Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 12:22 PM
445 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,863 Year: 6,469/21,208 Month: 2,230/2,634 Week: 418/572 Day: 35/99 Hour: 5/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 271 of 304 (656891)
03-22-2012 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by purpledawn
03-22-2012 6:53 PM


Re: Understanding the Scriptures
purpledawn writes:

As I keep saying, there is a difference between understanding what the text is saying and believing that the events actually happened as written. That goes for the NT also.

Well of course, but what is your point? Are you saying they disobeyed God because they didn't kill everyone, are you saying that God didn't actually tell them to do it or what.

The point you make just confirms my view that the historical writers didn't record events exactly as they happened. If they say that everyone man, woman, child and beast were killed only to find that they weren't, then why should we believe that they got it right when they say that Yahweh told them to do it.

In the NT we can see minor differences in the stories in the Gospels but on the important points there is agreement. It is similar to people witnessing a car accident. They will disagree on some details but they all agree that the accident happened.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by purpledawn, posted 03-22-2012 6:53 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by purpledawn, posted 03-23-2012 5:57 AM GDR has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 272 of 304 (656918)
03-23-2012 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by GDR
03-22-2012 8:20 PM


Re: Understanding the Scriptures
quote:
Well of course, but what is your point? Are you saying they disobeyed God because they didn't kill everyone, are you saying that God didn't actually tell them to do it or what.
Sigh...There's nothing difficult about what I said. It's very straightforward. Understanding what the text is saying is different than believing that the events actually happened as written. If the text said God told them to do something, then that is what the text says. Understanding the reality behind the writings takes more research outside the Bible.

quote:
The point you make just confirms my view that the historical writers didn't record events exactly as they happened. If they say that everyone man, woman, child and beast were killed only to find that they weren't, then why should we believe that they got it right when they say that Yahweh told them to do it.
Sigh...just go the next step and ask why should we believe a supreme being inspired or told them anything? You keep saying you understand that the Bible writings contain various styles, but you seem to have issues with exaggeration. You should be happy. Odds are not as much genocide took place as it sounds. More bark than bite.

Do you really think that Jesus meant that his disciples had to hate their families? Doesn't sound loving.

Luke 14:26: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

quote:
In the NT we can see minor differences in the stories in the Gospels but on the important points there is agreement. It is similar to people witnessing a car accident. They will disagree on some details but they all agree that the accident happened.
The accident analogy doesn't apply since the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses. Even Paul wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus.

Scholars agree that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. They can also see where Matthew and Luke altered some of the stories found in Mark. Markan Priority

If you're going to be critical, at least be consistent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 03-22-2012 8:20 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 03-23-2012 3:34 PM purpledawn has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 273 of 304 (656958)
03-23-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by purpledawn
03-23-2012 5:57 AM


Re: Understanding the Scriptures
purpledawn writes:

Sigh...There's nothing difficult about what I said. It's very straightforward. Understanding what the text is saying is different than believing that the events actually happened as written. If the text said God told them to do something, then that is what the text says. Understanding the reality behind the writings takes more research outside the Bible.

We have long ago agreed with all that and I have shown you how I conclude what I do. You make all these statements but I still have no idea what you would decide. Did God approve of the massacre that was committed by Jehu? How about a simple yes or no answer. My answer is no.

purpledawn writes:

Sigh...just go the next step and ask why should we believe a supreme being inspired or told them anything? You keep saying you understand that the Bible writings contain various styles, but you seem to have issues with exaggeration. You should be happy. Odds are not as much genocide took place as it sounds. More bark than bite.

So it’s exaggeration. It would still seem that there were significant numbers but that isn’t the point. The point is, did God approve it. Yes or no?

purpledawn writes:

Do you really think that Jesus meant that his disciples had to hate their families? Doesn't sound loving.

No I don’t. Read the whole sermon in context for a start.

purpledawn writes:

The accident analogy doesn't apply since the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses. Even Paul wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus.
Scholars agree that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. They can also see where Matthew and Luke altered some of the stories found in Mark. Markan Priority

I understand that. However the writers of the original documents would have been by or from the accounts of eyewitnesses. In addition there would have been eyewitnesses still around when they were written who could have disputed the accounts if they were in error.

purpledawn If you're going to be critical, at least be consistent.

I have been. It is you that comes up with a God whose morality changes leaving us with a deity whose morality is unknowable.

