In this portion we will finish off the New Testament portion of Charlotte’s 22 side dishes and begin to get a tasted of her fallacy of attempting to talk atheist into believing that New Testament Christians are supposed to follow Old Testament laws.
8) Believers are supposed to hate their parents when they follow Jesus (“If any man come to me, and not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sister, yet, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Well, considering that Christians do not abandon their families but usually attempt to brainwash them they are all guilty of not following this verse. “It’s symbolic”, yeah, I know your lame *** defense to this one already. [expletive censored]
Note that, again, even if we grant her misconception her example is still faulty. Assuming that Jesus, who taught that we were to honor our parents, taught that we were supposed to hate them it is a non sequitur to consider that “Christians do not abandon their families” since they could hate someone with whom they live-I have had some roommate_anyhow.
Now, what is wrong with not only claiming that “It’s symbolic” but inferring from the context of the Bible and the fact that no one, not Jesus, not the apostles, not the disciples, not the early church nor any Christians has ever, in two millennia, understood Jesus to be speaking of the same sort of seething emotional despising hatred which Charlotte displays against Christians. Apparently, it took 2,000 years for us to really understand this text and only via the erudite elucidation of the atheist propaganda de jour.
9) They are not to oppose evil (“But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”— Matthew 5:39). If this were followed one might just as well abolish law enforcement.
This is another very, very common misconception that discredit not the Bible but whoever gives voice to it. Adolf Hitler was a victim of this misconception when he wrote,
“turning of both cheeks is not a very good recipe for the front”1
What is the evil being done in this case? Adolf Hitler and Charlotte fail to note the obvious fact that the text is referring to a slap in the face. What is a slap in the face? It is not correlative to military conflict or to the stuff of law enforcement. A slap in the face is an insult thus, do not return insult for insult.
10) Biblicists are not allowed to call anyone “father” (“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). Not only is this rule ignored on a DAILY BASIS, but Catholicism uses “father” as a specific title.
The issue in the text appears to be the overuse, abuse, of authority and thus appears to say “Do not apply these labels in order to get a big head” or as David Brown put it in commenting on this text, “that itch for ecclesiastical superiority which has been the bane and the scandal of Christ’s ministers in every age”:
Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat_They love_greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Matthew 23:1-2, 6-12).
The text is a reminder to not consider any clergypersonage; Pope, High Priest, Imam, Guru, Michael Newdow (who claims that atheism is a religion), etc. the one true and ultimate “Rabbi_Teacher_Father.”
11) Christians are not supposed to plan or prepare. God will provide (“Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or that ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on… Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, not gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedth them. Are ye not much better than they?” –Matthew 6:25-34 & Luke 12:22-31 inclusive). I see Christian conservatives plot on a daily basis how to screw their employees so they can reap more profits.
Again, by disregarding the context, the complete thought, she is falling into folly.The text is dealing with the idea that (v. 24),
No one can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
So how do we keep from serving two masters? “Do not be anxious” for what good is being anxious? “Therefore do not be anxious” since “your heavenly Father knows that you have need of all these things.” Yet, even the most Bible-thumpin’-born againer-fundie-evang-YECists knows that this does not mean that these various good magically appear but that we must make and take opportunity.Thus, the point is:
1) Delineation: “No one can serve two masters”
2) Priority: “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness”
3) Because: “all these things shall be added to you”
4) Thus, and again, “do not be anxious about tomorrow” (see Matthew 6:25-34)
Now we come to the area in which Charlotte somehow manages to top herself in demonstrating both her lack of knowledge of the most basic contents and concepts in the Bible and her belligerent prejudice against Christians.
This is where she cannot seem to distinguish between the, not the key words here, “Old” testament/covenant and “New” testament/covenant. The greater problem is that she does think that she understands it very well, certainly better than “these idiots.” This is problematic because it is prideful zeal without knowledge as she attempts to offer the militant activist anti-Christian atheist a combination of punches whereby to knock out any opposition to her views.
Let us consider this recipe which appears at the very end of her “sermon” and then backtrack to those side dishes in which she attempts to apply the “Old” testament/covenant to “New” testament/covenant Christians:
I’d like to close this essay with how to catch a Christian in the act. When you see them expounding a verse and ignoring another, call them on it. I know what you’ll hear. They’ll say, “that’s from the Old Law and we aren’t under the Old Law anymore”. Trip them with this: “But aren’t the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law?” “Yes, but we are obligated to follow them because they are reported in the NT” (Matthew 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19 & Luke 18:18-22). Immediately point out to them that Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commandments and invented a new one, “though shall not defraud” ! Before they can get a word in edge wise finish them off with: “According to scripture it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail” (Luke 16:17 & Matthew 5:18-19). If sin is transgression of the law, as 1 John 3:4 says, then you should be following all of the Old Law. This, from experience, is the best way to shoot down these idiots and bar them from getting away with their hypocrisy.
