All 613 of them? Including how to shave and not wearing the cloth of two different animals. Tell me, which of these laws do you think were so amazing that only inspired people could have ever come up with such wisdom? Which ones were superior to say, The Hammurabi code written long before?
How many independent witnesses (witnesses who do not know each other) must see the act and bring it before the Judges for action to be taken? Next, how many deaths in a seventy-year period must take place to have the Court marked as a "bloody" court. (I'll give you that one: Two)
Maybe try comparing it to what their contemporaries were doing instead of to today. Then it might make more sense to you.
So, it matters not to Jesus.
Let's return to the Hebrew. The first Commandment says to put God and His ways first. Remember what I said about Hebrew being a language of pictures. Bowing signifies God comes first.
World wide, what is the average number of murders that occur every hour? Fifty-two. In the US alone five out of every 100,000 people are murdered. Theft in the U.S. In 2023, there were 4.51 million cases.
Wow. First you ask AI to back you, and now you are calling David Koresh to the stand.
No, it is not "Paulianity". Paul held to his motto: Preach only Christ Crucified. That's pure Gospel.
Here we go again with a "Christian" telling someone that unless he knows Hebrew (and perhaps Koine Greek as well?) that he is just not qualified to debate. That he has to be a religious scholar or PhD or Doctor of philosophy.
Know Hebrew and also the etymology of words in Latin, Greek, and English, as language evolves. Let's put it this way, a quote I often use (McCloskey):
Paul never met Jesus. Visons were whacked out in those days and everyone and their brother claimed them and hardly anyone disputed them. Religiosity and superstion was rampant. Jeses never said the law no longer applied. That was Pauyl who made that up because he knew not even the Jews liked the 613 stupid laws and to say they were no more was an easy sell.
Ten Commandments. The Law written on stone tablets. The Jewish people added the others because people had questions on how to live and abide by the original Ten. Further, these additional laws were for a separate people living apart from others. They never expected Gentiles to follow all 613. Further, many of those 613 applied to certain Jews (not all) depending on gender, whether there is/was a Temple, age, etcetera. Jesus was not a fan of many of these additions to the Commandments.
What is it you wish to debate: What you think the Bible says from the perspective of modern Western culture, using a modern, subjective language? Or, the intent of the original author to his original audience, in the original language?
No. I have never said that the Bible was written for the people of that time. I said that the Bible addresses (the audience) of that time. One of the first conclusions I came to about the Bible: How sad. This isn't all about me. Very little of it pertains to me. On the other hand, the small percentage that does pertain to me and my life, packs quite a wallop,
You see God as a mere copy?
There are a great many differences, and they tell the story. Exactly! The "Church" has billions of dollars and some say more gold than Fort Knox. Their whole scheme is to get more and more recruits so they can become larger and more powerful and wealthy. When they invented hell is when they really exploded because FEAR SELLS. If they can convince others that "God" wants it they have them hooked. Look at the posts of the believers here and elsewhere. It is never them saying I want this but it what "God' wants based on scripture and if scripture doesn't quite match with their opinions of what "God" wants they just say you don't understand Hebrew or Koine Greek and if you did you would surely agree.
Paul did not meet Jesus until after the Resurrection. Re-read the Gospels. Jesus was firm that not one iota of the Commandments would be changed. He did point out those laws in addition to the Ten were often a burden. Jesus mentioned dietary laws; laws about "harvesting" a handful of wheat to eat on the Sabbath; curing an ailment on the Sabbath that could have safely waited until the next day.
Actually, this points to a very good reason why mixing Church and State falls apart. I am not entirely clear on how open Pope Francis wanted national borders to be.
When you did attend Church...How many homilies were about the Vatican? How many readings were about the Vatican? Where did you learn of the failings of the Vatican? Did you then do equal research of the positive aspects and successes of the Vatican?
With Catholics and Christians it is always stating claims as facts. Such as the claim that Paul met Jesus after the resurrection. That is a claim. Not a fact. It is your belief and not a fact. His claims run counter to what Jesus is alleged to have said in many areas. He was an interloper who co-opted Christianity to make it more palatable to regular people is all. No one wanted to follow those 613 laws and Jesus himself never, ever said that any of them were abolished or not to be followed. For that matter, Jesus was an expert in the Torah and stated that none of them would ever be abolished. You can try to twist and turn what was written by unknown people decades after Jesus died and that doesn’t change what is written and it doesn’t matter how you might want to re-interpret it using Hebrew.
Go back to the Aramaic which Jesus' spoke (quite similar to Hebrew). It is easier there to identify when Jesus was speaking of the written (on stone) Law (10 Commandments) and when he was speaking of the Oral Law (laws other than the Ten). No, Paul did not run counter (go back to etymology and the Latin and Greek).
It is common for believers like yourself to say that a non believer just doesn’t know what he’s talking about and you know the correct translations from Hebrew and The dead and obscure language called Koine Greek. It is certainly a conversation stopper akin to a scientist who says the world will burn up in 40 years if we don’t all stop fossil fuels and he, as an expert knows this and we can’t possibly know more than him. I mean how can a mere layman dispute such things?
So now you are arguing that the institution which has done more to shape western civilization and is widely considered to be the largest charitable organization in the world should have done more?
