Are we sure these 50 are proofs?

[gzusfreke]

If Jesus had never shown up, if you were not a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then you could eat all the "bacon-wrapped barbecued shrimp" you could want because you were not under the Mosaic Law.

Does this mean that as long as you're not a descendant of Abaraham, Issac and Jacob, its okay to be gay?

I have a gay son and a Jewish son, but they are not one in the same. I'm just wondering if they both dodged a bullet?

What he us failing to mention is that, before Jesus showed up, gentiles were cut of from the one true God.  The fact that
 they were not under Mosaic law is an understatement.  please answer my original question.  I'll modify it since you are picking nits gzusfreak.  Before the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilled the law, were the dietary restrictions for Jews still in place?. To remain sinless did Jesus have to follow these restrictions?

I understood you earlier to ask if the dietary restriction were still in place now.

Jesus was under the Mosaic Law, so He observed the dietary restrictions for Jews.  If He did not follow these restrictions, He would have committed sin.  Is that clear enough?

[gzusfreke]

And is it ok now to be gay.... I really like to hear an answer

If you do not believe the God of the Bible exists, then it is ok to be gay, polyamorous, child molester, bestial, or whatever other perversion (imho) that you can think of.  Go for it.

But if you believe that the God of the Bible is real, then homosexuality was a sin during the time of Abraham and Lot, over 400 years before the Mosaic Law came to the Jews.  Jesus defined marriage as one man and one woman, sex outside of marriage is a sin, so since marriage cannot be defined as two men or two women, homosexuality is a sin.

[gzusfreke]

What he us failing to mention is that, before Jesus showed up, gentiles were cut of from the one true God.

There were no division such as Jew and Gentile until after Abraham's descendants became the Jews.  Anyone could come God - there are several mentions in Genesis of people who knew God but were not part of the main line of ancestry that flows through Genesis. Melchizedek was a priest to God in the city of Salem.  Abraham paid tithes to him. 

Later, when the Mosaic Law came, it gave instructions on how non-Jewish people could convert and become Jews.

[gzusfreke]

1. How is it that Peter and the disciples thinking keep the Torah is the thing Jesus expects of them?
2.  How is it that Paul, who never met Jesus, could be convinced that Torah didn't matter?

In response to 1:  The Jerusalem Council said that Gentile believers only had to abstain from sexual immorality and from eating blood.  So they were progressing.  God gave Peter the vision of unclean animals coming down from the sky in a sheet and said "Eat" declaring that Peter, a Jew, could now eat bacon, shrimp, and catfish.  The letter to the Galatians makes it clear that believers are not expected to keep the Mosaic Law.

Yes, but you miss the point. Up and till the meeting in Acts 15 (effectively before Peter's 'vision') they all kept the whole Torah. Why? They have living with Jesus, apparently, for 3 years and yet did not get the message from Jesus, a law abiding Jew, that they no longer had to keep the law?

In response to 2:  Paul's background was that he was a "Pharisee of the Pharisees" and he studied under the top rabbi at that time, Gamaliel.  So what would it take for someone to go from believing that he could achieve perfect righteousness by his own efforts following the Mosaic Law to saying that the Law cannot save?  Meeting Jesus on the Damascus road was probably all it took.

Right, so Paul, having not ever met Jesus 'in the flesh' so to speak is convinced by a 'vision' of something that the Jerusalem disciples were not after 3 years with Jesus? Really?

Here's what Paul had to say about the Law:
"We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:15-16, ESV)

This is what Paul has to say later. We are trying to figure out the change in Paul's and the Jerusalem Church's attitude to the Torah up to Acts 15. We have, on one hand, Torah jews worshipping Christ and we have Torah Jew giving the whole lot upwith his Gentile converts. now we could say, on the face of it, that the chnage was very convenient for the parties concerned. making the gentiles kept Torah would hardly have encouraged many in but changing to a liberal policy in which Torah is swpet away in favour of a couple of minor adjustments makes it easy to get converts.

