No i am saying in the OT the penalty of sin was death and in the NT the penalty of sin is death.. Nothing has changed on that score. The only change is the the way the law is carried out. This is not hypocracy because the law still stands.
And I'm saying it's hypocrisy to command people to abstain from killing and then command them to kill, which is exactly what the bible does.
It matters now who is tasked with the job of carrying out the execution.
What are you talking about?
The Pharisees came to who? When?
They came to Jesus in Mathew 15.
Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; [a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’[c] Thus you have made the commandment[d] of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites!
What do you mean "where?" Christians are commanded to love one another and God under penalty of death.
Is it that you don't understand the word "compulsory," or are you really going to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about 30-something uses of the word later?
I would be in rebellion against the teachings of Jesus if i tried to finish the job. As Jesus and God are one i would be in rebellion against the will of God.
And you'd also be doing exactly what he commanded. That's the point. It's hypocritical and self-contradictory.
Whether you recognize catholicism as Christianity is irrelevant. I am a Christian i know what a Christianity is, and catholicism is not Christianity. See i can make statements too.
But your statement is not based on anything except your desire for Catholicism to not be considered a part of Christianity. What you're saying here is no different than "My left arm is shorter than my right arm, therefore it is not my arm." It wouldn't matter whether or not you
think it's your arm or not; what matters is that it's an appendage that attached to the shoulder, has an elbow hinge somewhere in the middle, and a hand with five fingers at the end.
A BODY is not inconsequential.
But my body as it now is (Faulty and corrupt) is inconsequential. I shall receive a new incorruptible body upon the resurrection/rapture.
Jesus was born through the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore Jesus did not have a faulty nature therefore Jesus was risen in His perfect body. He never needed a new one His old one was perfect as He is Perfect.
The scripture does not say your body will change, it simply says
you will be changed. You've decided to interpret it in a
specific manner which was not intended.
Racial preferences and discrimination? Where did that question come from? Why did you tag it onto the end of the rest of that paragraph? An entirely different issue. God chose to work through the Descendants of Abraham for His purpose, not their purpose. The Hebrews where in fact chosen to be made an example out of and through them the will of God was made known to the world. It was not a racists selection of i am going to chose you because your superior to others. It was a case of you're in the right place on the globe and this is the right time, so you will serve my purpose.
That you don't think that qualifies as bigotry boggles my mind. Israelites are the master race of the bible. How about this little exchange from Mathew 15?
2 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
First he dismisses her because "I ain't here for you," calls her a dog, and only helps her
after she agrees that she's a dog and table scraps are enough for her. All because she isn't an Israelite.
So we are going to be changed in a twinkling of an eye from our corruptible mortal flesh and blood bodies into incorruptible and immortal bodies at the last trumpet. That's the last one in the book of Revelation the 7th.
As I said already, that's an interesting interpretation of the verse, in that it says nothing of the body, yet you choose to interpret it that way.
Again they are not Christians.
Again, yes they are.
We will not be ghosts we shall be like Jesus physical beings with bodies but changed into incorruptible immortal bodies just like Jesus had when he acceded into Heaven. Jesus did not go up as a ghost and He will not return as a ghost. But he will rule the nations with an IRON ROD and we shall rule for 1000 years with Him.
I hadn't realized you were relying on such a wonky, liberal interpretation of the few passages you actually know. But I suppose that a limited and incorrect understanding of the faith is more common than the alternative. For instance, you don't even seem to be aware that you belong to a very small sect of Christians that believe in a literal interpretation of Jesus' 1000-year reign. You even apparently believe he'd literally rule with an iron rod.
Jesus is God and existed since the beginning He is the Word of God. So when He came down and took on a flesh body He did not inherit the sin nature of of the human He came into "Mary" therefore the Body of Jesus could have developed in any woman on earth but He would not have inherited that woman's faulty sin nature. So Jesus genetic makeup was unique. Mary was not his genetic mother. The Body of Jesus was the work of the Holy Spirit. And again Since God chose to work His purpose through the Hebrews who lived on the crossroads of civilization, Jesus came into the world in flesh form among that people thereby fulfilling prophecy of the Messiah.
This is obviously all nonsense, since, if Jesus really did exist, he was human and shared the genetic code of his parents. But if we're trying to keep some internal consistency to the biblical tales, then if Jesus
isn't Joseph's son, then the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled. The Messiah was supposed to be (or
is supposed to be, I should say, since the Jews are still waiting on him) a descendant of King David. Well, Joseph is of David's line, not Mary, so cutting Joseph out the equation eliminates any claim Jesus would have to being of the Davidic line, despite all the mentions of him being of David's line "by flesh," which is another way of saying "by birth."
There are some apologists who claim that it was in fact Mary who was of David's line, but I've never really followed that thread enough to say one way or the other. Even if she was, it would only go to prove my point that the body was
imperative to Judeo-Christian mythology. In order for Jesus to be Jesus, he had to be be born of the line of David. It couldn't have been a Chinese rice farmer, or a Nubian trader, or a Roman general. The blood was what mattered.
Well do so and show some creativity and individuality instead of showing yourself to be a pathetic person who thinks it's smart to right a lame parody of someone else work.
Calling me pathetic while for the second time in this conversation misspelling "write" as "right" is ill-advised. It only makes you look bad.
All Graze the Articulate Maze
