The Old Testament Still Matters Rebuttal

         

3/4 of the Old Testament Still Matters Debate

Previous       Next 

       I talked with Phil, and we both agree that the Old Testament certainly does matter! The main problem Philip had with my post is the examples I peppered in to make a ruckus. This is understandable, of course, and seeing as how my original contention for this topic has been settled peacefully (for once), I will proceed to rebut the accusations he made in regards to my claims and quoting style, as well as some simply incorrect statements. I also need to amend my previous post that stated, "but instead he creates a system where people are murdered for being unproductive, wearing cloth of two different fabrics, and planting two different crops on the same field." While the first link is true, the second link about the fabrics and crops is incorrect. They were not murdered for breaking these decrees. Rather, they were afflicted by a long list of God-induced curses that is 54 verses long. It seems God's anger against people who wore half polyester and half cotton is arguably worse than death, in light of all these curses for their obviously horrid fashion sense.

"Moses, I swear to Myself I will kill your crops if you go out in that awful sweater"

         Now, I want all the readers in the house to pay attention when reading Philip's blog versus reading mine. If you look closely (you actually don't have to look too closely, to be honest), his strongest tool, and almost his entire argument at the moment, is Appeal to Emotion. To sum up what this even means, his style of argument goes like this: "Daniel calls all of you idiots! Well, I don't think you're idiots, therefore I'm right and he's wrong!" If his appeal to emotion succeeded, then he just won you over to his side without so much as a single refuted idea or proven claim. This is bad for obvious reasons; mainly because this is a debate, not a presidential campaign (zing!). It's an effective tool, especially when I'm inherently the enemy and him the good guy; nonetheless, it's a terrible way to determine who is right or wrong. Here are examples of some appeal to emotion from the previous blog post alone:

"...deliberately picking out only the verses that fit into the narrative he’s trying to weave, which is that Christianity is crazy and God is equivalent to Hitler."

"You are the PRO side to your (general) argument that God is Hitler and Christians are stupid, ignorant buffoons."

"Daniel throws up a cadre of Scriptures, twists them inside out,"

"We’re not idiots Daniel!"

" If you want to convince us all that we secretly worship Hitler,"

" Maybe it’s something else Daniel. Perhaps Christians aren’t all that stupid and God isn’t actually an evil dictator."

      So, yeah. I'm not denying that this is a very personal overall theme with insulting topics, but to judge the correctness of said topics based on personal, opinionated disagreement and hurt feelings (where Philip draws power behind his arguments) is falling right into his trap and being played perfectly. 

       Philip's "calling out" of my cherry-picking accomplishes nothing; if I don't change my initial assertion, I still have the notably stronger argument. Copy-pasted here: "The great thing about disproving a book or God that claims to be absolutely anything is that all I have to do is cherry-pick one contradiction or immoral act and I'm good to go. Telling me that I'm cherry-picking is like saying "Yeah, God is immoral here, but he isn't immoral over here!" It doesn't matter; the problem is that he's immoral at all! That's why my entire job is to cherry-pick!" An example (aside from my original) I can use to demonstrate this is if Philip claimed the colors of the rainbow to be ROY B. BIB-that is, brown instead of violet at the end. If Philip claims to be indisputably, entirely correct, then all I have to do is point out this one simple error and his reliability instantly vanishes, and his claim made false. It doesn't matter that he was correct about everything except one color: the problem is that he's wrong at all! I will also copy-paste my argument in regards to cherry-picking and perspective, along with relevant picture, since I have nothing to add or detract: "And remember, who's cherry-picking depends on perspective. To me, you cherry-pick the good and leave the bad, but to you, I cherry-pick the bad and leave the good; the bad is all I need to prove my point."

Notice the opposite perspective on cherry picking!