Now remember, at this stage, we have nothing like a gospel around - irts quite early. Even if the story of Jesus completing the Torah was historic and the disciples all knew it, it is a difficult passge to work in the idea that everything they ahd done before, the Torah, could be dumped. Jesus was totally oblique if that was what he meant.  Now I know you will provide the other odd texts from the gospels where Jesus tells people what you eat doesn't get into you and so on but that's only about food and only if it was written later when the gospels were written. It doesn't cover all the other 613 commandments that make up the Torah. Notice the Jesus insists on a pesach meal - or was it the day before pesach (the gospels don't agree on this) so that Jesus was still going with the Torah up to his death.

Really, nothing that Jesus was said to have done or said makes it clear that this is a new religion and the old 613 commandments are out so if the disciples changed the rules - i.e. dropped the Torah demands - they did it and not Jesus. The terms 'vison' could just as easily be seen as someone realising something they have been thinking about all of a sudden - in this case, 'that's how we can get the gentiles to join in numbers!'

So, another go at an explanation?
[/quote]

wheels, I agree, some Jewish Christians tried to force the Law on other Jewish Christians and on Gentiles.  They are called Judaizers.  We have the Jerusalem Council, we have Acts telling us about Peter and others going into Gentile houses and eating with Gentiles, and we have the Epistles that call out the Judaizers and condiment them. 

For a while, the Jews allowed the Jewish Christians in the synagogues and the Temple, but eventually they excommunicated the Christians and would not allow them to participate in Jewish worship.

If you want to know more, I'll be happy to recommend some books about first and second century Christianity.

[gzusfreke]

How can writings written long after someones(Jesus) death can you quote what someone says with accuracy?

Textual criticism.  Maybe this link from the Forum's most respected scholarly source will be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

[12 Monkeys]

How can writings written long after someones(Jesus) death can you quote what someone says with accuracy?

Textual criticism.  Maybe this link from the Forum's most respected scholarly source will be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

there is no context or content to compare a history written as if they were writing it as it happened. The books of the Bible appear to be written as if they were eyewitness accounts  not a hundred years or more after the fact. Someone could not say things about Einstein  that is false because of the written history to compare it to.  No such history exists in terms of Jesus to compare it to.  Something as important as Jesus would not be documented more than a century after the fact

 If you hold a vision to be truthful you are being naive and deceitful... As you dismiss Smiths visions (Mormons) to be truthful visions of Gods word.

 To me Smith and the writers of the NT attributing visions as reality are exactly the same ... Pure fantasy

[12 Monkeys]

We can of course dismiss  Smiths visions as truth because of his documented history of being a con man.... No documented history can be applied to writers of the Bible,none existed.

[gzusfreke]

How can writings written long after someones(Jesus) death can you quote what someone says with accuracy?

Textual criticism.  Maybe this link from the Forum's most respected scholarly source will be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

there is no context or content to compare a history written as if they were writing it as it happened. The books of the Bible appear to be written as if they were eyewitness accounts  not a hundred years or more after the fact. Someone could not say things about Einstein  that is false because of the written history to compare it to.  No such history exists in terms of Jesus to compare it to.  Something as important as Jesus would not be documented more than a century after the fact

 If you hold a vision to be truthful you are being naive and deceitful... As you dismiss Smiths visions (Mormons) to be truthful visions of Gods word.

 To me Smith and the writers of the NT attributing visions as reality are exactly the same ... Pure fantasy

12M, you are correct, many of the books of the Bible are written as is they are eye-witness accounts because . . . they are eye-witness accounts, or they are consulting eye-witnesses.

The writer of the Gospel of Luke said:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4, ESV)

Luke was an eye-witness for much of Paul's journeys, so he even will resort to saying "we" at times in the Book of Acts.  If this is helpful, we can talk about other books.

[ParkingPlaces]

If Jesus had never shown up, if you were not a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then you could eat all the "bacon-wrapped barbecued shrimp" you could want because you were not under the Mosaic Law.

