Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what John said, not God.
So, we should trust what John said, more than what one of the Holy Trinity said?
That was a quote of Jesus.
31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave [2] to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”
In context, he’s not stating that he’s setting them free of the law, but of sin. He’s not stating they’ll be free of anything but slavery, and the law itself is not slavery, it’s covenant.
This can be taken 2 ways, the person would not have any intention of violating the law, or that the law would not apply to them. Looking at how Jesus lead His life and taught, He Himself violated the law while instructing that King David violated the law and was blameless in the sight of God (Matt 12:4, Mark2:26 Luke 6:4)
So we have one passage with ambiguous interpretation, which could be interpreted one way, or interpreted the other…
And we have another passage in which Jesus is very specific that none of the laws shall ever be invalid.
So, 1 ambiguous, 1 quite clear.
That seems to be a theme in most religious works. Well, if you include throwing in the odd completely bonkers one, to mix things up.
Actually it can only be taken one way, unless you’re ignoring the text - he says, explicitly, that they would be freed from sin. Not law. Sin. “Law” isn’t even mentioned.
Did you even read what you responded to? Or the bible?
What is sin?
What they’re being freed from.
Trying to guess what you mean when you talk about religion is a tiresome chore at best-why don’t you just go ahead and tell us?
Staying with the words of Jesus there is only once place I can find where Jesus defines how someone sins:
Where both of this violate the law
That’s a conversation Jesus is (will be) having.
See?
Are you saying that those are the only two things a person can do to sin? How about adultery? Are we cool with that?
Oh, no, we shouldn’t do that, because according to Jesus (Matthew 5:27-32) even thinking about adultery qualifies as committing adultery, and you should stab your own eye out. And God forbid (literally, see what I did there?) that you masturbate.
Then you’ve got to cut your own hand off.
Actually there is no restriction ever on masturbation.
That is the only place where I find where Jesus is quoted as saying what a sin actually is, and that applies to the Israelites, who were/are under the law.
Staying with only the direct quotes of Jesus I do not know if I can make the case that for the Israelites breaking the law=sin, but I believe I easily could using the NT.
Correct Link (sorry about that)
27"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Are you really arguing about that context with me? You’re saying that immediately following the statements about adultery, the thing about your right hand isn’t a masturbation reference?
Sucks when the infidel atheist liberal Jew knows more about your religion than you do, hu?
That was the first time I ever heard it said that way, and there was never stated any restriction on masturbation, and if one was thinking of their wife I could see no issue with it. The issue here if we take it as you did was the act of adultery, not masturbation.
It is interesting that Jesus chose the ‘right’ eye, it would also seem that another part of the body would be the more direct one to cut off to solve that issue.
Indeed, a quote where he is speaking to an audience of Jews who were following him (and hence probably following the Jewish laws). It has no relevance, then, to a discussion on if the rules apply to gentiles.
And I think I have mentioned that the moral aspects are the only parts that matter, because in discussions with theists that is the area where controversy arises. I have never had a discussion with any Christian who tries to divorce Christianity from the Old Testament because of dietary differences or circumcision.
The most frequent points of contention that brings out the “we are no longer subject to Old Testament rules” are homosexuality and slavery.
Well…it is true whether you “believe” it or not.
Well, if you want to insist that the issue comes up when kosher problems arise or when circumcision is discussed rather than the moral issues…you are certainly free to do so.
This entire discussion arose from something Tom Tildrum said in another thread.
He wrote: “Well, yes, if we’re going to be strictly literal about it, it would be more precise to say that the covenant between God and humanity set forth in the New Testament is very different from the one set forth in the Old. Most of the rules of Leviticus, for instance, have been superseded.”
I granted that dietary rules and circumcision were changed…but I said nothing else changed…and certainly “most of the rules of Leviticus” do apply.
All the moral ones apply according to you.
Not sure what that has to do with our discussion here…but I still say that the attempts by Christians to disassociate themselves from the god of the Old Testament (which is really what they are doing) is nonsense.
I am saying that the passage in Leviticus indicates that the god of the Bible considers homosexual activity to be an abomination. (Some might argue that the activity only covers homosexual activity among men….but whatever.) If Diogenes is saying that I am wrong on the issue…let him discuss it with me.
Here is the passage again:
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives.” Leviticus 20:13
If that does not indicate that the god of the Bible considers homosexual activity (at least among men) to be an abomination…I’d like to hear the arguments against it.
As an agnostic, I also think Shodan has responded to the questions fairly, intelligently, and courteously. I am enjoying my conversations with him immensely…and although we disagree in significant areas, I hope it continues here in this thread and in others.
[/QUOTE]
If the best Jesus could do in trying to say he was here to change the law…is to say:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you; UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with until it all comes true.” Matthew 5:17ff
…then he probably should not have been teaching at all.
If he actually meant this to mean “I am here to change the Law” then he was incompetent.
Not sure how else to deal with this. I am not a scholar in the language…and you defining the passage to mean the exact opposite of what it appears to say.
Jesus came to fulfill the law, which remained in effect till ‘everything is accomplished’, on the cross Jesus proclaimed ‘it is finished’
Could that mean that it was fulfilled at that time?