self-labelling.

You're referring to Christians on a specifically nominal level. That helps me a lot.

I'm saying that Christianity is based on the Bible, and if Christianity is based on the Biblical gospel, it has a number of criteria as to what it means to be a Christian. So what I'm talking about is a number of fundamental, essential Biblical Christian beliefs.

The beliefs that I've listed are primary issues. They are issues that are central to Christianity in so far as it is Biblically communicated.

For example, if someone denies the place of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection in the Christian faith I can be quite confident to say that that belief does not conform to the Biblical gospel.

If the Bible clearly says that Jesus is the Saviour of the entire world and that He is the only way to the Father and someone claims something else, then I have good room to doubt if their beliefs conform to Biblical Christianity.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Like, I said I'm not saying you, or everyone who calls themselves christian is like this, but you are in the minority.

This is why I am satisfied with your answer. I took your point to mean that you couldn't trust that I was being sincere or honest with you in terms of what I had believed. I thought that you were double guessing my motives. That's the only reason I asked you that question.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You're slightly missing my point. Someone who says they are a christian, should be answering the majority of these questions simply by saying "I am a christian". The fact that such questions are needed to qualify the label, shows that the act of labelling is fairly meaningless, by itself. People say they are christian, but without reference to Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Trinity etc. People who don't even understand the label of christian, are not going to be dependable sources of information on why they supposedly believe in loosely held christian dogma.

These questions are inherently what being a Christian means.

Personally I believe that our churches have failed us within the last century in terms of communicating the Bible seriously. I think churches need to change their approach to the Bible if they seriously want to have people rooted in the Scriptures, and people wholeheartedly believing and trusting in the Gospel.

The reason I would ask those questions would be to gauge to what extent we have fundamental problems within our churches and to begin to assess what to do next to promote Biblical literacy in our churches. If we have people in churches who don't believe and trust in the Gospel, we need to work on this.

To be honest - I find it hugely disappointing that in many churches we have fundamental problems with this, and I think the problem has seeped in in the last generation or two.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So these people do something to make god angry, god then makes them gay, which will also make him angry, and then punishes them for the lot of it?

No. That's not what the passage is saying. People reject God and His standards, and as a result God gives them over to sin. The fact that God has done this according to Romans chapter 1 is a sign that He will one day judge the world.

By the by, Romans 1 does not primarily deal with homosexuality. It deals with all sin. In the following section after 26 - 27 we have the following:

Romans 1:28-32 wrote:

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

I don't know about you, but I don't think Romans 1 is referring primarily to homosexuals. It's also referring to me. I'm guilty of pretty much all of this stuff at one point or another.

Romans 1:28-32 wrote:

If Paul is saying that everyone are saved from their sins by Jesus dying on the cross, then why is anything still a sin?

Sin is an attitude towards God, it is an attitude of rebellion and contempt for God and His standards. It is manifested in living in a way that He doesn't long for us to live.

Sin exists insofar as people reject God's rightful authority over creation.

The reason why Jesus stood on the cross was because we had sinned. It doesn't abrogate sin. Rather it pays the penalty for sin. Now that we are saved, we aren't to treat our grace cheaply, the reason we come to Jesus is because we want to restore our relationship with God, and live as He desires us to. It doesn't mean that God isn't the rightful Lord of creation, or that His standards don't count any longer.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So all the rules still apply, just like Jesus says they should. But just to Israel, is it? Do you belief that homosexuals should be executed in Israel? Or is that a moral law that applies to everyone?
Since when is animal sacrifice to do with sin? I would have thought that animal sacrifice has to do with giving god glory, or bargaining for favour, like it does in every other religion that has, or had, animal sacrifice.

Animal sacrifice in the Hebrew Scriptures had to do with restitution for sin. If you look to Leviticus for example. In Judaism every time someone sinned they had to make restitution for sin before the high priest with a sin offering.

The moral law of the Old Testament is much the same as the moral law in the New. What has been fulfilled are the ceremonial laws which made Jews distinct from Gentiles (because Jesus came for the whole world), and the judicial penalty of the Torah law because Jesus stood in our place on the cross.

For example, adultery is still morally wrong according to Christianity, the difference is that since Jesus has died and rose again to pay the penalty for my sin, it would be wrong for me to insist that someone else should die for theirs. Rather in the light of Jesus I should encourage all to repent and believe and trust in Him.

Jesus and all of the Apostles were clear that the Old Testament was a shadow for what was to come in the New Covenant which was established by His death and resurrection.

Dave!

I'm sensing that the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is going to be employed here ad nauseum.

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

I'm sensing that the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is going to be employed here ad nauseum.

It's not a fallacy to say that someone who doesn't believe in core Christian doctrine as found clearly in Scripture isn't a Christian.

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

I've provided both reason for claiming that, and there's also a Biblical standard to back it up.

Dave!

Scripture as interpreted by you. The existence of so many Christian denominations and sects would suggest that not everyone agrees with your interpretation, and you don't get to set the standard for others I'm afraid. I'm sure many Christians would contend that Christianity is as much, if not more, a personal faith defined by their own relationship with and understanding of God and scripture as it is a community thing with objective criteria that need to be met. As you're fond of pointing out, we all fall short of God's standards and expectations, we're all sinners, so if some of us fail to fully comprehend the majesty of His love as expressed through scripture, and translated by various flawed humans, then as long as we maintain a sincere faith in, and love for, Christ then we can surely call ourselves Christian.

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

Scripture as interpreted by you. The existence of so many Christian denominations and sects would suggest that not everyone agrees with your interpretation, and you don't get to set the standard for others I'm afraid. I'm sure many Christians would contend that Christianity is as much, if not more, a personal faith defined by their own relationship with and understanding of God and scripture as it is a community thing with objective criteria that need to be met. As you're fond of pointing out, we all fall short of God's standards and expectations, we're all sinners, so if some of us fail to fully comprehend the majesty of His love as expressed through scripture, and translated by various flawed humans, then as long as we maintain a sincere faith in, and love for, Christ then we can surely call ourselves Christian.

Do you think that reading is an entirely postmodern exercise? There's little interpretation in those 9 points that I've provided to Mark Hamill.

For example, is the Bible clear that Jesus died and rose again on the third day to save mankind from their sin. Unequivocally in all 4 Gospels, and throughout the New Testament as a whole. There's no way to escape it. I could literally rattle out dozens upon dozens of passages that explicitly say this. Abundantly clear.

If someone's beliefs are in direct contradiction to any of those points, I'd question it because all of those points are abundantly clear Scripturally:

1) Do you believe that God created the heavens and the earth?
2) Do you believe that mankind fell into sin and as a result liable to God's wrath?
3) Do you believe that Jesus came to die for mankind's sin on the cross?
4) Do you believe that Jesus rose again from the dead?
5) Do you believe in the Trinity?
6) Do you believe that Jesus was God in human flesh, and that He existed before the creation of the world?
7) Do you believe that Jesus will return to judge the world in righteousness?
8) Do you believe the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ?
9) Was Jesus born of the Virgin Mary via the Holy Spirit?

Christian faith means something in comparison to any other kind. It means that the character of that faith is based on Christianity, and Christianity is based on Scripture. It has been since the first century.

Dave!

I would have said it was similarly unambiguously clear from that Bible that God endorses slavery, women are inferior to men, gays should be killed, etc., but sure enough you've got a standard bit of sophistry that helps you to square this antediluvian morality with modern ethical thinking. I'd be confident enough that the Westboro Baptist Church would have a "reasonable" Biblical foundation for their nonsense. There's probably half a dozen passages in the Bible along the lines of "Just believe in God/seek penance/pray to Jesus and you will be saved" which could be equally said to trump specific directives. I can't remember what your workaround is that allows you to welcome stillborn babies and disenfranchised pre-Christian civilisations into the Kingdom of Heaven, but I'd say it could probably be broadened to include just about anybody.

Mark Hamill

philologos wrote: »

No. That's not what the passage is saying. People reject God and His standards, and as a result God gives them over to sin. The fact that God has done this according to Romans chapter 1 is a sign that He will one day judge the world.