Does this mean that as long as you're not a descendant of Abaraham, Issac and Jacob, its okay to be gay?

I have a gay son and a Jewish son, but they are not one in the same. I'm just wondering if they both dodged a bullet?

I've addressed this in a previous post, but I'll do it again for you but in abbreviated form.

There is God's Moral Law, which existed from the beginning.  The Moral Law is why it is wrong to murder (Cain and Abel), why rape is wrong (Jacob's daughter), why dishonesty is a sin (Abraham, Jacob), why adultery is wrong (Abimelech and Sarai), why homosexuality is wrong (Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah), and this is all before the Mosaic Law. 

God's Moral Law is for everyone, the Mosaic Law incorporated the Moral Law but also added many ceremonial, dietary, and civil laws just for the Jews.

Jesus fulfilled/completed all the requirements of the Moral Law and the Mosaic Law.  The Mosaic Law has been completed, so it no longer applies to the Jews and never applied to the Gentiles. 

The Moral Law is still in effect today, except for those who do not believe in Objective Moral Truth and think it is ok to murder, rape, lie, steal, etc.

My, my. Christians sure are all over the map on this one. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and consider this the definitive Christian answer. Anybody believer that disagrees with me will get pointed to this post.

My gay son, who just the other day said, while eating clam chowder and wearing clothing of mixed cloths, that he hoped he wasn't in too much trouble with your non-existent god. I assured him that he'll be fine. I'll stick with that, and now I know that you disagree, I'm twice as sure I'm right. 

But my Jewish son will be greatly relieved to know that it is okay for him to push elevator buttons on Sunday. He's only Jewish by birth, not in practice, but he didn't want to upset mommy.

[12 Monkeys]

None of the NT writings were encounters with Jesus...but after the fact stories about a myth named Jesus.... There is no documented history to compare it to

[gzusfreke]

None of the NT writings were encounters with Jesus...but after the fact stories about a myth named Jesus.... There is no documented history to compare it to

Please note that I am providing you with an article that gives both Christian and Atheist opinions on the historicity of Jesus.

http://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/quotes-on-the-existence-jesus/

[Quesi]

And is it ok now to be gay.... I really like to hear an answer

If you do not believe the God of the Bible exists, then it is ok to be gay, polyamorous, child molester, bestial, or whatever other perversion (imho) that you can think of.  Go for it.

But if you believe that the God of the Bible is real, then homosexuality was a sin during the time of Abraham and Lot, over 400 years before the Mosaic Law came to the Jews.  Jesus defined marriage as one man and one woman, sex outside of marriage is a sin, so since marriage cannot be defined as two men or two women, homosexuality is a sin.

That is absurd.  Polygamy is all over the bible.  If god gets so offended by polygamy or sex outside of marriage, why did he instruct his favorite followers to engage in it?

But to lump child molestation, which is one of the most offensive, harmful, really evil acts that can be committed, together with homosexuality is intentionally provocative.  And to suggest that this kind of behavior is acceptable in secular communities is quite offensive. 

[gzusfreke]

And is it ok now to be gay.... I really like to hear an answer

If you do not believe the God of the Bible exists, then it is ok to be gay, polyamorous, child molester, bestial, or whatever other perversion (imho) that you can think of.  Go for it.

But if you believe that the God of the Bible is real, then homosexuality was a sin during the time of Abraham and Lot, over 400 years before the Mosaic Law came to the Jews.  Jesus defined marriage as one man and one woman, sex outside of marriage is a sin, so since marriage cannot be defined as two men or two women, homosexuality is a sin.

That is absurd.  Polygamy is all over the bible.  If god gets so offended by polygamy or sex outside of marriage, why did he instruct his favorite followers to engage in it?

Please provide verses that you believe demonstrate God instructing His followers to engage in polygamy.  I am not aware from my reading of the Bible.  I also can't find any with a Google search. 

But to lump child molestation, which is one of the most offensive, harmful, really evil acts that can be committed, together with homosexuality is intentionally provocative.  And to suggest that this kind of behavior is acceptable in secular communities is quite offensive.

