|
Post by blondie on May 25, 2007 10:43:36 GMT -5
The book also doesn't give exceptions for a lot of life's scenario's. That doesn't mean it contradict's Matthew. Don't get divorced and divorce is OK sometimes is a contradiction. This is only one of many. Some contradiction are much clearer. The reason the Bible has so many contradictions it it tells the same stories over and over again. I quoted Matthew to show you the complete picture on what the scriptures state. You fail to understand that concepts in the bible must be understood from the perspective of the whole book. It's not a whole book. It's two different books written by two different people. You want to believe it's magically the same and use imagination to make you point.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 25, 2007 11:23:09 GMT -5
You still haven't shown how Mark's passage actually says that or, if it does, how it says that there isn't any room for exceptions. Once you show that, then we can talk about there being a contradiction. Until then, you're just displaying ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 25, 2007 12:08:42 GMT -5
You still haven't shown how Mark's passage actually says that or, if it does, how it says that there isn't any room for exceptions. Once you show that, then we can talk about there being a contradiction. Until then, you're just displaying ignorance. OK, let's turn it around. Prove Mark allows for divorce. Obviously it can't be done because it's not in there. The problem is you feel obligated to believe the Gospels don't have any contradictions so you're unwilling to go with the facts. I want to know if Christians believe marrying a divorced person is adultery. That's what the Bible says. Above Phinehas finally admitted that a woman can leave her husband if he beats her. I'd like to see how he rationalizes that. but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. -Matthew 5:31-32 I guess he feels it's OK to make her into an adulteress and send her to hell. All this just because she was beaten. Really the Bibles just as bad as the Koran when it comes to human rights. I'm glad Christians rationalize their secular morality instead of following the crazy stuff in the Bible. Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." It's just a bunch of different stuff that Christians pick and choose from at their whimsy.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 25, 2007 12:13:15 GMT -5
LOL!!! Why don't you just admit that you made claims that you are incapable of supporting? Then we can move on to the other issues. You're just trying to change the subject to cover up your ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 25, 2007 12:34:46 GMT -5
LOL!!! Why don't you just admit that you made claims that you are incapable of supporting? Then we can move on to the other issues. You're just trying to change the subject to cover up your ignorance. Can you quote me from Mark where it cites the divorce exception? No? Must not be in there. "Mark 10:2-12: There are no valid grounds for divorce: Jesus here implies that all marriages are permanent; divorce is not allowed for any reason." www.religioustolerance.org/div_bibl.htmThis thread is dead. I'll check back sometime to see if one of you guys can give some argument besides: "It must mean what it doesn't say because this other book says something else and it's impossible for another book to say something different because the two different books are actually the same."
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 25, 2007 12:43:35 GMT -5
Can you quote me from Mark where it cites the divorce exception? Quit trying to change the subject. Quit being stupid. It also doesn't claim to be an absolute. At no point does the passage say, "No divorce. Period. No exceptions." Why are you using this as a source? They're just as ignorant as you are because they don't explain how they've reached this conclusion. They just throw it out there just like you did and expect it to be accepted without question. Come on, Blondie. Can't think for yourself? Take the section of Scripture. Break it down verse by verse. Word by word. Show how you can reach the conclusion you reached. I dare ya. Only because you keep asserting claims which you are incapable of backing.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 25, 2007 14:02:19 GMT -5