By the by, Romans 1 does not primarily deal with homosexuality. It deals with all sin. In the following section after 26 - 27 we have the following:

I don't know about you, but I don't think Romans 1 is referring primarily to homosexuals. It's also referring to me. I'm guilty of pretty much all of this stuff at one point or another.

So god doesn't just make them gay for not giving glory to him, he makes them murderous and deceitful and evil. And then he punishes them. On what planet does that make sense? Someone does something specific wrong, so you make them do a whole range of wrong things, things they would never do by themselves, and then you punish them for the lot. Did god know that simply rejecting him wouldn't be seen as justification for death, so he had to make them bad enough to make their execution justified? Do you think all those who reject god are worthy of death?

philologos wrote: »

Sin is an attitude towards God,
...
or that His standards don't count any longer.

But the punishment for any sin we do is automatically paid. We shouldn't sin, but it doesn't matter because Jesus already paid the price. How does this not completely cheapen the notion of sin? Even if you say sins are only absolved if you accept Jesus, that just boils all possible sins to one position, the acceptance of Jesus. The only sin is to not believe in Jesus, nothing else is relevant at all.

philologos wrote: »

For example, adultery is still morally wrong according to Christianity, the difference is that since Jesus has died and rose again to pay the penalty for my sin, it would be wrong for me to insist that someone else should die for theirs. Rather in the light of Jesus I should encourage all to repent and believe and trust in Him.

Ah, so now its not that Jesus fulfils the laws, he simply appeals the sentence? This begs a couple of questions though:

How do you know which laws have been appealed, and to which extent? Jesus said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law", and yet some laws are simply ignored now, like they don't apply at all ("do not wear clothing made of two different materials", "Do not eat meat with blood in it", about half of Leviticus 19 etc.).

Why does a supposedly consistent god have one set of laws for Jews and one for the whole world? He omniscient, the laws are good subject to him making them (and therefore arbitrary). Why would he ever change a law? Where they not perfect?

Assuming the afterlife punishment still exists for these appeal laws (hence they are still sins) why did god bother to change the prescribed punishments for these laws at all? What difference does it make?

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So god doesn't just make them gay for not giving glory to him, he makes them murderous and deceitful and evil. And then he punishes them. On what planet does that make sense? Someone does something specific wrong, so you make them do a whole range of wrong things, things they would never do by themselves, and then you punish them for the lot. Did god know that simply rejecting him wouldn't be seen as justification for death, so he had to make them bad enough to make their execution justified? Do you think all those who reject god are worthy of death?

I'm going to abstract this to the general context of Romans which refers to sin, and ungodliness of all forms in the world. The reason why we see sin go unpunished, is because God gives those who reject and suppress the truth of God. God gives them over to sin, and indeed gave me over to sin on numerous occasions. This according to Romans 1 is a sign of God's judgement. All rebellion against God is ultimately a sign that God will judge the world one day.

To understand why Paul has written Romans 1 in this way one needs to look essentially to the whole of the book of Romans. He deals with the nature of sin, our problem insofar as we are all due God's judgement and we can't escape it, the solution namely that we are freely forgiven by grace and that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as a result of repenting and believing in the Gospel, and then it goes on more extensively to deal with what implications are there for the one who has already turned to believe and trust in Jesus.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the punishment for any sin we do is automatically paid. We shouldn't sin, but it doesn't matter because Jesus already paid the price. How does this not completely cheapen the notion of sin? Even if you say sins are only absolved if you accept Jesus, that just boils all possible sins to one position, the acceptance of Jesus. The only sin is to not believe in Jesus, nothing else is relevant at all.

Yes, it does matter. One has to repent and believe in the Gospel. After this point essentially what they have said and what they have committed to is to be no longer bound to sin, but to live for Jesus Christ. One should see a process in the new believer where through the work of God in them they become more and more like Jesus until the point where He returns.

Saying that it is a free ticket to sin and refusing to repent and turn away from sin is a strong indicator that one has misunderstood the gospel and has never been saved at all. Ones attitude to sin must change if they have become a Christian.

No - the reason why we need to be saved by Jesus is because we all deserve God's wrath and God's judgement because of our sin. If we refuse to accept Jesus as our Lord, that wrath and that punishment for our sin will be still upon us.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ah, so now its not that Jesus fulfils the laws, he simply appeals the sentence? This begs a couple of questions though:

Jesus fulfils the Law. We see it several times in the New Testament. Fulfilment means that the law has been satisfied by Jesus. Animal sacrifice is a perfect example. Jesus is the Lamb of the world, who took the sin of the world upon Himself. There is now no need for such things any longer. In that way, the law is satisfied by Jesus. He fulfilled its requirement on our behalf.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How do you know which laws have been appealed, and to which extent? Jesus said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law", and yet some laws are simply ignored now, like they don't apply at all ("do not wear clothing made of two different materials", "Do not eat meat with blood in it", about half of Leviticus 19 etc.).

That's why you should read Mark chapter 7 or Matthew chapter 15 in respect to dietary laws. To isolate one passage in Matthew from another in Matthew isn't good reading. Rather what one should do is read Matthew as a whole and then determine what place that passage has in the whole of Matthew in order to make sense of it.

Jesus brought in a New Covenant agreement between Jews and Gentiles, and we're told that covenant would differ (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews chapter 8).

Christians know which laws have been fulfilled by reading the Gospel and the New Testament. Christians have always read the Old Testament in light of the New since the beginnings of Christianity.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why does a supposedly consistent god have one set of laws for Jews and one for the whole world? He omniscient, the laws are good subject to him making them (and therefore arbitrary). Why would he ever change a law? Where they not perfect?

Because as the Bible mentions the law was in place for a time. The law was right and it is because of the law that we can see the extent of our sin. At the right time Christ was revealed as the only Saviour of the world. The law does not justify. One isn't justified by the law. If I have broken one law, I've still broken the law and I'm still rightfully guilty before God. I deserve His wrath. The law brings condemnation, it doesn't bring salvation. That's only by grace. As Abraham showed us in Genesis 15 that righteousness was reckoned to him by faith. In the same way we've received righteousness as a result of faith in Christ Jesus.

God didn't change the law, God established the Old Covenant for a time until the point when Christ would be revealed. The law has been fulfilled, not abolished, but nobody has ever been justified by it.

Biblical Christianity doesn't put forward that God changed His mind. Rather it shows that from the beginning of all creation, God intended to send Jesus, and all of this is one narrative from the beginning until the point where Jesus was revealed to the world. God from creation knew that Jesus would be born in human flesh to save the world.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Assuming the afterlife punishment still exists for these appeal laws (hence they are still sins) why did god bother to change the prescribed punishments for these laws at all? What difference does it make?

I don't think you get the point.

All have sinned. Everyone has sinned. God could have justifiably sent the whole world to hell for disobedience. The law brings condemnation, it brings us to a point where we realise the only possible means of being saved is by grace, by unmerited favour and forgiveness. That forgiveness was achieved through His Son Jesus.

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

I would have said it was similarly unambiguously clear from that Bible that God endorses slavery, women are inferior to men, gays should be killed, etc., but sure enough you've got a standard bit of sophistry that helps you to square this antediluvian morality with modern ethical thinking. I'd be confident enough that the Westboro Baptist Church would have a "reasonable" Biblical foundation for their nonsense. There's probably half a dozen passages in the Bible along the lines of "Just believe in God/seek penance/pray to Jesus and you will be saved" which could be equally said to trump specific directives. I can't remember what your workaround is that allows you to welcome stillborn babies and disenfranchised pre-Christian civilisations into the Kingdom of Heaven, but I'd say it could probably be broadened to include just about anybody.

Be as confident as you like. I'm more than happy to discuss the Biblical justification you have for any of these things (hopefully using your own reading of the Scripture rather than a google of out-of-context quotations).

My point with those 9 criteria which are pretty basic and have been held by Christian churches for 2,000 years is that they are extremely clear in Scripture.

Now you're flip flopping around from one moment claiming that reading the Bible is like post-modern philosophy to the next saying that the Bible is extremely clear on several things.

Make up your mind, and make your point and I'll happily discuss it. There's no "sophistry" at all. It makes me think I can't possibly win with you unless I accept that there is no god and Christianity is a load of twaddle.

