Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 11:33 pm
I most certainly do not assert that only direct testimony is allowed when I'm asserting that there is no "direct testimony"
If you assert there is no "direct testimony", then all I'm presenting is just "testimony".
What argument have you made for the Christian Bible which can't be made for the Book of Mormon?
Mormons are free to present their case.
If none of their kosher laws negate or countermand anything in the Torah, then those laws are not in violation of the Torah.
And neither has Jesus.
For example, the Torah allows a man to put away his wife with the presentation of a bill of divorce. The rabbis go into detail on what the bill is to include, but those details don't negate or countermand the original Torah law.
Likewise, Jesus allows for a bill of divorce, but not for any reason other than sexual immorality.
The additional details of kosher laws serve as safeguards in modern times when direct supervision of substances isn't always possible.
I'm not disputing the purpose of the kosher laws. But I am disputing adding laws to the Torah is sinful and a violation of the Torah, which is what you've been arguing for all along.
In the case of oath-taking, he even goes so far as to assert that it comes of evil (Matthew 5:37), which is a pretty stern judgement on something which Moses condoned (Numbers 30:1-2, Deuteronomy 6:13).
Here's what Jesus said:
Mat 5:33 ESV - "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'
Mat 5:34 ESV - But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
Mat 5:35 ESV - or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 ESV - And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 ESV - Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.
Jesus is not saying that oath-taking is evil. He is saying that oath-taking is not necessary. If you say you will do something, then do it. If you say you won't do something, then don't do it. What is evil is saying, "Yes, I said I would do it, but since I didn't swear I'd do it, then I'm not bound to do it."
Then 2 Timothy 3:16-17 becomes meaningless, as you have scripture which
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
Yes, that passage is correct. But I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting everything
in the Bible is a doctrinal statement?
Also, this passage doesn't say everything in the Tanakh must accepted as literally true.
What you assert is, "Testimony is always indirect." This is not a logical observation and is contradicted by the definitions that I've already provided.
What I specified is that witness
testimony is always indirect.
Here's what you stated:
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 7:05 pm
Testimony is always in
And you don't have empirical evidence which you should have, such as empirical evidence of a virgin birth, and so have to downplay its significance.
Why should I have to if I've never made a claim there is empirical evidence for it and Jesus never even made a claim it authenticates his authority? I do claim there's testimonial evidence for it, so it's sufficient for me. If skeptics want to reject the virgin birth because there is no empirical evidence, then I have no objection to it. But if skeptics want to reject the resurrection in light of the fact I have presented empirical evidence for it, then that's another matter.