Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Faith V Law (formerly Christianity is not the be all and end all)

Expand Messages
  • Chris Doyle
    Steve and Group, ... true ... CD But it doesn t say nothing will disappear from the Law until Jesus ... Steve said: That s right. Everything was accomplished
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 21, 2005
      Steve and Group,

      >>CD>Again, see Matthew 5:18 versus Galatians 3:24-25. Only one can be
      >>without creating a contradiction.

      >SJ>Both are true and there is no contradiction:
      >>Mat. 5:18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not
      >>the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
      >>disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
      >>Gal. 3:24-25 "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that
      >>we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no
      >>longer under the supervision of the law."
      >>The "everything is accomplished" was when Jesus had finished his
      >>atoning work on the Cross:"

      CD>But it doesn't say nothing will disappear from the Law "until Jesus
      >dies on the cross", it says nothing will disappear from the Law "until
      >everything is accomplished".

      Steve said: "That's right. Everything was accomplished with respect to
      the OT law and sacrificial system (Old Covenant) in Jesus' atoning death."

      No, it says "until everything is accomplished". It does not say "until
      everything is accomplished with respect to the Old Testament law and
      sacrificial system (Old Covenant) in Jesus' atoning death". There is
      no rational or empirical basis whatsoever for reading this meaning
      into "until everything is accomplished"... to say otherwise
      demonstrates a vested interest in resolving an unresolvable contradiction.

      CD>Furthermore, it says "until heaven and
      >earth disappear" nothing will disappear from the Law. Last time I
      >looked, heaven and earth were still here.

      Steve said: "May I suggest a course in remedial reading for Chris? See

      Either you mean heaven and earth *have* disappeared (which course in
      remedial reading would confirm that?) or this is just an attack on my
      person, trying to undermine my argument by suggesting that I am
      stupid. Either argument is invalid.

      Steve then said: "Chris has renamed this thread no doubt expecting a
      debate on "Faith V Law" with me."

      I renamed this thread simply because I wanted to bring to an end the
      previous thread which had gone through a long debate about
      omnipotence. I didn't expect a debate given that the group will cease
      to be active tomorrow. Faith v Law accurately sums up the
      contradiction we are discussing.

      Steve said: "I am sorry but I must disappoint him: 1) I don't have the
      time; 2) I have refuted Chris' contradiction claim (whether he admits
      it or not); 3) I don't accept Chris' false alternatives ("Faith V
      Law"-there *was* no Law after Jesus atoning death-He gave the Law and
      He rescinded it) and 4) I doubt that anything I say in defence of
      Christianity would make any difference to Chris (apart from the fact
      that the deeper things of Christianity can only be understood by
      Christians: 1 Cor. 2:14)."

      The only thing I'm disappointed by is the possible implication you
      made that I am stupid.

      1. I don't have the time either - I still work for a living.

      2. If falsely redefining meanings and wildly distorting the facts is a
      refutation then you have done that well. Strongly disagreeing for
      personal reasons however does not amount to a refutation.

      3. This is not a question of *my* false alternative. Its a question of
      what the Bible actually says. Flick back a verse to Matthew 5.17:

      "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
      not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

      Jesus has not come to destroy the law or rescind it. He has come to
      fulfil and obey the law just like everybody else. In short, he is
      reinforcing God's command as laid down in Deuteronomy 30:11-14:

      Deu 30:1 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it [is]
      not hidden from thee, neither [is] it far off.

      Deu 30:12 It [is] not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go
      up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do

      Deu 30:13 Neither [is] it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who
      shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear
      it, and do it?

      Deu 30:14 But the word [is] very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in
      thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

      Now flick forward a verse to Matthew 5.19:

      "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
      shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
      heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
      called great in the kingdom of heaven."

      Not only is Jesus saying that he is going to follow the law but he is
      saying that anyone who teaches otherwise is in big trouble. I wouldn't
      want to be in St Paul's shoes would you?

      So, in order for Steve's refutation to be true he has to acknowledge
      the following and deal with the implications of those acknowledgements:

      A. When God says the Law is "in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou
      mayest do it", God got it wrong. Worse still, the Law was actually
      against man and stood opposed to man.

      B. What Jesus is actually saying is: don't think that I have come to
      destroy the law, I have come to destroy the law. Until the end of the
      universe, the law won't change, until I get nailed to the cross. If
      you break the law and teach men to break the law, you will burn in
      hell. If you fulfil the law and teach men to fulfil the law you shall
      be rewarded in heaven. He contradicts himself in the first sentence
      (why would he say he has not "come to destroy the law" if in fact he
      has come to destroy the law by "nailing it to a cross"?). He makes an
      absurd reference to the end of the universe in the second sentence
      (why didn't he just say, the law won't change until I get nailed to
      the cross if that's what he really meant?). He then warns about the
      consequences of breaking the law (and the rewards for fulfilling it)
      when he knows full well that in a couple of years, the law won't
      matter anymore (again, why bother with such a severe warning when
      99.999% of Christians can ignore it?).

      ISteve is applying double standards: one standard for his rational
      criticism of evolution and another standard for irrational faith in
      Christianity. If Richard Dawkins came out with the muddled nonsense
      that Steve would have us believe Matthew 5.17-19 is, Steve would have
      a field day ripping him to shreds.

      4. This is possibly true but then what I've said above gives me a
      rational basis for that. What's Steve's excuse? Steve suggests that
      only Christians can understand the mysteries of Christianity. That's
      like evolutionists saying only evolutionists can understand the
      mysteries of science! Oddly enough, that is the sort of nonsense that
      you find in the pre-Christian pagan myths. One of those pagan myths is
      Mithraism. Paul was born in Tarsus which happened to be a stronghold
      of Mithraism at the time. Like other followers of Mithras, he referred
      to Mithras as "the Light of the World". He believed that Mithras was a
      mediator between heaven and earth, a member of the Holy Trinity.
      Mithras was born of a virgin, the "Mother of God" and remained
      celibate his entire life. Followers of Mithras believed in heaven and
      hell. They believed that Mithras would purify them of sin and grant
      them eternal salvation would be theres in the next life. They drank
      wine ("drink, this is my blood") and ate bread ("eat, this is my
      body") as part of a eucharist ceremony. Sunday was the holy day, a day
      of bell ringing and prayer. They celebrated the birth of Mithras every
      year... on December 25th. Eggs were also very symbolic (probably not
      chocolate ones though). Before Mithras ascended to heaven to cherish
      the faithful from above, he held a Last Supper with his companions.

      I trust all this sounds very familiar, even to non-christians. Either
      Jesus was a fake and we should all be followers of Mithras (he was
      here first after all) or St Paul wasn't very original when he recycled
      Mithraism and grafted it onto Judaism. Not only that, but despite his
      best efforts he couldn't resolve the conflict of Faith v Law. Jesus
      stood for the Law and St Paul stood for Faith.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.