If I didn't give you a decent explanation you'd say that it was rubbish and rightfully so.

If I do give you a decent explanation you'd say that it was sophistry.

I have to ask one question: What would be the point in discussing with you if I only have two possible outcomes for what you could say?

Unless you're going to move past that, I think it's a waste of time on both parts unfortunately.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I wish you'd actually read Romans as a whole rather than poring through it to isolate quotes, you might actually get the point of why Paul wrote it to begin with.

It's been a while since I've trawled through the whole of Romans, but one thing that did come across very clearly last time I did was the fact that it's not only nonsensical at a sentence-by-sentence and paragraph-by-paragraph level, but it was nonsensical as a whole too. At no resolution at all, did anything make sense, though it did have a certain consistency, albeit one which which was as unpleasant as it was superficial.

Mark Hamill

philologos wrote: »

I'm going to abstract this to the general context of Romans which refers to sin,
...
and then it goes on more extensively to deal with what implications are there for the one who has already turned to believe and trust in Jesus.

None of this answers my questions in my first paragraph. The people in Romans only sin in the first place is to reject god. So god's answer to that is take away their free will, force them to commit a whole plethora of other sins (hurting who knows how many innocent people) that they wouldn't have done on their own, so they can punished even further, after they die. But they wont be punished, as Jesus died for their sins anyway. How does this make sense? Why does god take away their free will? Why does he massively aggravate their crime? If the removal of sin only apply to those who accept Jesus, does this mean death is still the punishment for non christians?

philologos wrote: »

Yes, it does matter.
...
If we refuse to accept Jesus as our Lord, that wrath and that punishment for our sin will be still upon us.

You are still not answering my paragraphs.
As Romans shows us, there is only ONE sin, to reject god. Do that, and god makes you commit every other sin. Accept god and those other sins are washed away. I'm not talking about free tickets or anything like that, I'm talking about priorities - gods priority. In gods eyes, the only important thing is worshipping him. He doesn't care about the morality of any other act you do, no matter how horrible or evil it is, he makes you do all the evil and horrible acts you do, if you reject him.

philologos wrote: »

Jesus fulfils the Law. We see it several times in the New Testament. Fulfilment means that the law has been satisfied by Jesus. Animal sacrifice is a perfect example. Jesus is the Lamb of the world, who took the sin of the world upon Himself. There is now no need for such things any longer. In that way, the law is satisfied by Jesus. He fulfilled its requirement on our behalf.

You can disagree with me all you want, but thats what Jesus said.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17,18).
He fulfils them, but they still apply till the end of the world. Pointing out examples of people ignoring this is not an argument for people to ignore this.

philologos wrote: »

That's why you should read Mark chapter 7 or Matthew chapter 15 in respect to dietary laws. To isolate one passage in Matthew from another in Matthew isn't good reading. Rather what one should do is read Matthew as a whole and then determine what place that passage has in the whole of Matthew in order to make sense of it.

I'm looking at Mark 7 and Matthew 15, and in answer to some pharisees questioning why Jesus and his disciples ate without washing their hands, Jesus says "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." (Mark 7:15). This is just biologically wrong. Didn't Jesus know about infections and bacteria and diseases?

philologos wrote: »

Jesus brought in a New Covenant agreement between Jews and Gentiles, and we're told that covenant would differ (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews chapter 8).

How did the Jews and the Gentiles break the first covenant (Jeremiah 31:32)? Was that a free will sin, or was it god making them sin for doing something else? Why does god say that he will make a new covenant, but Jesus say that every law still applies (even accepting for a moment that its implied that the punishment is different) (Jeremiah 31:32, Matthew 5:18)? Why does god say he is going to take away peoples free will to not believe in him (Jeremiah 31:34)?

philologos wrote: »

Christians know which laws have been fulfilled by reading the Gospel and the New Testament. Christians have always read the Old Testament in light of the New since the beginnings of Christianity.

But a lot of the OT laws aren't mentioned at all in the NT. Do you just assume that if they aren't mentioned again they no longer apply? How do you know which punishments change? While you may claim that death for homosexuality no longer applies because of Romans and sins being forgiven, some punishment still applies surely? Presumably you don't think all earthly punishments are appealed?

philologos wrote: »

Because as the Bible mentions the law was in place for a time. The law was right and it is because of the law that we can see the extent of our sin.

So different laws means that acts that were/weren't sins now aren't/are sins? So sins aren't objectively immoral acts, they are subjective? Was there some reason that the second set of laws couldn't have been put in from the beginning? Jeremiah 31:32 makes it look like that god was never planning to change the laws, he was forced to when his first covenant was broken. Almost as if his first laws weren't good enough, and he had to make them less stringent to stop people from breaking away from him.

philologos wrote: »

God from creation knew that Jesus would be born in human flesh to save the world.

Then why not do that first? Why have all these laws with all their punishments for whatever thousands of years humans existed before Jesus came along, and then change it? Why should homosexuals before Jesus been justly executed, but after Jesus they aren't? But then again, why send anyone to save the world at all? What does god need with a sacrifice? Would the glory god gives to us to save us, not mean more if god didn't get a tortured and executed human in return?

philologos wrote: »

I don't think you get the point.

All have sinned. Everyone has sinned. God could have justifiably sent the whole world to hell for disobedience. The law brings condemnation, it brings us to a point where we realise the only possible means of being saved is by grace, by unmerited favour and forgiveness. That forgiveness was achieved through His Son Jesus.

That doesn't answer my question in the least. If Jesus dying for our sins means that we wont have to suffer punishment for them, why does god change the hypothetical punishment for them between the OT and the NT? What difference does it make, if you accept Jesus you wont be punished, if you don't accept Jesus you are going to hell?

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

None of this answers my questions in my first paragraph. The people in Romans only sin in the first place is to reject god. So god's answer to that is take away their free will, force them to commit a whole plethora of other sins (hurting who knows how many innocent people) that they wouldn't have done on their own, so they can punished even further, after they die. But they wont be punished, as Jesus died for their sins anyway. How does this make sense? Why does god take away their free will? Why does he massively aggravate their crime? If the removal of sin only apply to those who accept Jesus, does this mean death is still the punishment for non christians?

Rejecting God is the cause of all rebellion towards Him. In a sense individual actions that arise in the human being are just a manifestation of this. We need a solution to the source problem. I.E - We need to stop rebelling against God and come back to Him. Jesus provides the way for that as far as Christian believers are concerned.

God gives people over to their sin, and gives them over to their desire. The very fact that we see sin reign in the world is a sign that judgement is coming, and that we need to repent.

Jesus will return to judge. Those who put their trust in Him, and truly repent of their sin will be sanctified - namely God will start working in them to bring them to perfection in Christ on judgement day.

By the by, it's not that sin has been removed. It's that the rightful wrath of God that was due to us was placed on Jesus instead. Jesus took God's rightful judgement on Himself in order that we can be forgiven.

All will die, but then there is judgement (Hebrews 9:27-28), and what Revelation refers to as the second death, or eternal condemnation in hell (Revelation 20:11-15).

Naturally as someone who has been forgiven by Jesus, I really hope and long for as many as possible to decide to do the same.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are still not answering my paragraphs.
As Romans shows us, there is only ONE sin, to reject god. Do that, and god makes you commit every other sin. Accept god and those other sins are washed away. I'm not talking about free tickets or anything like that, I'm talking about priorities - gods priority. In gods eyes, the only important thing is worshipping him. He doesn't care about the morality of any other act you do, no matter how horrible or evil it is, he makes you do all the evil and horrible acts you do, if you reject him.

No. Romans shows that the origin of sin is ungodliness, unrighteousness, and the suppression of the truth. God allows for sin to continue, He gives us over to it until the point where He will judge the world in righteousness.

There's not one sin and Romans doesn't show us that. Rather Romans shows that the origin of sin is rebellion towards our Creator.

Moreover Romans doesn't say that God doesn't care. Rather it shows that God cared so much that He came into the world and while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8-9).