Why would you be offended?  If there no objective, absolute moral truths, as Graybeard asserts (at least, that's what I perceive you are asserting GB), then nothing is wrong or right, it just is.

[ParkingPlaces]

Why would you be offended?  If there no objective, absolute moral truths, as Graybeard asserts (at least, that's what I perceive you are asserting GB), then nothing is wrong or right, it just is.

We get so tired of theists making this claim. You guys seem to like rolling around in rotten carcasses, like dogs, just so you can stink up the world with your bullying points of view. You first require that morals be absolute, meaning that any other source is impossible, then trash us as a**holes because you assume all we do all day long is rob banks and jaywalk.

Atheist, like other humans, are quite capable of empathy. Well, I shouldn't speak for you guys. Take yourselves out of that statement. But most of the rest of us (I sort of have to allow for politicians and the occasional elitist f**K) are quite capable of seeing a child as a being who need protecting, not molesting. For you to pretend otherwise is so disingenuous I don't have a word disparaging enough to use in response. Just be glad you don't have a video connection to my computer. One of my fingers would be making it real hard for you to see anything else on the screen.

[Nam]

Please provide verses that you believe demonstrate God instructing His followers to engage in polygamy.  I am not aware from my reading of the Bible.  I also can't find any with a Google search.

Biblegod  doesn't "instruct" anyone to commit polygamy in the Bible. Poor choice of words by Quesi. However, there are sections that do not state it is wrong to commit polygamy, and one could infer that it promotes their followers to do it, as long as they're male, and they love at least one of them (Exodus 21:10 is a good one, and Deuteronomy 21:15 also a good one. Both OT but Matt 5:17-18 validates those in the OT).

-Nam

[gzusfreke]

Why would you be offended?  If there no objective, absolute moral truths, as Graybeard asserts (at least, that's what I perceive you are asserting GB), then nothing is wrong or right, it just is.

We get so tired of theists making this claim. You guys seem to like rolling around in rotten carcasses, like dogs, just so you can stink up the world with your bullying points of view. You first require that morals be absolute, meaning that any other source is impossible, then trash us as a**holes because you assume all we do all day long is rob banks and jaywalk.

I have not even said in the previous post anything about a source, only "If there no objective, absolute moral truths, . . . , then nothing is wrong or right, it just is."  nothing about a source.

And who did I trash?  Nothing that I have said can be construed to stereotype you and I am assuming you mean all atheists when you say "us" as bank robbers or jaywalkers.  Nothing that I have said can be construed as speaking for Christianity and saying that it stereotypes you and all atheists in this way.  Why do you accuse me of such?

Atheist, like other humans, are quite capable of empathy. Well, I shouldn't speak for you guys. Take yourselves out of that statement.[/quote]
How mean-spirited.  No evidence of empathy there.

Atheists are capable of empathy, love, good works and deeds, just like Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and yes, even Christians.  But they are also capable of being mean, angry, hateful, prideful, arrogant, vain, selfish, and evil - just like any other human being regardless of religion.

But most of the rest of us (I sort of have to allow for politicians and the occasional elitist f**K) are quite capable of seeing a child as a being who need protecting, not molesting. For you to pretend otherwise is so disingenuous I don't have a word disparaging enough to use in response. Just be glad you don't have a video connection to my computer. One of my fingers would be making it real hard for you to see anything else on the screen.
[/quote]

I will ask you again, as I did before - what makes it wrong if there are no absolute moral truths?  You guys get upset when you don't think I answer a question or you think I'm dodging.  I'm not upset, but you are dodging.

[gzusfreke]

Biblegod  doesn't "instruct" anyone to commit polygamy in the Bible. Poor choice of words by Quesi.

Nam, thank you, but I was hoping Quesi would answer. But thank you for confirming that the Bible does not instruct anyone to commit polygamy.

