Old Laws Still Valid?

nope, that's in there already:

quote:

---

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

---

depends on which christians you're referring to. paul certainly makes a few arguments about jesus being a new covenant, and thus the old covenant doesn't apply.

---

this is an anachronistic view. even the new testament is extremely mysognystic.

quote:

---

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

---

jesus seems a little out of place in his treatment of women (you know, treating them like human beings), but the synoptic-gospel-jesus plays a relatively small role in the new testament. and even then, he explicitly states that he does not abolish the law. modern or ancient?

---

or more apropos, israel and palestine.

---

i'm not sure what most of this post has to do with (any of) my comment(s). so i'm going to keep it breif and on-topic, as best as i can. alot of the "off topic" content should probably be considered historical context to the point. that's not exactly true. the bible is a very complex book, any many different opinions and beliefs about god find voice in its multiple texts. simplyfing the text to say that any one image of god is the only one represented is wrong. it is wrong when the fundamentalists do it, and it is wrong when the atheists do it.rather, what you will find is that some of the later, minor prophets tend towards a more new-testament style. certainly, jonah is more in line with the proselytizing message of the new testament, and lacks the vengeful, xenophobic attitudes of exodus through deuteronomy. the transition from the old testament is not a sharp contrast. it's not exactly a smooth blend, either, because no texts are present for about 500 years. but it's not like jesus came out of left field. (assuming he existed) he was a 1st century jew, and texts written around him represent 1st century ideas about god. and jesus was not alone in this trend. ironically, most of the atrocities occur under joshua, during his invasion of the holy land. nearest we can tell with archaeology, that never actually happened. also, doesn't seem to have been a real event. again, not reading the bible carefully enough. sometimes, in some books, he is. in other books he does not seem to be. the degree of polytheism, omnipotence, and general grandeur vs human qualities of god varies from source to source. this is to be expected. says who?let's make an analogy, for a second, using a movie you've probably seen. when i first saw the matrix, i was incredibly frustrated with the movie. here was someone in this system, who not only becomes aware of how to manipulate himself in the system, but the system as well. technically, it seems, neo could have done anything. agent smith? delete. he could have copied himself, instantly relocated by hacking a small coordinate, screw with the system date and time-travel. or better yet, he could have crashed the whole system, ejecting all the citizens, and leaving the machines without any power. game over. and movie over too -- it all could have been over with a few simple thoughts from neo.but that, apparently, makes a piss poor story. and it would make a poor story if god suddenly and safely relocated every israelite to the promised land, gave them everything they've ever wanted, and conveniently removed the people who lived there (in such a way that none of them remembered and were all happy elsewhere). everyone wins, right?boring story. it needs conflict, because real life is full of conflict. this is an event that defined the birth of judaism, and that needs to be something powerful. it needs to be escaping slavery, former captors giving chase. it needs miracles, and 40 years of wandering in the desert. it needs god showing up and speaking to the crowd. and it needs fighting for what you want. it needs that because people need that.there's a reference in the first matrix movie, about the way the matrix was before. they made everyone happy, gave everyone everything they wanted. and the people rejected it by the millions. this is something the authors of the bible understood too: the bible starts with people being given everything they could ever desire. but that's not good enough -- they want choice, and freedom. even if it brings pain, and hardship, because that makes the joy worthwhile.that's humanity. and god, it seems, is limited by our free will, and our thoughts. we wouldn't be happy with an "everyone wins" situation. so god is qualified to give life, but not to take life? what about dying of old age? isn't that also god murdering people? we could live forever, afterall, because god can do anything. why? and i have news for you, the bible has been changed and added to a number of times. not so much because god asked them to change it, but because people debate this stuff. i don't understand why so many people fail to understand this point. there is debate in the bible, just like there is debate on this board. does god demand we retract things we say about him in error or in spite? why would the bible be different, just because people wrongly and ignorantly attribute it to him? you, like many others, have this mistaken view that religion causes violence or evil. it does not. violence and evil (and good too) are simply parts of human nature. people justify those things with religion, but they justify them with a lot of other things too.and much of the evil you seem particularly frustrated about was the ancient hebrew way of keeping and ordered and civil society. the torah was their constitution. yes, they had punishments for crimes, and their laws were a little different than ours. we still put people to death today. there is a difference between "something" and "everything." it does not have to be the 100% literal inerrant truth and word of god (tm) or completely worthless. it is a set of texts that tells us a lot about the society that wrote it over about 1000 years. it presents many different viewpoints and philosophical positions. it has some really great poetry and music in it. it has some of the oldest erotic literature in it. and it has a lot of stuff that makes commentary on the human condition. even if it's all totally false, it is still worthwhile for those things. i'm not sure i agree. what in particular do you object to? leviticus? don't be an ancient jewish preist. leviticus deals with ritual cleanliness, and only applies to a small class of people in charge of the temple. by and large most of the law sets up a system of suprisingly just system for airing greivances. (you would know this if you'd read it). commandments to genocide? stop living in indian territory and go back to europe. because that genocide really did happen, and for the same "god given" reasons. by some groups. not by others. paul tends to use him this way, and iirc peter does not. the synoptic gospel authors (editors?) did not. i say with great confidence that you have not either. you're a little too familiar with modern american christendom, because this is a christian perspective. most jews (except maybe the chasidim) do not think this way. they view their god as forgiving, and they have a set system in place for atonement (even without animal sacrifice). how is it that christians (and you) read the old testament and see a harsh and brutal god, and the jews read it and see a forgiving, loving god? maybe you're missing something. perhaps you should make an effort to understand it more. take an academic (not theological) bible class, learn about the history of the text. because all of your problems come from a biased and shallow point of view regarding the bible. you argue out of ignorance, but i promise you that the real problems are there once you understand the text a little more. perhaps you're reading this wrong, too. christians tend to read this text and say "abraham passed the test of obedience, so god let him go (yay jesus!)". athiests read the text and say "how cruel of god!" but some jews read the text and say "abraham failed."look at the context, for a second. abraham goes to abimalech, and says "no no, sarah's my sister, not my wife." he lies. so abimalech takes sarah as his wife, but god stops anything from actually happening. abimalech sends them away, and though he tells abraham he never touched her... abraham has no reason to believe him.9 month later, isaac is born. and they have not been able to have kids for, what, 90 years? abraham, being human, most likely doubts that isaac is even his. perhaps the correct response to god asking him to sacrifice his son was "wait, what do you mean, god? no." his motive was not out of obedience of god, but jealousy. jews, all jews, read this text as forbidding human sacrifice. from this story, they take the fact killing people as offerings to god is a bad thing, even if god commands it. curious, no? again, you miss the point. this one's a little more obvious. solomon never intended to really cut the child in two. but it sounds like a fair solution applied to anything else. there's a dispute? share. one woman agrees -- her motives are greedy. she does not view the child as a person, nor does she care about the child. the other woman says "let the first woman have the child" -- her motives are concern for the child. the real mother would never agree to such a thing in a million years. the one who lets the child go, gets it, and the child is not divided.it's not cruel, it's smart. what's cruel is the woman who was willing to take half a baby. hi, welcome to 600bc. that's a good deal before, say, the 1960's. and still we have problems with sexism today. but what's even funnier is the bit from genesis you missed -- patriarchal society is one of the punishments god puts on woman for her sin. highly, highly ironic on the part of the authors. the fact that they even recognize this as a bad thing is surprising. more like xenophobia or nationalism. technically, almost everyone in the bible is a semite. and again, not present in all the books.