This is why it is important to understand where Paul is going in terms of Romans rather than just reading the first chapter.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You can disagree with me all you want, but thats what Jesus said.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17,18).
He fulfils them, but they still apply till the end of the world. Pointing out examples of people ignoring this is not an argument for people to ignore this.

I don't disagree with what Jesus said. I agree that He came to fulfil but not the destroy the law. Jesus satisfied the law in full on our behalf. I've even given you clear examples of this Biblically.

Nothing has passed from the law. I agree. It's not been abolished, it's been fulfilled. I believe that looking to the Torah law is still a very useful exercise.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm looking at Mark 7 and Matthew 15, and in answer to some pharisees questioning why Jesus and his disciples ate without washing their hands, Jesus says "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." (Mark 7:15). This is just biologically wrong. Didn't Jesus know about infections and bacteria and diseases?

Oh dear. Jesus and the Pharisees are referring to ritual uncleanness in terms of Judaism. That's the whole context of the passage.

His point, that what really makes you unclean in respect to God comes from the heart not from what we eat. In Mark 7:19 it says that Jesus declared all foods to be clean (in terms of ritual uncleanness, which is what Jesus is discussing with the Pharisees from 7:1-13).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How did the Jews and the Gentiles break the first covenant (Jeremiah 31:32)? Was that a free will sin, or was it god making them sin for doing something else? Why does god say that he will make a new covenant, but Jesus say that every law still applies (even accepting for a moment that its implied that the punishment is different) (Jeremiah 31:32, Matthew 5:18)? Why does god say he is going to take away peoples free will to not believe in him (Jeremiah 31:34)?

They broke it in many many ways. If you read the whole section from Joshua right through to the start of Isaiah you'll see that the Israelites went into stages of doing what was clearly against God's word time and time again. Idolatry and paganism were prominent, putting their trust in other leaders instead of God's word. Ultimately all of their sin came down to forgetting the Lord who had rescued them from the land of Egypt and following the passing things of this creation instead.

You can read about what the Israelites did before God judged them through the Assyrian and the Babylonian armies before restoring them through the Persians.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But a lot of the OT laws aren't mentioned at all in the NT. Do you just assume that if they aren't mentioned again they no longer apply? How do you know which punishments change? While you may claim that death for homosexuality no longer applies because of Romans and sins being forgiven, some punishment still applies surely? Presumably you don't think all earthly punishments are appealed?

In what sense are you speaking of?

I know that Jesus fulfilled the Torah law in respect to punishment because of what He taught about forgiveness and repentance. Jesus is clear. Paul is also clear in Romans if you read right through it.

Here's some links that would show me Jesus' philosophy in respect to the forgiveness of sins:
Luke 7, Luke 15,
Matthew 18:15-35,
Luke 19:9-4

Paul's letter to the Romans makes it explicitly clear in chapters 2 - 5 that all of us have sinned, so all of us are in the same place in this respect. That's why I recommend reading the rest of Romans.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So different laws means that acts that were/weren't sins now aren't/are sins? So sins aren't objectively immoral acts, they are subjective? Was there some reason that the second set of laws couldn't have been put in from the beginning? Jeremiah 31:32 makes it look like that god was never planning to change the laws, he was forced to when his first covenant was broken. Almost as if his first laws weren't good enough, and he had to make them less stringent to stop people from breaking away from him.

No the first law was good enough, but we all sinned and rejected God and His authority. The question is what was the purpose of the Torah law. The reality is from a Christian perspective that it served a number of purposes. The cultural laws served to keep Jews and Gentiles separate until the point when Jesus would be revealed to the whole world. The moral law was to show people what God's standards was, and as Paul refers to both in Romans and Galatians to show how far we have transgressed and to show that the only possible way that mankind can be saved is through God's amazing grace and unmerited favour. The legal law was to show the sheer severity of sin in God's sight.

The point is that we deserve God's condemnation for our sin, but we received His mercy through Jesus instead.

Jeremiah 31:32 doesn't say anything about God's standards. What it does say is that God will establish a new covenant which was not like the old one. Covenant means agreement. It doesn't mean that God has somehow changed. It was always in God's plan for Abraham's offspring to bless all the families on the earth (Genesis 12:1-3).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then why not do that first? Why have all these laws with all their punishments for whatever thousands of years humans existed before Jesus came along, and then change it? Why should homosexuals before Jesus been justly executed, but after Jesus they aren't? But then again, why send anyone to save the world at all? What does god need with a sacrifice? Would the glory god gives to us to save us, not mean more if god didn't get a tortured and executed human in return?

Because as I've said to you already (there's more detail above). The law had a clear purpose. It was to show us our transgression, and to show us that the only way we can receive forgiveness is to believe and trust in God through His Son Jesus. If we look at our works they are like filthy rags before God.

We all deserve God's wrath. Every single one of us.

The purpose of Jesus' death is very simple. It's to show us that our sin has a clear cost, it is also to give us a clear sign that indeed our sins have been forgiven. It's where God's mercy and God's justice meet. The cross shows us that all sin has a real penalty, but it shows that God is so abundantly merciful that He would take the penalty that was due to us unto Himself.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question in the least. If Jesus dying for our sins means that we wont have to suffer punishment for them, why does god change the hypothetical punishment for them between the OT and the NT? What difference does it make, if you accept Jesus you wont be punished, if you don't accept Jesus you are going to hell?

I think that you've confused what I've said.

What I've said is that I cannot punish you for your sin, because I have been forgiven by Jesus. If I have been forgiven by Christ, and if I am equally guilty, how could I ever suggest that you would die for your sin?

It doesn't mean that if someone completely rejects Christ that they won't be liable to judgement and condemnation.

Not at all. If I don't accept Christ's unmerited favour towards me. God's wrath remains due to me for my disobedience. It's due to me. If I understand and believe that Jesus stood on the cross in my place and took God's wrath on my behalf, it's on Him and amazingly I can walk free if I repent and believe and resolve to live for Jesus first and foremost in all things.

Why did God establish a new covenant? - Well, simply put to demonstrate His mercy to the entire world through Jesus.

1 John 4:7-12 wrote:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

If we reject Jesus, we have to go it alone, and if we go it alone God's wrath is rightfully upon us.

Mark Hamill

philologos wrote: »

Rejecting God is the cause of all rebellion towards Him
...
This is why it is important to understand where Paul is going in terms of Romans rather than just reading the first chapter.

None of this answers my points phil, it just seems to back up may assertions. All these people did was reject god, god then made them sin much more (they may have had "sin in their hearts", whatever that means, but it was gods interference that gave them over to it ie actually made them sin) but he will remove the sin/forgive the punishment if they worship him again. The origin of the sin is not the rebellion, its god himself. The origin of a beaten housewife is not a poorly made dinner, its the abusive husband.
God satisfies this loss of punishment by having Jesus die on the cross, because someone just has to be punished, even if its god himself.
Besides not making any internal sense, it also leads to two more questions:
Do people who don't go back to worshipping him still deserve punishments like death? (Their sins aren't forgiven)
What about all the innocent people who are hurt when god makes people give into their sin?

philologos wrote: »

It's not been abolished, it's been fulfilled. I believe that looking to the Torah law is still a very useful exercise.

Except in all the laws you just plain ignore, as if they never happened. You keep saying the laws aren't abolished, but fulfilled, but you don't follow them, so what exactly is the difference?

philologos wrote: »

Oh dear. Jesus and the Pharisees are referring to ritual uncleanness in terms of Judaism. That's the whole context of the passage.

I'm talking from a biological point of view, not a spiritual one. Sure, ritualistically they may not have needed to wash their hands, or worry about what they eat, but from a biological point of view it would have been pretty useful if Jesus had told people about diseases back then. Instead he tells people not to worry about eating with dirty hands.

philologos wrote: »

They broke it in many many ways.

You responded to the first question, but not the rest?

philologos wrote: »

In what sense are you speaking of?

In the plain English sense. The passages you quoted don't talk about punishments, they talk about forgiveness of sins from people who want it. Do earthly punishments still apply to people who don't want forgiveness for rejecting god?

philologos wrote: »

No the first law was good enough, but we all sinned and rejected God and His authority.
...
It was always in God's plan for Abraham's offspring to bless all the families on the earth (Genesis 12:1-3).

