Christians Time Travelling to the OT

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to go off topic, but is that for real? was that to do with the war, or was it just one of those laws that came about with the advent of electricity in homes?

You will also notice that the headlights on cars of the day usually had all but a thin strip blacked out.

PDN

So we can't stone kids after all then?

That's a shame. The little brat next door keeps kicking his football over the fence - I thought I might have been able to collect a few rocks and sort him out.

philologos

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Yes, but as the OP has said, what is acceptable and unacceptable changes. Most Christians eat pork, don't keep slaves etc. I know that this is not what you mean, but it is an example of what was unacceptable and what is now acceptable. Rules that God made.

The Torah did not say that one has to keep slaves at all firstly. Secondly, I'm not too sure that the view on pork is correct, I personally would view that as Jesus contesting the Pharisees on Rabbinical Judaism which went further than the Torah has commanded them to, but I'm sure plenty would disagree with this view.

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Do you think that divine revelation is complete, now? Or could he choose another chosen people, a small select group and shelter them?

There is no other Gospel (Galatians 1:8), but people do have skills of prophesy, it's a fruit of the Spirit.

Standman

PDN wrote: »

So we can't stone kids after all then?

That's a shame. The little brat next door keeps kicking his football over the fence - I thought I might have been able to collect a few rocks and sort him out.

Ah I'm sure god wouldn't mind! The kid wouldn't happen to be egyptian by any chance?

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

So we can't stone kids after all then?

That's a shame. The little brat next door keeps kicking his football over the fence - I thought I might have been able to collect a few rocks and sort him out.

The Bible doesn't condemn throwing pebbles, PDN. Using Standman's logic, I believe there is hope yet!

JimiTime

Ahh, a good old fashioned stoning, I'll hold the coats.

Tar.Aldarion

Standman wrote: »

It seems apparent that a lot of the nasty primitive stuff in the OT (stoning, animal sacrafice, etc..) is now irrelevant to Christians due to the teachings of the New Testament and Jesus Christ, well, except for slavery that is.

Does this mean that if a modern day Christian were to travel back in time to the Old testament era in Israel, he/she would have to accept that these barbaric laws are morally right?

I would like to know what ye guys would make of such a situation because I find it very hard to believe that you would be able to just change your morals because god says so.

I am unfamiliar with the OT vs the NT. I take it that people that believe in the christian god think the OT was right and that the NT is an updated version or something, brought to them by Jesus?
So tehn the OT was not right after all since they both contain different moral values and so on?

Red Hand

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

I am unfamiliar with the OT vs the NT. I take it that people that believe in the christian god think the OT was right and that the NT is an updated version or something, brought to them by Jesus?
So tehn the OT was not right after all since they both contain different moral values and so on?

Old testment was Windows XP vs the New Testament which is Vista?:) (Joke!)

Tar.Aldarion

The NT seems more like an expansion pack, now with added morals?

Red Hand

Mmmmm...but much more compatible with other systems than the old version. Malware appendices in Revelations.

Black Swan

PDN wrote: »

No, I would not be happy if children were stoned...

Therefore a young man (obviously an adult, since he was a profligate and a drunkard) who persistently flouted the law could bring destruction upon the entire community. In that case the responsibility lay with the parents to bring the young man to the elders, and if the elders deemed it necessary he was to be killed in order to protect the whole tribe.

"Obviously and adult" and not a child being stoned may be problematic?

Why the responsibility of the "parents" if the child was an adult? Why not the community leaders, or those charged for enforcement of the laws of the tribe? For example, if the "child" were 35 years old, would the "parents" still be responsible (or even alive)? Given high maternal mortality, and deaths due to disease, accidents, and war, there's a very good chance that neither parents would be alive if their child was 35. So why "parents," which suggests to me that the child was not an adult, but rather a teenager (I can certainly find quite a few young teens that are drunk and challenge the laws in this day and age!). So stoning your 14 year old would be OK back then, and would be consistent with God's Old Testament laws?

Why does this remind me of another religion that recently was in the news for condemning a woman (who had been raped) to be stoned to death? Although the international media outrage spared this woman, the ancient laws of that religion still prevail to this day for those raped women who do not get the attention of the media.

Once again, I cannot agree with the extraordinary violence and barbarity of the Old Testament, or the morality contained therein, in terms of its literal application to today. It does not evidence the Christian spirit or ethic contained in the New Testament, and should be set aside as a document for its historical context only. Or should parents go back to the public stoning of their disobedient children? "Spare the (stone), spoil the child?"