        For some reason, Philip invokes the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" to show that God is  guilty by default according to me (I have no idea where that idea even comes from). I've never claimed such a thing, and I know better than to do so. With an audience that is majorly (if not entirely) Christian, my entire job is to prove the Bible and God guilty (of something) because he is already held innocent

in all of your minds. I do this by providing Bible verses and passages that show God guilty of something and summarize or explain this verse/passage to prove my assertion. Apparently this process isn't similar enough to myself being a prosecutor and Philip being the defense, as Philip finds fault in my process (which appears to be exactly like prosecution/defense). He claims that I don't always go into an in-depth analysis of the text, which is true. I don't always analyze the verses like I'm an ancient Hebrew translator, but I do provide the source for my summary (a Bible verse/passage) and the claim, because I feel that the source combined with my summary is fairly self-evident. My challenge to the defense, in this case, is to prove this claim wrong; be it through revealing that the source is completely out of context or is misunderstood on my part. The defense also needs to provide an antithesis to my claim, because saying "you're wrong" gets us nowhere in revealing the true context or true interpretation. Don't be mistaken; if Philip fails to disprove my argument, it doesn't automatically prove mine correct. It simply means that Philip couldn't find any fault with my interpretation; might that give you reason to believe my interpretation? You're the judge of that.

       Philip also provided an inadequate response to my question, "Why does God conform to the culture of primitive desert people?" [As opposed to creating the perfect justice, social, and economic system]. Philip's response: "As to why God doesn’t provide his own culture to humans? Because He transcends culture." Um, Philip. He doesn't quite transcend culture if he modified an existing culture and called it "The Covenant", which defined Israelite culture from there on out. Then he actually creates culture. And in this case, he created a horribly primitive and faulty culture for no apparent reason [As opposed to creating the perfect justice, social, and economic system]. Even if he now offers salvation and relationship to all cultures, it's evident that he isn't transcendent of culture because of his meddling with the Israelites. 

      It is interesting to note, however, that Christianity is very widespread compared to other religions. This is due to it's acceptance of all people (Gentiles) and loose requirements of "Accept JC, go to heaven". Also the 500 years of global conquest and forced evangelism wouldn't hurt it's chances. So I wouldn't attribute God's transcendence of culture to Christianity's success.

     And I'm not angry with God, because I don't think he exists. But if I did, oh boy oh boy would I be furious at him. I'd be pissed that he kills so many innocent children, directly through natural disasters or indirectly through lack of intervention, despite his omni-potence. I'd be pissed that he stands by and respects the free will of the rapist over that of the rape victim, despite his omni-benevolence. This is why I'm so confused as to why you aren't mad at God. 

     You believe this omni-potent, omni-benevolent God exists while allowing and causing these things to happen, but is still worthy of praise. I'm not mad at God; he doesn't exist. But the idea of a character that sits idly by, throwing earthquake after earthquake at innocent people, allowing innocent people to be raped, and killing those who haven't died from the first two horrors by giving them AIDS, cancer, and malaria...the idea of that character having the ability to stop all these atrocities yet choose not to is insulting to their families and loved ones. Claiming that this character chose not to stop (or chose to actually cause) these things while having the power to and also being omni-benevolent is contradictory and impossible. Claiming that this character simultaneously sends the people he kills to hell, despite being omni-potent and omni-benevolent, is contradictory and impossible. Claiming that this character is real without calling him "Satan" is delusional. Claiming that this character is worthy of worship is why I'm mad.

Problem of Evil

The Old Testament Still Matters!

     

1/4 of The Old Testament Still Matters Debate

Next 

     If there's one thing that gets me upset when arguing about the Bible, it's when people say, "Well, that's the OLD Testament" Seriously, this is the laziest and most incorrect excuse that pretty much every Christian I've talked to has brought up.  This mindset precipitates into a couple of other horrible arguments:

1. That was the culture at the time!
2. This is out of context!
3. You're just cherry-picking!

      In this post, I'm going to be showing you why these arguments are horrible. I will be using a few arguments Phillip has made in previous blog posts and debates, so go back and read those if you haven't already. If you're lazy and don't want to read those, I'll give a little context with the quote. I've touched on some of these points in previous posts as well, but I can clearly see that my point has not come across. The common thread you'll find between all the points I've made is that God made these Laws/said this.

      Let's begin with the first point: "That was the culture at the time!". My response is, "Yes. Yes it was the culture at the time." This argument is accurate, but the implication is deeper than they realize. For reference, here is one use of the argument:

   *For the sake of this example, let's ignore my entire argument on why this implies women are property.* 

     This claim is made in response to this Law, and it's very true. Virginity in this culture was very important, and the Law based around this idea makes sense when put in this cultural context. My main problem with this is Why does God conform to the culture of primitive desert people? I've been over this argument with another Christian, and it makes zero sense as to why an omni-everything God would make a Law that penalizes both the rapist and his victim rather than just the rapist. In fact, I made up a Law that would solve this whole problem instantly: 

     "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, the man who has done this shall be put to death, and the woman declared a virgin, for the man has taken that which the Lord has given her. Any virgin who has been raped has their virginity restored to them, because what the Lord has given once, he can also give again."

