Someone should ask Mike Huckabee.
Because in last week's YouTube debate, Huckabee said this when asked if he believed in every word of the Bible:
Sure I believe that the Bible is exactly what it is. It's the word of revelation to us from God Himself. And the fact is that when people ask do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don't believe it.
Well, then, here's what the Bible says about about Larry Craig.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13
So according to Mike Huckabee this commandment is the "revelation to us from God himself" and "you either believe it or you don't believe it."
Huckabee claims to believe it. The question is, would he do it? Would he stone Larry Craig (assuming the recent stories about him are true)?
17 comments:
To stone Craig, wouldn't he have to "lie" with mankind? Seems to me that in the bathroom stall, he was more likely "kneeling" with mankind or "sitting" with mankind.
Incidentally, I really appreciate this resource. I discovered the SAB toward the end of high school and the beginning of my movement away from Christianity. You and your incredible site were a major factor in my acceptance of reality, and I can't thank you enough.
It seemed to me by the way he said it that Huckabee doesn't actually believe every word of the Bible. So which would be worse, that he's a liar and doesn't believe every word of the Bible (while letting on that he does), or that he actually believes every word of the Bible?? Probably the latter.
Considering what the public reaction would be by (somewhat) more sane-minded Christians in the majority, I doubt he would actually stone Larry Craig though, at least until well into his second term as president when he didn't have to worry about re-election. (Huckabee not only elected but re-elected? Now that's a scary thought.)
Hmm, I just realized that the original post asked if *Jesus* would stone Larry Craig, not whether Huckabee would. I often get the two mixed up apparently...
I guess I should read more closely (and so should Huckabee if he actually believes every word of the Bible).
If Huckabee believes every word of the Bible, he also believes the old law is no longer applicable to 21st century Christians.
If Huckabee believes every word of the Bible, he also believes the old law is no longer applicable to 21st century Christians.
Are those words in the Bible before or after Jesus says "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
Oh, nevermind. By "believe every word of the Bible," you meant "except what's actually said by it's central figure." Forgive me, I thought it was Christianity, not Paulianity.
Tom,
All was fulfilled with the death of Christ. Mat 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament..." Hbr 9:15 "And for this cause he [Jesus] is the mediator of the new testament..."
All was fulfilled with the death of Christ. Mat 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament..." Hbr 9:15 "And for this cause he [Jesus] is the mediator of the new testament..."
I don't see how this invalidates the old laws. It seems to me that Heaven and Earth haven't yet passed, and nowhere in those quotes you provided does it say that "all was fulfilled." Just because there's a new testament doesn't mean the old one is invalidated, just as Jesus said.
And that ignores all those places in the OT where it said the laws would apply forever. I guess God didn't see that whole "New Testament" thing coming, eh? Or maybe he was just kidding? And I guess Jesus was lying when he said he didn't come to destroy the law.
Incidentally, if one goes by your interpretation of Hebrews, then none of the old laws apply, Ten Commandments included (and specifically noted).
You either have to take Paul's words over Jesus's, or you have to assume intentions and definitions for words that make no sense, in order to claim that the old laws no longer apply.
Tom said: I don't see how this invalidates the old laws. It seems to me that Heaven and Earth haven't yet passed, and nowhere in those quotes you provided does it say that "all was fulfilled."
Heaven and earth didn't need to pass away. Jesus' statement was that nothing in the law would ever change until all was fulfilled.
The "all" that needed to be fulfilled was Scripture: Mat 26:54 "But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" Throughout Christ's ministry there are numerous references to Scripture being fulfilled (e.g. Mat 2:15, 2:27, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, etc. etc.), however Scripture wouldn't be completely fulfilled until his death.
Just because there's a new testament doesn't mean the old one is invalidated, just as Jesus said.
Sure it does. This is why one is "old" and the other is "new". Christ completed, or accomplished, or carried into effect all to which the old law pointed.
And that ignores all those places in the OT where it said the laws would apply forever.
The OT says the promises would be forever. It doesn't say the same about the Mosaic law.
Incidentally, if one goes by your interpretation of Hebrews, then none of the old laws apply, Ten Commandments included (and specifically noted).
Incidentally, Christ repeats all of the ten commandments in the NT, save one. Therefore, nine commandments are included in the new law.
You either have to take Paul's words over Jesus's, or you have to assume intentions and definitions for words that make no sense, in order to claim that the old laws no longer apply.