If the first law was good enough, then why did it need to be changed? Yes, we all sinned, but we still all sin, so that hasn't changed. The rest of your explanation here just leads to more questions:
Why did the Jews and Gentiles need to be apart in the past but not now?
If the moral law was gods standard, and the law has changed, that must mean gods standard has changed?
And if the legal law was to show the severity of sin in gods eyes, and that law has changed, then that must mean that the severity of sin in gods eyes has changed?

philologos wrote: »

Because as I've said to you already (there's more detail above).
...
it shows that God is so abundantly merciful that He would take the penalty that was due to us unto Himself.

This, again, doesn't answer my questions. We could still learn of the cost of sin if Jesus died on the cross at the beginning of the existence of humanity, rather than some random point in the middle.
It still doesn't explain the need for an actual sacrifice (an abundantly merciful being would just forgive the whole cost).
How does Jesus dying on the cross show us the cost of sins if we no longer consider some of the sins Jesus died for to be sins (wearing of cloth of two fibres, eating meat with blood in it etc.). Or do you think you are sinning by wearing cloth of two fibres?

philologos wrote: »

What I've said is that I cannot punish you for your sin, because I have been forgiven by Jesus. If I have been forgiven by Christ, and if I am equally guilty, how could I ever suggest that you would die for your sin?

It doesn't mean that if someone completely rejects Christ that they won't be liable to judgement and condemnation.

So you are saying that if someone commits a crime against you, they don't get punished as long as they are christians, but they do deserve punishment if they aren't? So, say, non christian homosexuals (ie sinners who completely reject christ) deserve punishment?

By the way, this still doesn't answer my questions in the least:
If Jesus dying for our sins means that we wont have to suffer punishment for them, why does god change the hypothetical punishment for them between the OT and the NT? What difference does it make? If you accept Jesus you wont be punished at all, if you don't accept Jesus you are going to hell which is the ultimate punishment. Its moot.
Note that I'm asking about god changing the punishment, not you personally calling for a punishment. What you call for is irrelevant in a discussion about god doing something.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

None of this answers my points phil, it just seems to back up may assertions. All these people did was reject god, god then made them sin much more (they may have had "sin in their hearts", whatever that means, but it was gods interference that gave them over to it ie actually made them sin) but he will remove the sin/forgive the punishment if they worship him again. The origin of the sin is not the rebellion, its god himself. The origin of a beaten housewife is not a poorly made dinner, its the abusive husband.
God satisfies this loss of punishment by having Jesus die on the cross, because someone just has to be punished, even if its god himself.
Besides not making any internal sense, it also leads to two more questions:
Do people who don't go back to worshipping him still deserve punishments like death? (Their sins aren't forgiven)
What about all the innocent people who are hurt when god makes people give into their sin?

God giving people over to sin != God made them sin.

Rejecting God is extremely serious in Christianity, in fact it can be called the root of all sin when we reject God's better judgement. All sin can be traced back to this. The root problem isn't coveting, lying, murder, adultery, theft or anything else. The root problem is rebellion against God and His standards which is exactly why we see sin like this become manifest.

Sin is a manifestation of our rebellion and rejection towards Him. It's also a manifestation of the reality that God will return to judge the world as far as Romans is concerned.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except in all the laws you just plain ignore, as if they never happened. You keep saying the laws aren't abolished, but fulfilled, but you don't follow them, so what exactly is the difference?

The law is satisfied by Christ. I don't provide animals for sacrifice as they did in Leviticus, because Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin. That's one example and there are many more. Why don't I provide animals for sacrifice - it's no longer required - because Jesus satisfied the requirements of the law on my behalf.

There's plenty more like this. Christianity holds to there being two covenants. The Old Covenant which was bound on the people of Israel until the time when Christ would be revealed, and the New Covenant which was established for the entire world by which the blessing of Abraham comes to all the families of the earth who believe and trust in Jesus.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm talking from a biological point of view, not a spiritual one. Sure, ritualistically they may not have needed to wash their hands, or worry about what they eat, but from a biological point of view it would have been pretty useful if Jesus had told people about diseases back then. Instead he tells people not to worry about eating with dirty hands.

Sure. But guess what? Jesus isn't referring to biology here. If one looks to the previous verses they are talking about ritual uncleanness. Jesus is saying that one becomes ritually unclean from within. The Pharisees are saying that what you eat is what makes you stand as ritually unclean before God.

Jesus tells people about mankind's ultimate problem sin. I thank Him for warning me about this because it's crucially important.

Mark 7:20-23 wrote:

And He said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You responded to the first question, but not the rest?

Apologies. Looking to Jeremiah 31:34 I don't see how it could be construed as a denial of the freedom of the will.

I've definitely answered your question about why God established a new covenant. There's many reasons. One of them was to establish God's blessing to all creation both Jew and Gentile. Another was to demonstrate God's love to creation once and for all through His Son Jesus. Another was to show that sin is incredibly serious, and has an incredible cost.

God from the very beginning knew that Jesus would come into the world. The Old Testament on numerous occasions very clearly points towards Him. Jesus Himself even said that Moses spoke about Him (John 5:45-47) and Abraham rejoiced at the sight of Him (John 8:56-59).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In the plain English sense. The passages you quoted don't talk about punishments, they talk about forgiveness of sins from people who want it. Do earthly punishments still apply to people who don't want forgiveness for rejecting god?

Matthew 18 very clearly points to the fact that I have no right to treat another with judgement because I have been forgiven. If I deserve death but refuse to show mercy to those who have sinned then I'm a hypocrite and I deserve no part in God's favour. Rather what Jesus says that man should do is make the Gospel known to all creation (Matthew 28:20). The Apostles laboured for the Gospel in Greece and Asia Minor in Acts for example because they longed that all would know that Jesus is their Saviour and came to rescue them.

If we're all in the same place, and if I'm as guilty as you. I'd be a hypocrite if I expected you to die for your sin.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the first law was good enough, then why did it need to be changed? Yes, we all sinned, but we still all sin, so that hasn't changed. The rest of your explanation here just leads to more questions:
Why did the Jews and Gentiles need to be apart in the past but not now?
If the moral law was gods standard, and the law has changed, that must mean gods standard has changed?
And if the legal law was to show the severity of sin in gods eyes, and that law has changed, then that must mean that the severity of sin in gods eyes has changed?

It wasn't changed. The entire Biblical revelation is one. God revealed the Torah to the Jews for a reason. The entire Old Testament points to Jesus and the ultimate revelation of God's grace to humanity. Christian's don't believe that God changed His mind half way.

God's standards have never changed. Ceremonial laws which were intended to keep Jews distinct from Gentiles have been fulfilled, as has judicial punishment as the Torah bound state of Israel no longer exists. It's time is complete precisely because Jesus has been revealed.

The severity of sin hasn't changed at all. My sin was so severe that it played a role in nailing Jesus Christ, God's only Son to the cross. I don't know how that isn't severe.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This, again, doesn't answer my questions. We could still learn of the cost of sin if Jesus died on the cross at the beginning of the existence of humanity, rather than some random point in the middle.
It still doesn't explain the need for an actual sacrifice (an abundantly merciful being would just forgive the whole cost).
How does Jesus dying on the cross show us the cost of sins if we no longer consider some of the sins Jesus died for to be sins (wearing of cloth of two fibres, eating meat with blood in it etc.). Or do you think you are sinning by wearing cloth of two fibres?

As for why couldn't Jesus have died at the start. Simply put, people wouldn't have been aware of what their transgression towards God was. That's why the law of Moses was revealed, as I've explained to you already.

God did forgive the cost. He also showed us very clearly the immense cost of sin. If God didn't visit His wrath upon Christ, there would be no sign of how severe sin is. If God didn't punish for sin, He'd be fundamentally unjust. If God didn't forgive sin, He'd be unmerciful. I'd say that Christianity is the only religion where God's mercy and God's justice meet.

