Quote (WidowMaKer_MK @ Oct 6 2013 12:34pm)

...you don't challenge my beliefs in the least . Not only do you not understand any of the partial citations you posted but you needed a youtube vid to make your case .

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Oct 4 2013 03:10pm)

well, im not saying christianity is or even was supposed to be exactly like judaism.  jesus definitely did make some changes. but he never gave a blanket statement saying that you shouldnt follow the commandments in general.  no where does it say 'thou shalt no longer rest on the sabbath, nor shalt thou refrain from the eating of the swine, being most tasty and delicious."    nor did he ever say that sacrifices, including sin-offerings were or would be no longer brought once he became the grand sin offering for all.  and evidence shows that they kept bringing sacrifices for quite some time after he died, until paul said it wasnt needed anymore.  (see acts 21:17-26 where you clearly see that the followers of jesus living in jerusalem kept to the law, and asked paul to join in a sin-offering to show that he was as well.)






re:bolded

judaism is not just a set of laws, either, theres a way to approach things as well.  a non-jew once came to a rabbi hillel and said he would convert if he could teach him the entire torah while standing on one foot.  he replied  "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."

which brings us to the second bolded part, which is incorrect.  the jewish version of the dictum is what i quoted above.  christians say "do unto others what you would have done to you".  the underlying intention is basically the same, but theres an important difference.  the christian version preaches action, whereas the jewish version teaches inaction.  if someone's desires are outside normal, the christian version tells them to go out and do that to others, who may not want it themselves.  (ie a sadist likes being whipped.  should they go out and whip others because they would have it done to them?)




maybe you shouldnt have let them in then...

Quote (Ylem122 @ Oct 7 2013 01:49pm)

i think its absurd to expect jesus to have gone about and commented on every single aspect of the Jewish law at the time, he makes blanket statements that teach a way to look at he laws and interpret them.  such that to honor thy sabbath be instead to take your day of rest but dont be absurd about it.  do not make it a law such that you can follow ti perfectly and punish those who do not live to ones expectations.  such as the praisases working on the sabbat.

but where is that blanket statement saying everything is ok? obviously he doesnt have to go talk about every commandment individually, but where is the blanket stement not to follow them?  i showed a few places that he says that you SHOULD follow them.  you cant use an inference to learn out something that runs counter to an explicit statement.  if it says in one place to follow the commandments, then you need an explicit statement saying otherwise.

i don't think a sadist would want just any one to whip them. there's no reason for them to just go whip random people.

that was just one random example off the top of my head.  the concept behind it is what i was trying to get across.

and then you have the whole pacifism aspect of Christianity.

a way to approach things, instead of people makings rules, like if some one asks you to go with them as they leave the city to help protect them from bandits who hide out near the city, you must go 1 mile in fear of punishment, but instead go 2 or 3 or 4 or what ever you can as the rich man who gives his generous donation, meer pocket change as the poor person gives a meer pence but what they have worked all week to spare, go with them half a mile,  do what you can for you fellow travelers though life.

never heard of this, dunno what its all about

laws, expecting people to act in such ways that even your self could not be expected to abide in all occasions.

i dont think theres anything like that.

laws such as an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, a never ending circle of vengeance.  the last thing Jesus would preach of was becoming a slave to vengence.

youre getting stuck on an eye for an eye.  its not literal.  it means that if you damage someones eye you must pay them the value of that eye.  (yes, thats hard to determine, but its up to the courts.  you have the same thing in american law.)  eye for an eye isnt some endless cycle of violence.

Quote (WidowMaKer_MK @ Oct 6 2013 12:34pm)

...you don't challenge my beliefs in the least . Not only do you not understand any of the partial citations you posted but you needed a youtube vid to make your case .

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Oct 9 2013 09:02pm)

in the end, it comes down to jesus never said not to follow the commandments. paul did. would you rather follow jesus or paul? it cant be both since they are contradictory.

Quote (Ylem122 @ Oct 1 2013 04:00pm)

the ten commandments in so many words are repeated through out the new testament, and for the most part the new testament is fair game.

Quote (Ylem122 @ Oct 10 2013 12:01am)

are you even reading my posts?

my argument is with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and its contradiction with the teachings of christianity.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Oct 11 2013 11:11am)

yes, are you reading mine? 


things dont always come across as clearly as intended online, so lets take this slowly. 

i made a post about how jesus never said not to follow the commandments of the OT. 

you replied that the rule of law in the OT is eye for an eye, which contradicts what jesus taught, showing that jesus DID change things, disproving my point about jesus not changing the commandments.

now, assuming that im understanding your argument correctly, (correct me if im wrong) my response to that is twofold:

firstly, as i said already, eye for an eye is not a commandment per se.  it is more of an approach to life, than a commandment such as keeping the sabbath.   since my original point was about the commandments, it doesnt disprove it if jesus changed things other than the commandments, such as eye for an eye.  i didnt say jesus didnt change anything, he clearly changed philosophical things and claimed to be the messiah, but he didnt say to stop keeping the commandments.

secondly, i would venture to say that eye for an eye is no contradiction at all anyway.  the jewish understanding of eye for an eye is that if someone causes damage to another person, they must pay recompense for that damage.  so, to use an eye as an example, if person A is chopping wood and a chunk flies out and blinds one of person B's eyes, A must reimburse B for the value of the eye.  i dont think that jesus would disagree with that.  he wouldnt say that a person can go around freely damaging others without making amends in some fashion.  he would agree that if you damage someone, you should reimburse them for those damages.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Oct 11 2013 12:11pm)

yes, are you reading mine? 


things dont always come across as clearly as intended online, so lets take this slowly. 

i made a post about how jesus never said not to follow the commandments of the OT. 

you replied that the rule of law in the OT is eye for an eye, which contradicts what jesus taught, showing that jesus DID change things, disproving my point about jesus not changing the commandments.

now, assuming that im understanding your argument correctly, (correct me if im wrong) my response to that is twofold:

firstly, as i said already, eye for an eye is not a commandment per se.  it is more of an approach to life, than a commandment such as keeping the sabbath.  since my original point was about the commandments, it doesnt disprove it if jesus changed things other than the commandments, such as eye for an eye.  i didnt say jesus didnt change anything, he clearly changed philosophical things and claimed to be the messiah, but he didnt say to stop keeping the commandments.

secondly, i would venture to say that eye for an eye is no contradiction at all anyway.  the jewish understanding of eye for an eye is that if someone causes damage to another person, they must pay recompense for that damage.  so, to use an eye as an example, if person A is chopping wood and a chunk flies out and blinds one of person B's eyes, A must reimburse B for the value of the eye.  i dont think that jesus would disagree with that.  he wouldnt say that a person can go around freely damaging others without making amends in some fashion.  he would agree that if you damage someone, you should reimburse them for those damages.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Sep 9 2013 10:42pm)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UZeR3yV_Z8

theres more to it as well, such as how the church came to be anti-semitic, but the main point of it is that he uses passages from the new testament to show that not only was jesus jewish, but he was a religious jew and never himself told his followers to be anything other than that. it was only paul who came along later and did away with the 'jewish' aspects in order to proselytize non-jews who would be too keen on circumcision and other commandments. according to that, most of modern christianity contradicts the actual teachings of jesus, instead being based upon pauls teachings in the name of jesus.  the jews for jesus would be the closest thing to what the original followers of jesus were, although their beliefs have been influenced and muddled by 2000 years of paulinian christianity.