Old Testament Humor

[aaron]

A few questions about some Old Testament Bible verses.

<object width="900" height="1000"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="SameDomain" /><param name="movie" value="http://static.scribd.com/FlashPaperS3.swf?guid=95py1ktdplgf6&document_id=11377" /><embed width="900" height="1000" src="http://static.scribd.com/FlashPaperS3.swf?guid=95py1ktdplgf6&document_id=11377" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed> </object>

[58ford]

Funny.
You wanna piss off a Baptist? (or various other protestants)
Ask 'em what Jesus' first name was. (and no, it's not Jesus, or Christ)
If they can't answer, ask them how they can base the salvation of their eternal soul on the teachings of a man whose name they never even bothered to learn.

[big john]

lev.18:22 means what it says,the others mean something else.
Zorro will explain in a minite I am sure.LOL

[daisy]

Aaron, those were funny especially selling the daughter as a slave and burning the bull and the neighbors not :laugh: liking it.

[TheKing]

lev.18:22 means what it says,the others mean something else.
Zorro will explain in a minite I am sure.LOL

didnt i go on a context tirade not two days ago?

zorro...i like you

but could you spare me the BS?

[Hermione]

So, what is Jesus' first name if it's not Joshua (Yesua)? I'm too lazy to look it up.

[TRV25]

Funny.
You wanna piss off a Baptist? (or various other protestants)
Ask 'em what Jesus' first name was. (and no, it's not Jesus, or Christ)
If they can't answer, ask them how they can base the salvation of their eternal soul on the teachings of a man whose name they never even bothered to learn.

Christians do know the name of the person they base their salvation on and his name IS Jesus Christ. For all we know they didn't have last names back then. There is never a last name mentioned in the bible. Just first names.

[Hermione]

They used "son of" -- Jesus' name was Yeshua ben Yosef.
Many cultures did not use surnames -- in fact, the surname seems to be fairly modern. In Iceland, for example, they still don't use them. Your last name is "Magnusson" or "Magnusdottir" if your father's name was Magnus. (Somebody correct me if that's wrong.)

UPDATE: I should have put a little accent over the 'u' in Magnus:


The Icelandic Naming Committee has approved the first names Eberg, Tristana, Asía and Rikharður, on the grounds that they can be grammatically conjugated in the possessive case in Icelandic. It has also approved the middle name Gilsfjörð. This is reported by Morgunbladid online. Iceland has strict naming regulations, and a name that has not before been used in Icelandic must meet the approval of the Naming Committee before it can be used. The Committee assesses whether or not the name meets the grammatical requirements of the complex Icelandic language, which conjugates nouns as well as verbs.
Meanwhile, the Committee has rejected the name Magnus as a first name, as it is not considered to be written in accordance with the general rules of the language. Magnús, on the other hand, is an approved Icelandic name.

[zorro]

To better understand the categories of God's Law and how these different categories are (or should be) applicable today, I am including a lengthy quote below from a book by the late Greg Bahnsen titled By This Standard:

