Cowboy wrote:

Nice try, but now you're twisting words. Yes we are forgiven of our sins when we accept Jesus as lord and saviour. But that does NOT mean we don't have them. Sins don't go away. Once you've committed a sin, you'll always have that sin. Jesus only offers forgiveness of those sins. So even with accepting Jesus as lord and saviour we are still not WITHOUT sin.

And no the laws laid out before us are no where near vague or unclear. They are only vague and unclear to those whom do not wish to believe in them and or follow them. Yes there may be different denominations, but that's not from anything being unclear. Each denomination follows the same laws. The only difference between the two is how they worship our father.

Who's twisting words?

If you sins are forgiven they're gone. Otherwise they wouldn't have been forgiven. You can't claim to have forgiven someone of their sins and continue to hold that against them, that wouldn't be forgiveness.

Because many Christians talk about Jesus 'washing away their sins' and making them pure again. In fact, many people believe that the blood of Jesus washes away their sins. They even have ceremonies where they symbolically eat the body of Jesus and the drink his blood.



That's absolutely not true.

I know enough about the different denominations of Christianity to know that they see things quite differently in terms of what is and isn't considered to be a "sin". And that would be associated with whatever 'laws' there are, because the only way to 'sin' is to break a 'law' of God.

So no cookie here.

You're just showing your ignorance of the various denominations of Christianity is all.

Well, he's directing people who are without sin to cast stones at sinners. If he forgives people of their sins who have accepted them as his savior, then once you have accepted Jesus as your savior you are without sin, because your sins have been forgiven.

Who's twisting words?

If you sins are forgiven they're gone. Otherwise they wouldn't have been forgiven. You can't claim to have forgiven someone of their sins and continue to hold that against them, that wouldn't be forgiveness.

Because many Christians talk about Jesus 'washing away their sins' and making them pure again. In fact, many people believe that the blood of Jesus washes away their sins. They even have ceremonies where they symbolically eat the body of Jesus and the drink his blood.



That's absolutely not true.

I know enough about the different denominations of Christianity to know that they see things quite differently in terms of what is and isn't considered to be a "sin". And that would be associated with whatever 'laws' there are, because the only way to 'sin' is to break a 'law' of God.

So no cookie here.

You're just showing your ignorance of the various denominations of Christianity is all.

I know enough about the different denominations of Christianity to know that they see things quite differently in terms of what is and isn't considered to be a "sin". And that would be associated with whatever 'laws' there are, because the only way to 'sin' is to break a 'law' of God.

This is where you're twisting words. Because if what you're getting at someone could cast the stone. In those days people sacrificed animals and such for forgiveness of sins. Therefore if what you were saying was correct then at least one of those people would have been able to cast a stone for they had just sacrificed an animal for forgiveness of their sins. Just because you're forgiven for a sin doesn't mean you never did it and or don't have the blemish from that sin. Just means exactly that, you have been forgiven for that sin. Again doesn't mean it's not there, just that you have been forgiven for it.

Cowboy wrote:

This is where you're twisting words. Because if what you're getting at someone could cast the stone. In those days people sacrificed animals and such for forgiveness of sins. Therefore if what you were saying was correct then at least one of those people would have been able to cast a stone for they had just sacrificed an animal for forgiveness of their sins. Just because you're forgiven for a sin doesn't mean you never did it and or don't have the blemish from that sin. Just means exactly that, you have been forgiven for that sin. Again doesn't mean it's not there, just that you have been forgiven for it.

Cowboy wrote:

That's not because the law itself is unclear. It is because they don't agree what fits under what laws if any laws at all.

Cowboy wrote:

And even further then that, if your sin was just thrown away and forgotten when you seek forgiveness there would be no need for a judgement day for there would be nothing to judge you on because anybody that asked for forgiveness would not have any sins. So yes we retain our sins even after forgiveness, just we are forgiven for our failures and trespasses.

I can see where you would view it this way.

