The Prophesied New Covenant Vs the Christian Covenant

[Adrift]

How do you decide which parts are moral and which parts are ceremonial? A cynical person might suppose that you declare the bits you do not want to be ceremonial; I am sure you will be able to state exactly what the criteria really are.

With regards to the "separation of the Hebrews from the Gentile nations", do you think that racial segregation is a good thing?

He also specifically said he was not revoking it in Matthew 5:17. hmm, I guess that gives Christians free rein to pick and choose what they want from the OT.

And this is typical of Christians who think that their twisting of the Bible must necessarily be true.

That is an interesting passage. Peter quotes Amos 9:11-12 to support his position, right? Would you say, then, that the event prophesied in Amos 9 had occurred by the time Peter was talking?

You've heard the answers to all of these questions before. Lots of times. Have you already forgotten them all, or do you just like arguing?

[Sparko]

How do you decide which parts are moral and which parts are ceremonial? A cynical person might suppose that you declare the bits you do not want to be ceremonial; I am sure you will be able to state exactly what the criteria really are.

really? You can't tell the difference between what to eat and a moral action?

With regards to the "separation of the Hebrews from the Gentile nations", do you think that racial segregation is a good thing?

wow. Did you really just say that? God chose the Hebrews as his people beginning with Abraham. It was not about "race" - it was about followers and the promise God made to Abraham and his descendants. The "separation" was to keep them holy and uncontaminated by false religions.

He also specifically said he was not revoking it in Matthew 5:17. hmm, I guess that gives Christians free rein to pick and choose what they want from the OT.

He said he came to fulfill the law. He did. And the law about ceremonial things was never for Gentiles or Christians to begin with.

And this is typical of Christians who think that their twisting of the Bible must necessarily be true.

no. it is typical of anyone who actually reads the bible, in context, instead of relying of snippets read on atheist websites like you do.

That is an interesting passage. Peter quotes Amos 9:11-12 to support his position, right? Would you say, then, that the event prophesied in Amos 9 had occurred by the time Peter was talking?

some of it. At the time of Acts 15, Israel was mostly conquered and destroyed, only Judah was really still around and it was conquered by the Romans. By 70AD even the temple was destroyed. So Israel as a people was destroyed yet a remnant remained and were saved and the Gentiles were brought into the fold, with the New Covenant. Like many prophesies, I think Acts 15 has multiple layers and fulfillments.

[Adrift]

really? You can't tell the difference between what to eat and a moral action?

Not to mention that most of the moral laws are repeated to Christians in the NT.

wow. Did you really just say that? God chose the Hebrews as his people beginning with Abraham. It was not about "race" - it was about followers and the promise God made to Abraham and his descendants. The "separation" was to keep them holy and uncontaminated by false religions.

Yeah, it wasn't really a race thing, as foreigners were allowed to integrate into Hebrew society, and the Old Testament makes clear over and over again that the covenant with Israel would eventually bless all of the nations. See for instance, Gen 18:18, 22:18; Ex 9:16; Josh 4:23-24, 2:8-11; Ps 47:8-9, 86:9, 99:2 and especially Isaiah 49:6 "He says, 'Is it too insignificant a task for you to be my servant, to reestablish the tribes of Jacob, and restore the remnant of Israel? I will make you a light to the nations, so you can bring my deliverance to the remote regions of the earth.'”

He said he came to fulfill the law. He did. And the law about ceremonial things was never for Gentiles or Christians to begin with.

I would add that many Christians (like me) believe both laws are technically in effect. Those who reject the law of Christ will be judged under the law of Moses.

[Sparko]

I would add that many Christians (like me) believe both laws are technically in effect. Those who reject the law of Christ will be judged under the law of Moses.

Me too. The Law is what condemns men. It shows them how they have failed to live up to God's ways. But I don't think they will be judged by the ceremonial portions of the law, just the moral parts. Those are for all mankind.

[Aractus]

really? You can't tell the difference between what to eat and a moral action?

I can't tell the difference, no, because the Bible has no moral authority. We'll go to my go-to examples: who's to say what sexual activity is immoral? Why does the Law persecute minority groups like homosexuals unfairly? Why does the NT claim that homosexuality is shameful and caused by daemonic possession (Romans 1:26-27)? Why are women not to preach (1 Corinthians 14:35)? Or, much more importantly, how come Jesus never said a word about domestic violence? This is his biggest failing - in fact I'll make a new thread on that specific issue.

[The Pixie]

You've heard the answers to all of these questions before. Lots of times. Have you already forgotten them all, or do you just like arguing?

I have heard the usual christian responses, yes. If you have nothing new to offer, then there is no point continuing.

[The Pixie]

How do you decide which parts are moral and which parts are ceremonial? A cynical person might suppose that you declare the bits you do not want to be ceremonial; I am sure you will be able to state exactly what the criteria really are.

really? You can't tell the difference between what to eat and a moral action?

Yes I can.

