The Torah Is "dung" According to Some NT Authors

Ill be honest, sometimes I view the old covenant and testament as man's covenant with god not the first covenant god had with man. But if we wanted to look at it as a possible way of god asking if we can meet legalistic methods of appealing to god, thats plausible depending on how we interpret old testament scripture. Even the idea of an eye for an eye contradicts turning the cheek... how can god be consistent and support both? But if we look at one as legalistic and the basic standard but as jesus teachings setting a higher civenential standard thats plausible

Old testament is something Christians desperately want to throw out of the Bible, because it isnt only brutal, but contradicts with new testament. Any idiot can see Jesus's behavior and words contradict old testament. Jesus simply has nothing in common with God of old testament.

You simply dont see Jesus killing people, being a consuming angry fire, or getting angry enough to kill whole society because someone made cow out of gold.

God of old testament is just angry autistic guy who commands killing of many types of people. In fact, old testament has a whole list of types of people to be killed, and following Old testament today would land you in prison very quickly.

But the Jews qualified as God’s chosen people because of those same traits they possessed which finally led to the Holocaust.

I think many Jews are smart and capable people. And Hitler wanted to eradicate just about everyone, not just Jews. Blacks, latino, Roma...ect. plenty were on his list of eradication. I think at some point he even wanted to eradicate Russians, because he didnt really consider them white or asian enough.

Old testament is something Christians desperately want to throw out of the Bible, because it isnt only brutal, but contradicts with new testament. Any idiot can see Jesus's behavior and words contradict old testament. Jesus simply has nothing in common with God of old testament.

I agree, Lucy

You simply dont see Jesus killing people, being a consuming angry fire, or getting angry enough to kill whole society because someone made cow out of gold.

Indeed Jesus was a lovely man that couldn't do no wrong... on the surface. But one only has to scratch the surface of any of the gospels and his true colours appear.

God of old testament is just angry autistic guy who commands killing of many types of people. In fact, old testament has a whole list of types of people to be killed, and following Old testament today would land you in prison very quickly.

I have always said: That Christians, by making Jesus God have adopted a god from a age they don't understand, from a a culture they don't understand and a society they will never understand. And in the process have made a rod for their own backs.

Debby wrote: Paul the Apostle did not call the first five books of the Bible (the Torah/Pentateuch) "crap" or "rubbish."

HERE>> https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/qf/gods-mercy-and-impressions-of-non-believers-god-cant-win?page=1&comment_number=11

Stephen wrote: Are you sure about that?

Debby wrote: Paul the Apostle did not call the first five books of the Bible (the Torah/Pentateuch) "crap" or "rubbish."

Stephen wrote: Are you sure about that?

Based on scholarly analysis of the original Greek text in Philippians 3, Paul the Apostle did not call the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) "crap" or "rubbish." The passage in question (Philippians 3:7-8) uses the Greek word 

skubalon (σκύβαλον), which is often translated as "rubbish," "dung," "refuse," or "garbage." However, contextually, Paul is referring to his former legalistic accomplishments and Pharisaic prestige, not the Torah itself. 

Debby wrote: Paul the Apostle did not call the first five books of the Bible (the Torah/Pentateuch) "crap" or "rubbish."

Stephen wrote: Are you sure about that?

Debby wrote: Based on scholarly analysis of the original Greek text in Philippians 3, Paul the Apostle did not call the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) "crap" or "rubbish." The passage in question (Philippians 3:7-8) uses the Greek word 

skubalon (σκύβαλον), which is often translated as "rubbish," "dung," "refuse," or "garbage." However, contextually, Paul is referring to his former legalistic accomplishments and Pharisaic prestige, not the Torah itself. 

BULL SHIT

Hard luck bone head, it is clear in the extreme what Paul has say on thee matter and which you have you denied. THREE TIMES..

You just can't admit that you didn't know until forced to go and research it for yourself using your untrustworthy AI

Paul vehement about the Torha and showed his hatred for it AFTER he says he "found Jesus".

From two different bibles

Paul states "Yes truly, I even counted all things loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for the sake of whom I suffer the loss of all things, and I consider them but excrements, that I may gain Christ".

So we see Paul attests clearly that the OT is a waste of time and he wishes he hadn't bothered to study those books that we know as

the Torah. because they are shit- "excrement"

Same verse different bible.

More than that, I also consider everything to be a loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. Because of Him I have suffered the loss of all things and consider them filth, so that I may gain Christ

See that knobhead "FILTH" he calls them.

Paul is referring to his former legalistic accomplishments and Pharisaic prestige, not the Torah itself. 

But he's telling us that he learned nothing from them at all. that he hadn't accomplished anything, and had wasted his time even studying them and regrets it too.