---

allow me to breifly state the obvious. this is a very christian point of view. in the shift between new testament early christianity, and the height and collapse of first temple judaism, this is one of the ideas that changed -- the bit this thread is about. but even jews today do not think like this.for instance, jews today do not sacrifice animals. so there is a problem with this argument -- clearly, god does not require sacrifices. rather, god is a forgiving and loving parent.you will find that this "harsh, just, angry" old testament god is atcually something of a christian fiction. sacrifices serve a dual purpose, neither of which is actually appeasing god. one purpose is guilt management. it's a voluntary system, and they are called "offerings." the person offers something of theirs because they feel guilty, and punishing yourself helps. it is not a punishment from god. the sin is not forgiven because of the blood, but because of the penitant heart.the second purpose was the feed the sons of aaron. levites did no other works, besides maintaining the temple and performing rituals. they were not allowed to work in the field or herd a flock. sacrifices were their only source of food. "sabbath" or shabat ‘ comes from the word ‘ sheba (seven) as in "day seven." really, it only refers to friday nigth and saturday morning. there are other words for other holy days. i would call a pillar of cloud and fire never leaving one's sight, and a booming voice from the mountain "constant contact." "law" in that sense misses the context. when jesus said "law" he meant , ha-torah. literally "the law" but referring to the five books of moshe. following the law was never a way to heaven. rather, the jews were gauranteed a place, as god's chosen people. that's not it at all. in fact, books of the old testament (like jonah) contain commandments to proselytize. jews don't like being told that their promise from god is not good enough. the story also forbids human sacrifice. it's like the flood bit, "never again."Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