      There we go! Rapists die rather than marry their victims forever, and raped virgin women get their status back! Stop putting God in a box; he doesn't have to conform to the culture at the time! This  in itself is problematic, because although it was the culture at the time, there is no reason at all why God should forfeit setting up a new, infinitely better culture in favor of modifying the existing one. Like, for real; God could've changed up the culture to have a perfect system of justice and economy, but instead he creates a system where people are murdered for being unproductive, wearing cloth of two different fabrics, and planting two different crops on the same field. Doesn't that set off an alarm  in any of you? That we have made current laws that are more good, more correct, and more justifying than God's laws? "That was the culture at the time!" is a horrible excuse, especially when using it to justify God's thought process and mindset on justice. It only lets us label his sense of justice as horribly flawed and primitive. 

       Number 2 on my list is "This is out of context!" This is a valid argument if used correctly, and it is usually used with number 1 as context of the culture. Context is key, and all things can be taken out of context, but when someone says "This is out of context!" and fails to give any reason why, then why believe them? If you're going to claim that something I used was out of context, then please enlighten us on what the true context is. (Phillip's context on the passage from Deuteronomy is spot-on; it's just that it shows how God is super bad at even the slightest critical thinking.)

     This little bit I took from the same paragraph as the example I used for number one. Don't talk in absolutes. When claiming that ALL of my quotes from the OT are out of context, then you have to show the true context for all of them, which you don't do.

      Number 3 is the funniest because of how ironic it is. The great thing about disproving a book or God that claims to be absolutely anything is that all I have to do is cherry-pick one contradiction or immoral act and I'm good to go. Telling me that I'm cherry-picking is like saying "Yeah, God is immoral here, but he isn't immoral over here!" It doesn't matter; the problem is that he's immoral at all! That's why my entire job is to cherry-pick! And remember, who's cherry-picking depends on perspective. To me, you cherry-pick the good and leave the bad, but to you, I cherry-pick the bad and leave the good; the bad is all I need to prove my point. 

I had this one titled "Baby-Spiking" in my notes LOL
Psalm 137:9

     The last two points usually fall under number 1, in that the context is the culture, or that I'm cherry-picking events that are solely caused by the culture. But once again, and I've stated this many times before, the Laws of the Old Testament were made by God himself. The Law that says women are twice as unclean as men? God, not the culture. The one that implies women are property and is flawed for the previously stated reasons? God, not the culture. The one that sanctions priest-led abortion? God, not the culture. The ones that endorse slavery, genocide, and the killing of innocent infants, livestock, and pregnant women? Yet again, God; not the culture.

     The stories of God and the Israelites also holds value in the Old Testament. They show us God's thought process through his actions, which turns out to be very, very, evil. Like, this guy tells the Israelites to straight up murder the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites-basically all the nearby people-for potentially corrupting Israelite culture. Sounds eerily similar to a certain dictator I know of...

"Kill the Jews!"- Hitler
"Kill the Jews people around the Jews!"- God

       
      The Old Testament DOES matter. It matters because it is a timeline of God's actions and decrees. The Mosaic Laws are his commands. Israel's actions are his commands (at least whenever they obey him). Even if you don't derive your lifestyle from his commands-and hopefully you don't-extreme value can be found in knowing God! So stop telling me, "Well, that was the Old Testament, and the culture was different at the time", because unless God changes to fit the culture at the time (hint: he doesn't), his mindset in ancient times is the same today. That argument is extremely short-sighted, and unless you can show me how I misquoted something or any other reason that it was the culture and not God, then don't claim that I took something out of context, and don't blame the culture. Blame God.

