Rev Phelps to Protest at Tim Mclean's Funeral

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Azure

Jesus wasn't around in the Old Testament. And no, it has nothing to do with that. Point is that there was a 'new' covenant created between man and God. And it is centered around Jesus Christ. That is why Christianity is based around the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and not around the Old Testament.



Actually, it only 'required' that of the Jews. But, I get what you're saying, although it really has nothing to do with any of this.



If you want to call it that. Its obvious that you're not going to change your mind either.



I thought you said you didn't read the article?

Yeah, I realized I should read it before completing my post because I was originally going to talk about a different part of the Matthew passage that was discussed in the article you linked to. I then forgot to delete that line after posting it. I did read the article but that was my bad.



Which you edited out.

In fact, I have no idea how you even came to your conclusion. The passage I quoted from the article was referring to the original translation, and how easy it was to misinterpret what it really means when you read it in English.

But go ahead, take it literally if you want. Since its obvious you want to do exactly that.

Actually I get your point, and largely agree that Christianity, indeed even the Roman Catholic version places far more emphasis on the teachings of Jesus than it does on the Laws of the Old Testament. However, I think you are wrong to reject the assertions made by both Thor and Devil's Advocate that Phelps' reading of the New Testament and specifically Jesus apparent admonition to keep to the Mosaic Law quoted in the passages from Matthew above is logically sound. The fact is that Phelps interpretation is just as logically available as is your more moderate interpretation, hence the argument that God is allowing fallibility or error to creep into the Bible by not directing the minds of these translators to be abundantly clear as to the meaning. If Jesus in fact said "I am the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, and from now on you should be following only my teachings" and that is now the word of God, by allowing these errant translations God is allowing His Word to be muddled and misinterpreted.

One can certainly, and logically, read the currently popular translations of the Bible as Phelps does, or one can read them as you do and both can support your positions with logic. By Phelps interpretation, Leviticus and Deuteronomy not only form part of the Christian dogma, but are inerrant in their language as well.

The problem with trying to apply logic to religion is the same as trying to apply the scientific method to religious claims, the process is doomed to failure because the basic supposition that God must act and write logically is not necessarily true. Just like God's methods may not be available for scrutiny by the scientific method.

You asked people to show you where in the New Testament it referred to Christians following the Old Testament. That was done, and then you brought up a bunch of people's 'arguments' about why that doesn't make the Old Testament a central document for Christians. The fact is that it is open to argument though and that is the point I believe that all three of us were making. Having that kind of ambiguity present in the accepted translations challenges the validity of the translated Bible. Does that mean that only the Greeks are doing it right? (And then only the Greeks that understand the nuance of the language as it existed 2000 years ago)

Having said all that, I do agree that Phelps clearly violates the recorded teachings of Jesus as regards turning the other cheek, loving thy neighbour, judging not lest ye be judged... etc etc. I further agree with you that Christians 'should' be referencing the New Testament rather than the Old. However, I still think you way overstated the case as regards the logical argument regarding the relevance of the Old Testament to Christians. The logical argument has big holes.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Do we have an update as to how many of these crazies got through??

None so far confirmed. They were a no show in Red Deer yesterday.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

However, I think you are wrong to reject the assertions made by both Thor and Devil's Advocate that Phelps' reading of the New Testament and specifically Jesus apparent admonition to keep to the Mosaic Law quoted in the passages from Matthew above is logically sound.

Okay, to clarify, I do agree that Phelps is obviously using the Old Testament to justify what he is doing, but I do believe that he is wrong. Why? Because he refers to himself as a 'Baptist'....which by definition is a Christian church.

The fact is that Phelps interpretation is just as logically available as is your more moderate interpretation, hence the argument that God is allowing fallibility or error to creep into the Bible by not directing the minds of these translators to be abundantly clear as to the meaning. If Jesus in fact said "I am the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, and from now on you should be following only my teachings" and that is now the word of God, by allowing these errant translations God is allowing His Word to be muddled and misinterpreted.

You know, if the original language it was written in, that probably WAS exactly what it said. But it is a forgotten text, and VERY hard to interpret properly, especially in the English language, which is why I feel that this is not a black and white issue.

You asked people to show you where in the New Testament it referred to Christians following the Old Testament. That was done,

No it wasn't. All that was provided was a verse that could be interpreted many different ways based on the translation of ONE word. Hardly a reference to Christians following the Old Testament.

The basis of Christianity has for centuries been based around the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Never ONCE has the Old Testament been used as a focal point of that belief. Ever.

Having said all that, I do agree that Phelps clearly violates the recorded teachings of Jesus as regards turning the other cheek, loving thy neighbour, judging not lest ye be judged... etc etc. I further agree with you that Christians 'should' be referencing the New Testament rather than the Old. However, I still think you way overstated the case as regards the logical argument regarding the relevance of the Old Testament to Christians. The logical argument has big holes.

I never said it was relevant. All I'm saying is that by definition, Christianity is not based around the Mosaic Laws of the Old Testament. Hebrews 8:8(IIRC)....is pretty clear as to the relevance of the Old Testament.

[Calgaryborn]

Gal 3:17-25 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Gal 3:17-25 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Now that makes Azure's point much better I think...

Tell me if I'm getting this right... The passage clearly indcates that the 'law' was created because of transgressions by people (presumably Israelites/ Moses' people??), and formed a promise to the Messiah, presumably Jesus. As it was a promise to Jesus, the appearance of Jesus satisfied the purpose of that law and it really should be Jesus' teachings that should be followed rather the old law that was just a placeholder until his appearance.

