Matthew 5:17

[truthreality]

I'm simply talking about using logic to see if the intent of a given law applies. Something thousands of people do every day for a living, religious or not.

The problem is the Old Testament states that God's law is eternal and binding. Those who attempt to change it are deemed false prophets. The false prohpets are said to have miraculous powers and the ability to make prophecies. In the Old Testament Yaweh commands that such false propets should be put to death. Those who crucified Jesus were simply following the commands of the God of the Old Testament.

Have you heard te saying "no one is above the law"?

[RedDaze]

Those who crucified Jesus were simply following the commands of the God of the Old Testament.

The same God that came down during the baptism of Jesus and said, more or less, "This is my beloved son, etc. etc."

Of course you do.

You say this like you're surprised. Wouldn't anyone have numerous issues with that line of believing?

It was your God's own creation Lucifer that introduced sin and deceived man.

All the more reason for us to atone for the mistake of being tempted by such a creature, if I can call it that. That still doesn't negate my point that He should have judgement over us because we are his creations, tempted by another or not. Lucifer as an entity may as well be another plain person- a sin is a sin, no matter whom the tempter.

I have taken a religious class. One of my professors was a Masters in the New Testament. He taught a class specifically on the New Testament. His view was not that Jesus was the one and only savior and that those who do not believe perish. Why? He is reading the same book as you.

Jesus is not God incarnate.

By his own admission he is not omnscient or omnipotent.

John 14:28 "The Father is greater than I."

Matthew 24:36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:30 "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."

If Jesus is God and a player in his own game why does Yaweh not mention him in the Old Testament? Why is the Trinity only mentioned in the New Testament?

The exact sources escape me, but I'm fairly confident that somewhere in the bible it was explained that Jesus was in fact God incarnate, but not just so, for he was also a mortal man capable of bleeding and dying. This would explain his astounding moral knowledge at such a young age, whereby he preached to the rabbis in the temple, and why by his own admission he says that his Father is greater than him. Apparently, becoming flesh and blood makes one less than perfect, even if you're God.

Why is Jesus not mentioned in the OT? I don't extensively read or study it, but there was a mention of the Messiah, was there not? I guess they didn't find it necessary to mention him by name, but I don't pretend to be an authority on the matter, I just defend my points to the best of my ability.

As for the Trinity being mentioned only in the NT- the only explanation I can offer is that because Jesus did not previously exist / was not known to the people of old, neither could the Trinity. You can't introduce a device without its components, and if you did, you'd have a seriously lacking narrative as far as the Bible is concerned.

Is my questioning about wheter or not Jesus accounts for the world's sins ridiculous because it's false or ridiculous because it differs from how you interpret the Bible?

In a moment of outburst, I decided it was the latter but we both know that's ridiculous in of itself so for now I'll have to settle with the former and explain why.

The commandments and law were not revealed at the beggining of time. They were revealed to Moses later on.

When they were revealed is irrelevant to me, as long as I follow them. My point stands.

Waiting for the opportune time to give Jesus? Jesus incarnating on earth is not a good thing. The purpose of Jesus incarnating on earth was because of a sinful world. Do you really think that's an opportune time?

Of course I do. If I only gladly anticipated good events I would be sorely inept to handle reality and the growth that comes with enduring hardships and surviving them. I welcome change where it is necessary, for it is a part of life. Even if that means people have to die.

Of course judgement is up to God. Why do you think you have a firm grasp on his judgement? What makes you believe your destiny is more solidified than a non believer?

Im not sure if your first question was a continuation of your first statement, but it doesn't appear to be.

I don't pretend I have a firm grasp on the reality of what his judgement is, to whom it applies, and why for I am not him. I presented this view because it is my personal belief of how I conclude it to be, to the best of my ability. Having said that, can you find anything wrong or any concrete reason why I am wrong in my belief? If I make a living being (don't ask how, that's a secret) and it disobeys my commands, do I not have a right to punish it as its creator? Similarly, if it follows my commands I will reward it. The same concept applies here. I don't pretend to know what God plans, like I said, but it seems immensely logical to me that it should work in that way.

Also, my destiny is not solidified, and certainly not more so than anyones, as I discovered long ago. If I should decide to jump in front of a car right now, my destiny is in my likely demise, but it is one I chose for myself. On the other hand, if I choose to be successful, that is my choice too. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with how certain your destiny is.

[timsmith]

The problem is the Old Testament states that God's law is eternal and binding. Those who attempt to change it are deemed false prophets. The false prohpets are said to have miraculous powers and the ability to make prophecies. In the Old Testament Yaweh commands that such false propets should be put to death. Those who crucified Jesus were simply following the commands of the God of the Old Testament.

