New Church

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you are asking what Jesus meant by "word", look at the following:

John 17
"7 “Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 8 [b]for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.

They are the words that ...[text shortened]... od.

It was the words given to them by Jesus, not the words they already had, i.e., the OT.[/b]

this has to be the weakest argument i think i have come across on RHP spirituality forum, it makes Jaywills look downright bona fide

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please see the edited text above for a scriptural refutation of a rather erroneous assertion. The truth of the matter is in the details thinkofone 🙂

Your refutation makes absolutely no sense in light of the passages from Leviticus 24 and Matthew 5 that I cited earlier. Jesus clearly contradicts Leviticus. Jesus prefaces this contradiction with "“You have heard that it was said" as He does the others. The most likely reason being that His audience would have been largely illiterate and so would have "heard" these things rather than have read them. That you try to read so much into 'you have heard that it was said' vs 'it is written" is really weak conjecture at best.

You have no case for the OT or the NT. Are you even going to bother to try to present a really weak case for the NT as well?

Jesus says to continue in HIS WORD, not the words of Paul, not the words of the Bible on the whole.

Luke 6
46 “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 “But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.”

John 15:7-11
7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 “My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. 9 “Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love

John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

John 14:21-24
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Your refutation makes absolutely no sense in light of the passages from Leviticus 24 and Matthew 5 that I cited earlier. Jesus clearly contradicts Leviticus. Jesus prefaces this contradiction with "“You have heard that it was said" as He does the others. The most likely reason being that His audience would have been largely illiterate and so would have "h to continue in HIS WORD, not the words of Paul, not the words of the Bible on the whole.

nope to put it bluntly youre talking nonsense, he is not talking about what is written, other wise that is what he would have said 'it is written', as he did on other occasions', he is referring to the Pharisaic interpretation of the law as is clearly evidenced from his words, 'you heard that it was said', this coupled with the clear reference to the Pharisaical thought that it was permitted to hate ones enemies when the law said nothing of the sort and the fact that Christ upheld the law, stating

(Matthew 5:18) . . .for truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.

leaves your assertion floundering like a beached whale.

four evidences that you cannot refute my dear thinkofone, you need to make a reappraisal of your sources. no one is stating that we should not continue to observe Christ words, but your assertion that Christ contradicted the Law is nonsense, he is contradicting the Pharisaical interpretation of the law. your assertion that they would not know the law is also nonsense for the Law was read out publicly during festivals from year to year and in the temple and synagogues every week. Parents were told to inculcate these things in there children!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope to put it bluntly youre talking nonsense, he is not talking about what is written, other wise that is what he would have said 'it is written', as he did on other occasions', he is referring to the Pharisaic interpretation of the law as is clearly evidenced from his words, 'you heard that it was said', this coupled with the clear reference to the ...[text shortened]... and synagogues every week. Parents were told to inculcate these things in there children!

Once again here it is:

Leviticus 24
19 ‘If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. 21 ‘Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.

Matthew 5
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

How you can deny its being written in Leviticus 24 is ridiculous, but not out of character for you. You've never been one to let facts get in the way of your beliefs.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Once again here it is:

Leviticus 24
19 ‘[b]If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. 21 ‘Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to ...[text shortened]... ot out of character for you. You've never been one to let facts get in the way of your beliefs.[/b]

see this phrase, 'You have heard that it was said', its not there for nothing you know!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
see this phrase, 'You have heard that it was said', its not there for nothing you know!

