So You Believe Everything In The Bible?

[meogi]

This attitude, long before man came out of the garden of eden, has been man's attempt to free himself of God's intervention to our affairs. Man was given the power to decide what to do.

Long before? I thought Adam was quite content being in the garden, perfect and all, with Eve and god. Eve was the one who seemed to screw that up. God knew that was gonna happen right?

God love us so much that he gave us the choice.

So you're saying there's a choice?

Now is the Bible conflicting itself or not? No, from the very beginning a divine plan has already been conceived. From the very beginning God already have the plan to send Jesus Christ to this Earth.

So you're saying we don't have a choice, god knows whats we're gonna do? What of the flood? He ment to just whipe out mankind first, before sending himself (as jesus) down to us? Why? Why not try to save them as well?

The letter killeth but the Spirit gives it life! 2 Cor 3:6

In other words, in order to understand what you read in the Bible, you need to interpretation of the Holy Spirit, or, the revelation of the understanding from the Holy Spirit, otherwise, you will wrap yourself up so much, you will not only confuse yourself, but everyone else.

Holy circular argument, batman!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You posted alot of Old Testament laws that pertained only to the tribes of Israel and those laws, for Israel, terminated upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

What an strange piece of self-serving religious confection this is:

• Sure JHWH was a vicious, mean-spirited, racist, chauvinist, vindictive, sociopathic tyrant, but it's OK because that was way back then and only against the Jews. (Others, like the Midianites, were simply eliminated - except for the virgins of course.)
• But all this stopped with Jesus. I know this is true because someone said so in a story written decades later.

Once again we see the naive fruits of the anti-Judaic replacement theology of the early Gentile Christian mission.

 

[DrM]

Please. Who would Jesus bomb? The Jesus Christ in the bible wouldn't bomb anybody, so yes I question your understanding of the scriptures. You posted alot of Old Testament laws that pertained only to the tribes of Israel and those laws, for Israel, terminated upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Sorry my avatar upsets you but it did get your attention. The point is well taken. You're right, He wouldn't bomb anyone. We have Christians in this nation begging for more death and destruction in the middle east to eradicate the kinds of people who disagree with us phlisophically and religeously. Aren't there other ways than bombing to have people respond? None of which would have died or been maimed if UN inspectors were allowed to finish their jobs. (I am referring to Iraqi citizens, not terrorists.)

Actually I didn't post a lot of OT laws, just a couple. I have many more I will share. But, by the same token, what's your point? If one passage declares a certain thing is going to happen and it doesn't, where does that leave us? Inconsistencies are inconsistencies.

Now, what is it in particular you question about my understanding of the scriptures?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually I didn't post a lot of OT laws, just a couple.

Perhaps that is because the source you plagiarized - Selective Principles - was relatively brief. This is the second time that I've seen you apparently steal someone elses words, and I really find it disturbing.

 

[Nicky_uk]

Holy circular argument, batman!

Flip me, there ain't half some attitude going around....

and you are???? tsk

 

[true blood]

What is up with all this hostility towards a faith? You say "Christians" in this nation want more death and destruction is a pathetic statement. This whole label with the word "christians" is what bothers me. Tell me sir biblical scholar, would a true believer who claims Jesus Christ as his Lord then desire any type of death and destruction? No. I find it hard to believe after 16 UN resolutions that the leaders of Iraq would suddenly give in to UN demands as you fathom. Are you suggesting a 17th, 18th or 19th resolution would of been any different? Saddam is the one who invaded Kuwait in the first place. He sought a peace deal. We gave it to him, however he didn't live up to his side of the bargin. IMO, there shouldn't of even been a 2nd UN resolution.

 

[DrM]

Perhaps that is because the source you plagiarized - Selective Principles - was relatively brief. This is the second time that I've seen you apparently steal someone elses words, and I really find it disturbing.

First of all, I never saw this sight and I've never used anything from it. I had this information on my computer from some time ago, I don't recall the source. I thought I had explained your plagiarized remark once before.

I presume your debating rests in reading something you violently disagree with then begin a google search to see if you can find the source. It would be much more resourceful and useful if you would debate the subject at hand rather than explore the possibilities of finding a source which may or may not be valid. The first one you saw was correct, which I explained.