However, I view it entirely differently. When I read that account I thought to myself what would happen if I was there. Let's just pretend for a moment that I was there. Let's also imagine that I believed that I was truly without sin.

What would have happened?

Well first of all, I would NOT have been part of the mob who wanted to stone the sinner in the first place. So I would have just been a by-stander to the event.

Thus what might have happened is that the guys in the mob might have pointed to me, and said to Jesus, "How about him he's free of sin, let him cast the first stone".

Jesus would turn to me and say, "If ye are free of sin ye may cast the first stone". And I would say, "Hey, I have no desire to stone sinners to death, if some God wants sinners stonned to death he'll have to find someone else to do his dirty work".

Seriously Cowboy, that's precisely how that scene would have unfolded. Because I have absolutely no desire to be stoning anyone to death. And I imagine that most people who are sin free like me would feel precisely the same way.

In fact, I'm sure that this is precisely why Jesus said what he said. He knew that even if there was anyone around who was sin free they would not be interested in stoning anyone to death.

So it's truly a stupid parable for stupid people, IMHO.

It doesn't even apply to someone like me at all.

Yes that would have been, but would never have happened for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

It still doesn't matter.

It's the GOD who wanted sinners to be stoned to death!

Not men!

It's the GOD who supposedly directed men to do this in the first place.

And so now he's CHANGING HIS MIND?

Quit frankly I think the GOD in this fable fell short of his own "glory" a very long time ago.

In fact, as you should will know by now, I don't even believe in a God who commands people, "Thou shalt not kill", and then goes about directing them to stone sinners to death and murder heathens, their wives and children, with no mercy.

This God never had any 'glory' to fall short from. He's been at least as inept as Zeus from the get-go, if not more so.

I believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist who was trying to show people a better way from the old fables they used to worship as the "Word of God".

Now that makes sense. His idea to tell only people who are without sin to cast the first stone was brilliant. He found a way to get around an old disgusting mythological directive without actually having to renounce it exactly.

However, if you think about it deeply enough he was still basically renouncing it, because if the premise that all men are sinful holds, then there would have never been a time when any man was without sin, therefore for God to have directed anyone to stone sinners to death would either imply that God felt some people are without sin, or that he doesn't care if sinners stone sinners to death.

In short, Jesus pulled the wool over a lot of people's eyes by refuting a directive from the Old Testament whilst appearing to not have to refute it altogether. But in truth, even his creative approach still refutes the law and shows that if God does not want sinners to stone sinners to death then this directive would have never been a valid directive at any time in all of history.

Do you see the problem?

I'm sure you don't. But trust me, it's a problem.

But it's only a problem if Jesus is considered to be the Son of God of the Old Testament (or that God himself).

It's not a problem at all if Jesus was a mere mortal man teaching better morals than had been taught in the Torah mythology.

So it's not a problem for me since I believe the latter.

It's the GOD who supposedly directed men to do this in the first place.

And so now he's CHANGING HIS MIND? what

It's the GOD who wanted sinners to be stoned to death!

Not men!

It's the GOD who supposedly directed men to do this in the first place.

In fact, as you should will know by now, I don't even believe in a God who commands people, "Thou shalt not kill", and then goes about directing them to stone sinners to death and murder heathens, their wives and children, with no mercy

Cowboy wrote:

Nothing changed my friend. Before Jesus the word was just that, the word. And we are judged by the word. Now that the word has been made flesh it can carry out the judgement itself.

The only reward for sin is death. Therefore with the word being the word, it could not possibly judge someone for their sins. Thus it was needed someone do it for it, thus the stoning of the sinners. Now the word has been made flesh and again now it can carry out the judgement on it's own. Nothing changed.

A judgement is totally different then a murder and or "killing" someone. Cause if it was the same even in our day and age there are a lot of judges that would be put to death as well for killing someone.

Not going to pick out individual things with the rest of your post it can be summed up quite easily.

People weren't ALWAYS sinners and falling short of the glory of God. Just with passing time people stopped obeying. So with these that chose to disobey there needed to be a form of punishment eg., stoning.