it makes sense to view jesus as a late old testament minor prophet, aside from any religious, son-of-god issues. alot of his preaching in the gospels (well, the synoptic ones anyways) seems to revolve around reforming judaism. he specifically says he has not come to abolish judaism......that's actually the most accurate reading of "the law" in his statement about fulfilling the law. ha-torah, "the law," is what defines judaism, and it is not something he is striking from the record. rather, he seems to have sought to again make the law meaningful when the jews of the time had lost track. his teachings do not contradict the law, to my knowledge, except in a few places, but rather internalize it and return it to being moral choices instead of rules and loopholes. jesus was a jew, and spoke like a jew, and said many things that were entirely consistent with post-1st temple and 2nd temple judaism's minor prophets. i entirely understand, being a (former fundamentalist) christian myself. it's not a belief that is actively held, but you're not asking the right questions or examining the underlying philosophy closely enough. god loves us enough to sacrifice his own son for us, which is an incredibly powerful and moving gesture.but why should he need to? and sacrifice to whom? does god not have the power to forgive sin? if he truly loves us, why the game about sending us to hell if we don't believe, and the need to uphold the law? can't he love us unconditionally? can't he forgive us without anyone dying?according to popular christianity, the only thing stopping him is himself, and his "just" nature. so yes, in some regard, christians do believe in a harsh god -- one that demands blood be spilled to reconcile blame. this is not the god the jews believe in, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of jewish practices.further, this blind adherence to the letter of the law but no the intent is exactly the kind of philosophy that jesus himself seems to spend so much time arguing against. the intent of the law and sacrifices is not because god demands it, but because we love god, and it is our duty to respect the ones we love. this is what jews believe, and this is what jesus taught. why isn't it what christians believe? it seems that jesus's life and the way we understand his death are at odds. there is no need for sacrifice, except our own. this is why the jews sacrificed animals (something that MATTERED to them at the time), and why today they have a time for atonement. and this is why many christians, including myself at one point and many people i have known, have incredible guilt problems. we have nothing to do with our guilt.when we screw up, it's already forgiven 2000 years ago. all we can do is repent, say we won't do it again, but what does that actually mean? we probably will. there's nothing physical we can do make us feel productive, or like we actually did something that make it better. instead, we just feel more guilty for being the cause of the suffering of the son of god.jesus does not abolish our personal need for sacrifice, because it is just the way our brains are wired. we are not making the sacrifice, it is already made. so instead, we backslide for a while, go to a revival or two, repent like crazy, and come back into the church even stronger than before. all we can really give up is more of our time, more of our lives, and more of our minds and free will. stop me if this sounds familiar.the problem is that this christian guilt cycle only encourages cultish, obsessive behaviour. i have personally seen it destroy lives and families. and when people get out, they rarely come back. many never again call themselves christian. there is something very, very wrong about the core beliefs of christianity that does this to people, and something needs to be reexamined.to this day, i have a number of fundamental issues with the basic core of my own faith (some of which are described above) that i can find no reconciliation for, and no solution. the questions are too hard, and i don't feel there are answers to some of these. i'm not sure. i keep different answers on this one. the most literal biblical belief is one of "paradise," a coming kingdom of god, ruled by the messiah, where judah is reinstated as a country, a son of david sits on the throne, the temple of solomon is rebuilt, and there is peace on earth for 1000 years (or eternity?). this should sound familiar -- revelation draws heavily from this tradition. the emphasis was on "gaurantee." god keeps his word, right? jews are not condemned or exalted based on their following of the law, like paul seems to indicate (in, say, galations). paul's tradition of judaism, if he WAS a jew, would have been parushim -- as a pharisee. the people jesus argued against. of course his perspectives are a little wonky.but judaism is much, much more concerned with this life than any next one. and this is a point that jesus perhaps weights about 50/50 with the afterlife, and modern christianity has all but abandoned. this is another problem with modern fundamentalism, imho. too much focus on isolation, staying away from "the world," and prepation for the afterlife. it is distorting the focus of jesus's work and ministry, which was compassion and moral living -- more similar to judaism. there are a number of promises, actually. the one i mean here is the "chosen people" one.

