Pete Hegseth's pastor...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a very strong Christian and someone whose Christian faith is the center of my life.

Simply put, this guy is completely wrong and misrepresents everything that true Christianity stands for and believes in. It is certainly not the Jesus who is in the Gospels and then the Christian faith that we see Paul write about throughout the New Testament. Do we see the fruit of the spirit in what this guy is saying?

Btw, every serious Christian I know considers this guy a total fringe character who should be called out for his unbiblical beliefs. So that’s why I am saying something here.

If you want a true representative of Christianity, check out Tim Keller. He has the most thought provoking sermons and is completely true to the Bible.

PP is Cherry picking. Too bad that Christians do it.

What are you talking about? pp is 100% correct.

Sorry, but no. It's a matter of opinion. Not all Christians agree about everything.

That is true -- of everyone. No two people agree on everything and people of the same religion certainly do not either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

If you don’t know what it means you should not quote it. Clearly, you have no understanding of the passage you’re quoting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.

However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.

In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.

Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.

However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.

In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.

Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.

NP says: "I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok."

That is the argument that Slaveholders in the south used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

If you don’t know what it means you should not quote it. Clearly, you have no understanding of the passage you’re quoting.

Oh, I strongly disagree with you. The phrase is clearly very simple and many translations validate its message. Also, you provide no evidence to support your claim.

You'd like it if I didn't quote it, I understand, because it does not support your narrative. That's not my problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.

However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.

In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.

Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.

The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.

"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."

https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/

"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.

Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

If you don’t know what it means you should not quote it. Clearly, you have no understanding of the passage you’re quoting.

Oh, I strongly disagree with you. The phrase is clearly very simple and many translations validate its message. Also, you provide no evidence to support your claim.

You'd like it if I didn't quote it, I understand, because it does not support your narrative. That's not my problem.

Just a bunch of hot air again. You have no understanding of the Bible, that much is clear. You just love to post on here and argue for arguments sake. You can’t even explain your positions. If it’s so clear, explain what it means to you. What is YOUR interpretation of the verses you copied? Some of the greatest biblical scholars disagree on what it means so it’s not so clear. You just don’t know what it means at all which is why you can’t state your position. Your tricks are cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

If you don’t know what it means you should not quote it. Clearly, you have no understanding of the passage you’re quoting.

Oh, I strongly disagree with you. The phrase is clearly very simple and many translations validate its message. Also, you provide no evidence to support your claim.

You'd like it if I didn't quote it, I understand, because it does not support your narrative. That's not my problem.

Just a bunch of hot air again.

Lol, the irony in this statement is 10+.

You have no understanding of the Bible, that much is clear. You just love to post on here and argue for arguments sake. You can’t even explain your positions. If it’s so clear, explain what it means to you.

I'll keep repeating the answer since you seem to keep denying the fact that I have provided it many times. What it means, clearly, is that Jesus stated the laws of the old testament will remain. My expert analysis is that he meant that because that is what he said. lol.

What is YOUR interpretation of the verses you copied?

For yet the third time, it's a simple sentence that does not require interpretation, UNLESS you are trying to change it's clear meaning.

Some of the greatest biblical scholars disagree on what it means so it’s not so clear.

Oh, really? Let's see some. And then we will dismantle that silliness.

You just don’t know what it means at all which is why you can’t state your position. Your tricks are cheap.

I will continue to believe it means exactly what it says until someone can show otherwise, through textual criticism, translation re-interpretations, or some other substantive and cited method. Not just "I believe he meant something else because I want it to mean something else and Jesus was too nice to be pro slavery!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

If you don’t know what it means you should not quote it. Clearly, you have no understanding of the passage you’re quoting.

Oh, I strongly disagree with you. The phrase is clearly very simple and many translations validate its message. Also, you provide no evidence to support your claim.

You'd like it if I didn't quote it, I understand, because it does not support your narrative. That's not my problem.

Just a bunch of hot air again.

Lol, the irony in this statement is 10+.

You have no understanding of the Bible, that much is clear. You just love to post on here and argue for arguments sake. You can’t even explain your positions. If it’s so clear, explain what it means to you.

I'll keep repeating the answer since you seem to keep denying the fact that I have provided it many times. What it means, clearly, is that Jesus stated the laws of the old testament will remain. My expert analysis is that he meant that because that is what he said. lol.

What is YOUR interpretation of the verses you copied?

For yet the third time, it's a simple sentence that does not require interpretation, UNLESS you are trying to change it's clear meaning.

Some of the greatest biblical scholars disagree on what it means so it’s not so clear.

Oh, really? Let's see some. And then we will dismantle that silliness.

You just don’t know what it means at all which is why you can’t state your position. Your tricks are cheap.

I will continue to believe it means exactly what it says until someone can show otherwise, through textual criticism, translation re-interpretations, or some other substantive and cited method. Not just "I believe he meant something else because I want it to mean something else and Jesus was too nice to be pro slavery!"

In other words, you have no idea what it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

If you don’t know what it means you should not quote it. Clearly, you have no understanding of the passage you’re quoting.

Oh, I strongly disagree with you. The phrase is clearly very simple and many translations validate its message. Also, you provide no evidence to support your claim.

You'd like it if I didn't quote it, I understand, because it does not support your narrative. That's not my problem.

Just a bunch of hot air again.

Lol, the irony in this statement is 10+.

You have no understanding of the Bible, that much is clear. You just love to post on here and argue for arguments sake. You can’t even explain your positions. If it’s so clear, explain what it means to you.

I'll keep repeating the answer since you seem to keep denying the fact that I have provided it many times. What it means, clearly, is that Jesus stated the laws of the old testament will remain. My expert analysis is that he meant that because that is what he said. lol.

What is YOUR interpretation of the verses you copied?

For yet the third time, it's a simple sentence that does not require interpretation, UNLESS you are trying to change it's clear meaning.

Some of the greatest biblical scholars disagree on what it means so it’s not so clear.

Oh, really? Let's see some. And then we will dismantle that silliness.

You just don’t know what it means at all which is why you can’t state your position. Your tricks are cheap.

I will continue to believe it means exactly what it says until someone can show otherwise, through textual criticism, translation re-interpretations, or some other substantive and cited method. Not just "I believe he meant something else because I want it to mean something else and Jesus was too nice to be pro slavery!"

In other words, you have no idea what it means.

DP here - From my perspective, the "Bible endorses slavery and Jesus didn't refute it" poster is correct and has laid out clear arguments. You need to give up and admit you are wrong.