Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

[oldbadger]

Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

It most certainly did!
Would anybody like to challenge that ?

[oldbadger]

This is an interesting claim. It goes against most accepted history, so it is revisionist to say the least. What historical sources led you to the conclusion?

Slavery was acknowledged and accepted by Paul... Have you never heard of that? And Christian communities were involved in slavery. Now why are you asking me for historical sources?

Christian communities involved in wars, violence, gender discrimination and the rest of my claims have been scattered down the timeline for centuries.

If you want an obvious example of all the wickednesses I will refer you to the lives of the Borgias.

[oldbadger]

It's rather a misunderstanding of the big picture. There is a difference between Law (which is applicable to angels) and covenants (only applicable to humans) and Mosaic Law (embedded inside a covenant but resembles Law however only applicable to humans, the Jews to be more specific).

No Hawkins. The Mosaic laws were there for any community to adopt and benefit from. They were temporal and we're the formula for a safe, secure, healthy, strong, cohesive and successful people.

Law, the set applicable to angels and humans as well, will follow by an objective judgment (known as Final Judgment of Law) based on one's past and one's behavior. The judgment requires a Judge (who is Jesus), a jury (made of chosen saints and angels, Paul said we judge even angels), an accuser who is Satan and the case by case eyewitnesses. As long as a sin (of the past and in terms of behavior) is spotted with valid witnessing, the sinner is setenced accordingly. Jesus as the Judge will remain fairly/justly objective.

Now this is all part of your beliefs, Hawkins. I personally don't believe in final-judgements, angels, Jesus the God etc and I don't use the word 'sin'. I must open a thread about the word 'sin' sometime, it's only used by theists as soon as they think of religion (I find)......

Covenants are earned by the blood of Christ and will be followed by a subjective Judgment by Christ. While Law is about an objective Judgment, covenants are about an subjective judgment from a fair and just God (who is Jesus Christ God the Son). The judgment itself is not limited to one's past and one's behavior but one's heart and even one's future to a certain extent (it's out of human comprehension though, that's why the judgment is deemed subjective). One's heart and Faith itself can only be judged by such a fair and just God. Still under most possible circumstances, cases are well witnessed through the sinner's behavior (even behavior reflects faith, faith without work is dead). However God would make the final decision subjectively as humans and angels can only witness behavior but only God can judge hearts and actual faith. Humans can only have rough estimation on one's faith by watching his behavior. The nature of faith however is something internal and can only be precisely judged by a God.

Again, this your personal belief. I am a Deist and believe in none of that. I think it's time for Theists to stop imagining how they will be saved (whilst doing whatever they like)....

That being said. 613 laws belong to the Mosaic Covenant and are subject to the covenantal subjective Judgment. Jesus can thus define more precisely on how the 613 laws shall be used on the Judgment Day, with the scope applied to the Pharisees. What is said to the Pharisees is an estimation on what has been reflected by their heart, Jesus judges hearts. It's not about cherry picking, it's all about the revelation that humans' Final Judgment is a subjective one carried out subjectively by Jesus Christ, though He will be fair and just, but the judgment itself with be on hearts and on faith which humans and angels cannot precisely speculate.

With the Judgment of Covenant, Jesus is the Judge who will perform a subjective judgment, though under possible circumstances with past and behavior involved will still rely on valid witnesses. Jesus however can judge heart and faith more precisely which is beyond the capability of humans to witness. Just as said, even without human and angel witnesses God's Trinity will be the final and valid witnessing, especially to something concerning heart and faith. The Judgment of Covenant is for humans only, as it's earned by Jesus' crucifixion. Or else humans shall face the same Judgment of Law applicable to the angels, under Law all humans shall die.

No, Hawkins. The Mosaic laws were a brilliant piece of legislation (back then) for producing a successful nation of people. That's it. And any group of persons could adapt them or join in with them as well.

[bjs1]

This is an interesting claim. It goes against most accepted history, so it is revisionist to say the least. What historical sources led you to the conclusion?