*I will revisit the aforementioned passages with more detail and analysis in future blog posts. I just had to bring them up to show my point that all of these things are literally God's commands. Yes, they are terrible, evil things. But hey, as long is you still believe God is omni-benevolent...well, have fun justifying slavery, genocide, and baby/livestock/pregnant women killing!*

Women are Inferior, Property, and Unclean - Rebuttal

            3/4 of Women are Inferior Debate

           Previous       Next 

           Before I begin, I'd like to mention how much I love when you guys come to me with your own opinions and interpretations on the topics I review. It's always great to get another argument to wrestle with, and if one of you comes to me with an argument that can't be refuted, well... I'll have to change my mind (gasp!). Anyway, in this rebuttal I'll be addressing only Phillip's arguments, but you can come up to me anytime you'd like and share your argument and I'll try to refute it, or you can leave a comment below. The more the merrier!

         To start off, I want to remind all of you what my claims were: Women are inferior [to men], property [of men], and unclean [more so than men]. These were my claims, which I reinforced with God's actions and Laws as well as Paul's words. Phillip's job in his rebuttal was to refute these claims, but he seems to have failed in doing this. As we progress through all of his points, I will remind you that he has not disproved any of these claims, but rather came to conclusions that did not logically follow from his arguments (non sequiturs). 

        I'm just going to skip over the first two paragraphs because all he does is straw-man my arguments (I never claimed God hated women, nor did I say the story of Samson was sexist propaganda), propose that I'm using the Bible to promote my personal view of women(I'm not sexist/misogynistic, ladies. I probably support more women's rights than most of you do), and refuses to disprove my claims directly by stating why my interpretations are wrong. Because of this last point, I still stand by them as true, with their arguments in my first post, until proven wrong.

          For his first claim derived from Genesis 1:27, I can totally understand his interpretation and do not disagree with it at all. I see no problem with this verse saying God created both man and woman in his own image. The truth, however, is that the Bible is so full of contradictions, you can find a passage that supports one claim,and then another passage supporting the exact opposite-hence why these debates are so interesting! For example, if we take it that man and woman is created in God's image-as was stated in Genesis 1:27-why is it that Paul says man was created in God's image and reflects God's glory, but woman reflects man's glory? Well, Paul's rationale is, "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." This plays more into the common idea of the NT that women are subservient and under the authority of men, but it also shows that women reflect the glory of man; not God. This is at odds with the Genesis verse, and also with Galatians 3:28. This is why I hate when people use Paul against this argument. They say "Paul said we are all equal through Jesus Christ.", which he did say, while Paul ALSO says that women should wear head coverings during prayer because they are the glory of man, while men should NOT wear head coverings during prayer because they are the glory of God. Glory of man and glory of God are quite different, unequal distinctions; especially when it's the basis for women submitting to men! I actually encourage all of you to read the full section, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, because there is a fun tidbit at the end that says if you disagree with this notion of head coverings, you are opposed to what all the churches of God teach.

            Phillip's examples of female leaders and prophets of Israel is where the illogical conclusions are found. In listing off these important female figures, he claims that "Daniel's really having problems with his "property of men and not human beings" narrative now," What he fails to realize is that just because women lead Israel at certain times and fulfilled God's agenda, it does not logically follow that they aren't property of men and not human beings. God also used a talking donkey to fulfill His agenda, so obviously there isn't a strict criteria to be met in order to serve God's will and be one of God's pawns. Women being leaders and prophets does not disprove my claim; women can still be property of men and do God's work just as a donkey can still be property of men and do God's work. Don't be mistaken here though; I'm not equating women to donkeys (even the rare talking ones). I'm merely showing how you don't have to be equal to a man in status in order to serve God's will. 

God: You were useful, but I'm afraid I can't make you an official priest...

          Phillip makes more illogical jumps, such as when he says "We have the story of Mary, mother of Jesus.", to which I say "so what?" Jesus was born of a woman, therefore women are equal to men? What conclusion do we draw from the obvious assertion that people are born from females? I can tell you that no conclusion can be drawn that disproves my claims! Again, he implies another illogical conclusion when he says "We have the stories of the female followers of Christ, who became the first missionaries when they spoke of His resurrection." And similarly, "so what?" Women were walking by when they found Jesus' tomb open, and later told others. There is no logical conclusion to draw from this that disproves my claims in the very least! As for Jesus saving an adulteress, I have no response. Good on you, Jesus, for sparing this sinful woman! But this once again does not disprove any of my claims. The Church being female...I have no idea how to react to this horrible example. It's like claiming that since the word "spoon" in Spanish is feminine, by not eating with a spoon I am being sexist. I'm baffled that this was even included...