quote:

---

Deu 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

​

Deu 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

​

Deu 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

​

Deu 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

​

Deu 7:11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.

​

Deu 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

​

Deu 7:13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

​

Deu 7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

​

Deu 7:15 And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.

---

it's important to note the order here: god loves you and rescued you, and he keeps his promise. therefore, you should keeps his commandments in return. if you do this, god will continue to keep his promise.it's not "follow the law or die." it's "i rescued you, just do these things and we'll get along great." in fact, the ten commandments are even phrased this way: "i am god, i did this for you. now do this for me." but we don't do them because god demands it, we do it because we respect the wishes of our god. the difference between a good marriage and a bad one, for instance, is whether you blindly obey your spouse out of fear of sleeping on the couch or divorce, or if you do things they live because you love and respect them. yes. a key aspect is special-ness, and being unique. many of the laws revolve around making them ritually clean and inique. no, this is a much later christian invention. before the exile, there was no need for a messiah. the need for a messiah comes about when god breaks a promise to teach israel a lesson or two. there's another promise, given to david on his coronation day, that his line will be on the throne of judah continuously until eternity. when babylon conquers judah, and deposes a few kings in a row, finally carrying off nearly all of judah and their king zedekiah to exile, no other son of david ever sits on the throne again. to this very day, no son of david has sat on the throne of judah since. not even jesus, who was never a physical king.the jews at the time (the author of chronicles, and jeremiah if i recall) rationalize this as judah really screwing up big time and angering god so much that god decides to teach them a lesson. by definition, the messiah is son of david that sits on the throne, as king of judah. there might be other minor messiahs, but THE messiah is definied by literally being king. again, another big problem. jews do not recognize christ as the messiah, and they have some very good reasons not to. not the least of which is the one provided in matthew: jesus is not in the proper line of kings. matthew places him as a son of josiah (son of jehoiakim, whom jeremiah curses), NOT zedekiah. the kingly line has to go through the last legitimate king of judah, and josiah is NOT one of them. so even if jesus had literally ruled the country, he would not fulfill the promise and thus not be the messiah. it's gotta be both.but it's not just a technicality. he simply did not do the things the messiah was supposed to have done. he did not reunited the country, he did not remove foreign powers and influence. he did not bring the lost tribes home. he did not force peace on earth. he may have saved or souls and whatever, but this is not what the jews are looking for. they already have that.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

jesus is not adding law, he is placing emphasis on intent. morality, as opposed to following the letter and skating around loopholes. the law is contradictory, mostly because of deuteronomy, which appears to be a mid-1st temple text designed as fuel for the conflict with judah's northern neighbour israel, in their civil war. deuteronomy forbids worship elsewhere (say, bethel, in israel), but clearly nobody had even heard of this law before then. judah literally has to tear down hundreds of temples because of this text.yet the middle east is strewn with altars, according to genesis. sure, as any rigid and literal set of rules is. the parts of jesus's message that stand the test of time do so because they are moralistic, not legalistic. made meaningful again, i think, is the best explanation. it is a bitter irony that christianity today bears more resemblance to the traditions and philosophy of the pharisees than it does to those of christ.

---

jeremiah (and psalms) are a kind of reading of the text, using a different implication and function. it's important to remember that these texts pre-date the 2nd century ad, closer to 600 bc. they certainly existed in christ's time.it is true that in exodus god sets forth rules about sacrifice. the question is, is god demanding them? or setting guidelines for a voluntary ritual? or somewhere in between -- providing for the food of the levites? i'm not sure this makes sense either, even in the 2nd century. what are we being saved from? a grenade explodes; what does sin do? quietly rot our souls? we don't need someone to die for that, rather someone to live and lead and teach us the right way. english spelling makes no sense in general. and i tend to consistently mistype words even if i do know how to spell them lol. my faith is not a concious thing, it's simply a part of me. a part that i no longer know exactly what to do with.