Would you people quit posting so much in my abscence?!? Too much to catch up on ;D. First off, my apologies to blondie about an earlier statement involving humanity. My point is that sometimes you seem to rely too much on science and evidence and very little on the human aspect of anything. That being said, I will venture out on a limb and say that I think that atheists have more against people who practice religions in what they view is a negative way rather than the basis for the religion itself. Just a guess, but I been following too many threads in other palces to ignore that as being a driving force. Which, come to think of it, sounds contradictory . Move on. The following is as good as any other point to take this back up: Can you quote me from Mark where it cites the divorce exception? No? Must not be in there. "Mark 10:2-12: There are no valid grounds for divorce: Jesus here implies that all marriages are permanent; divorce is not allowed for any reason." Allowed is not the proper word here. Jesus -- in all the instances you spoke of -- stated that these actions were against God's will. Aside from that, how does leaving one part off contradict another similar statement? One thing you may not consider is that Matthew and Mark are either working from memory or notes they took at the time. No one knows. It is speculated that one copied the other, which can't really be proven but its not the end of the world if so. It would be like taking notes in a class and then asking a friend to see what they wrote so they wouldn't miss anything. You can view it as collaberation. They were disciples together after all, so it would not be out of line to "compare notes". All that said, the "exception" that was listed in Matthew wasn't an exception at all. In fact, it was redundant. Look at it again. Matthew 19:9 - And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Sexual immorality is often translated as fornication in other versions. So think on that for a minute, then back up. Matthew 19:4-5 - And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Don't want to get graphic here, but at what point do the man and woman -- with a plug and a socket for lack of nicer words -- "join together and become one flesh"? Adultery is when a married person "becomes one flesh" with another person outside of the marriage relationship. Therefore, in the eyes of God, by the very action, adultery is already present! Mark may have very well left the "exception" out because it was redundant. And don't try to say "If it was redundant, why did Jesus say it?" Jesus often repeated things for the clarity of those who were listening. Any effective public speaker will repeat to make points clear to their audience. So lets break it down: In Mark's version:The marriage is whole but the man wants a divorce. He remarries. Upon that remarriage, he breaks the one flesh by becoming one-flesh with another (adultery). The one flesh was whole until the man broke it. In Matthew's version:The marriage is whole but the woman has committed adultery, breaking the one flesh. Therefore, it is not he who has committed the adultery, thereby rending the one-flesh relationship, but her. Both cover that it is the issue of adultery that cleaves the one-flesh, regardless of the when (before or after divorce). So...where's the "exception"?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 25, 2007 14:30:12 GMT -5
At no point does the passage say, No divorce. Period. No exceptions. Can't think for yourself? Take the section of Scripture. Break it down verse by verse. Word by word. Show how you can reach the conclusion you reached. I dare ya. I bet you can't break it down verse by verse word by word and show it doesn't say divorce is OK if your wife turns out to be a Republican. "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." That's all it says. But maybe what is really means is the exact opposite: "What therefore God hath joined together, let but a few put asunder." or maybe "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Lest she's a bitch. Then put the marriage asunder and find a hot young thing." It says what it says. All you're saying is it doesn't say what it says. You want me to prove that Evangelicals can't read something into it? All you have to do is show, in Mark, where there is an exception for divorce for anything. All anyone can say for sure is that divorce is outlawed. If you want to imagine an exception you can imagine any exception.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 25, 2007 14:34:13 GMT -5
I just want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."="No Divorce. Period. No Exceptions."
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 25, 2007 14:44:43 GMT -5
"One thing you may not consider is that Matthew and Mark are either working from memory or notes they took at the time."
If you're willing to concede that then you concede that the Bible isn't inerrant or divinely inspired.
That's what the whole contradiction thing is about. Why do you think people even bring contradictions up?
Mark and Matthew are just different books. The fact that they tell different stories is no problem for me.
"Mark may have very well left the "exception" out because it was redundant."
So why did he leave out the blueprints of the internal combustion engine? That wouldn't have been redundant. Better yet, why did all the NT authors leave out the fact that slavery is horrible and should be condemned? Why did they leave out abortion? They didn't mention hashish either.