I'm fairly sure from this point that you are going to be doing a lot of googling to see where my information comes from. There's an old saying, First time shame on you; 2nd time shame on me.

By your reaction to what I have written for debate on this religious forum and your method of attacking, I think you might have been disturbed long before I got here.

 

[Jaymes]

What is up with all this hostility towards a faith? You say "Christians" in this nation want more death and destruction is a pathetic statement. This whole label with the word "christians" is what bothers me. Tell me sir biblical scholar, would a true believer who claims Jesus Christ as his Lord then desire any type of death and destruction? No.

You know, the 'They're not true Christians!' argument bothers me so much. People seem to use it as an excuse for whenever someone of the same faith disagrees with them.

'They're for gay marriage! They're not true Christians!'

'They don't think the Pope speaks with God! They're not ture Christians!'

'They don't think everything in the Bible is literal! They're not true Christians!'

Acknowledge that there are some nutcases in your religious group, good lord.

 

[DrM]

What is up with all this hostility towards a faith? You say "Christians" in this nation want more death and destruction is a pathetic statement. This whole label with the word "christians" is what bothers me.

Sorry, I was just going by what our Christian president has and is doing. And, about the avatar. . . . .I'll be changing it soon.

 

[Scott1]

Acknowledge that there are some nutcases in your religious group, good lord

There are some nutcases in my religious group.

Scott

 

[Jaymes]

There are some nutcases in my religious group.

I feel better already.

 

[harold e. rice]

Please. Who would Jesus bomb? The Jesus Christ in the bible wouldn't bomb anybody, so yes I question your understanding of the scriptures. You posted alot of Old Testament laws that pertained only to the tribes of Israel and those laws, for Israel, terminated upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

According to the bible when Jesus entered to temple in Jerusalem he was so angry the turned over the tables and whipped the moneychangers. If there were guns present during that period of time, he might have used one or another violent weapon.

Jesus didn’t terminate the law, Paul did. The Law was Jesus’ only guideline for his teachings and as a matter of fact, most of his saying came from the Old Testament.

Christians deny the old law except for when they work in their favor. The most precious law that Christians hold to is the one pertaining to the paying of TITHES even though none of the New Testament Jesus folk paid tithes.

 

[true blood]

You know, the 'They're not true Christians!' argument bothers me so much. People seem to use it as an excuse for whenever someone of the same faith disagrees with them.

'They're for gay marriage! They're not true Christians!'

'They don't think the Pope speaks with God! They're not ture Christians!'

'They don't think everything in the Bible is literal! They're not true Christians!'

Acknowledge that there are some nutcases in your religious group, good lord.

Well its the truth. Not everyone who claims to be "christian" is actually a "christian". How can everything be literal in the bible? Surely some of it is figurative. Alot of the books are actually written through different points of views and its quite a dynamic work. The word "christians" isn't even found in the scriptures.

 

[Faust]

To get back on topic, " So you believe everything in the Bible is literally true?
If everything in the Bible is taken as literally true then it disproves itself in reference to Christianity.
In the first book of the new testament , first page, the lineage of Jesus is laid out from Abraham to Joseph.
The old testament prophets said that Jesus would be a direct descendant of King David and this part of the Bible shows that. Only one problem. According to Christianity Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph.
If Jesus is who they say he is he can't be who they say he is.
Now, if the author of Mathew had traced the lineage of Jesus from Abraham through David to Marry, then it would lead directly to Jesus, But the lineage in the Bible follows the Patriarcal line not the Matriarcal line.
So if Jesus is the son of Joseph, then he isn't the son of God. And if he is the son of God, then he isn't the descendant of Joseph as the prophets said he would be , as the author of Mathew tried to prove. :sarcastic

 

[Faust]

To get back on topic, " So you believe everything in the Bible is literally true?
If everything in the Bible is taken as literally true then it disproves itself in reference to Christianity.
In the first book of the new testament , first page, the lineage of Jesus is laid out from Abraham to Joseph.
The old testament prophets said that Jesus would be a direct descendant of King David and this part of the Bible shows that. Only one problem. According to Christianity Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph.
If Jesus is who they say he is he can't be who they say he is.
Now, if the author of Mathew had traced the lineage of Jesus from Abraham through David to Marry, then it would lead directly to Jesus, But the lineage in the Bible follows the Patriarcal line not the Matriarcal line.
So if Jesus is the son of Joseph, then he isn't the son of God. And if he is the son of God, then he isn't the descendant of Joseph as the prophets said he would be , as the author of Mathew tried to prove. :sarcastic

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Flip me, there ain't half some attitude going around....

and you are???? tsk

Nicky -

I totally miss the point of this post. Remember, I'm just a hillbilly from KY, so you'll have to explain some things to me. What is it that you are saying in this post?

