tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1192460758675629625.post6756152937173443902..comments2024-03-11T17:32:55.577-07:00Comments on The Freed Thinker Podcast - A Tyler Vela Joint: On "Cherry Picking"Tyler V.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02107421305857393469noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1192460758675629625.post-16101300014750743942013-05-12T07:56:50.177-07:002013-05-12T07:56:50.177-07:00intact*
And no, I've heard all this before, I...intact*<br /><br />And no, I've heard all this before, I've read all this before and I find no need to post arguments on a persons personal need to justify eating lobster when his religions clearly says he should not. <br /><br />But I get it, I would jump through hoops too if I was told I could not eat lobster. Nekohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03023474653648850095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1192460758675629625.post-33426081608565406002013-05-10T08:52:25.301-07:002013-05-10T08:52:25.301-07:00It's hard to say if you are correct in followi...It's hard to say if you are correct in following Paul's Writings. We don't really know who the authors were in the first four gospels. However, In Matthew 5:17 Jesus is reported to say;<br />"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." We might argue about what this means, yet he goes on to say in 5:18; I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved." New Living Translation (©2007).I used NLT because it says purpose is accomplished versus all is completed. Because that is usually the first argument I hear. All though, "Fulfill" the law seems more apt. It does specify though that while heaven and earth are still here, we will know that the law still stands. What does this mean then? Is his purported sacrifice the fulfillment of the law and it's conclusion? Or is it merely a fulfillment of a stipulation of the covenant made between God and Abraham?<br /> If we look at Gen 15, we see the ritual of the cutting. Many have tried to interpret the reasons it was done in the manner that it was.The only constant is that during the ritual, you pass through the blood to bind the oath. If either party fails to uphold their part, they must parish in the same manner as the animals with the spilling of their blood. Of course, Abraham falls into a trance and the ash pot and Torch are seen passing though. Both symbols of Yahweh, and has been described as the prelude to the Messiahs necessity, as Yahweh walked through on his behalf and Abraham's, binding only himself to the penalties of the Oath. Jesus was purported to be this messiah and supposedly Bled and died to fulfill the conditions of the covenant which the descendants of Abraham had broken. <br /><br />So did the messiah come to make a new covenant with new rules? o\Or did he come to pay the debt of the old one and renew it? That is your real question. And it is still in debate because people wish to "cherry pick" versus and meanings of words. Because who wants to be bound by laws and rules when it's much easier to believe that a simple "oops I did it again." "Forgive me." will do the trick? <br /><br />In looking at the history about how the bible was put together at the Council of Nicaea. I don't know how you can think the whole religion is not one big cherry picked mess. I mean they chose which books to put in and which to leave out. But you tell me what you think. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15440258692921478218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1192460758675629625.post-72103157344549926112013-05-09T20:23:51.215-07:002013-05-09T20:23:51.215-07:00Neko, in other words rather than engaging with the...Neko, in other words rather than engaging with the issue and providing an actual argument for your position, you'd rather put your fingers in your ears like a little child and pretend that your view remains in tact.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05066951270692564994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1192460758675629625.post-34242249186560207752013-05-09T18:00:22.019-07:002013-05-09T18:00:22.019-07:00What a steaming load of BS. Just off the assertio...What a steaming load of BS. Just off the assertions made on the first paragraph it's not even worth my time to continue reading. <br /><br />What a load of lies right off the get-go. He could not even wait to be done with the first paragraph before starting to lie. "Before" as he puts it, most people could not even read, much less discern all the contradictions in the bible. And infact as soon as they did the problems started to crop up. Hell the first inquisition was the result of monks and priests asking too many questions.<br /><br />And these observations are made by PRIESTS and people out of seminary. That the cherry picking from mossaic law is a thing. So his "lay skeptics" comment is also a steam load of BS.Nekohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03023474653648850095noreply@blogger.com