So stop with your bullshit and lies and accept that you didn't even know and that Paul - the self confess liar - hated those books and now believes them to be nothing but " filthy shit".

Here endeth the lesson, thicko.

From two different bibles

Paul states "Yes truly, I even counted all things loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for the sake of whom I suffer the loss of all things, and I consider them but excrements, that I may gain Christ".

So we see Paul attests clearly that the OT is a waste of time and he wishes he hadn't bothered to study those books that we know as 

the Torah. because they are shit- "excrement"

Paul did not criticize the Old Testament as scripture

; he regarded it as divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16–17), frequently quoting it to authorize his teachings. However, Paul did critically re-evaluate the functional role of the Mosaic Law after Christ, arguing it was no longer binding for salvation, a shift from historical Jewish interpretation. 

Paul the Apostle profoundly shaped Christianity, 

transforming it from a Jewish sect into a global religion by championing Gentile inclusion, authoring 13-14 New Testament epistles, and establishing early churches. His theology centered on justification by faith in Jesus' resurrection, rather than Mosaic Law, defining Christian doctrine for centuries. 

Paul the Apostle profoundly shaped Christianity

Indeed that's why he gave the OT the elbow and preached a "new one". Its as I told you on another thread when Jesus spoke about new heaven and a new earth I.E. an new age, it was out with the old and in with the new.

Off you go now stupid.

Indeed that's why he gave the OT the elbow and preached a "new one". Its as I told you on another thread when Jesus spoke about new heaven and a new earth I.E. an new age, it was out with the old and in with the new.

Off you go now stupid.

Now you accept the new message that Jesus and his disciples were preaching. They were reaching out to the Gentiles to replace the Jews. It was the beginning of the new covenant.

While I disagree with your single-word assessment of the Torah, let alone the balance of the O.T., I'll just say that the entirety of it is fulfilled by Christ. In him is the new covenant. In him are the two simple laws given that fulfills the Law; making the entirety of the Tenakh literally old news:

1. Love God
2. Love neighbors as one's self. There's no default numbers of these; they comprise the entire world of humankind.

Bye following these two laws, every single ill society faces is resolved, so dependence on "the Law [of Moses] is passé, because if these two are followed but the spirit of the law, all others are automatically met.

Which finally led to the Holocaust.

Where have you be hiding lately Debs.

The Jews have moved on 80 years since then and are now global leaders in Holocausts.

Love neighbors as one's self. 

I don't how you manage to do it , Faux, but every time you make a post it opens up another can of worms that contradicts yourself and shows Jesus to be contradicting himself.

Luke. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple".

Mathew.  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

All very "love they neighbour". Me thinks.

Now you accept the new message that Jesus and his disciples were preaching.

Whatever gave you that idea. did you read my bio properly, you look at it often enough.

EXCERPT From Stephen's bio: "I simply do not accept the bible (New Testament in particular) in the way it has come down to us nor how it has been preached to us over the millennia. I have no problem believing that a man called Jesus existed minus the so called "miracles".

https://www.debatecraft.com/users/Stephen

Now you accept the new message that Jesus and his disciples were preaching.

Whatever gave you that idea. did you read my bio properly, you look at it often enough.

You agree in your post Jesus was out with the old and in with the new.

Indeed that's why he gave the OT the elbow and preached a "new one". Its as I told you on another thread when Jesus spoke about new heaven and a new earth I.E. an new age, it was out with the old and in with the new.

Off you go now stupid.

Now you accept the new message that Jesus and his disciples were preaching. They were reaching out to the Gentiles to replace the Jews. It was the beginning of the new covenant.

You agree in your post Jesus was out with the old and in with the new.

Indeed. I tried to explain to you that these cycles happen when there is a new AGE on the horizon and the new heaven is a new astronomical house/ sign is about to appear in the heavens.. . But you weren't having any of it. Its all a bit too deep for you to take in anyway.,

You agree in your post Jesus was out with the old and in with the new.

Indeed. I tried to explain to you that these cycles happen when there is a new AGE on the horizon and the new heaven is a new astronomical house/ sign is about to appear in the heavens.. . But you weren't having any of it. Its all a bit too deep for you to take in anyway.,

Now you accept the new message that Jesus and his disciples were preaching. They were reaching out to the Gentiles to replace the Jews. It was the beginning of the new covenant.

Luke. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father,

every time you make a post it opens up another can of worms that contradicts yourself and shows Jesus to be contradicting himself.