TVOR

 

[true blood]

According to the bible when Jesus entered to temple in Jerusalem he was so angry the turned over the tables and whipped the moneychangers. If there were guns present during that period of time, he might have used one or another violent weapon.

Jesus didn’t terminate the law, Paul did. The Law was Jesus’ only guideline for his teachings and as a matter of fact, most of his saying came from the Old Testament.

Christians deny the old law except for when they work in their favor. The most precious law that Christians hold to is the one pertaining to the paying of TITHES even though none of the New Testament Jesus folk paid tithes.

Interesting. Actually the Temple market had become dishonest, a den of thieves. Jesus was not in any way cruel or physically abusive to those men; he just pointedly told them to get out. Although he did not touch any of the merchants, he did overthrow their tables and seats. You should note this is a completely different occasion from the recorded events in John 2:15 which too place earlier in his ministry. John 2:15 and 16 reads: "And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all [the sheep and oxen] out of the temple, and ["and" is "both" in the text] the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." Jesus drove out the four-legged animals with a whip; he poured out the money and overthrew the tables [inanimate objects]. He then used persuasion to authoritatively tell the people to take their dove sacrifices and leave. He never laid a whip to a human being as tradition tries to make you believe

 

[true blood]

To get back on topic, " So you believe everything in the Bible is literally true?
If everything in the Bible is taken as literally true then it disproves itself in reference to Christianity.
In the first book of the new testament , first page, the lineage of Jesus is laid out from Abraham to Joseph.
The old testament prophets said that Jesus would be a direct descendant of King David and this part of the Bible shows that. Only one problem. According to Christianity Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph.
If Jesus is who they say he is he can't be who they say he is.
Now, if the author of Mathew had traced the lineage of Jesus from Abraham through David to Marry, then it would lead directly to Jesus, But the lineage in the Bible follows the Patriarcal line not the Matriarcal line.
So if Jesus is the son of Joseph, then he isn't the son of God. And if he is the son of God, then he isn't the descendant of Joseph as the prophets said he would be , as the author of Mathew tried to prove. :sarcastic

The father of Mary was named Josheph.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

There are some nutcases in my religious group.

Scott

While I don't think there's anyone here who would try to make the claim that they don't have any nutcases in their particular group, I just want to note that I celebrate Scott's humor and wisdom in putting this forth!

Rock on! :jam: :jam: :jam:

 

[true blood]

Jesus didn’t terminate the law, Paul did. The Law was Jesus’ only guideline for his teachings and as a matter of fact, most of his saying came from the Old Testament.

Christians deny the old law except for when they work in their favor. The most precious law that Christians hold to is the one pertaining to the paying of TITHES even though none of the New Testament Jesus folk paid tithes.

Jesus Christ having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for the make [create] in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.

"having abolished in his flesh the enmity..." means that Jesus Christ totally destroyed the inability of man to know God personally. Jesus Christ abolished in his flesh the enmity and the law of commandments. The enmity specifically relates to the natural men of body and soul who were basically the Gentiles. The law of commandments contained in ordinances was given to Israel, the Jews. Thus when Jesus Christ abolished the enmity for the Gentiles and the law of commandments for the Jews, he tore down the obstacles which were separating each group from God and then he created of twain, from these two types, one new man. Jesus Christ took the Jew and Gentile and broke down the partitions separating them "...so making peace." Why? In order that God might create one new man. That creation is the spirit. Jesus Christ brought about the new creation of God in Christ in every believer, regardless of their previous label as Jew or Gentile. There is no longer the two classifications but a new creation in Christ Jesus.

Israel was never able to keep the law, so they were without God. The Gentiles were also without God. So Jesus Christ had to recouncile both types "unot God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." So the Gentiles were not only enmity to God, but Israel also, wou couldn't keep the law of commandments, was enmity to Him. Israel had had God's goodness constantly available to them, so they should have been grateful. But they weren't.