However, there are sections that do not state it is wrong to commit polygamy, and one could infer that it promotes their followers to do it, as long as they're male, and they love at least one of them (Exodus 21:10 is a good one,

This is in the context of when a girl is sold into slavery (can of worms - please start another thread if we have to go there) and the man she is sold to takes a wife for himself.  This law provides for the man to not reduce her food, clothing, or even marital rights (if she wants to have intercourse, he is obliged to provide).  This law is to protect women.  It doesn't promote polygamy, anymore than the law regarding divorce was to promote divorce.  Jesus said the law to protect a woman in a divorce was there because of the "hardness of their hearts."  It's clear that that it wasn't promoting divorce, and it should be clear using context and rationale that Ex. 21:7-11 is for the protection of the woman.

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (Exodus 21:7-11, ESV)

and Deuteronomy 21:15 also a good one.

This again is a law to protect women, and not just Jewish women, but women taken as spoils of war.  Should the Jewish man wish to take her as his wife, he has to wait a month before he can marry her and have sex with her.  If he decides to divorce her, he has to let her go where she wants to go.  He can not take a foreign wife as a spoil of war, then sell her as a slave, nor can he treat her as a slave.

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14, ESV)

Both OT but Matt 5:17-18 validates those in the OT).

Yes, Jesus was validating the OT Law for Jews that He and the people He is addressing in the sermon were under until the time He fulfilled it.

But also note what Jesus said about divorce to see more about how it was not promoted, but tolerated, yet God made laws to protect the woman:

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32, ESV)

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:3-9, ESV)

[ButterFlavoredPam]

Jesus was under the Mosaic Law, so He observed the dietary restrictions for Jews.  If He did not follow these restrictions, He would have committed sin.  Is that clear enough?

Yes, that is clear enough.  Where I get a little fuzzy is when you claimed . . .

The food laws that set Israel apart from the nations have been fulfilled and ended in Christ. Mark 7:18-19: “[Jesus] said to them, ‘Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him . . . (Thus he declared all foods clean).’”

You claimed (by quoting John Piper as an explanation of your position) that Jesus declared all foods clean before his death "fulfilled" the law.  You claimed that this event (which happened before the flying pigs dream) released Israel from the food laws that set them apart.  How is that possible?  It was Christ's death on the cross that fulfilled those laws.  If they could have been fulfilled without his death, what was the point of his crucifixion? 

The food laws, by your own statements above, were in place while he was alive.  Even if he did follow Mosaic law by not eating unclean food, he was encouraging those around him to sin.  One could argue that he was preaching falsehoods and encouraging them to sin.

Isn't that a sin?


Edit:  From what you posted above . . .

Yes, Jesus was validating the OT Law for Jews that He and the people He is addressing in the sermon were under until the time He fulfilled it.

Again, the law was valid while Jesus was alive yet he was preaching against it.
 

[gzusfreke]

Jesus was under the Mosaic Law, so He observed the dietary restrictions for Jews.  If He did not follow these restrictions, He would have committed sin.  Is that clear enough?

Yes, that is clear enough.  Where I get a little fuzzy is when you claimed . . .

The food laws that set Israel apart from the nations have been fulfilled and ended in Christ. Mark 7:18-19: “[Jesus] said to them, ‘Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him . . . (Thus he declared all foods clean).’”

You claimed (by quoting John Piper as an explanation of your position) that Jesus declared all foods clean before his death "fulfilled" the law.  You claimed that this event (which happened before the flying pigs dream) released Israel from the food laws that set them apart.  How is that possible?  It was Christ's death on the cross that fulfilled those laws.  If they could have been fulfilled without his death, what was the point of his crucifixion? 

The food laws, by your own statements above, were in place while he was alive.  Even if he did follow Mosaic law by not eating unclean food, he was encouraging those around him to sin.  One could argue that he was preaching falsehoods and encouraging them to sin.

Isn't that a sin?

Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law by the way He lived.  His death on the cross paid the penalty for everyone, both those under the Moral Law and the Jews who also had the Mosaic Law.