Slavery was acknowledged and accepted by Paul... Have you never heard of that? And Christian communities were involved in slavery. Now why are you asking me for historical sources?

Paul acknowledged slavery in the sense that it existed and likely wasnt going away soon. However, he instructed slave owners who came to Christ that their slaves would no longer be slaves, but brothers (Philemon 1:17). However, recognizing that life was not always so black and white, he did not call for a slave rebellion. Instead told those with power over others to treat them fairly (Philippians 6:9)

That said, I am willing to let that issue go. I am curious about the rest of your claims.

If you want an obvious example of all the wickednesses I will refer you to the lives of the Borgias.

I assume you mean that House of Borgia. The only time I have heard them called the Borgias was on that fictional TV show a decade ago. Under standard definitions, the 15th century is not considered part of the early church.

Christian communities involved in wars, violence, gender discrimination and the rest of my claims have been scattered down the timeline for centuries.

If your argument is "People who call themselves Christians have done bad things," then I am in complete agreement. I call myself a Christian and I have done bad things.

However, you originally wrote "The early church built up it's own traditions, beliefs and dogma to a point where it could do mostly anything it liked, such as indulging in wealth whilst ignoring extreme poverty, horrific wars and violence, slavery and so many other wickednesses."

If you stand by that statement then I again ask what historical sources led you to that conclusion.

[POI]

Paul acknowledged slavery in the sense that it existed and likely wasnt going away soon. However, he instructed slave owners who came to Christ that their slaves would no longer be slaves, but brothers (Philemon 1:17). However, recognizing that life was not always so black and white, he did not call for a slave rebellion. Instead told those with power over others to treat them fairly (Philippians 6:9)

That said, I am willing to let that issue go. I am curious about the rest of your claims.

You forgot to mention the part about the Bible attempting to convince slaves to work as hard as they can for their masters. I reckon such verse(s) were written by humans who favored slavery, or were even slave owners themselves. Makes sense to write verse(s) to make appointed slave(s) think a God is always watching them and also convince them to work hard and try not to run away from their chattel slave master(s). This way, it was easier for the slave masters to 'control' their slaves (i.e.):

Colossians 3:22-24 - 22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.

I think maybe what Oldbadger was also saying, is that Christians used the Bible to reinforce slavery practices. This is why the Bible is a hot steaming pile of doo doo, IMHO. The Bible's proclamations are haphazard about a very important topic for humans, -- (chattel slavery). You Christians can cherry pick this topic, or, spin it to taste. Using the Bible, a Christian can and did promote the continuance of chattel slavery practices. Much of the globe later abolished such practices altogether because we humans ultimately figured out, on our own, that such condoned chattel slavery is and was always "bad".

[oldbadger]

Paul acknowledged slavery in the sense that it existed and likely wasnt going away soon. ..........
.........That said, I am willing to let that issue go. I am curious about the rest of your claims.

OK.....

I assume you mean that House of Borgia. The only time I have heard them called the Borgias was on that fictional TV show a decade ago. Under standard definitions, the 15th century is not considered part of the early church.

So the Borgia family (the Borgias is a usual title for a family where I live) outrage was fictional? Do you really believe that? I picked one of so many examples and you want another?......and maybe then another?

If your argument is "People who call themselves Christians have done bad things," then I am in complete agreement. I call myself a Christian and I have done bad things.

There's a difference between naughty things and belligerent wars, ignoring health needs and welfare for masses, etc.

However, you originally wrote "The early church built up it's own traditions, beliefs and dogma to a point where it could do mostly anything it liked, such as indulging in wealth whilst ignoring extreme poverty, horrific wars and violence, slavery and so many other wickednesses."

If you stand by that statement then I again ask what historical sources led you to that conclusion.

Let's start with the gospels, whereas G-Mark showed a completely different picture about what Jesus said and did, from there his status, miracles and actions began to take on a quite different kind, and by G-John he was a different person with different enemies to suit church doctrine. The enemies of Jesus changed from the Temple Priesthood to 'the Jews' this promoting outrageous antiSemitism around the world for millenia.
And now Christian communities have unreasonable wealth above unreasonable poverty in so many places.........look around, read the papers.