The most fundamental distinction to be drawn between Old Testament laws is between moral laws and ceremonial laws. (Two subdivisions within each category will be mentioned subsequently.) This is not an arbitrary or ad hoc division, for it manifests an underlying rationale or principle. Moral laws reflect the absolute righteousness and judgment of God, guiding man’s life into the paths of righteousness; such laws define holiness and sin, restrain evil through punishment of infractions, and drive the sinner to Christ for salvation. On the other hand, ceremonial laws — or redemptive provisions — reflect the mercy of God in saving those who have violated His moral standards; such laws define the way of redemption, typify Christ’s saving economy, and maintain the holiness (or “separation”) of the redeemed community.
<O:p</O:p
To illustrate the difference between these two kinds of law, the Old Testament prohibited stealing as a moral precept, but it also made the provision of the sacrificial system so that thieves could have their sins forgiven. When Christ came He obeyed perfectly every moral precept of God’s law, thereby qualifying as our sinless Savior; in order to save us, He laid down His life as a sacrificial lamb in atonement for our transgressions, and thereby giving substance to the Old Testament foreshadows of redemption. While the moral law sets forth the perpetual obligation of all men if they are to be perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect, the ceremonial law is “the gospel in figures,” proclaiming God’s way of redemption for imperfect sinners.
<O:p</O:p
The ceremonial law can be seen to have subdivisions: (1) laws directing the redemptive process and therefore pointing to Christ – for instance, regulations for sacrifice, the temple, the priesthood, etc., and (2) laws which taught the redemptive community its separation from the unbelieving nations — for instance, prohibitions on unclean meats (Lev. 20:22-26), on unequal yoking of animals (Deut. 22:10), and on certain kinds of mixing of seed or cloth (Deut. 22:9, 11). None of these laws is observed today in the manner of the Old Testament shadows, and yet they are confirmed for us. The principle they taught is still valid. For instance, the ceremonial law prescribed the necessity of shed blood for atonement (Lev.17: 11), and accordingly when Christ made atonement for our sins once for all, “it was therefore necessary” that He shed His blood for us (Heb. 9:22-24); the Old Testament redemptive system called for a Passover lamb to be sacrificed, and Christ is that lamb for us (1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Peter 1:19). The ceremonial law separated Israel from the nations by requiring a separation to be drawn between clean and unclean meats and by prohibiting the unequal yoking of animals: in the New Testament the outward form of such laws has been surpassed — the spreading of the redeemed community to the Gentiles renders all meats clean (Acts 10), and the sacrifice of Christ has put the system of ordinances which separated the Jews and Gentiles out of gear (Eph. 2:11 -20}– but their basic requirement of holy separation from the unclean world of unbelief is still confirmed and in force (2 Cor. 6:14 – 7 :1). The ceremonial law is therefore confirmed forever by Christ, even though not kept in its shadow-form by New Testament believers.
<O:p</O:p
The moral law of God can likewise be seen in two subdivisions, the divisions having simply a literary difference: (1) general or summary precepts of morality – for instance, the unspecified requirements of sexual purity and honesty, “thou shalt not commit adultery” and “thou shalt not steal,” and (2) commands that specify the general precepts by way of illustrative application – for instance, prohibiting incest, homosexuality, defrauding one’s workers, or muzzling the ox as he treads. The Puritans termed these case-law applications of the Decalogue “judicial laws ,“ and they correctly held that we are not bound today to keep these judicial laws as they are worded (being couched in the language of an ancient culture that has passed away) but only required to heed their underlying principles (or “general equity,” as they called it). The Old Testament required that a railing be placed around one’s roof as a safety precaution, since guests were entertained on the flat roofs of houses in that ancient society; with our sloped roofs today we do not need to have the same literal railing, but the general underlying principle might very well require us to have the fence around our backyard swimming pool – again, to protect human life.
<O:p</O:p
There is abundant evidence that the New Testament authoritatively cited and applied these case-law illustrations to current situations. To use examples mentioned above, the New Testament echoes the Old Testament law in prohibiting incest (1 Cor. 5:1), homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-27, 32), defrauding employees (Mark 10: 19), and muzzling the ox as he treads [1 Tim. 5:18]. Many more examples of ethical injunctions outside of the Decalogue being enforced in the New Testament are available. Therefore, we conclude that Jesus has forever confirmed the moral laws of God, their summary expressions as well as their case-law applications. By recognizing the various categories of God’s Old Testament law we can readily understand the continuing validity of every stroke of God’s commandments for today. It is simply a matter of properly reading the law itself.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

[EricStratton]

I don't know what is more disheartening...the fact that zorro spent his whole weekend looking for that passage or the fact that I just wasted the last 3 minutes of my life reading that passage....Who is Greg Bahnsen?

[zorro]

Who is Greg Bahnsen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Bahnsen

[EricStratton]

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

Oh..a Presbyterian rock star...

[zorro]

Oh..a Presbyterian rock star...
Actually, he was. And like rock stars, not everybody liked him, even in Presbyterian circles.

Personally, I thought that he was a great guy and smart as a whip (even "brilliant" would not be too strong a word).