Have you heard te saying "no one is above the law"?

This is a valid point. There are those who chose to ignore the pentateuch, despite it's infinite and unchangeble claims, just as there are people who ignore the bible's call for slavery and genocide. Their excuse for this ignorance is Matthew 5:17, that Jesus came to fulfil the law rather than abolish it. However, any way you look at it the commandments of Jesus and his teachings were an amendment to the unchangeable law of the Old Testament. Therefore if you believe that the word of god in both the New and Old Testament is infallible then you must also believe that this prophet who came to change/ammend the law to be false. Jesus was, by definition of god, a false prophet who did his best to challenge the law.
If you disagree and believe that Jesus did come to challenge the law with the authority of god, then you must also admit that god is fallible when he said his law is infinite and unchallengeable. And if you believe god is fallible, then we can finally question the moral integrity of his laws without challenge.

[RedDaze]

timsmith:
If you disagree and believe that Jesus did come to challenge the law with the authority of god, then you must also admit that god is fallible when he said his law is infinite and unchallengeable. And if you believe god is fallible, then we can finally question the moral integrity of his laws without challenge.

All logical and valid, but that's presuming that he 'challenged' it in the sense that he wanted to change the original. I cant even say with certainty that he amended it so much as he gave his own, being God incarnate and all. And then, why does changing or amending a law make one fallible? We were supposed to be perfect too, but look how that turned out. I don't see why that makes God any less perfect. God should be able to edit his own laws, should He not?

[timsmith]

All logical and valid, but that's presuming that he 'challenged' it in the sense that he wanted to change the original.

Would you say then that the original pentateuch laws were still valid? in which case, Christian's have done little in stoning homosexuals of late.

We were supposed to be perfect too, but look how that turned out

Another instance of fallibility? The creation of man is certainly not perfect, one can hardly claim 'intellegent' design with the amount of mental health issues and physical deformities among man. Not to mention that 99% of god's 'designed' organisms that have existed on this earth have become extinct. This isn't order or design, but random chaos.

I don't see why that makes God any less perfect. God should be able to edit his own laws, should He not

Yes. He is more than welcome to change his imperfect laws. However, that he did suggests: he is not omniscient, his previous laws were flawed, and that he is not able to anticipate the future. This surely suggests fallibility if nothing else.

[truthreality]

The same God that came down during the baptism of Jesus and said, more or less, "This is my beloved son, etc. etc."

This is my son is not the same this is God.

All the more reason for us to atone for the mistake of being tempted by such a creature, if I can call it that. That still doesn't negate my point that He should have judgement over us because we are his creations, tempted by another or not. Lucifer as an entity may as well be another plain person- a sin is a sin, no matter whom the tempter.

I have a problem with the Lucifer story.

God intended one his creations (earth) to be a paradise. However, another of God's creations (Lucifer) destroyed this initial creation (earth).

Either God made a mistake creating Lucifer or he meant to destroy his own paradise (Christians would have a lot of explaining to do if this were the case).

An attribute of God is that he is omniscient and perfect.

Part of God's omniscience requires that he would have known Lucifer would rebel and bring sin into the world. If he was not aware of this, he is no longer omniscient. If God creates Lucifer knowing he would sin he is no longer omnibenevolent.

God's perfection requires he never makes mistakes. Both his creation and process of creation should be perfect. God INTENDED earth to be a paradise. However, because of his own creation, Lucifer, his intended paradise is no longer a paradise. What he intended to happen did not happen. He is imperfect in this respect to. If he does not create Lucifer his creation earth still remains a paradise. God made an error creating Lucifer. If I am engineer and intend to help design a database I should not be held responsible for any external viruses that are not the result of my creation. If I introduce an object into my program, however, that creates a virus and destroys the database I am held responsible and liable by the company. I would be fired. The God of the Bible is a terrible designer.

If you say Lucifer introduced sin and evil through his free will how did he do so? Gods omniscience would require him to know our free will. Even if he allows to engage in such an action he would know it before hand. If the Christian God was omniscient he would have known Lucifer to be rebellious and hence he should have made Lucifer powerless. Instead he made the most rebellious angel the heir to the throne! A manager gets criticized for promoting poor employees, shouldn't God be held to a higher standard?

The Bible reminds me of a cliche story.

You have the villain Lucifer who is out to destroy the world and then there is Jesus the hero who saves the world.

Historically the Bible may be accurate in some respects but there is no doubt it is mythological in other respects.