We certainly can't say he left it out. All we can say is he didn't put it in.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 25, 2007 14:48:41 GMT -5
I just want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."="No Divorce. Period. No Exceptions." Yes. What God joined together...a marriage. Let NO man put asunder. No man. Not some. That's all it says. Then he adds the part about adultery which everyone ignores.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 25, 2007 15:07:38 GMT -5
Yes. What God joined together...a marriage. Let NO man put asunder. No man. Not some. So you're taking the phrase "let not man put asunder." and saying that divorce is the only possible interpretation. In the NKJV it's written "let not man separate." Either/or. To reach that conclusion it must be concluded that the actual problem is your definition of marriage. If you define marriage as simply a contract or bill then you would be right. Sign a paper and your married. Sign another and you're divorced. The best question then would be, How does God view marriage according to the Bible? I don't know why you keep saying that. I've never ignored that section and I don't know anyone who does. Quit trying to change the subject.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 25, 2007 15:35:26 GMT -5
"One thing you may not consider is that Matthew and Mark are either working from memory or notes they took at the time."If you're willing to concede that then you concede that the Bible isn't inerrant or divinely inspired. Um...what ARE you talking about? The gospels are a historical account of Jesus' life on earth by 4 different men, seen through different viewpoints. The basically reported what they saw. They didn't have youtube or a tape recorder back then so they may have slipped up now and then. From your favorite site (wikipedia): Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that in its original form, the Bible is without error; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts." Let me dig around a sec...here it is, no wait...I thought...you know what? I lost my original manuscript. That thing was getting kinda tattered anyways. What we have today is copies of copies of copies, originally written by hand by scribes who may have gotten tired and slipped up here or there. Some of them might have had taken a few liberties along the way as well. Then, a bunch of "experts" got together and tried to figure out what these copies said according to the understanding of ancient dialects and the cultural use of words in the various times the books were written. I'm not some ignorant rube who thinks he's got the original book. I don't think any of those people spoke English. You do your darndest to latch onto any perceived weakness don't you? Maybe you need to try invading a vacation Bible school next week instead -- those kids are easily swayed. Because it confuses them? Besides, you didn't show any contradictions. Now your just grasping at straws. Had the Bible addressed every issue in life, it would take up a section in a library, not a book that could be eventually carried when consolidated. Who was smoking hashish and having abortions back then? Why didn't it talk about watching MTV, or cloning? Why are you even asking? Finally, can you provide any evidence that the slavery of the NT was equivalent to slavery in the 1800s? You may say "slavery is slavery" but you don't really know what it was in NT times. It may be that people entered slavery voluntarily due to poverty or inability to provide for themselves. After all, slaves were provided with homes, meals, etc. in return for serving their masters. There is no real indication that the slaves of the NT were involuntary slaves like African slaves in early America. And don't start with "well, to be good Christians people should give their goods to the poor" and that would have remedied those who could not supply for their own needs. I think you see what a welfare generation can do for a people.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 25, 2007 16:00:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 25, 2007 16:24:52 GMT -5
I guess he feels it's OK to make her into an adulteress and send her to hell. All this just because she was beaten. Really the Bibles just as bad as the Koran when it comes to human rights. I'm glad Christians rationalize their secular morality instead of following the crazy stuff in the Bible. Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." It's just a bunch of different stuff that Christians pick and choose from at their whimsy. You ignorance of the Bible is very evident. That's OK, plenty of Christians are as well. But they want to learn it (well some do) while you want to attack it. Or at least you want to attack people who use it for their beliefs. The OT verse you quoted is valid for the Jews under the Law. Christian Gentiles, or even Christian Jews, aren't under the Law. They can be guided by it, but the penalties no longer apply. So divorce, as pointed out in Leviticus and many more places including the one's recently discussed are contrary to God's Will. They hurt our relationship with Him, but they don't condemn those who have placed their faith and trust in Him. If the penalty for divorce was still death when Jesus arrived, what happened here? John 4:15-18 - The woman said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw." He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."