Or can you name a Christian country that is raised above other communities in the World?

[TRANSPONDER]

Letting go was apparently an effort to drop the slavery argument (which the Bible apologist already lost, even when appealing to the NT- the Bible goes along with it, even when they know people don't like being slaves) and change the subject. Hopefully where denial does not look so discreditable...what was it again?

Oh yes, The difference between the NT and old. The old Fraud is in play - pretend that God's Word is the default (established) theory, deny everything and they Win.

No. That is not how it works. Why should we believe the Bible is true, reliable and any valid evidence?

Evaluation shows it is quite unreliable, passage for passage copied (with elaborations) in some places and in massive contradictions elsewhere. In courtroom witness terms, witnesses who recited the same story, but fell apart and contradicted under separate questioning. That, friends, is what the Gospels are.

The evidence is there, but Bible apologists skip over it and - somehow - have fooled even Bible skeptics to skip over it - that Paul's resurrections are NOT the resurrection in the gospels.There is evidence that we already knew, that the writers were not Jews, and could not read Hebrew; matthew's Virgin and the two donkeys. He did not understand the OT and could not be eyewitness, and the others are regarded as less 'Jewish' than Matthew.

The gospels are written by Greek Christians, peddling Pauline doctrines, and they knew nothing of what Jesus really did nor said, but just made stuff up when needed.

And as to the OT,. we knew that, too. They tossed it all out unless convenient. I already shouted into a tunnel that Jesus debunked the most basic Rule of Judaism - the sabbath. But put on a different day, Sabbath observance is now as much a Must as it was for the Jews (still is) and never mind what Jesus actually says. There seems a real problem, friends, and has been for a long time, that nobody actually seems to read, understand and explain what the Gospels actually say.

Here's the plan Bible apologists have been ignoring anything inconvenient like cherry - picking the OT and the Bible critics have let 'em get away with it. Why, right from the 80's when Critics tried to argue minor problems like the number of soldiers, or angels or how many hats Samuel wore, and ignore the Biggies. Bible apologists have been very adroit at finagling the critics into futile debates or ones they think they can win.

Slavery now, is one where they are caught and would love to let it drop, but the goddless have got that one and will not be put off. There are many others but the goddless do not know or seem to have forgotten them

We should revive the List of Contradictions of the 80's but big ones, not stuff that Believers can just wave away as excusable mistakes. The nativity '2nd census' excuse is dead, dead, dead, which is why that debate has been let drop. The resurrection is equally as bad, and we have seen some pretty egregious denial about that. Don't let 'em dismiss it with the usual twaddle (weaving contradictory stories together; Paul mentions the resurrection, the disciples would not die for a lie, and 'you cannot prove it was invented just because only one gospel has it') but learn the evidence against gospel veracity, and keep at it - as we do with slavery right now, and Christian apologetics will fall apart faster than Maga's election campaign.

[bjs1]

I assume you mean that House of Borgia. The only time I have heard them called the Borgias was on that fictional TV show a decade ago. Under standard definitions, the 15th century is not considered part of the early church.

So the Borgia family (the Borgias is a usual title for a family where I live) outrage was fictional? Do you really believe that? I picked one of so many examples and you want another?......and maybe then another?

I stated that the TV show was fiction, and that the historical events took place centuries after the time fo the early church.

If your argument is "People who call themselves Christians have done bad things," then I am in complete agreement. I call myself a Christian and I have done bad things.

There's a difference between naughty things and belligerent wars, ignoring health needs and welfare for masses, etc.

However, you originally wrote "The early church built up it's own traditions, beliefs and dogma to a point where it could do mostly anything it liked, such as indulging in wealth whilst ignoring extreme poverty, horrific wars and violence, slavery and so many other wickednesses."

If you stand by that statement then I again ask what historical sources led you to that conclusion.