Obviously it was also written in Leviticus 24 as I've shown twice now. So how can this be reconciled? How can it both be written and heard? As I explained earlier, Jesus was addressing an audience that was largely illiterate which had "heard" it rather than read it. C'mon RC, this isn't rocket science.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Obviously it was also written in Leviticus 24 as I've shown twice now. So how can this be reconciled? How can it both be written and heard? As I explained earlier, Jesus was addressing an audience that was largely illiterate which had "heard" it rather than read it. C'mon RC, this isn't rocket science.

please the basis of your entire arguments rests upon a speculative assertion that Christ's readers had never heard of the law and that Christ used these words to compensate for their illiteracy, its a nonsense, they were deeply embroiled in it, in fact, it governed their entire lives. Christ has stated elsewhere, 'IT IS WRITTEN', are we to assume that he did so because Satan could read and the Israelites could not? Yes that is how absurd your statement is my friend. Christ stated , 'YOU HAVE HEARD THAT IT WAS SAID, not because the Israelites were illiterate, but because it was a reference to the Pharisaical interpretation of the Law as opposed to what had been written, clearly evidenced and exposed by Christ.


Education in Ancient Israel

In Israel, children were taught from a very early age by both father and mother. (Deuteronomy 11:18, 19; Proverbs 1:8; 31:26) In the French Dictionnaire de la Bible, Bible scholar E. Mangenot wrote: “As soon as he could speak, the child learned a few passages from the Law. His mother would repeat a verse; when he knew it, she would give him another one. Later, the written text of the verses they could already recite from memory would be put into the children’s hands. Thus, they were introduced to reading, and when they had grown older, they could continue their religious instruction by reading and meditating on the law of the Lord.”

This suggests that a basic teaching method used was the learning of things by heart. The things learned concerning Jehovahs laws and his dealings with his people were to penetrate into the heart. (Deuteronomy 6:6, 7) They were to be meditated upon. (Psalm 77:11, 12) To help young and old to memorize, various memory aids were used. These included alphabetic acrostics, successive verses in a psalm beginning with a different letter, in alphabetical order (such as Proverbs 31:10-31); alliteration (words beginning with the same letter or sound); and the use of numbers, like those used in the latter half of Proverbs chapter 30. Interestingly, the Gezer Calendar, one of the oldest examples of ancient Hebrew writing, is thought by some scholars to be a schoolboy’s memory exercise.

i rest my case.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please the basis of your entire arguments rests upon a speculative assertion that Christ's readers had never heard of the law and that Christ used these words to compensate for their illiteracy, its a nonsense, they were deeply embroiled in it, in fact, it governed their entire lives. Christ has stated elsewhere, 'IT IS WRITTEN', are we to assume tha writing, is thought by some scholars to be a schoolboy’s memory exercise.

i rest my case.

lol. Evidently the reading comprehension rate in RC world is none too good.

Actually the basis of my argument rests on the fact that it was written in Leviticus 24.

Try reading this very slowly. Perhaps you can have your wife read it and explain it to you:
"Obviously it was also written in Leviticus 24 as I've shown twice now."

No matter what nonsense you come up with, you're not going to be able to get past this fact so give it up.

FWIW

http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html
Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past.

BTW, notice that you didn't cite a source for the "Education in Ancient Israel" text, nor does it speak to the literacy rate.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Evidently the reading comprehension rate in RC world is none too good.

Actually the basis of my argument rests on the fact that it was written in Leviticus 24.

Try reading this very slowly. Perhaps you can have your wife read it and explain it to you:
"Obviously it was also written in Leviticus 24 as I've shown twice now."

No matter what n ource for the "Education in Ancient Israel" text, nor does it speak to the literacy rate.

(Matthew 5:43-45)  “you heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’  However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you;  that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. . .

taken from the same passage, now you shall explain where in the Mosaic Law it is written that one is to hate ones enemies. If you cannot, nor will not then you shall explain where Christ is getting this reference from.

when i cite passages from the literature of Jehovahs witnesses i do not cite references, it belongs to us. The references of course in the passage, were cited, that should be good enough for your needs.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Matthew 5:43-45)  “you heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’  However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you;  that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righte ...[text shortened]... The references of course in the passage, were cited, that should be good enough for your needs.

This helped earlier, so maybe it'll help again.