After these verses, there is no condemnation by Jesus. No "you are an adulteress, begone". He didn't call for her death. He did offer her life though. Quite the opposite of your perception. In light of this, where do you see rationalization? How am I not following that "crazy Bible"? Again, if you get your interpretation of the Bible from religioustolerance.org, you're not getting much.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 25, 2007 17:55:37 GMT -5
I guess he feels it's OK to make her into an adulteress and send her to hell. All this just because she was beaten. Really the Bibles just as bad as the Koran when it comes to human rights. I'm glad Christians rationalize their secular morality instead of following the crazy stuff in the Bible. Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." It's just a bunch of different stuff that Christians pick and choose from at their whimsy. You ignorance of the Bible is very evident. When I hear this I know I'm about to get a dose of the Evangelical dogma I outgrew when I was 12 years old. The OT verse you quoted is valid for the Jews under the Law. Christian Gentiles, or even Christian Jews, aren't under the Law. They can be guided by it, but the penalties no longer apply. I guess I called that one. Kevin, I'm familiar with what Evangelicals believe. I grew up in Alabama. I'm also familiar with this: Matthew 5 17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. If the penalty for divorce was still death when Jesus arrived, what happened here? I don't even know if Jesus was a real person. I certainly don't think the Bible is in any way a coherent text from beginning to end. What I do know is that Jews, Catholics, Orthodox and all the zillion varieties of Protestants believe all kinds of different things. John 4:15-18 - The woman said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw." He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."
After these verses, there is no condemnation by Jesus. No "you are an adulteress, begone". He didn't call for her death. He did offer her life though. Quite the opposite of your perception. I think John is a different theology than the synoptic gospels and I also know Paul wrote this: 1 Corinthians 6 9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers , nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. In light of this, where do you see rationalization? How am I not following that "crazy Bible"? Again, if you get your interpretation of the Bible from religioustolerance.org, you're not getting much. Instead of parroting Evangelical dogma you might try religioustolerance.org. They seem to be aware of the fact that Christianity doesn't begin and end with republicans in America.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 25, 2007 17:59:55 GMT -5
Check back later. I'm taking my kids to the movies, but I already have the answer to everything above. Shame you still don't know what context is. Lesson resumed later.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 25, 2007 18:16:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 26, 2007 7:57:34 GMT -5
I'm also familiar with this: Matthew 5 17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. What are you trying to show here? That you can quote some verses in the Bible? The law (or Law in other translations) is not destroyed in the sense that the OT is still viable as a source of guidance into the ways we can please God. So Jesus basically said "Don't throw away what has come before. I am the fulfillment of what has come before." Let me ask -- discounting your skepticism and unbelief -- if Jesus had not abolished the law in sense of both what was right and wrong and the penalties, why do you not see a single case in the gospels where Jesus demanded the penalties be carried out? I showed you verses above where a woman had been married several times and was living with a man now, and yet Jesus did not condemn her and expect someone to carry out penalties upon her? Jesus did indeed come to fulfill Isaiah 53:5-6 - But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
Isaiah 53:10-11 - But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. The you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about in any of this discussion. Thanks for the admission. Jews are not Christian, unless they have converted -- their inclusion shows your ignorance of Christianity. Catholics add to the Bible in many ways. They over-emphasize Mary -- she was just the person God chose to bring forth His son. I will not say that there aren't many Christians in Catholicism, but they have extras that are not biblical. People believe different things because they are human. People can justify (in their eyes) many things if they don't use context. Religioustolerance.org is a very obvious example of that. You left off the next verse which is important: 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. Again, when you leave off context, you lose everything. I don't parrot anything. I take the Bible, I read and study and use context. If anyone is parroting, you are: you just take info from another source and blindly assume that it is correct. Proof of this is that you are admitting that you are basing what you think about certain biblical topics on what has been written on religioustolerance.org, a source which rarely looks at scripture contextually. They are therefore invalid as a proper source of Christian belief. And finally, what does being Republican have to do with this discussion? I assume that all atheists are Democrats then.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 26, 2007 10:47:03 GMT -5