Let us now parse this recipe and consider its various aspects carefully:
I’d like to close this essay with how to catch a Christian in the act.When you see them expounding a verse and ignoring another, call them on it. I know what you’ll hear.They’ll say, “that’s from the Old Law and we aren’t under the Old Law anymore”.Trip them with this: “But aren’t the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law?”
“Yes, but we are obligated to follow them because they are reported in the NT” (Matthew 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19 & Luke 18:18-22).
Although she does not describe the scenario very well, apparently she is asserting to Christians that they are ignoring the Old Testament Law and they rightly respond. Next, she offers the next punch,
Immediately point out to them that Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commandments and invented a new one, “though shall not defraud” !
I am not quite certain what to make of this; Charlotte appears to think that any mention of the Commandments must be followed by a neat list of the ten and in the original order. Yet, this is simply not the case as exampled by the following texts in which Jesus explains:
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:37-40).
The first of all the commandments is, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” This is the first commandment. And the second is like this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these (Mark 12:29-31).
I would imagine that Charlotte would apparently not even recognize the Sh’ma, “Hear, O Israel_” as a “commandment.”
Thus, did “Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commandments and invented a new one, ‘though shall not defraud’ !”The text in question reads:
And when He had gone out into the way, one came running up and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except one, God.You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, honor your father and your mother.And he answered and said to Him, Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth.Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him and said to him, One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have and give it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven. And come, take up the cross and follow Me.
And he was sad at that saying and went away grieved, for he had great possessions (Mark 10:17-22).
How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.What is the first rule of real estate? Location, location, location.How do you understand any text at all, biblical or not? Context, context, context.Is the text not clear, is the message not coming through, is the point not being made?Jesus discerns what is holding this man back; he is known to have great possessions and is generally known as the “rich young ruler.” Thus, Jesus repeats to him the commandments that denote that which he lacks: the commandments which deal with human to human interaction. Upon having these repeated to him he claims that he has always followed these yet, when he is put to the test on this point he goes away grieved. Thus, Jesus does not “omitted half of the Ten Commandments” but demonstrated that this self-professed keeper of them did not in reality follow them.But what about inventing “though shall not defraud”?Comparing Exodus 20:12-17 with Mark 10:19 we note the following correlations:
“Honor your father and your mother”-in both.”You shall not murder”-in both.”You shall not commit adultery”-in both.”You shall not steal”-in both.”You shall not bear false witness”-in both.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house_wife_manservant_maidservant_ox_ass_nor anything that is your neighbor’s”-in Mark as “You shall not defraud.”
In other words: “covet” is being rendered as “defraud” which is simply covet to the extreme.
But remember that Charlotte’s advice was:
Before they can get a word in edge wise finish them off with: “According to scripture it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail” (Luke 16:17 & Matthew 5:18-19). If sin is transgression of the law, as 1 John 3:4 says, then you should be following all of the Old Law. This, from experience, is the best way to shoot down these idiots and bar them from getting away with their hypocrisy.
I must admit to being flummoxed by what she is quoting since the Luke text does not contain the words “According to scripture” and the Matthew text does not state, “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail.”Yet, even if we grant the text, which with the exception of “According to scripture” does appear in Luke, how does that no part of the law will fail amount to “you should be following all of the Old Law”? A law that pertains to the site of road construction does not fail simply because it is fulfilled once the road work is completed. As we shall see, this is the key; it does not have to fail in order to be fulfilled.
Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).
Jesus came to fulfill and ultimately fulfilled upon the cross when He stated, “It is finished” (or paid in full John 19:30).
Therefore, what have we learned? Christians do not have to follow the minutia of the Old Testament Law. In fact, neither do any Jews who do not live millennia ago, in the area of Israel, in the theocratic nation whose inhabitants had agree to live by it. The Ten Commandments are reiterated in various ways, primarily as indicative of the spirit of the law and not just the word. The Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, were ultimately fulfilled by Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. And thus, Charlotte has punched herself out even whilst merely shadow boxing with her own lack of knowledge.
Next we will consider the manners in which she attempted to vilify Christians for not following laws that were not meant for them.