PDN

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Obviously and adult" and not a child being stoned may be problematic?

Why the responsibility of the "parents" if the child was an adult? Why not the community leaders, or those charged for enforcement of the laws of the tribe?

In many cultures the relationship between parents and offspring, with their attendant responsibilities and obedience, do not stop after childhood.

For example, if the "child" were 35 years old, would the "parents" still be responsible (or even alive)? Given high maternal mortality, and deaths due to disease, accidents, and war, there's a very good chance that neither parents would be alive if their child was 35.

Plenty of people in the Old Testament lived to be a good age. Moses lived to 120, Joshua & Caleb both lived to be over 80. And if the young man's parents weren't alive then these particular verses wouldn't apply, would they?

So why "parents," which suggests to me that the child was not an adult, but rather a teenager (I can certainly find quite a few young teens that are drunk and challenge the laws in this day and age!). So stoning your 14 year old would be OK back then, and would be consistent with God's Old Testament laws?

The point when a child becomes a man varies from culture to culture. In modern Judaism I think the Bar Mitzvah is around the age of 13. It is possible (but we can't know for sure) that in the days of Deuteronomy 14-year-olds might have been considered adults and as such fought in wars, got married, fathered kids and were subject to adult punishments if convicted of criminal offences.

Why does this remind me of another religion that recently was in the news for condemning a woman (who had been raped) to be stoned to death? Although the international media outrage spared this woman, the ancient laws of that religion still prevail to this day for those raped women who do not get the attention of the media.

Why? Possibly because you have a weakness for equating totally different and unconnected scenarios even when they are separated by thousands of years.

Or should parents go back to the public stoning of their disobedient children?

To 'go back' to stoning children you would have to offer some evidence that children were ever stoned in the first place - something you haven't done so far.

philologos

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Old testment was Windows XP vs the New Testament which is Vista?:) (Joke!)

Yes, but it is based on the same Windows backend as the Old Testament . Believe it or not that is a good analogy of sorts. Throughout time the Old Testament was developed and expanded upon by the prophets and the Gospel.

Standman

I think it is apparent that god doesn't mind condemning children to death if he wishes, as seen in Egypt when every firstborn was murdered by him.

Also Jesus wasn't above this sort of thing, as he would have us believe that you must execute your children if they curse or hit you.

Exodus 21:15 "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."

Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

I suppose if you don't like the sound of that you could wiggle around it by saying that only an adult would curse or hit their parents?

Black Swan

PDN wrote: »

Plenty of people in the Old Testament lived to be a good age. Moses lived to 120, Joshua & Caleb both lived to be over 80.

How do you know for certain that was their age, in terms of how we measure age today?

PDN wrote:

The point when a child becomes a man varies from culture to culture. In modern Judaism I think the Bar Mitzvah is around the age of 13. It is possible (but we can't know for sure) that in the days of Deuteronomy 14-year-olds might have been considered adults and as such fought in wars, got married, fathered kids and were subject to adult punishments if convicted of criminal offences.

My point exactly. At that time it would be OK for parents to recommend the stoning of their 13 or 14 year old children (per the scripture you quoted earlier), but not today? Why not? The OP implied or made explicit this question as it pertains to past and present issues of morality and how the Old Testament may be used to inform us respectively?

PDN wrote:

Why? Possibly because you have a weakness for equating totally different and unconnected scenarios even when they are separated by thousands of years.

This comment is inappropriate, and you know it. In the past I have both agreed and disagreed with comments you have offered, but never intentionally criticized you personally as having "a weakness" or whatever.

PDN

Standman wrote: »

I think it is apparent that god doesn't mind condemning children to death if he wishes, as seen in Egypt when every firstborn was murdered by him.

Now you're totally changing the subject. There's a world of difference in believing that God gives and takes away life, and living under the morality of the Old Testament Law. Many people, for example, believe that when a baby dies that God "took the child home to heaven" - but that does not lead them to think it's OK for us to kill babies.

Also Jesus wasn't above this sort of thing, as he would have us believe that you must execute your children if they curse or hit you.

Exodus 21:15 "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."

Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

Er, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Jesus didn't write Exodus.

I suppose if you don't like the sound of that you could wiggle around it by saying that only an adult would curse or hit their parents?

No wiggling necessary - just the reading of Scripture in context. In fact, why don't you try it? Go and read Exodus Chapter 21 - the whole chapter. It talks about the owning of slaves etc. and is quite obviously referring throughout to adults.

