How to Reverse Climate Change

And he missed the glaring flaw in these two things.

"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die." Deuteronomy 22:13-21

"18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law,..." Matthew 1:18-19

Joseph should have obeyed god's objective moral code, and had Mary stoned, thus killing Jesus, ruining god's redeeming plan. If one claims that there should be an exception for god's bastard child, then the moral code is subjective not objective.

 

Just like the deceitful creator your are, you cherry pick to twist things around, shame. Joesph would have divorced her to prevent the public disgrace BUT the angel came to explain and he was faithful to do what he was told. Lets look at all the text:

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[a]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[b] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[d] (which means “God with us”).
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

If you plan on referencing the New Testament, than you need to heed what it says in its entirety and not refer back to the OT when it is convenient to make a twisted point. Woe to you.

Jesus fulfilled the Law for us since we had no chance of doing it ourselves.

 

The whole thing is your inerrant holy text is it not? How can referring to the first part of an inerrant text written by an omniscient being be 'making a twisted point'. If Joseph had followed the law as given by his own god, and not slept on it, he would have rightfully and lawfully killed your savior. If he had obeyed without thinking, as you advocate, the angel would have been too late. Ooops.

I don't see how you can read Deuteronomy as not requiring that Mary be stoned. Where does it say in Deuteronomy that a quiet divorce is acceptable punishment?
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24

"Shall" is a word of command, not permission. Isn't that the whole point of having an inerrant objective moral code? No ambiguity upon which to do as one pleases, rather than as god commands.

I didn't refer back to the OT when it is convenient to make a twisted point, I pointed out the law in force at the time. There was, of course, no new testament at the time, so the laws of the old testament can not be claimed to be 'modified' or 'fulfilled' or whatever word you want to use.

Note however:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18 So, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is still in effect.

Joseph could have either obeyed the word of god in his inerrant holy text, or the word of god in his celestial visitation, but clearly not both. Don't you agree? From that simple fact, it can be deduced that the holy text is not an objective moral code, but at most a subjective moral code, modifiable for the sake of convenience.

p.s. Are you now fine with making insulting references to me?

 

Fine and dandy as to your comments earlier in the thread... take it (my comment) anyway you want.

As to the Joseph thing,,, he was gonna do something, whether divorce or stoning whatever the custom was back then and God knew it so in His perfect timing, God sent an angel to explain what was happening and what was gonna happen. Joseph being faithful did what he was told and praise God, the Savior of the World was born. Case closed.

Today the Christian is under the New Covenant of grace.

 

No, not 'custom'. The immutable, inerrant LAW as laid done by god in the your holy text

Correct, the case is closed. There is no objective moral code*. You have proven that.
Thank You Kindly.

* - Ironically, of course, there could have been one (or at least this particular problem could have been avoided). He could have just added a codicil in Deuteronomy specifically spelling out the exception that Joseph should make for Mary, and spared Joseph the moral quandary. And hey, added bonus prophesy.

 

You haven't proven squat... Joseph was a man and thus prone to sin, indeed someone in need of a savior, his own son. WOW.

 

You proved it. You showed that the moral code in the bible was subjective. you said that Joseph was 'faithful' for following god's word in a visitation despite the fact that it was not in keeping with god's word in the written text. Therefore the moral code is subjective. You did well.

 

Oy vey. For such a smart guy you just are not following but that is no surprise, Jesus couldn't get through the smart ones of his day either.

Romans 3:23 -
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Why would Joseph be any different from you or I and anyone else mentioned in the Bible (except of course Jesus who was completely Holy and made the only suitable sacrifice for forgiveness of our sins)?

We don't break God's laws... they are and will ever be,,, we break ourselves upon them. We are broke and in need of a savior.

 

He wasn't. You will have a hard time finding where I said he was.

That is what 'breaking the law' means. When I say, 'I broke the speed limit' everyone who speaks English understands that I mean I drove too fast, not that I went to Washington D.C. and destroyed a law book. Really stretching here aren't you?

You showed that the moral code in the bible was subjective. you said that Joseph was 'faithful' for following god's word in a visitation despite the fact that it was not in keeping with god's word in the written text. Therefore the moral code is subjective. You did well.

I know that your blind faith requires that you think someone else must be wrong, but your insults are beginning to weary me, and aren't in keeping with what your savior wants from you. You take too much pride in your faith.
"When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom." Proverbs 11:2

 

There, thank you. That is my point Joseph was no different than us and shouldn't be held to any other standard. Perhaps he "broke" God's law by not stoning Mary but that just makes him a sinner like the rest of us in need of a savior. He didn't "brake" Gods law because they still stand, he broke himself on the law.

Thank you again. Matthew 23:13-36
Imagine how the Pharisees felt when Jesus called them hypocrites, snakes... brood of vipers! After all, these guys to be in their position would have had to memorize the Torah (first five books of the OT) and faithfully adhere to the law. Well their pride was bruised so much so they called for Jesus' death! They thought they had it all figured out too but they refused to love the TRUTH. A person can learn a lot from the Bible.

 

Exactly! and then, as you said, god later told him not to follow the law, by sending an angel. All good.

Thus you have proven that god's law is not an objective moral code.

 

OK, since your a stickler for splitting hairs,,,

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24

​

Read more: http://priuschat.com/threads/how-to-reverse-climate-change.123337/page-4#ixzz2PKRttRI2​

Emphasis added.​

​

​

Luke 1:34-35​

4 Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?” 35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God.​

​

Enough said.​

 

So you are saying that all any girl needs to do to avoid god's laws is claim that an angel did it? Or anyone else for that matter. Convenient.

Doesn't relieve Joseph of his responsibilities under the law however. You have said repeatedly that Joseph sinned in this regard. Arguing quite forcefully on his behalf. Nor does it make the moral code objective as you previously proved.

 

Oh pluzzee.

 

Guys, shouldn't you go to a private room to discuss your bible study.

Please at least watch this, and ask a Jew why each of you are wrong.

btw: In texas there used to be a principle that you could get away with murder if the person needed killing. Who needed killing? If you caught your spouse committing adultery, and you killed them and/or the person they were cheating with you would get probation. That's all deuteronamy seems to say to me, but you should ask a jew to be sure, not someone who the book isn't good enough for and needs to look at later chapters. It wasn't a sin not to stone the adulterer, but being engaged counted. Pre marital sex between consenting adults that were not engaged or married to someone else, no stoning. Now both most Texans and Jews try divorce instead of killing adulterers.