Jesus initiated the New Covenant in the Upper Room before His crucifixion.  He had fulfilled the Mosaic Law perfectly, so He could then say that the Mosaic Law was completed and He could initiate the new law.  There is no contradiction with Jesus saying the Old Covenant, not abolished, not altered, not changed, was now being replaced with the New Covenant.

BFP, just a quick question.  Have you read much about Middle Eastern covenants and contracts, both those in the time of Jesus and those in the several millennia before He came?  Too often we all, Christians and atheists alike, without meaning to, insert our 21st Western understanding into the text and we come away with wrong perceptions.

[ButterFlavoredPam]

Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law by the way He lived.  His death on the cross paid the penalty for everyone, both those under the Moral Law and the Jews who also had the Mosaic Law.

Not relevant to any of the questions I asked.  I asked SPECIFICALLY if Jesus was under the Mosaic law and you said he was.  Are you trying to weasel out a reply now that says Jesus was under the law but no one else was?   

Jesus initiated the New Covenant in the Upper Room before His crucifixion.

Again . . . this happened AFTER the quote from Mark 7.   

After.

If he was preaching falsehoods and encouraging others to sin he had not . . .

  fulfilled the Mosaic Law perfectly

he sinned.

Period.  By your own words above the new Covenant was initiated at the Last Supper.  At the time of the story in  Mark the new covenant did not exist.

Spin it any way you can but I'm using your words.  Am I taking them out of context? 

There is no contradiction with Jesus saying the Old Covenant, not abolished, not altered, not changed, was now being replaced with the New Covenant.

Once again, no new covenant was in place at the time.

BFP, just a quick question.  Have you read much about Middle Eastern covenants and contracts, both those in the time of Jesus and those in the several millennia before He came?  Too often we all, Christians and atheists alike, without meaning to, insert our 21st Western understanding into the text and we come away with wrong perceptions.

Another typical religious dodge.  The Bible doesn't really mean what it says.  You're taking that out of context.  You have to have the Holy Spirit to truly understand.  That word has 18 different meanings and my magical powers tell me that your using the wrong meaning. 

[gzusfreke]

Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law by the way He lived.  His death on the cross paid the penalty for everyone, both those under the Moral Law and the Jews who also had the Mosaic Law.

Not relevant to any of the questions I asked.  I asked SPECIFICALLY if Jesus was under the Mosaic law and you said he was.  Are you trying to weasel out a reply now that says Jesus was under the law but no one else was?   

Please re-read what I said.  I said nothing of the kind about no one else being under the Law, but if you still think so, show me with my words how you get there and I'll try to straighten it out.

Jesus initiated the New Covenant in the Upper Room before His crucifixion.

Again . . . this happened AFTER the quote from Mark 7.   

After.

If he was preaching falsehoods and encouraging others to sin he had not . . .

  fulfilled the Mosaic Law perfectly

he sinned.

Period.  By your own words above the new Covenant was initiated at the Last Supper.  At the time of the story in  Mark the new covenant did not exist.

Spin it any way you can but I'm using your words.  Am I taking them out of context? 

You are trying to use my words to paint someone in a corner, imho. 

would you be ok with this timeline:

Jesus lives in a way to fulfill the law  - the law is completed, the contract is met - the law is no longer binding based on it being fulfilled, not based on the New Covenant being ushered it, but the New Covenant could not be ushered in until the Law was fulfilled.

There is no contradiction with Jesus saying the Old Covenant, not abolished, not altered, not changed, was now being replaced with the New Covenant.

Once again, no new covenant was in place at the time.

BFP, just a quick question.  Have you read much about Middle Eastern covenants and contracts, both those in the time of Jesus and those in the several millennia before He came?  Too often we all, Christians and atheists alike, without meaning to, insert our 21st Western understanding into the text and we come away with wrong perceptions.

Another typical religious dodge.  The Bible doesn't really mean what it says.  You're taking that out of context.  You have to have the Holy Spirit to truly understand.  That word has 18 different meanings and my magical powers tell me that your using the wrong meaning.

