/lit/ - Literature

>>15924767
Christology.

>>15924767
Jesus didn't actually negate any of the content of the Old Testament. All he did was renew the covenant and expand it to cover all of mankind.
Saint Paul, on the other hand, abrogated a small number of the old strictures, e.g. the prohibition on the consumption of shellfish.

>>15924767
Are you asking this because you hate kikes? Hating half the bible because the first half was for jews is blasphemous, gay, and down right unchristian.

>>15924767
It was included thanks to (((them))). Only half of Christianity is actually Christian, that is, the NT.

>>15924909
Jesus literally said to give no thought to what you eat, that what goes in you does not define you

>>15924952
Is Matthew 6:25 the verse you're talking about?
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for
your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink;
nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not
the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
If so, it doesn't say what you claim it does.

>>15924909
He negated the animal sacrifice mentioned every three pages in the OT by becoming a sacrifice himself.

>>15924979
I'm not the same anon, but anon, when you say something is not, it is common courtesy to say what it is. As it stands, your comment is vapid.

>>15925286
I thought it required no elaboration. The point of the verse is that there is more to life than its material aspects, which he exemplifies with food, drink, bodily health, and clothing. Men should not fret over these worldly matters, but instead, it is implied, focus on God.

>>15924767
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

>>15924767
bible is toilet paper.

>>15925698
Do you wear clothes of mixed fibers? Eat pork? Are you circumcised?

>>15925604
Jesus also said that it’s not what enters your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out of your mouth. With these verses together it seems as though it doesn’t matter what we eat

>>15924767
What did jesus retcon?
Please be specific

>>15926014
everyone commits all kinds of sin. That’s why Jesus was sent

>>15926056
Is it a sin to eat pork?

>>15925262
Which chronologically makes sense, before christ, humans had to make sacrafices.
Modern farm equipment negated the use of slaves, yet they still teach you about the history of slavery.

>>15926073
If youre jewish or islamic yeah.

>>15926092
So Christians don't have to abide by the laws of the Old Testament. So why bother including it?

>>15926114
There are two kinds of laws in the Mosaic Laws, moral laws and religious/ritual laws. The moral laws, like thou shalt not kill, should obviously still be abided by by everyone, Jew and Gentile. The religious laws, like not eating pork or circumcision, were created to set the Hebrews apart from the rest of the people they would interact with so they could be God’s chosen people, and those laws still apply to the Jews today because they will always be God’s chosen people, but only to the Jews.

So moral laws everyone should follow, but the religious laws are only for the Jews.

>>15926114
Christians read the old and new testament, because thats the chronology of how they were written.
Jews read the torah and hebrew bible, which is the old testament and does not include christ.
Muslims read the the koran which came after all three but is connected through Abrahams first son, Ishmael.

>>15926176
>There are two kinds of laws in the Mosaic Laws, moral laws and religious/ritual laws.
Where in the Bible is this stated?

>The religious laws were created to set the Hebrews apart from the rest of the people
So God's laws don't apply to everyone? Why would non-Jews read the Bible at all then?

>those laws still apply to the Jews today
I thought Jesus died for everyone's sins? Not just gentiles.
>>15926183
>Christians read the old and new testament, because thats the chronology of how they were written.
Should they read the Illiad and the Odyssey too? They were written before and have different moral lessons to teach. What about Gilgamesh? Should Christians read the Koran?

>>15926237
>Should they read the Illiad and the Odyssey too?

>>15924767
It shouldn't be included as part of the holy book of Christianity. It should be a separate reference book -- like Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews -- that provides context for the culture in which Jesus was raised. The Yahweh of the Torah is obviously not the Father to which Jesus refers.

>>15926237
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but it's clear that your questions come from a place of deep enmity. I hope that you will one day put aside your hostility to the Christian faith and study it in a spirit of humility.

>>15926176
There is zero scriptural or logical basis for anything in this post.

>>15924767
Because theres a lot of esoteric knowledge contained within if you know the keys to unlock it.

>>15926294
Are you a protestant?

>>15926282
I am only hostile to sophistry.

I hope one day to read an explanation of Christian faith that makes sense to me.

>>15926237
I sense youre agruing in bad faith.
The bible wasnt written at any one time, its a collection of books, many of which are much older than the illiad or odyssey which are based in greek gods and myths that do not intersect with the abrahamic religions.
>should christians read the koran
If they feel inclined to, sure I suppose.
Expand on what you mean by "should"

>>15926306
What I am is less important than the fact that you are not someone who has ever read the Bible.

>>15926321
>I hope one day to read an explanation of Christian faith that makes sense to me.
If you’ve already made up your mind about Christianity, it is unlikely this will ever occur, but isn’t that exactly what you want? So that on your death bed you can lie to yourself and think you won every single argument ever and everyone else other than you are idiots, and you’re the only one who truly gets it, right?

If you don’t have an open mind, then there’s really no point in making arguments at all. Atheists today are always about attacking, without actually listening to the arguments from the other side. Atheists a few centuries ago at least gave alternative views, forming their own paradigm, but today, atheists are just against everything that Christianity or any other religion is about while simultaneously not providing a viable alternative that people can apply their lives to other than simply “do as thou wilt”, and we all know where that leads: hedonism, humanism, and overall and empty life devoid of all meaning. Wow, what an amazing view of life to have.

