Where in the new testament will I find that? I find it questionable, as, like I said in a previous post, Jesus supposedly said:
Do you not find it interesting that he says he comes to fulfill the law (rather than just make people obey it)? There are numerous times in the bible where his people critizized him for not seeming to follow the law. Eating with publicans. Speaking with a foreign woman. Harvesting wheat on a sabbath. So your strict interpretation that He just intended to perpetuate the old Jewish laws does not seem to apply given other evidence.
Obviously I don't put much stock in the bible to begin with, but you're highlighting one of its biggest issues: It's chock full of contradicting messages. If Jesus supposedly meant to change the law, (or fulfill it, whatever that means) then why would he make such an adamant and absolute statement saying that nothing in it is supposed to change until the end of days? I am perfectly aware that there are plenty of ways to "get around" this passage in the bible by looking other places in it, but that doesn't really speak in the bible's favor, now does it? "Choose your own adventure" (Or rather, choose your own interpretation and moral code.)
First you want to make an argument based on the Bible, and now you are discrediting it entirely. Are you giving up your argument about not eating pork? Taking a single passage out of context is something many Christians like to do, and it doesn't make much sense when they do it either.
I am quite certain that Paul talks about this in the New Testament, but I can't seem to remember the verse, but if I find it I will update this post. I seem to remember that the law is designed for the Jewish people, and not for everyone else (Gentiles). The example that comes to mind is from the early days of Christianity, when Gentiles were first coming into the faith. There was lots of controversy, because the Gentiles were being put under the impression that they had to be circumcised in order to attain Heaven. Essentially, Paul explains that this is false. Hopefully I can find that verse, so that I have something more substantial to go off of for this post, but that is what I seem to remember.
We are not ridiculing you, this is how a debate works. We do not necessarily believe what you say is the truth, and that is why we ask you to prove it to us, and if you cannot, then you have lost the argument. Instead of answering any of my questions, you continue to change the subject, ASSERT that you KNOW that what you say is correct (without any form of valid evidence), and everyone else is wrong, and you even resort to challenging our integrity by saying we ridicule you. Is this to avoid answering my question, or is it to dodge it because you have no answer? Let's end this debate now, with a proving answer on your part (One that I cannot give a rebutle to) or admitting your loss maturely.
In the OT God told us not to eat pork, but what most people don't realize is that it was for their well-being. In those days pigs were an "unclean" animal that wallowed in it's own filth and at the time people didn't realize they would have to cook it enough to kill all these germs. Today, we know that the meat has to be cooked to a certain temperature. Call me crazy, but it makes more sense when you think about it!
It does make sense, but it still says in the Bible that eating pork is sin. It also says the laws are unchanging. I think alexchrod is just trying to point out that some people who think they're "True Christians" are really "sinning". Its also "Wrong" to wear clothes with mixed fabrics. And I think to eat lobster (Not sure). Anyway its just to show some of these people that they're not all that
That (In the Judeo-Christian Bible) it states that those in heaven will forget memories of the damned, and that you did not make that up to support your claim. I don't want any "Read between the lines", or "It depends how you interpret the scripture". A straight reference.
What verse says laws are unchanging, not saying it dosen't say that just wondering. And those are OT laws, there is a difference. Tomorrow I'ma ask my Bible teacher where the verse was that talks about why the OT laws about food and stuff changed in the NT.
That is the problem: There is no verse. That statement of people forgeting the lost souls was told to me by a Pastor, who has studied the Bible for many years. And besides, it makes sense. Could you live in happinies knowing that your son, daughter, ect. is suffering forever? No! so it makes sense that where God will judge you is where you will deny that person, claiming that you have never known them.
Not saying your wrong and im right or vis-versa but different forms of Christianity have the same general beliefs, but when it comes to the less specific things is where the debates come from between denominations. Take this story: Today in my Bible class at school my teacher presented us with a question, "If Jesus was 100% God and 100% man (which He was) then is it possible for Him to have been tempted to sin by satan, because if you are tempted then there is some desire inside of you to sin." After spending the entire 55 min class debating back and forth, and confusing absolutely everyone in the room, we came to the conclusion that satan did try to "tempt" Christ. But since Christ had no sin nature He had no desire to sin and thus He wasn't even tempted. I said the above to set me up for saying this: When there is no verse and we are just making assumptions that seem to make sense due to our knowledge of the Bible, we are believing these things on Faith. The beliefs above are also from a pastor and he has given that topic great thought and if you could talk to him about it he would make ur head hurt with all the seeming contradictions that it presents.
Mathew 5:18 (There are many different versions of the Bible, some vague, some clear, but this point is still pretty apparent that the laws are unchanging) And Psalm 119:160 And alright, tell me what he/she says
Back up your statement that "The Bible is Truth" without using the statement "Because it is the word of God." The Bible may say so, but that is circular reasoning and thus fallacy. As I explained earlier, it's akin to a child claiming Santa exists merely because the tag on their gift says so. There is no "reading between the lines" on this one, JTC, and in fact it sounds like your Pastor was taking the statement far too literally. The term "I never knew you" (or rather, "I don't know you"), speaks to a person's character. Or, if you wish, soul. You can be acquainted with someone for years, but then suppose you found out they were a habitual shoplifter, or worse. Would you be surprised? Taken aback perhaps? Consider the numerous celebrity scandals you see in the news - we know "of" these people, but then a situation arises and we find we don't really "know" them at all. The verse you reference above isn't speaking to literal lost memory, but of "false Christians" who think they are faithful because they invoke the name of Jesus or God in their work, but did not take the time to actually "know" God or his Son, and are thus cast out as nonbelievers. Or worse, if you take the last line "Away from me, you evildoers" into account - these are people who would be invoking the name of God or Jesus in terrible deeds - killing "in the name of the Lord" as an example. Of course, I don't think that invalidates the idea that, if your personal idea of heaven would be forgetting those whose memories would cause you pain, you would do so. Just that the verse you're pulling from doesn't support that claim.
Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's true. That is up to your pastors interpretation, and is not clearly stated in "His" word. I put quotes on his because the entire Bible is up to the authors interpretation. There have been many "lost" books of the Bible that were rejected by the pope (of the time) because it did not agree with his interpretation. (Like 1 Clement, a book rejected because some members of the religious communities did not believe in phoenixes, where Clement did.) My point is, it is unreliable. It is not what you KNOW is NOTHING but the TRUTH (as you stated earlier) it is what centuries of scholars preferred to be considered the truth.
Hebrews 10: 11-12, 15-16 And Psalm 119:160 The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever. Im guessing that your meaning "the entirety of Your word is truth" is your stand(just asking)?
If your a Christian then you know that we believe the Bible on Faith, those that believe in evolution believe it through Faith, because it also uses circular reasoning to "prove" itself. So your argument is invalid IF your trying to disprove Christianity that way.
I'm not trying to "disprove" Christianity, just his assertions that "THE BIBLE IS THE TRUTH." Believing that it's the truth is one thing. Declaring it in absolute, concrete terms as though it were verifiable fact when there's - as you conveniently point out - no way to actually verify it, makes the whole statement invalid. Don't misunderstand me, there is an amount of historically valid, verifiable stuff in there. And the commandments it puts down for living a moral life? Definitely something to respect. Jesus had a lot of good things to say. It's when you start getting into the more fanciful "divine" aspects, like God raining down plagues and Jesus being the flesh-and-blood son of a divine being... that's the part where I close the book and say "Nope."