Let's start with the gospels, whereas G-Mark showed a completely different picture about what Jesus said and did, from there his status, miracles and actions began to take on a quite different kind, and by G-John he was a different person with different enemies to suit church doctrine. The enemies of Jesus changed from the Temple Priesthood to 'the Jews' this promoting outrageous antiSemitism around the world for millenia.

While this largly misrepresent the Gospels, the more immediate issue is that it is off topic. I was asked you about your statment, "The early church built up it's own traditions, beliefs and dogma to a point where it could do mostly anything it liked, such as indulging in wealth whilst ignoring extreme poverty, horrific wars and violence, slavery and so many other wickednesses." This makes three times that I have asked, and you have yet to attempt to explain where you are getting your information from.

And now Christian communities have unreasonable wealth above unreasonable poverty in so many places.........look around, read the papers.

This is another unnusual claim. While I am sure there are instances of this happening, what is your evidence that Christians on the whole have "unreasonable wealth" compared to others in their communities?

Or can you name a Christian country that is raised above other communities in the World?

I was unaware that there are Christian countries. The Vatican, maybe? Actually, they do a pretty good job of careing for the poor - better than anywhere else I have seen. But it is such a small nation, and they have a lot of outside money pouring in, that I don't know if that counts.

[1213]

...Why should we believe the Bible is true, reliable and any valid evidence?

It is better than anything you offer. Why do you expect people rather believe your baseless claims than the Bible?

[oldbadger]

I stated that the TV show was fiction, and that the historical events took place centuries after the time fo the early church.

Now please tell me, were the historical events including all manners of corruption and even murder? Yes? No?

While this largly misrepresent the Gospels, the more immediate issue is that it is off topic. I was asked you about your statment, "The early church built up it's own traditions, beliefs and dogma to a point where it could do mostly anything it liked, such as indulging in wealth whilst ignoring extreme poverty, horrific wars and violence, slavery and so many other wickednesses." This makes three times that I have asked, and you have yet to attempt to explain where you are getting your information from.

You seem to be in denial. To explain to you how the early church built it's own traditions then the very first step is to focus upon .......how the gospels changed.
And G-John removed Jesus's picketing of Temple courts and ransacking of Ana's bazaar from that 'last week', it extended the timeline of Jesus's actions from one to three years, it removed his demon castings and 'lesser' healings for more exciting miracles, it reinstated Jesus's mother to 'close relative', it tried to place disciple and John beside the cross and pushed the pretence that John was the closest most special disciple and even that he wrote that gospel. It elevated the person of Jesus from a member of the peasant classes up to and beyond 'lord' to God.
Apart from the many useful pieces of information that I think were used as truth-pills it was a fabrication for the foundation of a means of control of the people......the church's 'do this and gain everlasting life, and discard it for everlasting agony' a brilliant idea.

.....and you think that the gospels are off topic? Really? I don't need to go any further....really.

This is another unnusual claim. While I am sure there are instances of this happening, what is your evidence that Christians on the whole have "unreasonable wealth" compared to others in their communities?

So you can think of instances......I imagined that you would. Exactly how many Christians do you know who do not seek wealth whilst ignoring Jesus's warnings about how wealth meant failure?? I remember visiting the homes of more senior church people around where I live, and the unbelievable mammon and wealth that they lived in.

I was unaware that there are Christian countries. The Vatican, maybe? Actually, they do a pretty good job of careing for the poor - better than anywhere else I have seen. But it is such a small nation, and they have a lot of outside money pouring in, that I don't know if that counts.

Which country do you live in? I would need to know that in order to answer more completely. I live in the UK but I need to know yours.

[POI]

Still curious, since no Christian seems to have answered.... Remember, the Torah consists of 100's of rules.... Which ones, (if any), do you guys now skip, and why? (i.e.):

Do you Christians make sure to always avoid wearing wool and linen together at the same time, or always avoid eating any shellfish, or always make sure your son(s) are circumcised, or always avoid working on the Sabbath, or completely avoid eating certain foods during Passover, or make sure you never wear clothes made for the opposite sex, or genuinely think/feel that forms of lifetime chattel slavery are perfectly fine?