Attacking Christians

[radziox]

Originally Posted by logos880

haha, you are hilarious, this is between me and you dude, you got issues with blacky? take that up with blacky.

now, show me your proof that the old covenant still applies today.

I will, the very second you will give me the quote of Jesus saying that OT no longer applies. Otherwise its a waste of my time proving a point that was not debunked in the first place.

[logos880]

Originally Posted by radziox

I said so because OT is and allways was an indevideable part of Christianity.

proof proof proof, where is it? I don't want your words, I want bible verses.

Originally Posted by radziox

Since you claim that OT is invalid, then it is up to you to deliver a quote where your great techer Jesus told you that it is invalid and not to be followed. As long as you will not do that your point is sterile, as you base it upon your own personal interpretation. As long as you will not deliver that quote, your point is a mere assumption, nothing else.

I gave you the link, it provides many many verses in it's support. you, on the other hand, provide no verses and no proof. sawry, try again.

[adam 7]

Originally Posted by radziox

Its you who is the ignorant one. It is Christianity that made the ''NT only'' rule ( which it doesn't stick to, anyway ) and Jesus didn't say anything about OT being invalid and that it is to be disregarded.

This is a good point. Cause when u read the nt without jesus glasses, you can see that the jesus of the gospels is a follower of the (reptilian) mosaic laws with some humanistic teachings chucked in

[logos880]

Originally Posted by radziox

I will, the very second you will give me the quote of Jesus saying that OT no longer applies. Otherwise its a waste of my time proving a point that was not debunked in the first place.

haha, I watched vid so you can have a looky looky at that thread on this very topic, that lays out the entire reason, start to finish, using biblical evidence as to why the old covenant is no more, and Jesus Christ is the new covenant.

until you provide biblical evidence to support your interpretation of the bible, we are done on this one, mr fundamentalist.

[logos880]

Originally Posted by adam 7

This is a good point. Cause when u read the nt without jesus glasses, you can see that the jesus of the gospels is a follower of the (reptilian) mosaic laws with some humanistic teachings chucked in

yes, Jesus followed all the law, didn't violate a single one, however the old covenant is no more now that Jesus fulfilled it. period.

[radziox]

Originally Posted by logos880

proof proof proof, where is it? I don't want your words, I want bible verses.

I gave you the link, it provides many many verses in it's support. you, on the other hand, provide no verses and no proof. sawry, try again.

There are tons of proof in history that Christianity never abandoned OT in the first place. Its verses were used to justify slavery until 19th century, persecute Pagans during the times of dark ages, inquisition and crusades and so on. Here are links for what Christians were doing years after the creation of the NT. Oh, and spare me the crap that what i show is not a quote from the NT, since you yourself dont want to provide me the quote of Jesus i asked for.


Below are examples of what Christians were doing to Pagans and others, even though the NT was created before most of those things.

http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffma...ntolerance.htm

If NT only would TRULY apply for Christianity, then those things would have no right to be done in the first place. This crap about ''NT only'' rule is nothng more then a line given by apologetics that are afraid of facing the dirty part of their religion.

[radziox]

Originally Posted by logos880

yes, Jesus followed all the law, didn't violate a single one, however the old covenant is no more now that Jesus fulfilled it. period.

How absurd. You simply can't prove that OT is invalid, so you come up with anything you can just to try to provide some meat for your argument based on ASSUMPTIONS. Either give a quote where Jesus said that OT no longer applies or beat it. Sorry, history itself proves you wrong, mister apologetic.

[luciferhorus]

Originally Posted by armoured_amazon

You misuse the word 'meek'. And when it comes to dealing with anti-Christians, I, for one, will do as Jesus did and smash your tables up.

And we who hate your god are supposed to show you tolerance and compassion?

[cwl3]

Originally Posted by radziox

I allready read the thread much earlier. Nowhere did i find what i looked for- the quote of Jesus saying that OT is invalid. What was presented was nothing more then a personal interpretation of the writers, nothing else. Nowhere did Jesus say that OT no longer applies.

Plenty of quotes to the Bible at any rate in the link, I just read a few, maybe you could explain how those don't agree with what is being said?

BTW, I often wonder what exactly Satanists want, I mean, if you don't want Christians to be released under the old covenant, do you want them to take for instance the interpretation of the commandment from Thou shalt not kill to a perhaps arguably more astute translation to Thou shalt not murder?

Then perhaps those who worship GOD would act under a RIGHTEOUS anger and kill all the Satanists perhaps? I think you should have a look at debunking the references to the OT on that link

[radziox]

Originally Posted by cwl3

Plenty in the link, I just read a few, maybe you could explain how those don't agree with what is being said?

BTW, I often wonder what exactly Satanists want, I mean, if you don't want Christians to be released under the old covenant, do you want them to take for instance the interpretation of the commandment from Thou shalt not kill to a perhaps arguably more astute translation to Thou shalt not murder?