---

i get that a lot. even in my hebrew class. i'm not even remotely jewish in terms of ethnicity. in beliefs, however... well, this i think is something caused by losing sight. "faith" and "works" are not mutually exclusive. in judaism, one follows the law because of their faith. it's not the law that save, in fact it's not anything that saves at all. it's just something that the faithful do out of reverence for god. but it doesn't exactly fit. what did his death do that his life did not? what's blowing up, exactly? in the sense that it is a choice, maybe i agree. the father can only throw the prodigal son a feast when he returns -- but he forgives and loves the son even when the son is laying homeless in the gutter straving to death. i don't think god's love is conditional, but we can choose to accept it or ignore it. did isaiah come in vain? or jeremiah? or ezekiel? did they need to die? jesus didn't come in vain, but what was the point of his death? the problem is that there is no need to uphold the law, at penalty of death like the epistles seem to indicate. but god forgives us anyways. he forgives people all over the old testament. jesus forgives people before his death. and jesus's life taught us quite well how to seek god. it has not always left me cold, only upon examining it closely and asking very hard questions. and certainly, not all of the scriptures. in fact, through study, i have found much more meaning and importance in texts i would have ignored in my fundamentalist days. it's simply this keystone of modern christianity that no longer makes sense to me. it did before i had all the facts.i'm glad that you seem to understand that preaching at me will not work. a lot of members try this when i raise objections to certain things. really, i have heard it before, and intellectual discussion is more important to me than bible thumping. it's like falling in love. eventually, the excitement dies down, and you start running into the difficulties involved in real life. the question from there is if you can deal with them or not.the problem is that too many people live on the excitement. they begin to treat it like a drug, getting their "born-again" fix every so often. it starts to lose its effect, making people work harder and harder. that's a dangerous behaviour. well, yes. and this makes the catholic church much more stable as an organized religion, and less like fanatacism. it makes for more stable people, too. well, one cannot claim to be the jewish messiah if one does not fit the definition of messiah as determined by judaism. we might have some wiggle room with the everlasting-kingdom business, but really, one has to be literal king of judah, on the davidic throne. the kingdom is supposed to be here.it's sort of like revelation, really. that heaven, "new jerusalem" is on the earth. the promises made in revelation are actually quite similar to what the jews expect from the messiah. so jesus's second coming might well be accepted. but you can clearly see how he did not do those things in revelation during his earthly ministry, can't you?

---

ironically, i've never questioned that part of my faith. i am absolutely sure that god exists, and i have very little issue with not having any proof. this is why i continue to call myself a christian.really, it's all the dogmatic bits abotu doctrine, and the details of the religion that i have issues with. as an atheist, i was perfectly ok. i have never looked to religion to answer questions, or provide hope, etc, like mahy do. i think this might be another issue with religion in general. people use it like a crutch. yes, i don't think so either. yet it should really be integral. we should be asking questions. it is a weak religion that cannot withstand simple doubt and logical questions. you'll find that many christian faiths are subconciously scared of the bible. there is a lot of stuff in it that is just plain difficult to rectify, especially with their particular subset of beliefs. many people lose their faith entirely when faced with the realities of the text.i have seen a lot of willful ignorance, and ignorance of a slightly less willful nature, regarding the text. i have seen people remove loved ones from their lives because they questioned too much. i have seen the church justify this behaviour with the words of christ, and intense fear of doubt and the outside world. it is such a frail structure of interpretation of the text that it cannot bear the slightest wind of external influence, or it will come toppling down.