You are the one dodging.  I answered your questions as best as I could, then I asked you a question, but instead of you answering my question - you dodge my question and then say stuff that has nothing to do with what I said.  I asked you if you were familiar with contractual and covenental law in the Middle East - this could be Hittite, Jebusite, Chaldean, Babylonian, Canaanite, Assyrian - it does not have to have anything to do with the Holy Spirit, just historical archaeology, studies in ancient cultures, world history, etc.

Your magic powers have failed you epically.  You should quit relying on them and try using some good old common sense instead of weaseling out of a question.

Moderators, are you paying attention to how BFP is dodging the question after I have tried to answer her questions the best that I can based on my perceptions, beliefs, and understanding?

[ButterFlavoredPam]

It is more than just a little hypocritical to complain that I'm ignoring your questions.  If I was not typing my smart phone right now I would cut and paste all the questions you have simply ignored in this thread. 
No, I have not studied middle eastern contract law.  Please explain how out applies to the timing of events I outlined above and why I need to be a middle eastern lawyer to understand God's holy word

Sorry for the sarcasm but, given your last post, I feel it was justified.

[wheels5894]

The Moral Law is still in effect today, except for those who do not believe in Objective Moral Truth and think it is ok to murder, rape, lie, steal, etc.

Moral Law? Are ypou going to have Objective Moral Valuies next? The way people work together in order to manage not to kill each other is howwe started down the road to morals and it is nothing to do with gods or priests. There in nothing but the way people exist together and, of course, people from all sort sof different cultures have the same problems to deal with - not wanting be killed, not wanting things stolen etc. So in time a moral code develops.

Frankly, the Mosaic code, which is probably nothing to do with any real person, was probaly developed by the priests to ensure the wealthy lifestyle and to differentiate the Jews from the other people around them.

[ButterFlavoredPam]

Yes, perhaps I do need some clarification from you.  I noted that (according to the timeline you have established) Jesus (according to the scripture you held up as evidence) declared that all foods were clean (which is a clear contradiction to Mosaic Law) even though Jesus was still under Mosaic Law (according to comments you posted).  The timeline was well defined.

In response (where you claim to have answered my questions to the best of you abilities) you said . . .

Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law by the way He lived.  His death on the cross paid the penalty for everyone, both those under the Moral Law and the Jews who also had the Mosaic Law.

Jesus initiated the New Covenant in the Upper Room before His crucifixion.  He had fulfilled the Mosaic Law perfectly, so He could then say that the Mosaic Law was completed and He could initiate the new law.  There is no contradiction with Jesus saying the Old Covenant, not abolished, not altered, not changed, was now being replaced with the New Covenant.

BFP, just a quick question.  Have you read much about Middle Eastern covenants and contracts, both those in the time of Jesus and those in the several millennia before He came?  Too often we all, Christians and atheists alike, without meaning to, insert our 21st Western understanding into the text and we come away with wrong perceptions.

To be honest, I picked up on the italicized "lived" because I was waiting for the "Jesus changed the law when he was born" response I have heard from others.  You followed that immediately with "his death" so, as far as I can tell, your first sentence merely confirms what I already posted.  Namely that, until his death, Jews were still under full-blown Mosaic law.  That is what you said, right?

The next sentence moves that timeline back by a single day.  Now, instead of his death that ends Mosaic Law, the Last Supper ended Mosaic Law.  So, again, my question is "If the new Covenant was ushered in before his death, why did he have to die?"  I would also note that you ignored this question earlier.  I didn't complain to anyone about that and am not complaining now.  I'll simply ask again.  Why the crucifixion?

The next sentence makes little sense.  I'm sorry but it sounds like typical, religious nonsense.  It is actually on par with the Trinity "One God in three persons" double think.  There is only one God . . . The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.  There is only one law, The Old covenant that was not abolished and the New Covenant that replaced it.  See the parallel? 

