Separation of Church and State

[Lullaby Chainer]

What Jesus is referring to are the prophesies of the Old Testament. This verse in the Bible is one of many instances where Jesus alludes to being the savior that was predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament.

But.. he said. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets"

Law.. or the Prophets.

LAW.. or the Prophets.

I'm having difficulties following your reasoning behind concluding that he was only talking about prophesies.

Give me more examples of these laws you say he changed.

[shield772]

But.. he said. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets"

Law.. or the Prophets.

LAW.. or the Prophets.

I'm having difficulties following your reasoning behind concluding that he was only talking about prophesies.

Give me more examples of these laws you say he changed.

Because they were accusing him of attempting to abolish the laws of moses.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Because they were accusing him of attempting to abolish the laws of moses.

And? What is this responding to?

[shield772]

He said that to tell them that was not his purpose but to fulfill prophesy and to complete the law

[Lullaby Chainer]

He said that to tell them that was not his purpose but to fulfill prophesy and to complete the law

His purpose was not to abolish the laws. Ok.

What laws did he complete?

[Sonart]

.

What Jesus is referring to are the prophesies of the Old Testament.

Says who... you? Here's Matthew 5. He clearly speaks of 'The Law' and 'The Prophets'. Nothing about prophecies.

He also addresses divorce...

31 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.'
32 "But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

That's interesting. Another 'Traditional Moral Value' that's evolved with time?

Again, taken out of context. The writer of the letter (and might I add not Jesus) in this chapter is telling people that while you should follow Jesus, you also must follow the laws of your land and be a good citizen. The laws of the land at the time included legal slavery.

How about that. The 'Traditional Moral Values' of the time, right? And since the Bible didn't oppose those values, it condoned them as acceptable.

As to "and I might add, not Jesus", care to point out what parts of the Bible were written by Jesus? Are you now suggesting that anything not written by Jesus is potentially subject to error?

Again, the writer is saying to follow the laws of the land.

And therefore condones them. Is not the Bible, regardless of the author, the inspired Word of God? Are there passages in the Bible that declares slavery to be legal but wrong?

I don't see how this (1 Tim 6:1) either condones or condemns slavery. It is neutral.

You don't??? It presumes that owning slaves is fine, just so long as you are kind to them.

Merely acknowledging slavery exists does not condone it. In fact, this verse goes against slavery, since it says that slaves are just as valuable as free people in the eyes of God.

con-done v 1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).

They completely disregarded slavery as objectionable, although it wasn't objectionable at the time... except to the slaves. Saying that people, slave or free, were equal in the eyes of God never seemed to translate into slavery being wrong. It simply said that, as the church has been telling bonded peasants thoughout its history, "Accept your lot in life because, if you believe, you'll be rewarded when you die, so back to work everyone."

Hey, good try though. Keep going to whatever website you are and searching the Bible text for the word "slave"... Eventually you'll be able to take something out of context enough that it might satisfy you...

As you have repeatedly pointed out, slavery was the traditional moral value of the time... the law of the land. More than that, slavery was a vital part of the economies and civilizations of the time, as much a part of life as a television is today. Recall that American slave-holders, prior to the Civil War, used the Bible liberally as justification for their peculiar institution.

The fact is, prior to a few hundred years ago, slavery was a perfectly acceptable institution, particularly slaves from 'pagan' regions. The Law - the Old Testament - spelled out quite clearly how non-Hebrew (which Jesus was) slaves should be treated differently than Hebrew slaves.

Well, that 'Traditional Moral Value' has changed dramatically with the onset of the modern world. Yet here you are trying to reconcile the values of today with what was a perfectly acceptable traditional value 2,000 years ago by saying that I somehow misunderstand it.

We both understand it quite clearly, tivodan. Your problem is trying to reconcile a moral value of today, which has evolved, with the moral values of another time, but which are supposed to be eternal and unimpeachable. Quite a challenge, as we can read in every "defending the Bible" website, with folks bending over backwards trying to explain how we "misinterpret" or "take out of context" things which you've already conceded were the accepted - and unquestioned - law of the land.

.

[RickSp]

Why is it that Christians here and elsewhere can disavow the Old Testament then turn around and fight to have the Ten Commandments on display hither and yon? How can you renounce part of the Mosaic code while memorializing the bit that you like? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Sonart]

.

Because they were accusing him of attempting to abolish the laws of moses.

And? What is this responding to?

He said that to tell them that was not his purpose but to fulfill prophesy and to complete the law

I don't think so.

Then he said, "You reject God's laws in order to hold on to your own traditions. 10 For instance, Moses gave you this law from God: 'Honor your father and mother,' and 'Anyone who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.' 11 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, 'Sorry, I can't help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I could have given to you.' 12 You let them disregard their needy parents. 13 As such, you break the law of God in order to protect your own tradition. And this is only one example. There are many, many others." -- Mark 7:9

Of course, the entire chapter is simply Jesus trying to rationalize why he had broken the Hebrew law about washing his hands before eating... something every child is still admonished to do to this day.

Why is it that Christians here and elsewhere can disavow the Old Testament then turn around and fight to have the Ten Commandments on display hither and yon?

Indeed... posting it right up next to their graven image of Christ on the Cross.


.

[grandpa]

I found it.

1 Corinthians 14
14:34
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law."

Care to address this one? It wans't just my aksing a bullshit question. I remembered there was such a passage, and sure enough there is. And this is in the New Testament.

Grandpa h.

[Aeris]

Why is it that Christians here and elsewhere can disavow the Old Testament then turn around and fight to have the Ten Commandments on display hither and yon? How can you renounce part of the Mosaic code while memorializing the bit that you like? Doesn't make sense to me.

That's actually something I don't understand either. In the new testaments, there appear to be only two rules "Love your God as the one true God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Furthermore, in arguements about say the morality of homosexuality or capital punishment, Christians can draw verses from both testaments, but when issues like slavery or cruelty towards women and children are brought up suddenly the verses in the New Testament don't count.

[shield772]

Why is it that Christians here and elsewhere can disavow the Old Testament then turn around and fight to have the Ten Commandments on display hither and yon? How can you renounce part of the Mosaic code while memorializing the bit that you like? Doesn't make sense to me.

Because the ten comandments happen to be the basis for western civilizations rules of law, it's history. Like every other monument we put up.

I found it.

1 Corinthians 14
14:34
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law."

Care to address this one? It wans't just my aksing a bullshit question. I remembered there was such a passage, and sure enough there is. And this is in the New Testament.

Grandpa h.

What is your point, God has placed the man as the head of the family, man was first woman was created from man to be a help maid, in our modern society woman can vote they can serve in the military they hold high elected offices they run corporations and in some countries they run them. In christianity the woman is subject to the man, ok you got us on that one.

That's actually something I don't understand either. In the new testaments, there appear to be only two rules "Love your God as the one true God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Furthermore, in arguements about say the morality of homosexuality or capital punishment, Christians can draw verses from both testaments, but when issues like slavery or cruelty towards women and children are brought up suddenly the verses in the New Testament don't count.

What cruelty to woman and children?

[Sonart]

.

What cruelty to woman and children?

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." -- 1 Samuel 15:2-3


.