▲ 356 ▼ Contradictions in the Bible (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 year ago by cm0002@lemmings.world to c/dataisbeautiful@mander.xyz 73 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 year ago (4 children) (asking as an atheist) Does this include laws that are no longer applicable because of Jesus' covenant? permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) According to Jesus none of the old laws changed. He was very clear on that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) He also strongly implied that a not-insignificant part of the old “law” were cultural traditions and compromises, rather than directives from god. First see, this. Matthew 22:34-40 Then this. Mark 7:1-13 And then this. Matthew 19:3-8 He was very clear that what he laid out in Matthew 22:34-40 was the summary of all law, and that any and all others must be derived from that. If they do not, it is just a tradition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago That depends on how literal ome takes the Bible. Some of that is highly contested depending on what domination you're in. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) According to Jesus none of the old laws changed. He was very clear on that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) He also strongly implied that a not-insignificant part of the old “law” were cultural traditions and compromises, rather than directives from god. First see, this. Matthew 22:34-40 Then this. Mark 7:1-13 And then this. Matthew 19:3-8 He was very clear that what he laid out in Matthew 22:34-40 was the summary of all law, and that any and all others must be derived from that. If they do not, it is just a tradition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago That depends on how literal ome takes the Bible. Some of that is highly contested depending on what domination you're in. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) He also strongly implied that a not-insignificant part of the old “law” were cultural traditions and compromises, rather than directives from god. First see, this. Matthew 22:34-40 Then this. Mark 7:1-13 And then this. Matthew 19:3-8 He was very clear that what he laid out in Matthew 22:34-40 was the summary of all law, and that any and all others must be derived from that. If they do not, it is just a tradition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago That depends on how literal ome takes the Bible. Some of that is highly contested depending on what domination you're in. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago That depends on how literal ome takes the Bible. Some of that is highly contested depending on what domination you're in. permalink fedilink source parent