Then perhaps those who worship GOD would act under a RIGHTEOUS anger and kill all the Satanists perhaps? I think you should have a look at debunking the references to the NT on that link

But this is exactly what Christians were doing back in those times when the church had allmost unlimited power. Its only now that it is weaker that they play nice. Take a look at crusades, inquisition, dark ages etc. There was practicly no atheism, satanism, paganism etc. as people were too afraid of being labeled as ''heretics'', which would automaticly mean incredible torture and death. We allready had that lesson in the past. If Christianity would be allowed to regain that former power, they would shove NT up its believers asses, and resume their murderous ways.

[logos880]

Originally Posted by radziox

How absurd. You simply can't prove that OT is invalid, so you come up with anything you can just to try to provide some meat for your argument based on ASSUMPTIONS. Either give a quote where Jesus said that OT no longer applies or beat it. Sorry, history itself proves you wrong, mister apologetic.

prove that christians are under the jurisdiction of the old covenant.

[cwl3]

Originally Posted by radziox

But this is excctly what Christians were doing back in those times when the church had allmost unlimited power. Its only now that it is weaker that they play nice. Take a look at crusades, inquisition, dark ages etc. There was practicly no atheism, satanism, paganism etc. as people were too afraid of being labeled as ''heretics'', which would automaticly mean incredible torture and death.

Sorry radz but you do seem to be doing an awful lot of avoiding.

[radziox]

Originally Posted by cwl3

Sorry radz but you do seem to be doing an awful lot of avoiding.

How so? Did you have history lessons at school? I suggest getting some historical education ASAP. If you want to know the true nature of something, just give it power. The Christian church had that power, and we allready had the taste of its true nature. If you deny this, then you are the one who is avoiding, not me. I simply point out the facts.

[radziox]

Originally Posted by logos880

prove that christians are under the jurisdiction of the old covenant.

So if Christians are TRULY not under the old covenant then how will you explain the atrocities of Christianity killing of every Pagan religion in the Rome? How will you explain church advocating slavery until 19th century? How will you explain inquisition? How will you explain crusades? How will you explain the dark ages?

The OT was and allways will be within your dear Christianity. You can never deny that.

[cwl3]

Originally Posted by radziox

How so? Did you have history lessons at school? I suggest getting some historical education ASAP. If you want to know the true nature of something, just give it power. The Christian church had that power, and we allready had the taste of its true nature. If you deny this, then you are the one who is avoiding, not me. I simply point out the facts.

We had these discussions before, what i'm asking for is for it to be between you and the bible, not what someone did or didn't do in 1109

[radziox]

Originally Posted by cwl3

We had these discussions before, what i'm asking for is for it to be between you and the bible, not what someone did or didn't do in 1109

The bible has so many contradictions, that it is rarely clear on a variety of subjects. If you want a verse that will justify slavery, you can find it no problem. If you want to find a verse that will deny slavery, you can find it no problem. The Christian bible is and allways was a tool in the hands of the clergy, nothing else. Thats why it has over 300 contradictions in the first place. And keep in mind that this is supposed to be a book inspired by a perectly loving, omnipotent and omniscient god. If that would indeed be the case, then the flawed nature of the bible wouldn't have the right to exist. If such god was a sucker enough to let his own holy texts be flawed and corrupted, then he is far from perfect.

[logos880]

Originally Posted by radziox

So if Christians are TRULY not under the old covenant then how will you explain the atrocities of Christianity killing of every Pagan religion in the Rome? How will you explain church advocating slavery until 19th century? How will you explain inquisition? How will you explain crusades? How will you explain the dark ages?

The OT was and allways will be within your dear Christianity. You can never deny that.

you are attempting to use the actions of people to interpret christian doctrine, that is a non sequitur.

show us biblical evidence, ie bible verses, that prove your interpretation.

[radziox]

Originally Posted by logos880

you are attempting to use the actions of people to interpret christian doctrine, that is a non sequitur.

show us biblical evidence, ie bible verses, that prove your interpretation.

How can i prove that OT still applies, if it was not disproven in the first place? As long as you will not show me the quote of Jesus that says that OT is invalid, i will just be wasting my time.

[cwl3]

Originally Posted by radziox

The bible has so many contradictions, that it is rarely clear on a variety of subjects. If you want a verse that will justify slavery, you can find it no problem. If you want to find a verse that will deny slavery, you can find it no problem. The Christian bible is and allways was a tool in the hands of the clergy, nothing else. Thats why it has over 300 contradictions in the first place. And keep in mind that this is supposed to be a book inspired by a perectly loving, omnipotent and omniscient god. If that would indeed be the case, then the flawed nature of the bible wouldn't have the right to exist. If such god was a sucker enough to let his own holy texts be flawed and corrupted, then he is far from perfect.

If I showed you an apple would you say it was not an apple because it looked different to the other apple or would you recognise they were different but both apples?

[radziox]

Originally Posted by cwl3

If I showed you an apple would you say it was not an apple because it looked different to the other apple or would you recognise they were different but both apples?

What is the point of playing word games with me? Can you adress what i said or not?