But as the world became even more evil and sinful there needed to be a better more sufficient way of judging one for their sins. Because if not, everyone would go around stoning everyone to death. That is where Jesus comes in, Jesus offers forgiveness of sins if it is sought after. If not then it will be much more sufficient for just Jesus to do the judging, with Jesus doing the judging their won't be any prejudice emotions or any faulty human emotions to influence a wrongful judgement.

With all due respect Cowboy this makes absolutely no sense at all.

What do you mean by "The Word"?

Who's Word?

Are you suggesting that God had no consciousness prior to the birth of Jesus? Are you suggesting that Moses was talking to himself when he say a burning bush?

Referring to the biblical "God" as merely "The Word" like as if it's some sort of mysterious obelisk from "2001 A Space Odyssey".

Who was it that decided to turn Lot's wife into a pillar of Salt?

Who was it that flooded the Earth and told Noah to build an Ark?

"The Word"?

Sorry, but you gobbledygook makes no sense. Clearly the Old Testament contains stories about an actual God who could harden the hearts of Pharaohs, part seas, instruct people to mass murder heathen who were living on "Promised Land" and so on and so forth.

For you to suggest that "The Word" could not pass judgment on people or intervene in their affairs does not match up with what the biblical fables actually claim happened back then.

So your speaking nonsense that cannot be supported by the Biblical fables.




So you're basically saying that before Jesus was born God was virtually powerless? And that we shouldn't take things like Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt, or Noah being instructed to build an ark seriously?

And who were Adam and Eve supposed to have been talking with?




So in other words, if you judge someone to be a sinner and you kill them it's not murder, because it's justified?

That's the very mentality that was used in the Crusades, and for witch burnings. They weren't "murdering" anyone, they were just "killing" infidels, heathens, and sinners.

Sounds like the basis of radical Islam to me.




You haven't offered anything up to this point that made any sense.



You've held the position before that God doesn't punish anyone for disobedience, they just lose out on the "GIFT" if they choose not to obey.

So why do you speak of a need for "punishments" here?

Your theory apparently needs a lot of work because you are being as inconsistent as the fables that you're attempting to clear up.




I claim that this is just your speculated guess.

Show me in the Bible where it clearly states that this is indeed the REASON that Jesus came with a "New Covenant".

In fact, you have totally ignored my request to show in the Bible where Jesus ever even claimed to be bringing a "New Covenant" to replace the "Old Covenant".

You need to show where these things are stated in the fables. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

You're trying to sell your own fairytale in the name of Jesus. And to be perfectly honest about it, your fairytale isn't any less contradicting than the original biblical stories.

With all due respect Cowboy this makes absolutely no sense at all.

What do you mean by "The Word"?

Who's Word?

Are you suggesting that God had no consciousness prior to the birth of Jesus? Are you suggesting that Moses was talking to himself when he say a burning bush?

Who was it that decided to turn Lot's wife into a pillar of Salt?

Who was it that flooded the Earth and told Noah to build an Ark?

So in other words, if you judge someone to be a sinner and you kill them it's not murder, because it's justified?

That's the very mentality that was used in the Crusades, and for witch burnings. They weren't "murdering" anyone, they were just "killing" infidels, heathens, and sinners.

You've held the position before that God doesn't punish anyone for disobedience, they just lose out on the "GIFT" if they choose not to obey.

With all due respect Cowboy this makes absolutely no sense at all.

What do you mean by "The Word"?

Who's Word?

Are you suggesting that God had no consciousness prior to the birth of Jesus? Are you suggesting that Moses was talking to himself when he say a burning bush?

Referring to the biblical "God" as merely "The Word" like as if it's some sort of mysterious obelisk from "2001 A Space Odyssey".

Who was it that decided to turn Lot's wife into a pillar of Salt?

Who was it that flooded the Earth and told Noah to build an Ark?

"The Word"?