Tar.Aldarion

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but it is based on the same Windows backend as the Old Testament . Believe it or not that is a good analogy of sorts. Throughout time the Old Testament was developed and expanded upon by the prophets and the Gospel.

And are there any contradictions between the two, moral guides, laws, information?

PDN

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

How do you know for certain that was their age, in terms of how we measure age today?

Because then, as now, they measured one's age in years. And then, as now, there were 365 days in a year.

My point exactly. At that time it would be OK for parents to recommend the stoning of their 13 or 14 year old children (per the scripture you quoted earlier), but not today? Why not?

I don't think it's OK to stone anyone today.

As societies become more refined, or 'civilised', childhood gets longer. So Masai teenagers could be hunting lions at an age when my daughter still had to have her homework done and to be in bed by 10pm.

This comment is inappropriate, and you know it. In the past I have both agreed and disagreed with comments you have offered, but never intentionally criticized you personally as having "a weakness" or whatever.

I'm genuinely sorry when I cause anyone offence, but your question was couched in personal terms. You asked "Why does this remind me?" There was nothing in the actual subject matter to cause such a remembrance, so I presumed the answer must lie in your own psyche. Apologies if it was inappropriate. Next time you ask a personal question about your feelings or mental processes I will avoid suggesting any answers.

robindch

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

The NT seems more like an expansion pack, now with added morals?

Nope, with most "morals" removed, so it runs on the widest range of wetware, and lets just about anybody get exactly what they want from it.

Differing interpretations aren't a problem with the bible. Rather, they're an integral part of its enduring popularity.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Plenty of people in the Old Testament lived to be a good age. Moses lived to 120, Joshua & Caleb both lived to be over 80.

And Genesis 5:27 has Methuselah popping his sandals at 969 years.

Do you believe that this actually happened?

Standman

PDN wrote: »

Er, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Jesus didn't write Exodus.

My apologies, you are correct! This is the verse where we have Jesus reiterating gods command:

Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

PDN wrote: »

Now you're totally changing the subject. There's a world of difference in believing that God gives and takes away life, and living under the morality of the Old Testament Law. Many people, for example, believe that when a baby dies that God "took the child home to heaven" - but that does not lead them to think it's OK for us to kill babies.

The point I was trying to make was that god is not above murdering children if he so wishes. I thought it was worth mentioning in case someone were to think that god would not condone the stoning to death of children.

PDN wrote: »

No wiggling necessary - just the reading of Scripture in context. In fact, why don't you try it? Go and read Exodus Chapter 21 - the whole chapter. It talks about the owning of slaves etc. and is quite obviously referring throughout to adults.

That is true, but it kind of leaves open a few loose ends. I mean, it doesn't in any way rule out the execution of children if they were to hit/curse their parents. Reading that chapter you would by no means be able to come to the conclusion that you must not execute a child if he curses or smites his parents.

Where in the chapter does it give guidelines as to what age-group these laws are to be applied? How old do you have to be to own a slave etc..?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

And Genesis 5:27 has Methuselah popping his sandals at 969 years.

Do you believe that this actually happened?

Yes I do.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Yes I do.

Well, if that's the case, you'd appear more consistent if you were less suspicious of other religions treating the passage of similar periods of time as unimportant.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, if that's the case, you'd appear more consistent if you were less suspicious of other religions treating the passage of similar periods of time as unimportant.

It's late at night, so I'll excuse such a contrived comparison.

There is a world of difference between:
a) Believing that someone lived a life span way in excess of what most people consider possible

and

b) Believing that someone born hundreds of years after an event is as likely to give an accurate account of that event as contemporary eye-witnesses.

Robin, if you really think there is any equivalency between those two positions then you have been spending too much time in the Creationism thread.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It's late at night, so I'll excuse such a contrived comparison.

There is a world of difference between:
a) Believing that someone lived a life span way in excess of what most people consider possible

and

b) Believing that someone born hundreds of years after an event is as likely to give an accurate account of that event as contemporary eye-witnesses.

Robin, if you really think there is any equivalency between those two positions then you have been spending too much time in the Creationism thread.

not really.

Both assertions (someone like Noah lived 900 years, Mohammad knows what really happened to Jesus) are rather implausible and require the acceptance of a supernatural element, in the case of the ancient people of the OT the idea that select humans can live for close to a thousand years, in the case of Mohammad that an angel from God arrived and told him things.