Summary of Phillip's rebuttal

         At the end, Phillip comes to this conclusion: "Daniel is wrong. These are not our views, they’re not the views of Jesus, and they're most certainly not the views of God." How he could possibly come to this conclusion despite disproving none of my Scripture-based arguments is a mystery; especially given that none of his arguments logically suggested any contrary opinions-with the exception of Genesis 1:27. I'm hoping that after reading this, some of you out there will see the power that willful ignorance has; denying well-grounded claims while affirming illogical ones. Please, people, try to keep an open mind. Most of you probably read Phillip's rebuttal and simply agreed due to confirmation bias-the tendency to accept ideas that coincide with ours and reject others. I'm telling you to look at each argument objectively and judge based off of actual logic and reason rather than hold onto unreasonable explanations. Thanks for reading, guys, if you got this far. I appreciate being heard :)

Women are Inferior, Property, and Unclean

1/4 of Women are Inferior Debate

Next 

       Moving away from how different the early Church and Jesus’ teachings were, we’re going to set our sights on the entire Bible as fair game for analysis! This includes pointing out flaws in God’s logic, contradictions of the Bible, and simply immoral things that God is totally cool with. This post in particular is going to focus on how women are inferior to men, are equivalent to property, and are very unclean! Since there’s so much material about women in the Bible, an upcoming blog post will be on the topic of why women should shut up and stay in their place.

           

        That’s right, Christians! Women are inherently inferior to men. They’re also barely even seen as people in the Lord’s eyes; it would be more accurate to call them ‘property of men’. Don’t take my word on it though; take God’s Word on it; an infallible, perfect, living word of God’s teachings and the history of the Israelites. Boy, I sure do love having my misogyny justified by the thinking of Bronze Age desert nomads!

The rest of my post will indirectly show the inferiority of women, but a direct statement that women < men is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3, where Paul clearly states that the pecking order is God > Christ >Man > Woman. Don’t blame society for gender roles; it’s clearly God’s plan!

One of the most blatant examples of how women were barely treated like people (and definitely less than men) lies in the Law code of the Israelites in Deuteronomy 22:23-29. Once you read through that, try not to be shocked by God’s decree. I’ll walk you through it, in case you’re having a hard time interpreting the implications of this Law.

            Verses 23 and 24 tell the Israelites that if a man sleeps with a woman pledged to marry, then they are both to be stoned to death. Now, this seems (relatively) fair, since both were caught in adultery. But the real catch is in the latter part of verse 24, where the reasons are given for each person’s death: “the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife” The implication in not screaming for help is that the woman enjoyed intercourse with the man, and so should be stoned. The man deserves death not because he raped another human being, but because he “violated another man’s wife” Basically, ‘you ruined my property and shall receive death’.

            At least in verses 26 and 27 the woman isn’t penalized for being the victim. The reasoning for this is that the woman (pledged to be married) was out in the country, and so could not be heard screaming. This scenario is likened to “someone who attacks and murders a neighbor”, so the woman is given status as a human being for now.

            The ‘best’ part is when a man rapes a woman who IS NOT pledged to be married. In this scenario-depicted in verse 28 and 29, the man who rapes the unpledged virgin must pay the father 50 shekels of silver and must marry the woman and never divorce her. Why is this case so different from the other scenarios where the man was to be stoned to death in both cases of rape? The only logical explanation here is that in this case, the man ‘broke it’ and therefore had to ‘buy it’, in reference to the ‘you break it, you buy it’ policy that some stores employ for their merchandise. It seems that the men in other scenarios were ONLY put to death because they messed with another man’s property! In the case of an unpledged virgin, she is no one’s property. But when he takes her virginity, she is essentially ‘broken’ since no man will marry someone who isn’t a virgin. Therefore the man must purchase her and stay wedded to her. This clearly shows the ‘women are property’ mentality that the Lord has.