For how long have I also maintained that the Bible's translation in the 4th century CE from the ancient Hebrew texts, none of which date from earlier than 400 BCE, but is thousands of years of "history," and from Koine Greek, dating no earlier than post 100 CE, and therefore, none of it is original text, both translated first to the Vetus Latina, the first translation effort into Latin, followed some 60 years later to produce the Biblia Sacra Vulgata, [the Latin Vulgate] in the 8th decade of the 3 century BCE, under the stewardship of Saint Jerome. The translation from one language to another is fraught with error, because no language shares an exact lexicon with another language. None. Therefore, there are always going to be errors. Ther3e are other issues as well, such as deliberate deception. Yes, that occurred too. I believe the Bible to be the word of God only in so far as it is translated correctly. Ther3e is an out, as I have also maintained numerous ti es, and you continue to ignore it. Ask the source. Sincerely, without doubt, and without rancor. You do both. Doesn't work that way.

Now you accept the new message that Jesus and his disciples were preaching.

I have never denied what you are suggesting. Indeed Jesus was telling them what " signs" to look for at the end of the "age" , its as have told you billion times. And you didn't and still don't know exactly what Jesus meant by saying the words "the end of the age".

They were reaching out to the Gentiles to replace the Jews. It was the beginning of the new covenant.

This is not what is being argued here is it, you dulcet dunce? What is being argued here is Pauls claims that the Torah is shite, rubbish, garbage and "filth" and had been a total waste of his time studying and preaching. WHICH YOU REAPETEDLY INSISTED that he hadn't said any such thing!

For how long have I also maintained that the Bible's translation in the 4th century CE  [...............]

It matters not, faux The bible is still being read and preached with the same words. I am challenging it for what it says today regardless of the multiple translations, and corrections that it has undergone. And regardless of what has definitely been added to and taken away AND expunged.

I have never denied what you are suggesting. Indeed Jesus was telling them what " signs" to look for at the end of the "age" , its as have told you billion times. And you didn't and still don't know exactly what Jesus meant by saying the words "the end of the age".

It has been explained to you several times what the end of the age means according to the Bible.

In Matthew 24, "the end of the age" refers to 

the culmination of the present era of grace, marked by the second coming of Jesus, final judgment, and the transition to the Messianic kingdom. It signifies a climactic end to human history as we know it, rather than just the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. 

This is not what is being argued here is it, you dulcet dunce? What is being argued here is Pauls claims that the Torah is shite, rubbish, garbage and "filth" and had been a total waste of his time studying and preaching. WHICH YOU REAPETEDLY INSISTED that he hadn't said any such thing!

You are quoting Paul out of context.

Paul did not criticize the Old Testament as scripture

; he regarded it as divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16–17), frequently quoting it to authorize his teachings. However, Paul did critically re-evaluate the functional role of the Mosaic Law after Christ, arguing it was no longer binding for salvation, a shift from historical Jewish interpretation. 

Paul the Apostle profoundly shaped Christianity, 

transforming it from a Jewish sect into a global religion by championing Gentile inclusion, authoring 13-14 New Testament epistles, and establishing early churches. His theology centered on justification by faith in Jesus' resurrection, rather than Mosaic Law, defining Christian doctrine for centuries. 

Your next question attacks Paul who was a

www.gotquestions.org +4

Key Aspects of the End of the Age in Matthew 24:

1. The Context: The disciples asked for signs regarding the destruction of the Temple and the "end of the age" (Matthew 24:3), which they associated with Jesus' return.
2. Signs of the End: Jesus listed several signs indicating the approach of this climax, often called the "birth pains," including:
3. Global deception and the rise of false prophets/messiahs.
4. Increased lawlessness, hatred, and persecution of believers.
5. Widespread wars, famines, and earthquakes.
6. Preaching the gospel to the entire world.
7. The Climax: The age ends with the visible, glorious return of Jesus in the clouds, accompanied by the gathering of his elect (the Second Coming).
8. Judgment: The "end of the age" is characterized by severe judgment, particularly falling on those who persist in rejecting Christ. 
9. www.gotquestions.org +9

While some events, such as the destruction of the temple, were fulfilled in 70 AD, the full consummation described in Matthew 24 is recognized as a future event culminating in the second coming. 

Which is precisely why asking God what is true, or not is not just useful, but necessary.. We must study first, then go to Him with not just questions, but seeking whether our results on study and thinking is correct, or not. He does respond if He believes our intent is not sincere. He knows cynicism and does not reply to such. It is how I ultimately figured out that the passage in Matthew 16: 15-18 alleged to have branded Peter as the foundation of the church. No, he is not. It is revelation from God. I mostly figured it out on my own, assessing the Greek version of those verses, and I received confirmation that my analysis of the Greek grammar was on point. The point being that Jesus renamed Simon "Cephas," which refers to a rock, but is not; it's a proper name, masculine. "Petra" is "rock," but it is a female noun. ἀπεκάλυψέν [apekalypsen] is a female noun, as well. The problem with both Latin and English is that, while Latin has some gendered nouns, while most languages derived from Latin are as gendered as is Greek, but English is not gendered at all. Once that is understood, getting the point of what Christ tells Peter is very clear, but only if one has studied Greek to understand its grammar of noun treatment. I have, in college and since on my own.