I don't mean to bash this point around and around, but it does seem rather inconsitent to so readily accept a range of supernatural events and yet seemingly reject off hand anothers. I'm not saying you should believe what Muslims do about Mohammad, but you have to admit PDN that comments such as "Think about it" could just as easily be applied to pretty much everything you believe as well. How you think there is a world of difference I have no idea

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

not really.

Both assertions (someone like Noah lived 900 years, Mohammad knows what really happened to Jesus) are rather implausible and require the acceptance of a supernatural element, in the case of the ancient people of the OT the idea that select humans can live for close to a thousand years, in the case of Mohammad that an angel from God arrived and told him things.

I don't mean to bash this point around and around, but it does seem rather inconsitent to so readily accept a range of supernatural events and yet seemingly reject off hand anothers. I'm not saying you should believe what Muslims do about Mohammad, but you have to admit PDN that comments such as "Think about it" could just as easily be applied to pretty much everything you believe as well. How you think there is a world of difference I have no idea

Indeed, the comment "think about it" could indeed be applied to many things that you or I believe. That is why I post on this board - to encourage people to think about these things more deeply instead of simply rejecting them out of hand because of your gripe against Christianity or theism in general.

So let's unpick your reasoning here.
Your argument can be summed up as follows:
a) PDN believes in something that Wicknight and Robin find implausible (Methusaleh living an amazingly long life).
b) PDN also argues that one claim to to accurately record certain events (the life of Jesus) is more plausible than another.
c) Therefore PDN is inconsistent.

Do you see how bone-headed that reasoning is? Let's frame it another way to demonstrate its absurdity:

a) Wicknight believes in something that PDN finds implausible (that the eye-witness accounts to the resurrection were a mass case of false memory syndrome).
b) Wicknight also argues that one theory of how human life developed (evolution) is more plausible than anther (creationism).
c) Therefore Wicknight is inconsistent.

In fact, using this logic, providing that I can find anything that another poster believes that I find implausible, therefore I can accuse them of inconsistency and imply that they are disqualified from assessing the plausibility or otherwise of anything else on any subject imaginable. Such tactics might work if you want to do some cheap grandstanding - but they will not fool any thoughtful reader of your posts.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, the comment "think about it" could indeed be applied to many things that you or I believe. That is why I post on this board - to encourage people to think about these things more deeply instead of simply rejecting them out of hand because of your gripe against Christianity or theism in general.

So let's unpick your reasoning here.
Your argument can be summed up as follows:
a) PDN believes in something that Wicknight and Robin find implausible (Methusaleh living an amazingly long life).
b) PDN also argues that one claim to to accurately record certain events (the life of Jesus) is more plausible than another.
c) Therefore PDN is inconsistent.

Do you see how bone-headed that reasoning is?

Certainly, but then that isn't my reasoning or the point that myself and Robin are trying to make.

a) PDN believes in the correctness of his religion's account of the life and supernatural ability of Jesus based on a believe that the correctness is ensured by a supernatural element (Jesus was the son of God, and those who recorded his life were inspired by God)

b) The Muslim poster believers in the correctness of his religion's account of the life of Jesus based on a belief that the correctness is ensured by a supernatural element (Mohammad communicated directly with an angel sent by God)

c) PDN told the Muslim poster to "think about it" and critiqued the Mohammad account as being the account of an illiterate Arab who lived 500 years after the life of Jesus thus being rather implausible, while ignoring the supernatural element and the correctness that it ensures.

The point is that you ignore the supernatural element of the Mohammand story while embracing the supernatural element (and the assurance of plausibility this brings) with your own story.

You have your own reasons for believing there is a supernatural element to the story of the life of Jesus, but then a Muslim has his/her reasons for believing the supernatural element of the experience of Mohammad is also correct.

And once a supernatural element is accepted pretty much anything is on the table.

That was Robin's point about the common response that God isn't limited that skeptics so often meet on this forum when challenging the plausibility of stories in the Bible.

As you often (correctly) point out Jesus paranormal events, such as rising from the dead are only highly implausible if one doesn't introduce the supernatural element of the a deity capable of doing things like rising people from the dead. Once introduced anyone rising from the dead becomes plausible. You, and other posters, include that supernatural element and then say that it is not at all implausible that Jesus could rise from the dead given the existence of that supernatural element (God).

To be consistent you should really also recognize that Muslims do exactly the same thing when discussing Mohammad.

To leave out the supernatural element and then to discuss the implausibility of Mohammad actually knowing what Jesus' life was like because he live 500 years later is the inconsistency.