If that is a direct passage from the Bible, then it would stand to make the interpretation of Matthew as Azure has said it should be. I still don't believe in any of it and question why Matthew wouldn't have been clearer and requied Paul's epistle to make it clear, but I will acknowledge that that passage from Galatians isn't one that I heve seen before (or not in a really long time) and does bear on the argument.

Obviously others who may have more familiarity with scripture may be able to raise other problems, but I will concede that, in my mind, that passage frm Galatians clearly states what the status of the Old Testament law is in Christian terms. I think it makes it harder to justify the attitudes Christian churches have towards homosexuality but that is perhaps a debate for another day.

I do still wonder about Matthew 5:18. It really does seem inconsistant with the Galatians passage. The explanation given in Azure's ealier link is wholly unsatisfying since it seems to amount to, 'that's too hard so Jesus must not have meant that.'

[Ford Prefect]

Maybe the bible babble should be in a thread of its own.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Maybe the bible babble should be in a thread of its own.

Yeah, probably.. I'll stop now anyway...

For the record, I think Phelps and his cronies are the most deluded people I've ever seen. Regardless of whatever justification they feel they have, offending people at a funeral has to be the stupidest form of protest anyone has ever come up with.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Now that makes Azure's point much better I think...

Tell me if I'm getting this right... The passage clearly indcates that the 'law' was created because of transgressions by people (presumably Israelites/ Moses' people??), and formed a promise to the Messiah, presumably Jesus. As it was a promise to Jesus, the appearance of Jesus satisfied the purpose of that law and it really should be Jesus' teachings that should be followed rather the old law that was just a placeholder until his appearance.


I do still wonder about Matthew 5:18. It really does seem inconsistant with the Galatians passage. The explanation given in Azure's ealier link is wholly unsatisfying since it seems to amount to, 'that's too hard so Jesus must not have meant that.'

Mat 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

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.


The law still remains in force and still acts as a school master to bring us to Christ. Through knowledge of the law you become aware of a need for a Saviour.

Christ did fullfill the requirements of the law:

Heb 9:24-Heb 10:3 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

Heb 10:10-14 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Jesus also paid the penalty of the law which is death. A scacrifice made "once and for all".

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Yeah, probably.. I'll stop now anyway...

For the record, I think Phelps and his cronies are the most deluded people I've ever seen. Regardless of whatever justification they feel they have, offending people at a funeral has to be the stupidest form of protest anyone has ever come up with.

That wasn't directed at you specifically. It just seemed like the whole New/Old Testament et al debate is taking on a life of its own and is somewhat off the topic of the thread. I'm interested in the topic of the thread, but no so much the side debate.

[Bagor]

Anyways ..... thankfully it looks like the funeral passed off peacefully.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...8-aedc8c339316

[The Fonz]

When is the funeral? Have there been any protests in Red Deer or Winnipeg?


Sorry if it's been discussed, but the topic of the thread seems to have changed, so I never read the last few pages

[Thor]

While there was no sign of the protesters by the time the service for Tim McLean began, about 250 people who didn't attend the funeral, waited outside Westwood Community Church, in case marchers showed up. Many said they didn't know McLean but they lined the road because they believed the McLean family had the right to grieve in peace and they were prepared to peacefully block any protesters.

Awesome job, proud of those people!

[RougeUnderoos]

Wow, what a ruckus these people caused. The article about the funeral is really an article about this foolish church.

10 cop cars were at the funeral. Would there have been one cop car without all this nonsense? The Winnipeg police should send them a bill.

This Phelps-Roper woman should get into the advertising business. EF Hutton has nothing on her.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Awesome job, proud of those people!

Agreed, that's what I meant when I said I hoped for a community response. Enough about the police and government protecting us from what we don't want to see or hear, it's much more effective to stand up for one another as a community.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Thor

Awesome job, proud of those people!

Agreed! My faith in mankind has been restored. Perfect strangers uniting to prevent the spread of hate.

As for for the protestors that didn't show up, they must be back home helping Phelps rebuild his burned down fence. Guess God is sending Phelps and his church a message

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by peter12

Enough about the police and government protecting us from what we don't want to see or hear, it's much more effective to stand up for one another as a community.

I fully agree. Pat Martin (NDP) was extremely wrong to request that the border guards stop the Phelps from getting in. We don't need the government protecting us but the asswipe stopped them anyway. Idiot.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I fully agree. Pat Martin (NDP) was extremely wrong to request that the border guards stop the Phelps from getting in. We don't need the government protecting us but the asswipe stopped them anyway. Idiot.

So you let other people do your good work for you? Stop being a silly partisan goof and give credit where it is due.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by peter12

Agreed, that's what I meant when I said I hoped for a community response. Enough about the police and government protecting us from what we don't want to see or hear, it's much more effective to stand up for one another as a community.

I'm sorry, but aren't the police part of the community?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by peter12

So you let other people do your good work for you? Stop being a silly partisan goof and give credit where it is due.

Okay. I give credit to Stockwell Day's Public Safety office for also requesting that border patrol stop these people from getting into the country.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Okay. I give credit to Stockwell Day's Public Safety office for also requesting that border patrol stop these people from getting into the country.

Credit aside, I'm guessing they didn't even try. I think 'Roos last post probably has a lot of truth to it.