Sorry, but you gobbledygook makes no sense. Clearly the Old Testament contains stories about an actual God who could harden the hearts of Pharaohs, part seas, instruct people to mass murder heathen who were living on "Promised Land" and so on and so forth.

For you to suggest that "The Word" could not pass judgment on people or intervene in their affairs does not match up with what the biblical fables actually claim happened back then.

So your speaking nonsense that cannot be supported by the Biblical fables.




So you're basically saying that before Jesus was born God was virtually powerless? And that we shouldn't take things like Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt, or Noah being instructed to build an ark seriously?

And who were Adam and Eve supposed to have been talking with?




So in other words, if you judge someone to be a sinner and you kill them it's not murder, because it's justified?

That's the very mentality that was used in the Crusades, and for witch burnings. They weren't "murdering" anyone, they were just "killing" infidels, heathens, and sinners.

Sounds like the basis of radical Islam to me.




You haven't offered anything up to this point that made any sense.



You've held the position before that God doesn't punish anyone for disobedience, they just lose out on the "GIFT" if they choose not to obey.

So why do you speak of a need for "punishments" here?

Your theory apparently needs a lot of work because you are being as inconsistent as the fables that you're attempting to clear up.




I claim that this is just your speculated guess.

Show me in the Bible where it clearly states that this is indeed the REASON that Jesus came with a "New Covenant".

In fact, you have totally ignored my request to show in the Bible where Jesus ever even claimed to be bringing a "New Covenant" to replace the "Old Covenant".

You need to show where these things are stated in the fables. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

You're trying to sell your own fairytale in the name of Jesus. And to be perfectly honest about it, your fairytale isn't any less contradicting than the original biblical stories.

I claim that this is just your speculated guess.

Show me in the Bible where it clearly states that this is indeed the REASON that Jesus came with a "New Covenant".

In fact, you have totally ignored my request to show in the Bible where Jesus ever even claimed to be bringing a "New Covenant" to replace the "Old Covenant".

You need to show where these things are stated in the fables. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

You're trying to sell your own fairytale in the name of Jesus. And to be perfectly honest about it, your fairytale isn't any less contradicting than the original biblical stories.

Cowboy wrote:
Hebrews 8:10-13


10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

One thing about this biblical cannon is that much of its content is highly questionable.

The book of Hebrews is not a direct account of the life of Jesus, nor does it claim to be quoting him verbatim. On the contrary this particular "book" appears to have been written quite late in the history of Christianity, as much as several hundred years A.D. The concept of "The Church" had been well established by the time this book was written. This book is more of a doctrine that tries to describe what a particular Church actually "believes".

So to reference this particular book as an example of Jesus himself having claimed to have brought a "New Covenant" is not impressive at all.

In fact, books like Hebrews actually support my theory that the biblical cannon truly is nothing more than a collection of rumors that continued to build upon one another over time.

On the contrary this particular "book" appears to have been written quite late in the history of Christianity, as much as several hundred years A.D.

Cowboy wrote:

Yes the book may have been. But nevertheless the book is made up of scriptures from when it happened. Things inside the different books inside the bible weren't all written at the same time nor where they written when they were put in the bible. They were written when these occasions happened in what we call scriptures. Just because it wasn't till later when all this was put together into a book we call Hebrews does NOT mean that's when it was originally written.

Well, for me, this is part of "Bible studies". I don't just read the Bible and try to make sense out of what it says, like they often do in Sunday School. To truly study the Bible includes a consideration of who wrote some of the things that are in it, and why were they included.

Hebrews appears to be a theological commentary on the religion by a theologian. Of course he's going to try to make some sort of "sense" out of the story. However, you need to truly be careful when reading things he wrote like "The Lord says, such and such", but that's ultimately HIS Interpretation.

I'm sure that you didn't invent the "New Covenant" scenario, and in fact, that concept apparently came from the author of Hebrews.