I certainly appreciate that you don't believe Mohammad had a supernatural encounter with an angel set from God, but that is irrelevant to a Muslim who does. Arguing the implausibility of Mohammad's knowledge of Jesus without including the messenger from God is rather pointless, particularly when you so readily invoke similar supernatural elements when faced with critique of your own religion's paranormal stories.

This is a common issue that is often met on this forum, either between Christians and other religions, or even between say Catholics and non-Catholics, and I must say that I find it all puzzling.

Surely someone who so readily accepts a supernatural element increasing the plausibility of the various paranormal events their religion teaches actually happened would be far more considering of how the paranormal events in other religions (or branches of Christianity) come into play and how these paranormal events can be easily used to justify and explain other elements, just like in your own religion.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly, but then that isn't my reasoning or the point that myself and Robin are trying to make.

a) PDN believes in the correctness of his religion's account of the life and supernatural ability of Jesus based on a believe that the correctness is ensured by a supernatural element (Jesus was the son of God, and those who recorded his life were inspired by God)

b) The Muslim poster believers in the correctness of his religion's account of the life of Jesus based on a belief that the correctness is ensured by a supernatural element (Mohammad communicated directly with an angel sent by God)

c) PDN told the Muslim poster to "think about it" and critiqued the Mohammad account as being the account of an illiterate Arab who lived 500 years after the life of Jesus thus being rather implausible, while ignoring the supernatural element and the correctness that it ensures.

The point is that you ignore the supernatural element of the Mohammand story while embracing the supernatural element (and the assurance of plausibility this brings) with your own story.

Ehh, What?? The OP made a point that Jesus is a revered prophet in Islam, just that the Gospel accounts are false. So to make a point about the plausability of this being true has little to do with anything supernatural. The point, to me anyway, was simply stating that the Gospels were written by witnesses, or people close to the witnesses of the events. Then 550 years later ONE MAN 'Claims' that an angel came and informed him those accounts were false, and here's the final revelation.

Think about it.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Robin, if you really think there is any equivalency between those two positions then you have been spending too much time in the Creationism thread.

Come now, PDN, don't be so silly!

In comparison to the strenuous and continuous effort that must be needed to sustain the usual christian beliefs, for example, that a man could live to 969 years, or that somebody could die a frightful death, then come back to life and fly off into the sky, or that a women could have a child without having had sex, I'd have thought that the effort needed to believe that an illiterate merchant could write down something is comparatively, quite modest.

Can't say much more than "Think about it"!

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Ehh, What?? The OP made a point that Jesus is a revered prophet in Islam, just that the Gospel accounts are false. So to make a point about the plausability of this being true has little to do with anything supernatural.

Well, as hunnybunny said -

"The word was given to Mohommed through the angel Gabriel (same angel who told Mary she was expecting)"

and then later

"Maybe its all simply down to which version of the story of jesus do you believe more? the Bibles version or the Korans?"

Which prompted PDN comment about the believability of "the version that an illiterate Arab merchant says he received from an angel 550 years after the event"

Why would you not believe the version Mohammad received from God through the Angel Gabriell? Is God going to lie to Mohammad?

JimiTime wrote: »

The point, to me anyway, was simply stating that the Gospels were written by witnesses, or people close to the witnesses of the events. Then 550 years later ONE MAN 'Claims' that an angel came and informed him those accounts were false, and here's the final revelation.

That is exactly the point.

The Bible is written by people claiming to be witnesses to Jesus, who claim that he claimed to be the Son of God. They claim he did amazing things and then claim he came back from the dead.

All the things in the Bible are highly implausible to the point of ridiculousness unless one first introduces a supernatural deity that has the ability to make these things actually happen. Without that it is just a bunch of religious nuts making the same wacky claims as countless other cults about miracles and paranormal happenings.

The Quran was written by a man claiming to have received a revelation from God through a messenger in the form of an angel, which included the claims about about Jesus. That is highly implausible unless one introduces a supernatural deity that communicates with people through angels. Without that it is just a crazy guy who had weird hallucination in the desert.

Both stories are utter nonsense unless one already introduces an agent that allows them to be some what plausible (ie God).

The idea that a Christian (or Muslim) would introduce this agent to rationalize their own supernatural tales, but then not do the same when critiquing the claims of another religion, is rather ridiculous.

Say what you like about atheists, but we tend not to introduce supernatural explanations at any point, especially not for our own beliefs but then not for others.