What are you trying to show here? That you can quote some verses in the Bible? The law (or Law in other translations) is not destroyed in the sense that the OT is still viable as a source of guidance into the ways we can please God. So Jesus basically said "Don't throw away what has come before. I am the fulfillment of what has come before." Right, Jesus fulfilled the law that you're suppose to cast out women when they have their period. I can really see how he fulfilled the prohibition on not boiling a kid in its mothers milk. You forgot the Evangelical line that some of the OT laws are "ritual" laws only applying to the Jew way back when and some are for everybody. That way you can do whatever you want and still condemn other people without feeling like a hypocrite. Christians come in all flavors and fall all across the spectrum of how much of the law they want to follow. You all think you have the one true answer but obviously you can't all be right. I believe people just do what they want and rationalize it through whatever holy book they happen to believe in. History backs me up on this. The easiest example is the Sabbath: Luke 23 56: And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. Some Christians observe it and some don' t. It's just random. So if you want to interpret something a certain way it's your prerogative. This guy's done a long defense of the Sabbath: www.lightministries.com/id326.htmMy personal belief is that the morality from 2000 years ago in Judea is so different than ours that we probably couldn't even understand it. For instance I doubt it even occurred to the writers of the NT that there was anything wrong with slavery or that women were anything more than just property. Let me ask -- discounting your skepticism and unbelief -- if Jesus had not abolished the law in sense of both what was right and wrong and the penalties, why do you not see a single case in the gospels where Jesus demanded the penalties be carried out? I showed you verses above where a woman had been married several times and was living with a man now, and yet Jesus did not condemn her and expect someone to carry out penalties upon her? You can say that but you have to ignore the "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" thing. It all makes perfect sense if you believe the Bible is a patchwork quilt of random stories like I do. I'm going to start a new post with the rest of this.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 28, 2007 12:37:14 GMT -5
Right, Jesus fulfilled the law that you're suppose to cast out women when they have their period. I can really see how he fulfilled the prohibition on not boiling a kid in its mothers milk. Limited knowledge of a subject does not enable you to teach much more than what you have read on some sites that draw out interpretations that do not utilize context. That being said, Jesus came to fulfill that which was point to by the prophets and the Law (that which Moses set before the people). If you can show me where Jesus ever carried out the penalties of an of the Law, we'll discuss it. Until that point you aren't getting anywhere. For generations, the children of Israel tried to please God by merely carrying out that which was commanded to them. The ever- repeating cycle that the Jews were under showed that man can not please God by merely following rules because there has to be real reason to do so. So when Jesus came, he not only came as a fulfillment of prophecy, but as the real reason to serve and glorify God. Matthew 22:36-40 - "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets by his life and death on the cross. He did all he did first for the will and love of God (greatest commandments #1). And he did it so that all people could have eternal life -- love of people (greatest commandments #2). All of the OT can be used as a guide to what God views as contary to His Will and what He'd have us do. I've already said that before and you just ignore it because it does not fit your rigid image of what you think Christianity is supposed o be. Its the penalty that has been done away with by Jesus -- he has become our ultimate sacrifice and the way for those outside of the children of Israel to inherit Heaven. All of the law is good for guidance, as shown above. Are you talking about penalties still? Again, covered already. Find a good online Bible and search with the word sabbath. See how often the Jews accused Jesus of violated the sabbath. Your statements thus far have been along the very same lines -- by way of you lack of understanding of scriptures, you accuse others of "doing as they please". As an unbeliever, you have no valid viewpoint to show how a believer is to live. Your knowledge is too limited to be of worth. Again, your issue is with Christians, not the book they use to base their beliefs. No we can't. We can take the scripture and use it as guidance for our lives. The most important thing is to remember why we do it -- not just because the Bible "says so", but that we do it for our love of God. The church at Ephesus thought they were doing well in "following the rules" as well. Revelation 2:1-4 - "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary. 'But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Again, Old Covenant != New Covenant. Jesus observed the Sabbath , but please recall he came as a Jew for the Jews first. He never once condemned those who didn't observe or even encouraged that others observe the Sabbath. Just because some Christians continue to observe it does not make it wrong or right -- it is their choice to continue the observance. The majority of Christians set aside the Lord's Day (Sunday) as a special day of worship based on the practice of the apostles. It was neither mandated nor discouraged. There was never an instance of Jesus resting on the Sabbath, BTW -- which is part of that commandment. There is likely much truth in that. The best we can do is study the Bible and relate it to who we are today (if you are a Christian). The slavery thing has already been touched on but where do you get the idea that there was a belief that women were considered property in the NT? Already covered. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. He is also the penalty.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 29, 2007 9:47:21 GMT -5