Now can you answer the question? Or should I expect another dodge?

wow. Did you really just say that? God chose the Hebrews as his people beginning with Abraham. It was not about "race" - it was about followers and the promise God made to Abraham and his descendants. The "separation" was to keep them holy and uncontaminated by false religions.

So they were not a race apart? Would you say segregation is morally justified if the in-group is a tribe rather than a race?

An example of that segregation in action was that Hebrew slaves were treated well, pretty much like indentured servants, with the promise of release at the jubilee, whilst gentile slaves had no such hope and were enslaved for life. Was that justified by keeping God's chosen people "holy and uncontaminated by false religions"?

He said he came to fulfill the law. He did.

And modern Christianity has twisted that to mean that the laws no longer need to be followed - except the ones they want to keep of course.

A more accurate reading is that Jesus stated he was not changing the details of the Book of the Law or of the Book of the Prophets at all, but instead he had come to fulfill the prophecies contained in those books.

And the law about ceremonial things was never for Gentiles or Christians to begin with.

Which brings us back to how you decide which are ceremonial and which are not.

no. it is typical of anyone who actually reads the bible, in context, instead of relying of snippets read on atheist websites like you do.

Do you know what the word "fulfill" means? Can you explain to me in what way Jesus "fulfilled" the law?

That is an interesting passage. Peter quotes Amos 9:11-12 to support his position, right? Would you say, then, that the event prophesied in Amos 9 had occurred by the time Peter was talking?

some of it. At the time of Acts 15, Israel was mostly conquered and destroyed, only Judah was really still around and it was conquered by the Romans. By 70AD even the temple was destroyed. So Israel as a people was destroyed yet a remnant remained and were saved and the Gentiles were brought into the fold, with the New Covenant.

Were all the Jews who were sinners killed by the sword by that time?

Amos 9:10 All the sinners among my people will die by the sword...

Christianity maintains that we are all sinners except Jesus, so clearly Jews who are sinners have been around continuously for thousands of years. Had Jerusalem been restored?

Amos 9:11 “In that day
“I will restore David’s fallen shelter—
I will repair its broken walls
and restore its ruins—
and will rebuild it as it used to be,
12
so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear my name,[e]”
declares the Lord, who will do these things.

Far from it. As you say, by 70 AD the temple was destroyed. In what way can the prophecy of Amos 9, the prophecy Peter was referring to, be considered fulfilled?

Like many prophesies, I think Acts 15 has multiple layers and fulfillments.

When you say "fulfillments", is that as in "fulfilled", like a prophecy is fulfilled? Or is this the meaning peculiar to modern Christianity in which Jesus "fulfilled" the law?

[Adrift]

I have heard the usual christian responses, yes. If you have nothing new to offer, then there is no point continuing.

What sort of response were you expecting from a Christian other than a Christian response?

[The Pixie]

What sort of response were you expecting from a Christian other than a Christian response?

I fully expected the standard Christian response from the Christians here. What makes you think I was expecting something else?

[Adrift]

I fully expected the standard Christian response from the Christians here. What makes you think I was expecting something else?

Well...the fact that you asked the questions to a Christian of course. One doesn't normally ask questions they already know the answers to.

[The Pixie]

Well...the fact that you asked the questions to a Christian of course. One doesn't normally ask questions they already know the answers to.

I asked the question: How do you decide which parts are moral and which parts are ceremonial?

I do not know the answer to that, but I do know the standard Christian response is to dodge the question. Can you answer the question, or should I expect the usual response?

[Sparko]

I asked the question: How do you decide which parts are moral and which parts are ceremonial?

I do not know the answer to that, but I do know the standard Christian response is to dodge the question. Can you answer the question, or should I expect the usual response?

Funny, you told me you did know the answer to that.

really? You can't tell the difference between what to eat and a moral action?

Yes I can.

[Adrift]

I asked the question: How do you decide which parts are moral and which parts are ceremonial?

I do not know the answer to that, but I do know the standard Christian response is to dodge the question. Can you answer the question, or should I expect the usual response?

I only have the standard Christian response, which is not a dodge, but which does, in fact, answer the question. Very directly in fact. It's an answer that goes right back to the earliest church. You may not appreciate the answer, but it is an answer, and one that I, and many millions of others do find satisfying. Again, what other answer could you expect from a Christian other than a Christian answer? This is a very strange line of questioning unless you have some other motivation for asking a question you know the answer (or, if you prefer, "response") to.

[The Pixie]

Funny, you told me you did know the answer to that.

I said I knew the difference between what to eat and a moral action.

Are you saying that any rule in the OT that is not about what to eat is a moral rule? I am going to guess you will duck that one, because we both know that is not the case.

[The Pixie]

I only have the standard Christian response, which is not a dodge, but which does, in fact, answer the question. Very directly in fact. It's an answer that goes right back to the earliest church. You may not appreciate the answer, but it is an answer, and one that I, and many millions of others do find satisfying. Again, what other answer could you expect from a Christian other than a Christian answer? This is a very strange line of questioning unless you have some other motivation for asking a question you know the answer (or, if you prefer, "response") to.

And what is that answer?

You spent a lot of words avoiding saying it.