Does anybody seriously believe the Pascal's Wager argument?

[tango]

If Jesus is God then Jesus gets to rewrite the rules.
If Jesus is not God then nothing Jesus said makes any difference to the rules.

I think that's the key difference between our stances here.

No.

God can't rewrite the rules either. That's the difference between our stances here.

Why do you say God can't rewrite the rules? If he wrote them in the first place why can't he change them later?

[Fenris]

Why do you say God can't rewrite the rules? If he wrote them in the first place why can't he change them later?

If God said that something is in effect "forever", and then says that it isn't, wouldn't that make God a liar?

[RabbiKnife]

Maybe what you thin “in effect” means is different from what God thinks.

[Fenris]

Maybe what you thin “in effect” means is different from what God thinks.

If God isn't communicating in clear language, then one can make the bible mean anything that they wish. So I don't think that's a great answer.

I mean let's take Yom Kippur again. Lev 23:31 "You shall not perform any work. This is an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places."

It certainly sounds like it is meant to be permanent. "Eternal statute." "Throughout your generations." "In all your dwelling places."

If this isn't permanent, how else could God articulate permanence? "And I really mean it?" "Triple pinky swear"?

[tango]

Maybe what you thin “in effect” means is different from what God thinks.

If God isn't communicating in clear language, then one can make the bible mean anything that they wish. So I don't think that's a great answer.

I mean let's take Yom Kippur again. Lev 23:31 "You shall not perform any work. This is an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places."

It certainly sounds like it is meant to be permanent. "Eternal statute." "Throughout your generations." "In all your dwelling places."

If this isn't permanent, how else could God articulate permanence? "And I really mean it?" "Triple pinky swear"?

If God promised to do something and then reneged on his promise I'd say you have a stronger case. If God lays down a rule - you're not allowed to do this, at any time, for any reason, from now until the end of time, wherever you may live and however many generations follow you - and then changes the rule to be more permissive that seems like a different concept. Can't God decide that a rule that restricted us no longer needs to apply?

To liken it to a human contract, if you pay your money but then don't get the promised goods you'd be entirely reasonable to be upset about it. But if the supplier decided to give you the goods without requiring payment, or cut the price in half, or delivered more than you paid for and didn't want the surplus returned, I don't know I'd be complaining very loudly about it.

[Fenris]

If God promised to do something and then reneged on his promise I'd say you have a stronger case. If God lays down a rule - you're not allowed to do this, at any time, for any reason, from now until the end of time, wherever you may live and however many generations follow you - and then changes the rule to be more permissive that seems like a different concept. Can't God decide that a rule that restricted us no longer needs to apply?

"I know I said you had to do this forever, but I didn't really mean forever" means that God lied.

To liken it to a human contract

As the bible says, God is not a man.

[RabbiKnife]

And neither is God bound by our human understanding

He doesn’t answer to us

Never had
Never will

[Fenris]

And neither is God bound by our human understanding

No, but His communication to us is.

Amos 3:7 For the Lord God does nothing unless He has revealed His secret to His servants, the prophets.

Did any prophet say that the law was temporary?

[RabbiKnife]

Hebrews 1:1-3

I know

Not in your Bible
Hence the eternal disconnect

[Fenris]

Hebrews 1:1-3

"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son..."

A shame this wasn't articulated at some before the NT.

Still doesn't refute God saying "this is forever" and then "but you know akshully..."

[RabbiKnife]

I’m not going to argue with you, friend

I hold the New Testament as sacred as you do the Torah

And you k is that

[IMINXTC]

26 "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24, 27.

I search the scriptures because they speak of Him. Upon the resurrection Jesus cited the OT Law and Prophets as fully authoritative and evidentiary concerning His advent.

For the believer, the NT shines brightly into the OT, which is filled with types, shadows and prophecies foretelling Christ, the Lamb of God. For the believer all scripture OT & NT is authoritative and inspired.

Time will be well spent on this essential truth. Having a bit more time, I know that I, for one, should be up for it.

[tango]

If God promised to do something and then reneged on his promise I'd say you have a stronger case. If God lays down a rule - you're not allowed to do this, at any time, for any reason, from now until the end of time, wherever you may live and however many generations follow you - and then changes the rule to be more permissive that seems like a different concept. Can't God decide that a rule that restricted us no longer needs to apply?

"I know I said you had to do this forever, but I didn't really mean forever" means that God lied.

Not necessarily. It just means God decided to change the rules later on.

First there was one rule - don't eat the fruit from that tree. Then came ten rules. Then came hundreds of rules. Then came Jesus Christ, and from that point on what you believe and what Christians believe diverge.

When I read our Old Testament I see lots of things that point forward to Jesus Christ. Whether it be the Passover (where the blood of the lamb marked a home as safe from God's destruction) or the sacrifice without blemish to atone for sin, things point forward. If you don't accept Jesus Christ (and as a Jew I presume you don't, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that) then presumably you won't see Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of the laws.

To liken it to a human contract

As the bible says, God is not a man.

Well, yes, an analogy is pretty much by definition an imperfect comparison. So I guess we're stuck with the issue of whether God is allowed to change his mind.

[Fenris]

For the believer, the NT shines brightly into the OT, which is filled with types, shadows and prophecies foretelling Christ, the Lamb of God.

Yes, I understand that. And I'm going to make the observation that this can be done with any book of decent length. It doesn't mean that those intentions were there when the original book was written.

[Fenris]

Not necessarily. It just means God decided to change the rules later on.

No. God said these rules were "permanent" and then decided that they were not. This is not trivial. 

First there was one rule - don't eat the fruit from that tree. Then came ten rules. Then came hundreds of rules.

God was always holding humanity up to being moral, so saying that there were no expectations of man between Eden and Sinai is simply not true. Regardless, a covenant was made at Sinai that involved a people, a land, and a set of rules. None of this was textually said or even implied to be of limited duration.

When I read our Old Testament I see lots of things that point forward to Jesus Christ.

I am sure that you do. The question is whether they were put there in the first place.

then presumably you won't see Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of the laws.

There is no such thing as "fulfillment of laws". The laws are something to be done, not "fulfilled".

So I guess we're stuck with the issue of whether God is allowed to change his mind.

Numbers 23:19 (NIV) "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."