If people didn't understand that their sin had an immense cost, and if there was no clear sign of sin. You'd be moaning that there wasn't a clear sign from God to demonstrate this. It seems like Christianity can't win with you Mark, if it does one thing it is wrong, if it does another thing it is wrong. It doesn't seem to be about an intellectual disagreement, but rather it is just that you don't want any part or seal to do with it.

See above about ceremonial laws. Christians believe that Jesus knocked down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. What I've also shown you in Mark's Gospel and in Matthews Gospel before you decided to claim that Jesus should have been talking about biology showed that the ceremonial law had been fulfilled.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying that if someone commits a crime against you, they don't get punished as long as they are christians, but they do deserve punishment if they aren't? So, say, non christian homosexuals (ie sinners who completely reject christ) deserve punishment?

Christians still believe that the State has the right to impose order and jurisdiction. Christians believe that God has appointed rulers in order to bring justice in this world. (see first quote below) With Christians people are called to sort it out within the church first before bringing it to the world. (see second quote below)

Romans 13:1-7 wrote:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

However, and this is a big however, Christians are meant to sort out their disputes between themselves where possible and not bring it to court.

1 Corinthians 6:1-6 wrote:

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By the way, this still doesn't answer my questions in the least:
If Jesus dying for our sins means that we wont have to suffer punishment for them, why does god change the hypothetical punishment for them between the OT and the NT? What difference does it make? If you accept Jesus you wont be punished at all, if you don't accept Jesus you are going to hell which is the ultimate punishment. Its moot.
Note that I'm asking about god changing the punishment, not you personally calling for a punishment. What you call for is irrelevant in a discussion about god doing something.

God loves us. That's all. By the by, God made His grace known to people prior to the cross, but it was only by Jesus that forgiveness could be secured past, present and future.

Despite knowing that we have sinned before Him, God loves us and wants us to come back to Him. The Parable Of The Two Brothers (more commonly known as the Parable Of The Prodigal Son) makes this much clear in Luke 15.

God has given us all a chance to turn back to Him. I long to see more and more people know Jesus, pretty much because I care. I want to see people know Him and be forgiven so that they won't have to face God's wrath themselves. The difference is that you and I can freely repent and come to know God again, and our lives can be completely changed by Him to live for Him rather than the selfish ways of the world. That to me is hugely significant and has transformed the way I live, and has helped me to see things as they really are.

Mark Hamill

I am desperately trying to keep these posts short and you aren't helping phil. You need to start directly answering the questions I pose, rather than spew off paragraphs of the same rhetoric each time.

philologos wrote: »

God giving people over to sin != God made them sin.

It does, otherwise "god giving people over to sin" is a non statement.
You are still ignoring my questions though.

philologos wrote: »

The law is satisfied by Christ...

None of this is an answer to my question. What is the difference between abolished and fulfilled, if the end result (the law no longer applies) is the same?

philologos wrote: »

Sure. But guess what? Jesus isn't referring to biology here.

So is there another piece where Jesus explains that even though you don't need clean hands ritualistically, you should still clean them because of disease and infection?

philologos wrote: »

Apologies. Looking to Jeremiah 31:34 I don't see how it could be construed as a denial of the freedom of the will.

In Jeremiah 31:33,34, God is saying he will make it that all Israelites will know him in their hearts and heads. Forcing himself in peoples heads and hearts takes away their free will to reject him, free will that everyone has.

philologos wrote: »

I've definitely answered your question about why God established a new covenant. There's many reasons. One of them was to establish God's blessing to all creation both Jew and Gentile. Another was to demonstrate God's love to creation once and for all through His Son Jesus. Another was to show that sin is incredibly serious, and has an incredible cost.

The reason given in Jeremiah 31:32 is because they broke the old one. But these reasons beg more questions: Why didn't god bless both Jew and Gentile from the beginning? If the new covenant demonstrates his love once and for all, does that mean his first covenant failed to do that? Why would he need to change the laws to show love, were they not perfectly and objectively loving, as god is supposed to be?

philologos wrote: »

God from the very beginning knew that Jesus would come into the world. The Old Testament on numerous occasions very clearly points towards Him. Jesus Himself even said that Moses spoke about Him (John 5:45-47) and Abraham rejoiced at the sight of Him (John 8:56-59).

Not an answer. If god made a new covenant, then the old one should no longer apply.

philologos wrote: »

Matthew 18 very clearly points to the fact that I have no right to treat another with judgement because I have been forgiven.

Not an answer to my question: Do earthly punishments still apply to people who don't want forgiveness for rejecting god?.
You bring in death, but I'm not talking about death, I'm talking about any prescribed earthly punishments, either from the bible or from human judicial systems. Do people deserve punishments for their crimes. Do non christian people (those who reject god) deserve religious punishments? The mercy you are supposed to give only extends to those who accept the gospel.

philologos wrote: »

It wasn't changed. The entire Biblical revelation is one.

It was changed. At one point in history some things where prohibited, now those things aren't, that is a change. And sin those prohibitions where both ceremonial and moral, that means that supposedly objective morals must have changed.

philologos wrote: »

Simply put, people wouldn't have been aware of what their transgression towards God was.
...
God did forgive the cost
...
You'd be moaning that there wasn't a clear sign from God to demonstrate this.

1) This makes less sense . God made up some laws with punishments so terrible that he had to have himself tortured and killed. This not only satisfied the laws, but it changed many, some just the punishments, some were abolished entirely.
2) God didn't forgive the cost, he had Jesus pay it. Instead of telling us what the cost would be and then forgiving it, he had someone else pay it. Thats not especially merciful.
3) But the crucifixion doesn't explain the true cost of sin. If I sin I'm not going to get crucified, I'm going to hell, because hell is the true cost of sin. Besides, hurting an innocent bystander to motivate someone to do something is the act of a villain in a movie, not a merciful god.

philologos wrote: »

Christians still believe that the State has the right to impose order and jurisdiction. Christians believe that God has appointed rulers in order to bring justice in this world. (see first quote below) With Christians people are called to sort it out within the church first before bringing it to the world. (see second quote below)

So you believe that lawmakers are appointed by god? Why do christians need to do anything inhouse first, if the state is appointed by god? What happens if the god appointed rulers disagree with the church?

philologos wrote: »

God loves us. That's all...

None of this answers my question! God loving us doesn't explain why he changed the punishments for different laws between the OT and NT. Unless you are saying that god weakened the rules to entice people back to worshipping him, which begs a load of questions about objective morality and god changing his laws to suit humanity etc.

krudler

philologos wrote: »

Do you think that reading is an entirely postmodern exercise? There's little interpretation in those 9 points that I've provided to Mark Hamill.

For example, is the Bible clear that Jesus died and rose again on the third day to save mankind from their sin. Unequivocally in all 4 Gospels, and throughout the New Testament as a whole. There's no way to escape it. I could literally rattle out dozens upon dozens of passages that explicitly say this. Abundantly clear.

What about the stuff that isn't in all 4? or the stuff that doesn't match?

Zombrex

I would agree with Phil that beyond a particular point it becomes nonsensical to classify someone a Christian. Someone for example who thought Jesus was a "good man" but not a god and never claimed to be can hardly be seriously called a Christian without that classification losing all meaning.

Saying that though the problems come with Christians attempt to exclude other geninue Christians simply because they take a different, unpopular or troublesome interpretation of the New Testament.

For example, despite the claims often made by Christians, I full call Fred Phelps a Christian. He seems to clearly believe in the divinity of Jesus, that following the correct teaching of Jesus is vitally important and in the concept of salvation that is central to Jesus' message.

Equally many of not most the Crusaders of the middle ages, often dismissed by modern Christians as not true Christians due to their violence, clearly believed in a historical Jesus who was divine and that faith in his message, and their interpretation of his message, was vital to them.

Same to with slavers of the 16th century onward, who pulled quotes left right and center from the Bible to justify slavery as being ordained by God (and who frankly seem to have got it more in line with the original authors than modern Christians)

If interpreting the Bible incorrectly from the message that was meant to be conveyed makes you not a Christian, then frankly there are no Christians left, since the message of the New Testament is that the end times are approaching and everyone should prepare. Since that didn't happen all Christians since have had to re-interpret the New Testament away from its original meaning.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am desperately trying to keep these posts short and you aren't helping phil. You need to start directly answering the questions I pose, rather than spew off paragraphs of the same rhetoric each time.