Finally, the question from you about contract law.  Instead of taking up time asking me if I know some zinger of an answer to my questions above, why didn't you just answer them?  Why the suspense?  Why not replace . . .

BFP:  Asks a question about a contradiction in GZF statements
GZF:  Did you ever study arcane Middle Eastern Law.
BFP:  Nope.
GZF:  Well, I can assure you,  you have it all wrong from your perspective
BFP:  How so?
GZF:  This is the bit that proves you wrong.

with this . . .

BFP:  Asks a question about a contradiction in GZF statements
GZF:  Explains why Middle Eastern Contract law explains the contradiction.

Either way, I am still waiting for your explanation.

[Graybeard]

Moderators, are you paying attention to how BFP is dodging the question after I have tried to answer her questions the best that I can based on my perceptions, beliefs, and understanding?

Well, to be frank, I was trying to straighten out the quotes, which have left me and, I suspect other readers baffled. I'm not sure who is saying what to whom.

As I see it, you are saying that Jesus, like everyone else was (at some specific time) subject to Mosaic Law. I think that much is clear enough.

GB Mod

[Graybeard]

Jesus initiated the New Covenant in the Upper Room before His crucifixion.  He had fulfilled the Mosaic Law perfectly, so He could then say that the Mosaic Law was completed and He could initiate the new law.

So the Mosaic Law did not require His Crucifixion, and thus He could complete it at the Last Supper?  If this is so, then what point the Crucifixion?

There is no contradiction with Jesus saying the Old Covenant, not abolished, not altered, not changed, was now being replaced with the New Covenant.

Wouldn't he have to repeal the old covenant to avoid confusion? Or were parts of the Old still in place?

At what exact point did this "New Covenant" actually start to have effect? Crucifixion, temporary death, the "missing days", the empty tomb, His reappearance, His ascent to heaven?

[wheels5894]

Personally, because I don't think the NT was a divenly written document,

1. I think that Jesus lived and died a Jew and under the Jewish Law.

2. The disciples who survived him carried on keeping the Jewish Law as well as worshipping him

3. Paul brought up the question of the law on new converts and Peter handily had a dream so he could agree.

4. The gospel writers, knowing that the Christians didn't need to follow the Jewish Law in their own day wrote back into the gospels Jesus refuting some of the dietary laws. Note, Jesus is never shown removing the whole burden of the Law, only the dietary parts of it. There's no giving up of the Jewish Festivals for example.

Broadly, the gospel writers failed to show that Jesus told the people they didn't need the Jewish Law and, even though gentile, all new Christians ought to have been subject to the Law. Removing the burden of the Law was an act of the disciples after Jesus death to aid recruitment. 

[ButterFlavoredPam]

would you be ok with this timeline:

Jesus lives in a way to fulfill the law  - the law is completed, the contract is met - the law is no longer binding based on it being fulfilled, not based on the New Covenant being ushered it, but the New Covenant could not be ushered in until the Law was fulfilled.

I'm not trying to pile on here but I do not want to be accused of not answering a question directed at me. 

No, this is not a timeline with regards to the questions I have asked you.  Sometime in between the moment before God impregnated Mary and December 31, 2013 the Mosaic law stopped applying to Jews.  Sometime in between Jesus learning to speak and Jesus being crucified, the exchange recorded in  Mark 7:18-19 took place where Jesus (according to your posts above)  preached against  the dietary restrictions. 

Where on the time line are those two events?

[ParkingPlaces]

And is it ok now to be gay.... I really like to hear an answer

If you do not believe the God of the Bible exists, then it is ok to be gay, polyamorous, child molester, bestial, or whatever other perversion (imho) that you can think of.  Go for it.

But if you believe that the God of the Bible is real, then homosexuality was a sin during the time of Abraham and Lot, over 400 years before the Mosaic Law came to the Jews.  Jesus defined marriage as one man and one woman, sex outside of marriage is a sin, so since marriage cannot be defined as two men or two women, homosexuality is a sin.

What did Jesus say about clam chowder?