---

other parts of the bible depict people who are justified by the law. and even christian theology holds that christ himself was perfect. is that not an example we should follow?faced with paul saying no man can be perfect, and the other parts of the bible that say we can (and even tells us how), and parts that describe god's graces, how can we accept both? clearly they are contradictory.the reason i do not chose pauline christianity here is that it seems to be rather clearly and profoundly misrepresenting the law. the law is not a burden that we carry under punishment. the law is not something that charges us as being sinful. if one actually, i dunno, reads all of that boring stuff in exodus and leviticus, it's quite plainly obvious that most of the law is a system for atoning for sins. the law itself justifies man with god -- that's what it's for.edit: or rather, i don't think paul HIMSELF is neccessarily misrepresenting the law. the verse above clearly says the law is failed system for atonement. i might even agree to that statement, but this is not the way most christians understand the theological basis for their religion. eh eh not so fast there!

quote:

---

Mat 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

---

sounds like jesus thinks christianity will a source of great conflict in families. and in my experience, he's absolutely right. i dunno, i'd be willing to bet that the christian guilt complex is a leading factor in suicide cases for teenagers. but hey, that's still better than martyrdom, which christ goes on to talk about in the verses after the one above.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

sometimes i suspect that satan himself had more hand in writing the bible than god. no, i think that's a reasonably healthy attitude. strangely, i kind of feel the same way. i don't care much for thoughts of the afterlife... actually, i'm kind of scared by the prospects of eternity. i don't want to live for ever.anyways, this stuff's pretty off-topic now, but it's been interesting.

---

i don't really mind being identified as jewish, it's just kind of odd. i think faith and works must go hand-in-hand, so it's got to be a point of emphasis thing. as told by most christians, it doesn't even make sense. our faith saves us, regardless of our deeds -- but when someone does something truly abhorent in the name of christ, they proclaim them to be "not true christians." clearly, the deeds must matter somehow.outside of christianity, "faith" is a word that is used to describe fidelity, such as in marriages. actions matter there -- one is not faithful to their wife if he sleeps around. perhaps we should think about faith as inclusive of actions. yes. there are instances of the dead rising earlier in the bible, though. the most prominent one at jesus's own command.also, it's not much of a sacrifice if you get it back, is it? just saying. it just seems kind of odd to me. how does god's death give us hope? shouldn't we have hope because god is alive? in a rather prominent volumne of the torah, god delivers an entire nation, en masse, from suffering, according to his promise -- he didn't have to die to do that. why should god need to kill himself to satisfy himself, thus saving us from himself? it just... it doesn't make sense to me anymore. i can't find a better term for myself than "christian" and i'm not entirely sure what i believe anymore. perhaps i am one of those people that faced with the bible has lost their faith, and i am simply in denial. i'm not atheist; i still believe in god. and i believe in this god.but why can't someone who follows the teachings of one called "christ" be called "christian?" it's not my fault the fundamental precepts of what has become modern christianity are a little more dogmatic than this. jesus walks around calling himself "son of man." that literally means "born of men," and is a prophetic title. and in all fairness, it doesn't seem to be a big point in the gospels. it's told in luke and matthew, but mark and john simply ignore it or fail to include it. and matthew takes a verse from isaiah horrendously out of context and mistranslates the important word... well, as a side note, when people say "the law and the prophets" they are usually referring to two sections of the hebrew bible (which go by those names, torah and nevi'im). but if one reads the messianic prophecies, many seem to have little to do with jesus. most read a lot like, well, what revelation says will happen in the second coming of christ. that's the messiah the prophets seem to be predicting.jesus himself, on the other hand, largely seems to be trying to provide focus and clarity to judaism at the time. revitalize it with purpose and intent, over letter and loophole.anyways, merry christmas!

---

you make the mistaken assumption that everything god commands must not be evil, which is logically impossible if god is to be bother omnipotent and evil exists.clearly, in the bible, we have at least one portrayal of god commanding (or forcing) someone to do evil, and several statements from god that he is responsible for evil.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

anyone who makes either assumption has not read the bible, or else has not understood it. oh no, they never like that sort of thing. they'd rather god be an automaton, some invisible superman that also lacks free will and intelligence. a big black box they can get nice, easy, consistent answers from.i, and others, have made this point here time and time again: the bible does not portray god so simply, or as one sided as they think. god does things and says he will do things that he himself calls evil. god calls his own past actions evil, and occasionally says that he regrets them. we document this easily with verses and entire passages from the bible, and somehow they manage to continue contending that god is wholely good and can do no wrong, and that the bible is the word of god, and that god is infallible. but if god says in the bible that he did evil, or made a mistake, clearly (at least) one of those contentions must be wrong.

---