           Another horrendous example of how the Lord values women is seen in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, namely when the angels visit Lot. God tells two angels to go and fetch Lot and his family from the city which he is destroying for its wickedness. During this process, Genesis 19:1-8 occurs. Now, what just happened in this passage? Allow me to explain: God sends the two angels to get Lot and his family out of Sodom before its destruction. While the two angels are entering his house, a mob of bisexual rapists demands the two angels for their gang rape. Lot, instead of handing the two angels over, says this: “Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

            What?? Lot just tossed his daughters out into a mob with the intention of GANG RAPING them. This man is the one God deems righteous enough to be saved from the destruction of Sodom which is itself being destroyed for wickedness; a man that offers up his daughters to be gang raped with no hesitation. Quite clearly, God does not find wrongdoing in Lot’s choice to throw his daughters to gang rapists, because the angels continue to offer Lot and his family salvation from the destruction of Sodom. This is a tell-tale sign that God finds women lesser than men. Even in the story of Samson in Judges 13-16, the two wives that Samson marries are portrayed as deceitful and manipulative, constantly betraying Samson for personal gain. The propaganda-like portrayal of women in the story of Samson isn’t directly ordered by God, but we can see how Jews saw women (thanks to God’s earlier decrees). This idea put out by God can be seen influencing the disciples of Jesus’ life also, as the disciples were baffled as to why Jesus, a rabbi, would be talking with a woman (John 4:27).

            Not only are women inferior and property, they are also more “unclean” than males! In Leviticus 12:2-5, women remain unclean for a certain amount of days after childbirth. When a boy is born, the mother is unclean for a total of 40 days. But when a girl is born, the mother is unclean for 80 days! Females are literally TWICE as unclean as males, according to the Lord.

  

          Now that we have all the reasons for why women are inferior, property, and more unclean than men, let’s get down to the thought process behind these extremely sexist (but true because God said so) conclusions. The one apologetic response I’m anticipating is that the sexism and misogyny in the Bible reflect ancient societies’ perception of women; not God’s. And if you’re thinking this, then you’re correct-but also disproving God.

           It is IMPERATIVE to realize that the Laws in the Bible were ordained by God. The Laws about being more unclean for birthing girls and ruining another man’s wife/property were DIRECTLY from God circa 1400 B.C. If you believe the Bible, then you must understand that God told the Israelites these Laws, and that they MUST be true coming from God. If you believe in the Bible and God, yet still believe that women are equal to men, YOU ARE WRONG. God KNOWS women are inferior to men, and definitely values them lesser than men-as seen in Lot’s “punishment” in Genesis 19:1-8. If you value the God of the Bible’s word and regard him irrefutably correct and unable to lie (Attributes of God), then women are all these things without a shadow of a doubt.

           But what’s MY reasoning on why God would think so lowly of women? Well, the non-believer’s approach is that the Bible and God are man-made constructs. This alone explains why God shows remarkably human thinking despite being a transcendent, supreme being. I think-with 99% certainty- that God was conjured up by men, and therefore displays the thinking of men and justifies it. Why are women portrayed as mediocre in God’s eyes and actions? Because God is made by man and man at this time thought women were mediocre. It doesn’t help that later generations of Israelites would read these Laws and think “Yeah, God’s right! Women are garbage!” Even in one orthodox Jewish community, women in positions of high power were photoshopped out of a newspaper. The thought process of these tribesmen are preserved and regarded as God’s word-and therefore correct-to this day!

Top picture is before editing

            Next week I will be rebutting whatever apologetic response Phillip has mustered up (although I think I hit the nail on the head). Let me remind you that this is not my belief or opinion on women. This is yours.

Jesus Never Abolished the Law - Rebuttal

3/4 of Jesus and Abolition of the Law debate
Previous     Next

           

         
        Firstly, ouch. That’s a lot of ad hominem you’ve got going on. Secondly, I don’t see how a fundamentalist and literal interpretation of the Bible is a bad thing, as you make it out to be. You can’t start drawing lines on what is and isn’t literal in the Bible, or it loses its meaning! People will disagree on what is literal or figurative, and then bam! You’ve got about…well, an estimated 33,000+different interpretations of the same text!

Figurative interpretation of Genesis as opposed to the literal 7 days of creation

           

           After reading through his blog post and the passages taken from Galatians, I see now that obedience to the Law does NOT correlate with righteousness. I concede that point. I also agree with the purpose of the Law stated in Galatians3:19-21, which is to remind us that we are sinners. I find a similar explanation for the purpose of the Law in Romans7:7-8. This allows Hebrews 10:3-4 to make more sense; that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Sacrifice of these animals wasn’t to cleanse sin, according to these passages, but rather to raise awareness of the sin we commit, and thus give us a need for Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice (Hebrews9:26).