No Christian needs to do any such thing. Jesus ushered in a new testament as both Matthew 26 and Hebrews 9 states. Reading further, it becomes abundantly clear why Christ taught baptism over animal sacrifice and why salvation was now possible for Gentiles - the old had been done away with, replaced by a "new" law.
Heaven and earth didn't need to pass away. Jesus' statement was that nothing in the law would ever change until all was fulfilled.
the old had been done away with, replaced by a "new" law.
So where Christ specifically contrasts the elimination of the old law with his fulfillment, ("Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.") where he specifically says that his fulfillment of the law does not destroy it, what he really meant was that in fulfilling that law he was destroying it? Gotcha. And when the OT says "And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever" and "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever," they're not talking about ordinances and judgments, but promises. Gotcha. And when Jesus said "Till Heaven and Earth pass," what he meant was "just until the law is fulfilled, not actually until heaven and earth pass, you can just ignore that part." I see.
Tom said: So where Christ specifically contrasts the elimination of the old law with his fulfillment…where he specifically says that his fulfillment of the law does not destroy it, what he really meant was that in fulfilling that law he was destroying it? Gotcha.
I never said Christ ‘destroyed’ the old law. I said Christ fulfilled the old law and ushered in a “new testament” in his blood/death. Hebrews and the rest of the NT agrees with this. This is why, for example, Christ taught baptism over animal sacrifice.
And when the OT says "And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever"…
What is “this thing” being referred to in Exodus 12:24 and who are “thee and they sons”?
…and "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever," they're not talking about ordinances and judgments, but promises. Gotcha.
God’s word is true and His judgments do endure forever. Relevance?
And when Jesus said "Till Heaven and Earth pass," what he meant was "just until the law is fulfilled, not actually until heaven and earth pass, you can just ignore that part." I see.
That’s right. Nothing could change the law, not even the passing of the heavens and earth. The only way the law could be changed was that all must “be fulfilled”.
God’s word is true and His judgments do endure forever. Relevance?
...None for Buddhists, Hindus, the Jain, Zoroastrians, Shinto, Animists, Shamanists, Atheists, Pagans, with the exception of Jews and the "patriarchs" (If they ever lived, Adam, Enoch, et al) everyone who died before the alleged birth of Christ, hominids, Neanderthals, Cromagnons, American Natives, animals who have no conscience nor any idea of who that god guy is, stillborns, extraterrestrial life forms, etc.
What was your purpose for quoting the verse then?
Not every law in the Old Testament was given to everyone. Certain laws were for a specific nation and a specific situation and specific times.
The problem with Christians who say that they believe the entire Bible, word for word, is that they don't realize -- or aren't honest about -- the fact that they have to be cherry pickers. I've yet to see any Christianist murder a homosexual based on Leviticus's command to put them to death, although I'm sure some have done so under color of darkness. I've also yet to hear a compelling explanation why they decline to do so, if the Bible tells them they have to.
Michael, you set up a straw man: Christians believe every word, which means they have to do everything written in every single verse.
And then you knock it down. Great debating skills man.
If you just follow my link, you get a clear explanation. And read Acts, the chapter on the Apostle Convent where people like you were asking if Christians should keep the law of Moses.
Perhaps one day you can realise that some laws apply for some and not for others. Does Virginia Law apply to you if you live in Kansas?
Then why doesn't the Bible clearly state what laws do or don't apply to whom? And what time period they do or don't apply to?
You'd think with stakes this high (eternal damnation), God could be a little clearer on the whole thing, no?
The link you gave above says "Between Christians there is usually little division on how one should live". This isn't true today, nor is it true historically. If there are four different types of law, why wouldn't God and/or Jesus have made this clear to Moses or other prophets?
Jason, that Christ (who I don't believe existed, but as a product of a Christian school, family, and society still feel passionate toward) essentially nullified the laws of the OT is the same as destroying them, which is why Christians today don't believe they need to adhere to it.
Not that I think Christians should go around killing gay people. It's more, I guess, a way of showing the followers of "God" that they themselves are not prepared to be as hate-mongering as a holy man would apparently be. A way to try to force their hand and thereby expose to them that they are actually more merciful and human--hopefully!--than the Scripture tells them to be.
Also, the NT doesn't quit with the gay-bashing. It still crops up in the latter portion of the first chapter of Romans, as well as in a few other spots.
-shayn n.
Post a Comment