The problem is and I'm looking through this post, I see points that I've already answered. There's a difference between claiming something wasn't addressed and claiming that you don't agree with what I've presented to you. When I go through this post I'll note what falls into this category.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It does, otherwise "god giving people over to sin" is a non statement.
You are still ignoring my questions though.

Not at all. One of the key questions being dealt with by Paul in Romans 1 is why does evil exist in the world. Does the existence of evil undermine God's sovereignty and control over creation? Paul seems to suggest no, and that the very existence of evil, and it being allowed to continue is a sign that God will judge the world one day.

I don't believe giving people over to sin means that God forces people to sin. Rather God allows their desire to continue. Romans presents the very fact that God allows it to continue as a sign of God's wrath over creation.

It claims that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and all unrighteousness (1:18), and that what can be known about God is plain to them, especially through creation (1:19-20). They didn't honour God, and exchanged the truth for a lie (21-22).

Therefore - God gave them up to the lusts of their heart (1:24) - because they exchanged the truth for a lie.

For this reason (1:26), since they did not feel fit to acknowledge God (1:28).

Nowhere does it say that God directly caused them to sin, but God simply gave them over to it. God didn't intervene to stop it.

The source of all sin is from suppressing the truth (which Romans says is clearly perceived), dishonouring God and exchanging the truth for a lie. Sin will naturally arise when this is our foremost assumption.

So in short, I don't agree that God forces people to sin. People sin because they reject God and dishonour Him and God allows it to continue as a sign of His impending judgement.

Let me ask you a question - why do you think of necessity it means that God forces people to sin?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

None of this is an answer to my question. What is the difference between abolished and fulfilled, if the end result (the law no longer applies) is the same?

Fulfilled means that it's purpose in many respects is complete. For example, Jews and Gentiles are no longer separated, for example Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin therefore animal sacrifices do not need to be offered any longer, dietary laws have been fulfilled as what makes man unclean comes from the heart first and foremost.

It is by reading the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles in the New Testament that we know what has been fulfilled from the law. Christians have for over 2,000 years read the Bible in this way. We believe that the Old Testament is a signpost for what would come in Jesus.

Let me ask you a question and this might progress things along: If I am under the law, and I sin, am I guilty or innocent?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So is there another piece where Jesus explains that even though you don't need clean hands ritualistically, you should still clean them because of disease and infection?

The passage is talking about uncleanness before God, as is described in the Torah law.

That's what Jesus is discussing with the Pharisees over. It's not intended to be a medical handbook, but it is to describe in part what mankind's fundamental problem is. If you look at the list of things from the heart that are unclean before God, you'll realise that you've done several of those things yourself. Ritual isn't of primary importance, right action is.

This is why we need to pay attention to context. People on this forum seem to moan about it continually, but if they read any other book they'd expect this standard by default.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In Jeremiah 31:33,34, God is saying he will make it that all Israelites will know him in their hearts and heads. Forcing himself in peoples heads and hearts takes away their free will to reject him, free will that everyone has.

A covenant Biblically is an agreement between man and God. God is establishing a covenant with His chosen people (both Jew and Gentile in the new covenant established by Jesus).

I agree though, it's an interesting and I believe a tricky question. Clearly man has the ability to disobey against God's instructions, yet we're told here that God will make Himself known to His covenant people.

There's another question that's rather interesting also if one also considers other parts of Scripture such as the opening of Ephesians. Does God predestine people to believe in Him? There's other passages also that point to this, but I agree that it is a tricky question.

Biblically yes:

Ephesians 1:3-6 wrote:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

So how does it work that God has chose us since the beginning of time? - Is it that God knows what we are going to do in advance? Is it that God allocated people a finite time on the earth and said you're going to know and love me and you won't?

There's a big discussion to have on that. What is clear Biblically though is that God has predestined people to know Him.

Does that invalidate free will? I personally don't believe so, you might disagree though.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The reason given in Jeremiah 31:32 is because they broke the old one. But these reasons beg more questions: Why didn't god bless both Jew and Gentile from the beginning? If the new covenant demonstrates his love once and for all, does that mean his first covenant failed to do that? Why would he need to change the laws to show love, were they not perfectly and objectively loving, as god is supposed to be?

From a Biblical perspective, God blessed all nations through Abraham's offspring. Jesus.

God chose to reveal Himself both to Israel, and to the entire world. Paul in Galatians points out that the law was necessary for the fullness of Christ to be revealed to all creation. The Old Testament has a clear purpose. First in establishing God's standards, secondly in His people Israel, and thirdly in providing the right background by which one could understand the fullness of what Jesus did. We see signposts towards Jesus, but it was only at the right time when it was revealed.

What specific criteria made it the right time? - It isn't all that clear, but clearly we had to know in what way we have transgressed in order to understand that we needed forgiveness.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not an answer. If god made a new covenant, then the old one should no longer apply.

It is clear in the New Testament that God knew that He would establish a new covenant, and that God would send Jesus to redeem mankind. God knew from the very beginning that Jesus would come. This is why Christians look to the Old Testament as well as the New in considering Jesus. He says that Moses spoke of Him.

That is an answer. As far as we know from Scripture, God intended this to happen from the beginning. Not liking an answer and claiming it is unanswered are different.

Even if the Old Covenant has been fulfilled by Jesus, God remains the same. The agreement has different implications because of Jesus, but we still believe and trust in the same God and seek to follow Him. The key difference lies in justification. Which I've touched on above by asking you if I have broken the law, am I innocent or guilty? The law doesn't justify anyone because we've all failed to follow it (Romans 3:23), this is why God's grace is the only way by which we can be saved.

If you claim I haven't answered your question you should point out as to how I haven't.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not an answer to my question: Do earthly punishments still apply to people who don't want forgiveness for rejecting god?.
You bring in death, but I'm not talking about death, I'm talking about any prescribed earthly punishments, either from the bible or from human judicial systems. Do people deserve punishments for their crimes. Do non christian people (those who reject god) deserve religious punishments? The mercy you are supposed to give only extends to those who accept the gospel.

The New Testament says that churches should be concerned about believers (see 1 Corinthians 5 for example), not about unbelievers. The New Testament also distinguishes between authorities appointed by God, and churches. Churches should take church discipline and instructing people to follow Christ seriously. However churches don't have a role in judging those who are outside. From that perspective we are to invite other people to come to salvation in Jesus.

There is a distinction between rulers and ruling authorities and the church right throughout the New Testament.

Christians are to show the same grace to those who don't believe as the grace that they were shown while they were still sinners (Romans 5:8-9). It's hypocritical to judge by any other criteria. If we have received this grace, we should be inviting others to do the same. Not judging them as we weren't judged prior to receiving God's favour through Christ.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It was changed. At one point in history some things where prohibited, now those things aren't, that is a change. And sin those prohibitions where both ceremonial and moral, that means that supposedly objective morals must have changed.

The law remains, but it has been satisfied / fulfilled by Jesus. We are justified by grace. Elements of the Torah law no longer apply as a result. We are still called to follow God by following Jesus. It's still fruitful to look to the Torah in respect to morality as long as we do so in consideration of what Jesus came to do.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1) This makes less sense . God made up some laws with punishments so terrible that he had to have himself tortured and killed. This not only satisfied the laws, but it changed many, some just the punishments, some were abolished entirely.
2) God didn't forgive the cost, he had Jesus pay it. Instead of telling us what the cost would be and then forgiving it, he had someone else pay it. Thats not especially merciful.
3) But the crucifixion doesn't explain the true cost of sin. If I sin I'm not going to get crucified, I'm going to hell, because hell is the true cost of sin. Besides, hurting an innocent bystander to motivate someone to do something is the act of a villain in a movie, not a merciful god.

God's standards were righteous. He didn't command things for the heck of it.