Right, Jesus fulfilled the law that you're suppose to cast out women when they have their period. I can really see how he fulfilled the prohibition on not boiling a kid in its mothers milk. Limited knowledge of a subject does not enable you to teach much more than what you have read on some sites that draw out interpretations that do not utilize context. That being said, Jesus came to fulfill that which was point to by the prophets and the Law (that which Moses set before the people). If you can show me where Jesus ever carried out the penalties of an of the Law, we'll discuss it. Until that point you aren't getting anywhere. For generations, the children of Israel tried to please God by merely carrying out that which was commanded to them. The ever- repeating cycle that the Jews were under showed that man can not please God by merely following rules because there has to be real reason to do so. So when Jesus came, he not only came as a fulfillment of prophecy, but as the real reason to serve and glorify God. Matthew 22:36-40 - "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets by his life and death on the cross. He did all he did first for the will and love of God (greatest commandments #1). And he did it so that all people could have eternal life -- love of people (greatest commandments #2). Yes, that's a good summery of Evangelical dogma. Have you ever read the dogma of other sects within Christianity? Here's a nice summery from one of my favorite websites: www.religioustolerance.org/chr_inte.htmAll of the OT can be used as a guide to what God views as contary to His Will and what He'd have us do. I've already said that before and you just ignore it because it does not fit your rigid image of what you think Christianity is supposed o be. One thing I know is the that the Old Testament has nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever. It was written before the legend says he was born. The NT owes a lot to the OT. Find a good online Bible and search with the word sabbath. See how often the Jews accused Jesus of violated the sabbath. Your statements thus far have been along the very same lines -- by way of you lack of understanding of scriptures, you accuse others of "doing as they please". I know Jesus broke the Sabbath. Listen, I'm not claiming there's a right and wrong way to interpret the various books of the Bible. People read all kinds of stuff into them. Most Protestants believe that you can do whatever you want to and still go to heaven if you believe in Jesus. Please. That's fine if you believe that. I'm just saying different Christians believe different things. They have plenty of rationalizations and Bible quotes too. As an unbeliever, you have no valid viewpoint to show how a believer is to live. Your knowledge is too limited to be of worth. Again, your issue is with Christians, not the book they use to base their beliefs. I'm not telling anybody how to live. Are you? No we can't. We can take the scripture and use it as guidance for our lives. The most important thing is to remember why we do it -- not just because the Bible "says so", but that we do it for our love of God. The church at Ephesus thought they were doing well in "following the rules" as well. Revelation 2:1-4 - "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary. 'But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Again, Old Covenant != New Covenant. Jesus observed the Sabbath , but please recall he came as a Jew for the Jews first. He never once condemned those who didn't observe or even encouraged that others observe the Sabbath. Just because some Christians continue to observe it does not make it wrong or right -- it is their choice to continue the observance. The majority of Christians set aside the Lord's Day (Sunday) as a special day of worship based on the practice of the apostles. It was neither mandated nor discouraged. There was never an instance of Jesus resting on the Sabbath, BTW -- which is part of that commandment. There is likely much truth in that. The best we can do is study the Bible and relate it to who we are today (if you are a Christian). The slavery thing has already been touched on but where do you get the idea that there was a belief that women were considered property in the NT? Already covered. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. He is also the penalty. All you're doing is parroting Evangelical dogma over and over again and declaring it to be true. I know what you believe. And it's no more valid than any other version of Christian theology. It's all just somebody's interpretation. You're all making supernatural claims and picking and choosing whatever you want. There's sooooo much Catholic writing, for instance, to justify what they believe.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 29, 2007 11:44:58 GMT -5
If you can show me where Jesus ever carried out the penalties of an of the Law, we'll discuss it.
