Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes that is the case for clearly Paul and Peter were not speaking in parables when they
mentioned it, sigh, why must you fight it Zee.

i enjoy making you look ignorant, closed minded and several other characteristics that would violate polite conversation rules.

though, again, it isn't hard to do that and it is common knowledge. to defend the old testament in its entirety is kinda like defending the holocaust.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Does the slavery principle still remain? If not, why not?!

yes we are slaves of Christ.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i enjoy making you look ignorant, closed minded and several other characteristics that would violate polite conversation rules.

though, again, it isn't hard to do that and it is common knowledge. to defend the old testament in its entirety is kinda like defending the holocaust.

sure whatever rocks your socks, if degrading other people is your thing, then who am I
to stop you, if you think its the same as the holocaust then who am i to change your
perceptions, as i stated, it was good enough for the Christ.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes we are slaves of Christ.

Okaaaaaaaaaaay.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Okaaaaaaaaaaay.

painless, easy and to the point.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the Bible is complete, it was not a patronising tone, it was a genuine question, but
emotions are fairly difficult to convey through text so much misunderstanding occurs.

ill let you off robbie! i was being a bit sensitive.............(because i had to look up covenant in a dictionary, dont tell anybody!!)

does it say the bible is complete in the bible? is there a danger that more books could be found in some tomb somewhere? did everything that the john, paul and ringo wrote make it in?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
painless, easy and to the point.

Don't see it myself, but if it rocks your boat then so be it.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
ill let you off robbie! i was being a bit sensitive.............(because i had to look up covenant in a dictionary, dont tell anybody!!)

does it say the bible is complete in the bible? is there a danger that more books could be found in some tomb somewhere? did everything that the john, paul and ringo wrote make it in?

thanks it not many who give the benefit of the doubt, there are literally thousands of
extant parchments, manuscripts, codices and papyri, no new books are though to have
been discovered among these.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think you have a distorted view of the Mosiac Law, but thats not my concern, i have
no issues with it and neither did Jesus.

am i right in saying the mosiac law was passed to moses from god?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
am i right in saying the mosiac law was passed to moses from god?

It is considered to have been transmitted by God through Angels, here is the reference,

(Acts 7:52-53) . . .Which one of the prophets did your forefathers not persecute? Yes,
they killed those who made announcement in advance concerning the coming of the
righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become,  you who
received the Law as transmitted by angels but have not kept it.”

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that would be Mr. Spanky to you and quote away, I have no issues with the Mosaic Law,
if it was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for me.

Deuteronomy:

21:18 If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, 37 21:19 his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city. 21:20 They must declare to the elders 38 of his city, “Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.” 21:21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death.

22:22 If a man is caught having sexual relations with 38 a married woman 39 both the man who had relations with the woman and the woman herself must die;
*********************************************************************

this is kinda my favorite:

22:13 Suppose a man marries a woman, has sexual relations with her, 25 and then rejects 26 her, 22:14 accusing her of impropriety 27 and defaming her reputation 28 by saying, “I married this woman but when I had sexual relations 29 with her I discovered she was not a virgin!” 22:15 Then the father and mother of the young woman must produce the evidence of virginity 30 for the elders of the city at the gate. 22:16 The young woman’s father must say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man and he has rejected 31 her. 22:17 Moreover, he has raised accusations of impropriety by saying, ‘I discovered your daughter was not a virgin,’ but this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity!” The cloth must then be spread out 32 before the city’s elders. 22:18 The elders of that city must then seize the man and punish 33 him. 22:19 They will fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, for the man who made the accusation 34 ruined the reputation 35 of an Israelite virgin. She will then become his wife and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.

22:20 But if the accusation is true and the young woman was not a virgin, 22:21 the men of her city must bring the young woman to the door of her father’s house and stone her to death, for she has done a disgraceful thing 36 in Israel by behaving like a prostitute while living in her father’s house


a young bride in those days basically means a 14-16 year old girl, just as a side note.
so when a girl is accused of not being a virgin, she must be stoned to death not after being proven guilty (ignoring the fact one shouldn't murder a child for being horny and having sex one time) but after failing to prove herself that she isn't. meanwhile, what happens to the man who falsely accused her and put her in mortal danger? he gets to pay a fine and gets to bone her until one of them dies. i believe it would make for some awkward conversation at dinner "dear husband, remember that time when you tried to have me killed?"
********************************************************************

20:10 When you approach a city to wage war against it, offer it terms of peace. 20:11 If it accepts your terms 15 and submits to you, all the people found in it will become your slaves.
********************************************************************
20:16 As for the cities of these peoples that 18 the Lord your God is going to give you as an inheritance, you must not allow a single living thing 19 to survive. 20:17 Instead you must utterly annihilate them 20 – the Hittites, 21 Amorites, 22 Canaanites, 23 Perizzites, 24 Hivites, 25 and Jebusites 26 – just as the Lord your God has commanded you

******************************************************************
25:11 If two men 22 get into a hand-to-hand fight, and the wife of one of them gets involved to help her husband against his attacker, and she reaches out her hand and grabs his genitals, 23 25:12 then you must cut off her hand – do not pity her.

hehe so a woman goes to help her husband not being killed. and because she isn't xena or wonder woman and kung fu will only be invented in chinese movies later on, she does something that will subdue her husband attacker and grabs him by the balls: her hand gets chopped off. If she gets a big rock and bashes her husband attacker's skull in: hand doesn't get chopped off.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Deuteronomy:

21:18 If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, 37 21:19 his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city. 21:20 They must declare to the elders 38 of his city, “Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attenti ...[text shortened]... ets a big rock and bashes her husband attacker's skull in: hand doesn't get chopped off.

yes i understand these things Zee, i simply dont have any issues with them and
apparently neither did Jesus.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i understand these things Zee, i simply dont have any issues with them and
apparently neither did Jesus.

even if you dont follow these laws now, doesnt it make you angry that at one point in time god thought that this was okay? if hitler hadnt died in the war and had later said he thought the killing of jews was wrong and no more jews should be killed does would that make the actions in his past okay or forgivable?
what prompted god to change his laws?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i understand these things Zee, i simply dont have any issues with them and
apparently neither did Jesus.

your jesus is not the same jesus as my jesus

Originally posted by stellspalfie
even if you dont follow these laws now, doesnt it make you angry that at one point in time god thought that this was okay? if hitler hadnt died in the war and had later said he thought the killing of jews was wrong and no more jews should be killed does would that make the actions in his past okay or forgivable?
what prompted god to change his laws?

no i dont have any issues with the Law, it was never intended to be permanent. Paul
states that its main purpose was merely to 'make sins manifest' and it was 'a tutor
leading towards Christ', in other words, it provided an environment conducive to the
emergence of the Messiah, all things in the Law are a type, pointing towards the Christ,
the blood sacrifices, the temple arrangement, the priesthood, etc etc