1) The only reason the punishments are no longer required was because of Jesus.
2) God spared us the cost, by putting it on Jesus. God is just, and merciful as a result. Forgiveness is given to those who believe in Jesus. The righteousness that He has is given to us. The wrath that was due to us was put upon Him. It's substitution.
3) Crucifixion - the isolation of the Son from the Father is what hell is going to be like. Complete isolation from God for eternity.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you believe that lawmakers are appointed by god? Why do christians need to do anything inhouse first, if the state is appointed by god? What happens if the god appointed rulers disagree with the church?

Christians are those who believe and trust in God's word. Christians hold one another accountable by God's word. There's no guarantee that the State will. There's no guarantee that the State will even obey God's standards. The reason why there is state is to ensure general order. However, the church is interested in bringing up people to be mature in Christ, it's also interested in the salvation of all who believe. Christians and the church are concerned with keeping one another in Christ.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

None of this answers my question! God loving us doesn't explain why he changed the punishments for different laws between the OT and NT. Unless you are saying that god weakened the rules to entice people back to worshipping him, which begs a load of questions about objective morality and god changing his laws to suit humanity etc.

God loving us explains why He sent His Son. As I've mentioned above the Old Testament law shows us what God's standards are. It also shows us that we've disobeyed Him, and are deserving of His justice rather than His mercy.

God didn't weaken the rules to "entice people back to Him". God sent Jesus in order to give mankind another chance, because He loves us.

God's moral standard didn't change as I've explained to you multiple times on this thread. God sent His Son to offer mercy instead of condemnation, but everything that concerns morality in the Old Testament is still immoral. Defrauding, taking bribes, adultery, theft, murder, mistreating the orphan and the widow and so on.

The ceremonial laws, and the judicial system was temporal. God remains the same, we're under a different covenant.

Mark Hamill

philologos wrote: »

The problem is and I'm looking through this post, I see points that I've already answered. There's a difference between claiming something wasn't addressed and claiming that you don't agree with what I've presented to you. When I go through this post I'll note what falls into this category.

Its not a case of me not agreeing with your responses, its a case of your responses not answering my questions. Most of the time you ignore my questions, or give barely relevant rhetoric which leads to more questions. In the rest of this post (which I'll put up separately) you answered one single question of mine.

Mark Hamill

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe giving people over to sin means that God forces people to sin. Rather God allows their desire to continue.
...
but God simply gave them over to it. God didn't intervene to stop it.

Neither of these interpretations are supported by what Romans says. It talks about god giving them over to sin, not allowing them to continue to sin, not refraining from intervening in their sin. An active act on gods part, not a passive one. So I don't really see where you pulled that from. But even that aside, it still means that they wouldn't have sinned (beyond rejecting god) without gods interference.
So you still haven't answered this question, and still have ignored the two other questions I asked:
Do people who don't go back to worshipping him still deserve punishments like death? (Their sins aren't forgiven)
What about all the innocent people who are hurt when god makes people give into their sin?

philologos wrote: »

Let me ask you a question - why do you think of necessity it means that God forces people to sin?

Because that's what the words say.

philologos wrote: »

Fulfilled means that it's purpose in many respects is complete.

So no difference between fulfil and abolish? Both result in the laws no longer applying.

philologos wrote: »

Let me ask you a question and this might progress things along: If I am under the law, and I sin, am I guilty or innocent?

Guilty.

philologos wrote: »

This is why we need to pay attention to context. People on this forum seem to moan about it continually, but if they read any other book they'd expect this standard by default.

The context is the supposed son of god telling people they don't need to clean their hands before eating because there is no more ritualistic requirement for it. Wouldn't you expect god to know about simple hygiene?

philologos wrote: »

What is clear Biblically though is that God has predestined people to know Him.

Does that invalidate free will? I personally don't believe so, you might disagree though.

How could it not? You spend several paragraphs avoiding answering the question, actually bringing in another example of what I was talking about (and so doing my work for me) but you don't actually explain why you don't think it invalidates free will. This is the problem phil, this is why these posts are getting so long.

philologos wrote: »

From a Biblical perspective, God blessed all nations through Abraham's offspring. Jesus.

Still not answering my questions. You are repeating what god did, but I am asking why. Why did god only bless Jews but not gentiles before Jesus, if he was going to bless all after Jesus? If the new covenant demonstrates his love once and for all, does that mean his first covenant failed to do that? Why would he need to change the laws to show love, were they not perfectly and objectively loving, as god is supposed to be? (you have avoided the last two questions by changing your terminology away from love)
And you have managed to (re)raise more questions:
How does the old covenant/OT tell us about how we transgressed, if the laws don't apply any more? This means what they described aren't transgressions any more.
Wouldn't we have been less likely to transgress if we knew the full law (ie the new covenant in the NT) from the beginning?

philologos wrote: »

God intended this to happen from the beginning.
...
Even if the Old Covenant has been fulfilled by Jesus, God remains the same.
...
If you claim I haven't answered your question you should point out as to how I haven't.

Do you even know the question? It was this: Why does god say that he will make a new covenant, but Jesus say that every law still applies?
Pointing out that god knew this would happen, and that god doesn't change doesn't answer this contradiction. It creates a new one, because if god stays the same, then why would the covenant change? God staying the same means his values stays the same, meaning his laws should, but you repeatedly said his laws, both ceremonial and moral, have changed. Saying that some laws are being satisfied in other ways in the new covenant just brings us back to the question of why couldn't they have been satisfied in that way in the first place? What did people gain by believing that the heart can become unclean by eating with dirty hands if that wasn't the case?

philologos wrote: »

The New Testament says that churches should be concerned about believers (see 1 Corinthians 5 for example), not about unbelievers.

:eek: Finally, an answer.
Wouldn't this mean that churches are wrong to interfere in non believing homosexuals who want to get married (in a non christian context)?

philologos wrote: »

The law remains, but it has been satisfied / fulfilled by Jesus. We are justified by grace. Elements of the Torah law no longer apply as a result. We are still called to follow God by following Jesus. It's still fruitful to look to the Torah in respect to morality as long as we do so in consideration of what Jesus came to do.

The bold lines mean the covenant changed phil. Sure, it still exists as a matter of historical record, on paper somewhere, but some laws don't apply anymore. Therefore, it changed.

philologos wrote: »

God's standards were righteous. He didn't command things for the heck of it.

1) The only reason the punishments are no longer required was because of Jesus.
2) God spared us the cost, by putting it on Jesus. God is just, and merciful as a result. Forgiveness is given to those who believe in Jesus. The righteousness that He has is given to us. The wrath that was due to us was put upon Him. It's substitution.
3) Crucifixion - the isolation of the Son from the Father is what hell is going to be like. Complete isolation from God for eternity.

1) Yes, thats what I said. It still doesn't make any sense
2) Substitution isn't merciful and just. Would any human judicial system be considered just if third parties could take punishments and behalf of others.
3) Except Jesus wasn't isolated from god for eternity, just three days (and three days in purgatory, not hell).

Another question: You say that hell is separation from god for eternity. Why is that bad?

philologos wrote: »

Christians are those who believe and trust in God's word. Christians hold one another accountable by God's word. There's no guarantee that the State will. There's no guarantee that the State will even obey God's standards. The reason why there is state is to ensure general order. However, the church is interested in bringing up people to be mature in Christ, it's also interested in the salvation of all who believe. Christians and the church are concerned with keeping one another in Christ.

You said god appointed rulers to bring justice. Did you not mean the state? Why would god appoint rulers who weren't guaranteed to obey him? Why would god appoint two different types of rulers, political and religious? Why not just one, if the religious rulers are prescribing for what's really important anyway?

philologos wrote: »

God loving us explains why He sent His Son.

Only if he hates his son. If god loves us, he would just forgive the punishment.
Besides I didn't ask why god sent his son, I asked : why does god change the hypothetical punishment for [our sins] between the OT and the NT?

philologos wrote: »

everything that concerns morality in the Old Testament is still immoral. Defrauding, taking bribes, adultery, theft, murder, mistreating the orphan and the widow and so on.

The ceremonial laws, and the judicial system was temporal. God remains the same, we're under a different covenant.

Are you saying that, at the time of the OT when those laws applied, you didn't actually need to follow ceremonial and judicial laws to be moral? How do you know that? They are decrees from god, are they not then by definition statements on morality? What was the purpose of them, if they didn't relate to morality?