We was pissed at the money changers about something.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 29, 2007 14:54:59 GMT -5
That’s my dogma and I’m sticking to it. Have you ever considered that I don’t base my belief and interpretation of scripture according to a certain sect or denomination, but rather my interpretation lines up with one? There IS a difference.
You know, or believe? What irrefutable proof do you have that the OT does not prophecy about Jesus? All you have is what some scholars agree upon. I can likewise find scholars who agree with me. So who is right?
The second statement? Duhhhhh….
We can certainly agree on that. The line you wrote about people thinking that belief in Jesus is all it takes and that they can live as they wish is something that Baptists are often accused of. To much extent, there are those out there who live just like that – they have their “fire insurance” so now their just OK. Hey, that’s even easier than going to priest for confession!
And yes, Christians, sadly, believe different things. Hehe, we can say that it is a human condition. Not all atheists are like-minded other than not believing in God, right? Makes ‘em human just like the Christians (or Muslims, Hindus, etc.).
Other than my kids? That’s a parental thing. And as far as my beliefs, I encourage them to study, listen, and discern (even the 8 year old). But I don’t tell others how to live. Even when teaching, I’m very careful to use myself as an example of what I believe and do. I try my best not to say “This is the way it is” as opposed to “this is what I believe”. In the end, they have to make their own decisions. Forcing anything an anyone only makes them resent it IMO.
At least we seem to be closing this out. I agree not to take offense at the second accusation of parroting if you agree not to be offended if I accuse you of parroting what you’ve read or heard elsewhere as well. Its very rare any of us have original thoughts. We may think they are, but we likely heard them somewhere else and adopted them as our own.
There are many points where I disagree with my fellow Baptists. When it comes down to it, I could find points of disagreement with any denomination out there, but I could also find common ground as well. None of this proves anything but I at least try to explain why I believe something and back it up scripturally.
For a most recent example, my pastor made a statement the other day out of Genesis in reference to nose rings. He said that people shouldn’t give their kids a hard time about wanting nose rings – although he doesn’t care for them – because the first instance of pierced ring in the Bible was a nose ring (Gen 24:47). That’s all fine and dandy, but if he’s willing to mention it, he needs to point out that this was a symbolism of Rebekah being marked for Isaac as his intended wife. What a slip up IMO.
Oh, and just so you know, I couldn’t care less about nose rings – just don’t like people “justifying” something without putting out the whole story.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 29, 2007 14:56:05 GMT -5
If you can show me where Jesus ever carried out the penalties of an of the Law, we'll discuss it. We was pissed at the money changers about something. That was weeeeeeeeeaaaaaaakkkkkkk. Please now provide the accompanying law and original penalty, puhleese.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 29, 2007 16:41:26 GMT -5
If you can show me where Jesus ever carried out the penalties of an of the Law, we'll discuss it. We was pissed at the money changers about something. That was weeeeeeeeeaaaaaaakkkkkkk. Please now provide the accompanying law and original penalty, puhleese. Are you trying to get me to defend that Christians obey the OT laws? I don't know any Kosher Christians. I'm sure there are some out there. If there's a story in the NT about Jesus specifically stoning somebody to death for boiling a kid in its mother's milk, I've never read it. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Just by being a Christian you're breaking the First Commandment. But he did throw out the money changers for some reason. Since the story's so vague and there are so many OT laws I'm sure one could make an argument that they were breaking one and that was Jesus' motive. I mean so many of the OT laws are about specifics of sacrifice and such. If Jesus was so mad that he would physically whip them they must have done something wrong. The most simple argument for the OT law still being valid is the sermon on the mount: Matthew: 17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. I'm not saying the Bible is coherent. I think it says all kinds of strange things. I'm also saying that I could see how someone could interpret it that way. In fact if I was a Christian I'd be Kosher. Why take the chase? These guy's believe the old law is still valid and they even know the real name of Jesus, Yahshua. www.yrm.org/proving-old-from-new.htm
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 29, 2007 16:55:50 GMT -5
That’s my dogma and I’m sticking to it. Have you ever considered that I don’t base my belief and interpretation of scripture according to a certain sect or denomination, but rather my interpretation lines up with one? There IS a difference. You just stumbled upon Evangelical dogma all by yourself? I find that a little hard to believe. Being that you're totally surronded by them You know, or believe? What irrefutable proof do you have that the OT does not prophecy about Jesus? All you have is what some scholars agree upon. I can likewise find scholars who agree with me. So who is right? OK I can't prove 100% that there's not an invisible pink unicorn. That's what your argument's come down to. People can't predict the future. No how, no way. Your example is far from convincing. We can't prove any other supernatural claim either. Christian apologetics often end up using arguments that one would use to argue the truth of something that's not true. Then equate it to science. You can't know any scholars that can support that Isaiah predicts Jesus. You can't make any arguments for that. You just have to take it as a matter of faith. (Hint: if one of the "scholars" starts talking about statistics run away.)