The exact sources escape me, but I'm fairly confident that somewhere in the bible it was explained that Jesus was in fact God incarnate, but not just so, for he was also a mortal man capable of bleeding and dying. This would explain his astounding moral knowledge at such a young age, whereby he preached to the rabbis in the temple, and why by his own admission he says that his Father is greater than him. Apparently, becoming flesh and blood makes one less than perfect, even if you're God.

I don't think there is a single statement in the entire Bible were Jesus himself claims to be almighty God and asks to be worshiped.

Others claiming Jesus to be God and worshiping him is not valid because Jesus is not the only person to be given such a title.

There are people who claim Tupac Shakur is God and they are dead serious.

Why is Jesus not mentioned in the OT? I don't extensively read or study it, but there was a mention of the Messiah, was there not? I guess they didn't find it necessary to mention him by name, but I don't pretend to be an authority on the matter, I just defend my points to the best of my ability.

The Messiah propheciesed in the Old Testament is NOT GOD. He is simply a messiah. He is born to human parents. Christians attribute a virgin birth to Jesus. This negates him being the messiah on top of the prophecies of the Old Testament he did not fulfill.

As for the Trinity being mentioned only in the NT- the only explanation I can offer is that because Jesus did not previously exist / was not known to the people of old, neither could the Trinity. You can't introduce a device without its components, and if you did, you'd have a seriously lacking narrative as far as the Bible is concerned.

According to the trinity there is God the Father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit. You have a three part God. Jewish law deems the trinity idolatry. No where in the Old Testament is the trinity accepted. In fact it is outright rejected. Here is what Yaweh says in the old testament:

Isaiah 43:11 "I am Lord besides me there is no savior."

Isaiah 44:6 "I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god... Is there a god besides Me? There is no rock; I do not know any"

Isaiah 45:17, 20-23 "And there are no other gods beside Me, nor any righteous and saving god other than Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all ends of the earth, for I am G-d and there is none else. By Myself I swore, a righteous word went out of my mouth and it will not be withdrawn, that to Me every knee will bow and every tongue will swear"

Yaweh (considered God the Father by Christians) outright denies the possibility of any savior but him or any other form of God but him.

Christians actually twist these verses and say "to Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue will swear." Of course this is not supported in the Bible.

In a moment of outburst, I decided it was the latter but we both know that's ridiculous in of itself so for now I'll have to settle with the former and explain why.

It's not really that ridiculous. It's simple logic. You say that Jesus is paying the price for the sins of the world. The price is an eternity. Jesus did not that price. Even if he's God he still has to pay the correct price. Donald Trump has to pay the same for Twinkie at 7 11 as a child. The price remains the same regardless of whos paying it. That's justice. That's fair. Jesus paid an insufficient price.

When they were revealed is irrelevant to me, as long as I follow them. My point stands.

That's what the Old Testament states. Christians say that's not enough, however. God's law needs revision and addition? That doesn't make sense. The Old Testament is supposed to be the word of God. God is perfect so his law is perfect. Why is there a need for a New Testament. Perfection doesnt need anything added to it. Unless God's law was not perfect in the first place.

I don't pretend I have a firm grasp on the reality of what his judgement is, to whom it applies, and why for I am not him. I presented this view because it is my personal belief of how I conclude it to be, to the best of my ability. Having said that, can you find anything wrong or any concrete reason why I am wrong in my belief? If I make a living being (don't ask how, that's a secret) and it disobeys my commands, do I not have a right to punish it as its creator? Similarly, if it follows my commands I will reward it. The same concept applies here. I don't pretend to know what God plans, like I said, but it seems immensely logical to me that it should work in that way.

Again the punishment should fit the crime. Excessive punishment is unjust.

Also, my destiny is not solidified, and certainly not more so than anyones, as I discovered long ago. If I should decide to jump in front of a car right now, my destiny is in my likely demise, but it is one I chose for myself. On the other hand, if I choose to be successful, that is my choice too. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with how certain your destiny is.

I am probably in worse shape than you.

[RedDaze]

timsmith:
Would you say then that the original pentateuch laws were still valid? in which case, Christian's have done little in stoning homosexuals of late.

Another instance of fallibility? The creation of man is certainly not perfect, one can hardly claim 'intellegent' design with the amount of mental health issues and physical deformities among man. Not to mention that 99% of god's 'designed' organisms that have existed on this earth have become extinct. This isn't order or design, but random chaos.

Yes. He is more than welcome to change his imperfect laws. However, that he did suggests: he is not omniscient, his previous laws were flawed, and that he is not able to anticipate the future. This surely suggests fallibility if nothing else.