>>15926237
Different anon here
>Where in the Bible is this stated?
You can find a lot of information on the mosaic laws just by googling them.
There isnt one passage that sums them up, theyre spread throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; most are defined for whom they are for. The ten comandments for example being absolute laws, but things like circumcison being only a law defined for the sons of abraham.

>>15926324
You said the old testament is important because it comes before the new. But there are plenty of other works that also came before and influenced the new testament.

If the only important laws are those espoused by Jesus, why call anything else scripture? On the other hand, if Jesus did not make the old laws obsolete, how do we know which ancient laws are valid or not? Because Christians have obviously not been following the letter of the old testament law for the past two thousand years.

>>15926343
Protestant then.

>>15926321
>I hope one day to read an explanation of Christian faith that makes sense to me.
Not him, but read Tolstoy's "The Gospel in Brief". It presents the sayings and doings of Jesus in a logically coherent format so you can actually assess what his ethical philosophy is. Not saying you will agree with it, but you can evaluate it without all the extra bullshit.

>>15924767
*not even fucking close to half and the law is still important, he fulfilled it, not abolish it

>>15926380
False.

>>15926324
>its a collection of books, many of which are much older than the illiad or odyssey
Total horseshit.

>>15926381
Christians generally follow the rules set in the new testament, yes.
The laws set in the old testament were for the jews, and many jews still practice them, although there have been some changes over time.
What reason is there for the christians to not read the old testament? It still contains valuable moral parables, context on creation, lineage, etc. The new testament often cites the old; just because christians arent beholden to the old testament laws does not mean they cant read it.

>>15926395
1/4?

>>15926361
>you've already made up your mind
Call no man happy until he dies. Minds can be changed. I'm not out to score points or win an internet argument. I see a lot of personal attacks, but no answers to my questions. I'm sorry if I come off as an edgy fedora tipper, but that is not my intent.

I'm desperately looking for a reason to believe, but the bible is not helpful at all.

>>15926373
How does one distinguish between laws for jews and laws for everyone else?

>>15926404
>illiad written 795 BC
>old testament written between 1200 BC and 165 BC

>>15926432
>How does one distinguish between laws for jews and laws for everyone else?
They are defined in bible.
Here you go
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Moses

>>15926440
So the first five books included in the Bible only apply to Jews?

>>15926456
In the Pentateuch, whenever it says anything about a law in relation to the “children of Israel” it applies to the Jews. All other Mosaic Laws that do not specify that it applies to the Jews were written for everyone, Jews and Gentile.

>>15926434
>old testament written between 1200 BC and 165 BC
Lol, no. The Torah was written circa 400-300BC. The Deuteronomistic history was a product of the exile.

>>15926440
>The old testament is holy scripture and the word of god
>except when I don't feel like it

>>15926465
Are you serious? Cite some passages to support your theory.

>>15926456
There are some differences between the torah, the hebrew bible, and the christian bible. Its a bit disingenuous to say they only apply to the jews, but I suppose if you want to simplify it; they are the story of Gods choosen people, the jews.
Reading the old testament would give you more context than I can, I recommend the KJV if you want something more accurate to the language it was first written in, or the NIV if you want something easier to read.

>>15926470
I never said any of that, you asked about the laws defined in the old testament, and I gave you a resource to look them up.

>>15926485
>I recommend the KJV if you want something more accurate to the language it was first written in, or the NIV if you want something easier to read.
Retard.

>>15926468
Torah is a collection of 5 books, before that those books existed separately in etchings, oral traditions, etc.
The parables in the torah were not concieved in the 6th century, just documented.

>>15926504
pleasure chatting with you

>>15926515
>Torah is a collection of 5 books, before that those books existed separately in etchings, oral traditions, etc.
Only in your dreams. There is no evidence for that.

>>15926521
Youve got no evidence to the contrary.

>>15926525
Oh, but I do. I have read the non-apologetic scholarship on the subject.

>>15926532
Good for you

>>15926485
I haven’t read the Torah or Hebrew Bible, but I have read the Christian Bible. It’s just confusing to think that Yahweh only wants his rules to be followed by the Israelites when he actively shits on everyone who is not a Jew because they don’t follow said rules. If Yahweh anointed the Israelites because he thought that they could follow all his rules, wouldn’t those rules be the just ones to follow? Would the immutable God set rules that weren’t objective and only applicable to a single culture at a specific point in time?

>>15926555
>Yahweh
>Israelites
I dont think you read the christian bible

>>15926555
>Would the immutable God set rules that weren’t objective and only applicable to a single culture at a specific point in time?
Yeah.

All the 'covenants' in the OT were originally to Pharaohs and Kings. That's why the so-called 'Lord' character acts so much like a petty human tyrant. Likely during the Babylonian exile, the priests replaced the all names of the prior royal covenant-grantors with יהוה

>>15924767
"I come not to abolish the old laws"

Was Jesus being too subtle here for you?

>>15926689
>abolishes them anyway

>>15926042
Then eat my poop

>>15924912
This. Christians themselves are deceitful soulless evil kikes bent on the destruction of ethnoreligious culture of us goyim around the world.

>>15924952
He also says his followers can drink poison and live but not one in this thread is a faithful enough dude to prove it

>>15926731
You would live, if you were faithful, since you would go straight to heaven and embrace eternal life.

>>15926745
Proof?