Here's a comment by another theologian on this very issue:

"The author [of Hewbrews] was a Jew who was born and educated in the Greek-speaking world. He had a broad vocabulary and powerful training in logic and rhetoric. It is likely that he attended the finest schools available in the first century. He had an architectural mind that was capable of ordering numerous details to produce a well-structured argument. He was a deeply spiritual person whose commitment to the Messiah called forth all his "being's ransomed powers" in service to the assembly. He has also been described as a pastoral theologian. This author shaped the common Christian teaching by the genius of his own training to meet the needs of a group of people who desperately needed a message from Yahweh." - Roger Hahn

So here we have within the Bible the book of Hebrews which itself is a pastoral theological guess as to what the original scriptures might have meant.

I would ask that guy the same thing I'm asking you. Where did Jesus specifically say anything about bringing a "New Covenant" from God?

Don't forget, the men who wrote these commentaries were INCLUDED in the cannon because they supported the view that Jesus was the messiah. They would have never gotten into the Cannon if they had suggested that Jesus might have been a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

The cannon itself was selected with the biased desire to only include stories that appear to support the idea that Jesus was the messiah. So the Bible itself is an extremely biased cannon of rumors.

So in other words, to just quote verses from anywhere in the Bible is NOT IMPRESSIVE because it's always going to be biased toward the Christian CONCLUSIONS. That's how it became the cannon that it is.

That like me asking, "How do you know the Bible is the word of God".

And you reply, "Because it says it is".

Then I ask, "How do you know you can trust what the bible says?"

And you say, "Because it's the word of God".

That's just circular nonsense.

If you want to convince me that Jesus brought a "New Covenant" from God to mankind, you'll have to make the case via quotes that are directly related to Jesus himself. And even then I'd be skeptical. But at least that would give the "New Covenant Theory" a little more merit. I personally don't see where Jesus ever indicated any such thing.

So in other words, to just quote verses from anywhere in the Bible is NOT IMPRESSIVE because it's always going to be biased toward the Christian CONCLUSIONS. That's how it became the cannon that it is.

That like me asking, "How do you know the Bible is the word of God".

And you reply, "Because it says it is".

Then I ask, "How do you know you can trust what the bible says?"

And you say, "Because it's the word of God".

That's just circular nonsense.

If you want to convince me that Jesus brought a "New Covenant" from God to mankind, you'll have to make the case via quotes that are directly related to Jesus himself. And even then I'd be skeptical. But at least that would give the "New Covenant Theory" a little more merit. I personally don't see where Jesus ever indicated any such thing.

For one I rightly couldn't care less if you don't think it's impressive. I'm not trying to impress you, again I couldn't care less if you're impressed. I must not do anything. You say it's circular nonsense, that is because your questions and debates are circular nonsense. You ask a question, I relay an answer. You either say something along the lines of "that's your interpretation of the scriptures" or "that is coming from a biased view". NOTHING anyone could say or do could convince you the bible is true. That only comes from within YOU. And again i'm not here to impress you, not here to impress msharmony, not here to impress ANYONE. I'm just here to merely give the truth about the scriptures and show evidence of what truth I may be conversing about at the time. You seem to be the one trying to impress someone with how you discuss. When you find something you think you're on to, you say it in a "in your face" kind of manner or a "suck that" form of manner. And another commentary on your circular comments, of course it will seem like circular nonsense when you ask the same things over and over and or say something a different way that i've already shown to not be true. And why do you try to personally attack the person you're discussing with? This is a discussion about religious beliefs, not about how one debates and or discusses something.

Cowboy wrote:

And you wanted a verse with Jesus specifically say he brought a new covenant.

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Luke 22:20)

Is The Rapture the way that God will rid the Earth of Christians and therefore Christianity ...when The Rapture takes place God supposedly will kill/murder all the christians on the planet and take them off the planet thereby ending the religion ...there can be no dispute that in the bible everytime God kills/murder a mass amount of people it was because he was displease with them.... this is why the Rapture can be viewed as being a prophecy of doom for believers instead of a blessing