 He knows cynicism and does not reply to such.

Very convenient. It reminds of preachers and teachers that would rather accuse you of being "cynical" simple because you have caught then on the backfoot .

Paul is clearly dismissing the Torah as "garbage" and clear waste of his time and so introduced to his audience a "new gospel /new covenant". I have never denied that this is what had clearly taking place and I also know why it had to take place too.

But with that said, we have the Old Testament also clearly and repeatedly stating that "god does not ever his mind".

Paul is clearly dismissing the Torah as "garbage" and clear waste of his time and so introduced to his audience a "new gospel /new covenant". I have never denied that this is what had clearly taking place and I also know why it had to take place too.

The claim that Paul the Apostle called the first five books of the Bible (the Torah/Pentateuch) "crap" or "rubbish" is a misunderstanding of a specific passage in his writings, specifically 

Philippians 3:8. In that verse, Paul discusses his former Jewish achievements, not the Torah itself. 

Here is a breakdown of what Paul actually said and its context:

1. The Passage (Philippians 3:4-8): Paul lists his pedigree (circumcised on the eighth day, Hebrew of Hebrews, Pharisee, blameless under the law) and states that he considers all these things "loss" and "rubbish" (skubala in Greek) compared to the "surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord".

The Meaning of Skubala: The Greek word skubalacan be translated as "rubbish," "trash," "refuse," or sometimes "dung/excrement." Paul uses this strong language not to call the Torah bad, but to describe his former reliance on his own accomplishments for salvation as "worthless" in comparison to the grace of knowing Christ.

Paul’s High View of the Torah: Paul explicitly states in Romans 7:12 that "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good". He argues that the law itself is not the problem, but rather relying on works of the law to achieve righteousness.

The Meaning of Skubala: The Greek word skubalacan be translated as "rubbish," "trash," "refuse," or sometimes "dung/excrement." Paul uses this strong language not to call the Torah bad, but to describe his former reliance on his own accomplishments for salvation as "worthless" in comparison to the grace of knowing Christ.

Exactly you absolute twat. His studying and reading of it had been - according to Paul himself - "worthless and a complete waste of time". Hence it was shite.

Debby wrote:Paul the apostle did not call the first five books of the bible (the Torah/Pentateuch) " crap" or "rubbish"

Yet here you are, finally admitting above. that he did, after consulting your beloved AI

Yet here you are, finally admitting above. that he did, after consulting your beloved AI

Learn to read what has been posted even if you struggle with the Bible.

I posted:

The Meaning of Skubala: The Greek word skubalacan be translated as "rubbish," "trash," "refuse," or sometimes "dung/excrement." Paul uses this strong language not to call the Torah bad, but to describe his former reliance on his own accomplishments for salvation as "worthless" in comparison to the grace of knowing Christ.

So Paul would never dismiss the Torah as "garbage" and clear waste of his time and also introduced to his audience a "new gospel /new covenant".

Paul’s High View of the Torah: Paul explicitly states in Romans 7:12 that "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good". He argues that the law itself is not the problem, but rather relying on works of the law to achieve righteousness.

Paul did not call the first five books of the Bible (the Torah/Pentateuch) "crap" or "rubbish". Instead:

Paul uses this strong language not to call the Torah bad, but to describe his former reliance on his own accomplishments for salvation as "worthless" in comparison to the grace of knowing Christ.

Paul is describing his own accomplishments for salvation as worthless in comparison to the grace of knowing Christ.

Paul was a Pharisee. He explicitly identified himself as a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees in Acts 23:6 and declared he belonged to the strictest sect of the religion in Acts 26:5. Paul, originally named Saul, was highly educated in Jewish law under Gamaliel and was known for his intense zeal before becoming a Christian Apostle. 

Paul's loyalty to the Torah is a central topic in New Testament studies, with many scholars arguing that he remained a Torah-observant Jew throughout his life, despite his focus on a "law-free" gospel for Gentiles. According to the Book of Acts and recent "Paul within Judaism" perspectives, Paul continued to live in accordance with Jewish customs and Torah, even while teaching that salvation for both Jews and Gentiles comes through faith in Jesus Christ

even if you struggle with the Bible.

I'm not.