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 29, 2007 18:08:31 GMT -5
That’s my dogma and I’m sticking to it. Have you ever considered that I don’t base my belief and interpretation of scripture according to a certain sect or denomination, but rather my interpretation lines up with one? There IS a difference. You just stumbled upon Evangelical dogma all by yourself? I find that a little hard to believe. Being that you're totally surronded by them Well, to be honest, yes and no. I'm sure much of what I garnered has come from what I heard from those around me. However, I can't think of too many occasions where I blindly accepted all they had to say. I can also say that I rarely make it a Sunday where I don't disagree with something that is said. If I do, I check it out in scripture. If I agree but it is something new, I check that out too. The only things I don't check are the things that I've already looked into and feel strong in. Unicorns are white. Everyone knows that. Pick up Oblivion, there's a white unicorn in it ;D. OK, I'll prove you wrong. If I post this message, someone will post another. Call me the Oracle of TAM. A president will be elected next year. Millions of people will wake up tomorrow. Sorry, best I can do -- wasn't given the gift of prophecy . I like this quote I saw last week -- I've been dying to use it and now may be as close as I get. In short, watching scientists try to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God is like watching someone try to nail jello to a wall. Just as attempting to affix gelatin vertically with a nail does a great disservice to the nail, the jello, and the wall, attempting to use science to "prove" the existence of God does a great disservice to science, theology, and mankind's understanding of either. Isn't that what this is all about in the first place? Its amazing how we work ourselves back to the start.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 29, 2007 19:24:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Just by being a Christian you're breaking the First Commandment. And that is? Let's see, looking back to the first time they were mentioned: Exodus 20:3 - "You shall have no other gods before Me. I know what you're getting at but you're off base. Christians accept Christ but they worship and praise God, making Him the forefront of their life. So I have to ring the buzzer on that one. Have to admit, that one is pretty obscure. The best I've been able to find is something about usury. It has often been viewed as people dishonoring the temple by selling and trading in a place meant for worship. You like those verses . But you seem to forget who they were given to. Exodus 19:3-8 - Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to Myself. Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him. All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do!" And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD. Since Christians are not converting to Judaism, why would they be under the Law given to Israel? Galatians 3:23-25 - But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Galatians 5:4 - You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. In the end, it is not the punishment that really matters -- if so, we're only serving to avoid it. 1 John 5:3 - For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. Keeping the Law in spirit and act is not wrong. My contention was with the punishments laid out in the Law. As you can see above in 1 John 5:3, if we can faithfully (not out of fear of retribution, desire for reward, but for love of God) keep the commandments, we do well. The issue is when we seek to be justified by the Law.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 30, 2007 9:02:34 GMT -5
In short, watching scientists try to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God is like watching someone try to nail jello to a wall. Just as attempting to affix gelatin vertically with a nail does a great disservice to the nail, the jello, and the wall, attempting to use science to "prove" the existence of God does a great disservice to science, theology, and mankind's understanding of either.
Not if you give a clear definition of what you mean by the word God. That's were the problem lies. Not in the scientific method.
The Gods on Mount Olympus don't exist as commonly understood. Neither does the God that answerers prayers.
|
|