This one made me think a while and I realized two things: first, that God being all-knowing and all-seeing does not make him perfect from mistakes. I don't recall any direct statements from Him or Jesus or any heavenly figure stating that God is completely perfect and free of mistake. Now if these statements were made by prophets and any human figures, we can presume them to be at least slightly wrong.

Second, being perfect is subjective. Perfection to one is like beauty, and not perfection to another. Would you consider being emotionless and without mistake perfect? Because I do not. Infallibility is the state of not being able to make mistakes, which does not necessarily fall in line with being perfect.

And @truthreality, I'd like to offer you rebuttals on each of your individual points, but I'm in a bit of a rush and will be away for the weekend, so my argument above will have to suffice for now.

[truthreality]

This one made me think a while and I realized two things: first, that God being all-knowing and all-seeing does not make him perfect from mistakes. I don't recall any direct statements from Him or Jesus or any heavenly figure stating that God is completely perfect and free of mistake. Now if these statements were made by prophets and any human figures, we can presume them to be at least slightly wrong.

Second, being perfect is subjective. Perfection to one is like beauty, and not perfection to another. Would you consider being emotionless and without mistake perfect? Because I do not. Infallibility is the state of not being able to make mistakes, which does not necessarily fall in line with being perfect.

Perfection and infallibility go hand in hand, period. One who is subject to fallibility is no longer perfect. In fact, fallibility is the opposite of perfection. Even by human standards perfection is held to such a high standard. Often times people respond to being given the title of perfection with the answer "No I make mistakes". What is a perfect score on math test ruined by? A mistake.

Infallibility is also an aspect of omniscience. Omniscient beings can't make mistakes because they would know if they were going to make a mistake before they made it. Hence they would prevent themselves from making the mistake, unless theyre stupid.

Being perfect is subjective? There is a mathematical and a scientific aspect to perfection. Here is an equation. Perfection=100% infallibility. If someone gives the title of perfection to something that is not perfect, we can say there view is subjective. However, God is perfect. Giving the title of perfection to God is not subjective, it's objective. The beauty we judge on earth is subjective because the subjects we judge are not perfect. God, however, is perfect and his or her beauty is perfect as well.

Now you are saying that God's qualities are subjective. What's next, his laws are subjective?

No one is saying that God is cold and perfect. God is warm, loving and perfect.

If your God is subject to fallibility, why do you trust in Him with your eternal destiny? How could he create an eternal paradise like heaven? His creation heaven probably has a detrimental mistake just like his creation earth!

A God who is less than perfect is not worth worshiping because then he is just like anyone else.

[Questatement]

The problem is the Old Testament states that God's law is eternal and binding.

Where? How so?

Those who attempt to change it are deemed false prophets.

Are you sure it's not those who claim to prophesy in the name of God, yet what they predict does not come to pass?

Those who crucified Jesus were simply following the commands of the God of the Old Testament.

Where do you get that from and if so, were they interpreting the law correctly?

Have you heard te saying "no one is above the law"?

Yes, but how does it apply in this discussion?

[truthreality]

Yes, but how does it apply in this discussion?[/QUOTE]

[Questatement]

God's perfection requires he never makes mistakes. Both his creation and process of creation should be perfect. God INTENDED earth to be a paradise. However, because of his own creation, Lucifer, his intended paradise is no longer a paradise. What he intended to happen did not happen. He is imperfect in this respect to.

I think you have the wrong definition of perfect but it doesn't really change the main error in your thinking. God did intend mankind to flourish in a 'paradise' like scenario but had a higher priority called love. In fact, since love was the motivating factor for God to provide said flourishing, the character of love which motivated it would naturally come ahead/above the intent itself.

However, if genuine love requires the freedom to reject the loved offered, God was left with no choice but to allow for less than ideal human flourishing at sundry times and places. Personally, I define the perfection of God as complete and lacking nothing but that doesn't really affect this concept either way.

[grandpa]

I think you have the wrong definition of perfect but
it doesn't really change the main error in your thinking.
God did intend mankind to flourish in a 'paradise' like
scenario but had a higher priority called love.

How would you know this? Are you God's representative here on earth?
Don't worry: Divine claims are nothing new. In fact, it's arguably one of the basic concepts of law; "This policy is sacrosanct."

To insult intelligence more, we're expected to worship things specifically because they are vague:
"God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him
must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth."
-- Jesus in John 4:24

"Spirit" and "truth?" What does that mean? For religion, vagueness is a viable support infrastructure, if not the only one.

Grandpa h.