            

           However, when Phillip goes back to how Jesus fulfilled the Law, he comes to the conclusion that it (the Law) is no longer needed. I assume he takes this from the part of Matthew 5:18 that says that nothing will “disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”, and his interpretation of “accomplished” is the prophecies that Jesus fulfills when he is crucified and rises again. However, in that same verse, Jesus says that nothing from the Law will disappear “until heaven and earth disappear”. This is confusing because it means that either “until everything is accomplished” and “until heaven and earth disappear” is synonymous, or they are contradictory. If we take the definition of “until heaven and earth disappear”, that would mean that the Laws would still be relevant for a really, really long time. Furthermore, I don't know why Jesus would address the Law and righteousness as if they were related somehow. It’s a tricky passage, but hey; if it were an easy book to interpret, there wouldn’t be tens of thousands of different guesses at the true meanings-so at least I’m not the only one!

This time, this is LITERALLY the body of Christ

            

            And a quick side-note: your analogy with test-taking is inaccurate. A more accurate version would be finishing a test, having the teacher tell you that you will be retaking the test every week until the end of the year, and assuming that that means you don’t have to retake it every week until the end of the year. I seriously cannot stress enough how important it is that Jesus states that the Law is here to stay for a very long time.

           

             In response to Phillip’s claims about my theories, I also disagree. A quote from Phillip shows his view on my first theory: “Well Daniel strongly implies that believers willfully chose to ignore the words of Christ concerning the Law because of a desire to attract Gentiles to their faith by making it "easier."” Firstly, I wouldn’t say ‘ignore’ so much as ‘make a reason to ignore’. Secondly, I didn’t make this one up. My observation of Acts 15:8-11 (spoken by Peter) and Acts 15:19-21 (spoken by James) is that the Apostles did indeed make it easier for Gentiles to accept Christ by writing to them (as opposed to something else, I do not know) about the Laws to follow. An interesting thing you want to note here is that they made acceptance of at least part of the Law mandatory for the Gentiles. Yes, the same Law that Phillip said is “no longer needed”, is now being taught to Gentiles by the Apostles. So it seems that these early Christians in particular still obeyed at least part of the Law, recognizing that Jesus never abolished them. Props to you guys, Peter and James, for sticking to Jesus’ words!

            
            Phillip also says “Judaism was already easier than the polytheistic paganism of the Gentiles”, and this simply isn’t true. Being a Jew meant following ALL of the Laws ordained by God, which were much stricter than the “laws” of the gods that allowed their followers to be sexually immoral, murder, steal, etc. This claim is just plain false. Moving on, Phillip takes note of the persecution that Christians encountered, which Jesus himself warned of, but also blessed (basicallymartyrdom (2) (3)), making “blessedness” go hand in hand with persecution as a Christian.

            My second theory he didn’t even try to refute since it is so obvious that Christians today throw out Laws for the sake of convenience. They don’t even have to be Old Testament Laws and teachings; Christians today throw out ANY teachings, OT and NT, that conflict with modern society. In addition to my examples with the Ten Commandments (OT), Jesus’ teachings (NT) about both adultery and divorce are constantly broken amongst Christians, but it seems that everyone simply overlooks his teachings about these things…for convenience. I fully encourage you to read Jesus’ entire Sermon on the Mount; find the things that Jesus tells you to do or not to do, and notice how no Christian follows these commands. Disregarding NT teachings from the Apostles is also commonplace in first world Christians, mainly the ones that tell us women are weaker and belong subject to the husband (blog on that coming up).

            Attacking my theories, he writes a good amount based off of his misreading. He creates a false dichotomy that only one of my theories must be true because they contradict each other, but he failed to notice that when listing my theories I placed a little “and/or” in between them! Yes, that means that the first can be true, the second can be true, or both can be true. Next time, read a little more carefully to avoid creating an argument that is both fallacious and not applicable.

          In an effort to refute your point about Jesus and refusing to stone the adulteress (which is mandated in Mosaic Law), I tried looking up more about the situation and found a page that apparently claims that this is an argument used by atheists to contradict Jesus! I’ll refer you back to that page to make whatever sense of it, because I personally don’t care whether Jesus followed the Laws or not. I care about what he said in Matthew 5:17-20 in regard to the Laws. This has nothing to do with that, so we call it a red herring.

And must I say, it is MUCH easier to create a rebuttal than to, should I say, throw the first stone.