Try reading this very slowly. Perhaps you can have your wife read it and explain it to you:

You confuse the law of God with what is written. Not all that is written is the law of God. Jesus taught things contrary to the OT.

As an example:

Leviticus 24
19 ‘If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. 21 ‘Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

There is no reason to believe that Jesus would have seen the whole of the NT as the law of God either.

(Matthew 5:43-45) “you heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you; that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. . .

taken from the same passage, now you shall explain where in the Mosaic Law it is written that one is to hate ones enemies. If you cannot, nor will not then you shall explain where Christ is getting this reference from.

here it is again, the same question, phrased in exactly the same way, no answer the first time i see, why is that? shall you be forced to admit that Christ was not talking of the Mosaic law for clearly there is no reference to hating ones neighbours in the Mosiac Law and it is a reference to the Pharisaical interpretation of the Law, well well,

robbie carrobie and truth 1, thinkofone 0

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Matthew 5:43-45) “you heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you; that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righte ...[text shortened]... Pharisaical interpretation of the Law, well well,

robbie carrobie and truth 1, thinkofone 0

lol. Let me take a wild guess. When you were in school, you were in no danger of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, were you? You know what, that hasn't changed.

Why don't you go back and reread the posts thus far? Better yet, get your wife to read them and explain them to you.

Hopefully it'll dawn on one of you that your question is irrelevant to the argument since I've already shown the following:
"You confuse the law of God with what is written. Not ALL that is written is the law of God. Jesus taught things contrary to the OT."

And if you want to go back even further to where you jumped in, I've also shown the following:
"Jesus says to continue in HIS WORD, not the words of Paul, not the words of the Bible on the whole."

I'm thinking that you lost the big picture somewhere with all the nonsense you've been spewing.

But to your credit, this isn't as bad as having to try to reason with KM. But then again, I guess that isn't really saying much.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Let me take a wild guess. When you were in school, you were in no danger of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, were you? You know what, that hasn't changed.

Why don't you go back and reread the posts thus far? Better yet, get your wife to read them and explain them to you.

Hopefully it'll dawn on one of you that your question is irrelevant ...[text shortened]... ng to try to reason with KM. But then again, I guess that isn't really saying much.

why dont i send you my C.V and you can peruse my qualifications, just the same old condescension with no real basis for anything other than your egotism, let me know when you have anything of substance other than empty rhetoric. i leave it for the forum to decide whether thinkofone knows what he is talking about or whether he is full of it. Piece of advice, you shouldn't do condescension, not with your power of reasoning, it makes you look like a wanna be snob with fur coat and no knickers.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why dont i send you my C.V and you can peruse my qualifications, just the same old condescension with no real basis for anything other than your egotism, let me know when you have anything of substance other than empty rhetoric. i leave it for the forum to decide whether thinkofone knows what he is talking about or whether he is full of it. Piece o your power of reasoning, it makes you look like a wanna be snob with fur coat and no knickers.

Why don't you try to get past your pride and admit that all your arguments have been ill thought out and baseless?

The truth will make you free.

What do they call someone who takes shots and then cries foul when it's given back? Hypocrite, that's right. If you weren't so arrogant about it, I might have let it go.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why don't you try to get past your pride and admit that all your arguments have been ill thought out and baseless?

The truth will make you free.

What do they call someone who takes shots and then cries foul when it's given back? Hypocrite, that's right. If you weren't so arrogant about it, I might have let it go.

my arguments are scripturally based and substantiated to such an extent that you refused to answer them because in doing so you your argument was doomed to failure. i am so confident in fact that i call upon others to also bear witness that these things are so, the other biblical scholars, Conrau, Freaky, Jaywill, Manny, Galvo, Knightmeister, Badwater and anyone else who is interested in scripture, even i call upon the atheists! Snobbery is not becoming, especially intellectual snobbery and you were called out for it, so dont go out with your fur coat an no knickers again!