Edited by GDR, : Somehow a previous quote wound up stuck on the end.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by purpledawn, posted 03-23-2012 5:57 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by purpledawn, posted 03-23-2012 6:00 PM GDR has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 274 of 304 (656970)
03-23-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by GDR
03-23-2012 3:34 PM


Religious Tradition
quote:
We have long ago agreed with all that and I have shown you how I conclude what I do. You make all these statements but I still have no idea what you would decide. Did God approve of the massacre that was committed by Jehu? How about a simple yes or no answer. My answer is no.
God didn't give approval to any of mankind's endeavors.

(Warning: the following is opinion and the upcoming "you's" are universal)

One author says yes according to the book and one author says no according to your understanding of the book. Both books were probably written after the House of Jehu was gone. Supposedly Hosea didn't write Hosea and Kings was probably written after the fall of the Northern Kingdom. Based on reality, I would say both authors attributed events to God that had nothing to do with God. Odds are the events were just the cycle of invasion and destruction prevalent in the area. King David and Jerusalem: Myth and Reality

The OT is useless to most Christians. Christianity went to the Gentiles and became a new religion that assimilated pagan religions. Stop trying to tie the two together. Just go with Christ, because that's your story and you're sticking to it.

There are some good life lessons in the NT when understood through Judaism. Learn the lessons of the book and graduate. Move on to practical application. Stop whining about being a work in progress. Doesn't take that long to get through school.

The OT and NT writers used creative license when it suited their purposes. It's a religious tradition. If you don't like the way the book is written, go write your own version; but at least admit it's your own concoction.

God is that which sustains us. God does not order mankind to destroy, but God does cause deaths through natural avenues. God doesn't love or play favorites. God doesn't get sad or angry. God doesn't need love or worship. God did not give mankind dominion over anything. If mankind destroys themselves, God won't miss us. (The other residents on the planet would probably appreciate it though.)

Sorry I can't make a post with just the word "no" in it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 03-23-2012 3:34 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by GDR, posted 03-23-2012 9:32 PM purpledawn has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 275 of 304 (656976)
03-23-2012 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by purpledawn
03-23-2012 6:00 PM


Re: Religious Tradition
purpledawn writes:

One author says yes according to the book and one author says no according to your understanding of the book. Both books were probably written after the House of Jehu was gone. Supposedly Hosea didn't write Hosea and Kings was probably written after the fall of the Northern Kingdom. Based on reality, I would say both authors attributed events to God that had nothing to do with God. Odds are the events were just the cycle of invasion and destruction prevalent in the area.

I think we agree, but I would point out that the question is what God thinks of what. One says that He approves and the other says the opposite. My contention is God always disapproves of genocide.

purpledawn writes:

The OT is useless to most Christians. Christianity went to the Gentiles and became a new religion that assimilated pagan religions. Stop trying to tie the two together. Just go with Christ, because that's your story and you're sticking to it.

I very much disagree with that. Virtually all of the first Jesus' followers were Christians and it was those Jews that took the Jesus message to the gentiles.

Frankly the gospels only make sense when told within their Jewish context. As I said earlier just about everything Jesus talked about referred back to the then Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus was a Jew talking to Jews. Read over the story after the resurrection of the two on the road to Emmaus. Here is a small portion of that from Luke 24:

quote:
25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Jesus’ own method of explaining Himself was to refer them back to their Scriptures. Yes, the Gospels bring clarity to the OT concerning the nature of God and how to understand it, but the OT brings understanding of who Jesus is and what He was about. The OT contains the opening chapters for Jesus who draws the Israel story to its conclusion.

purpledawn writes:

There are some good life lessons in the NT when understood through Judaism. Learn the lessons of the book and graduate. Move on to practical application. Stop whining about being a work in progress. Doesn't take that long to get through school.


Do you really think that the use of condescending language strengthens your argument?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by purpledawn, posted 03-23-2012 6:00 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by purpledawn, posted 03-24-2012 4:02 AM GDR has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 276 of 304 (656978)
03-24-2012 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by GDR
03-23-2012 9:32 PM


Re: Religious Tradition
quote:
My contention is God always disapproves of genocide.
Whatever helps you hang on.

quote:
Virtually all of the first Jesus' followers were Christians and it was those Jews that took the Jesus message to the gentiles.
Christianity still went to the Gentiles.

A History of Christianity by Kenneth Scott Latourette, 1953.

Christianity quickly moved out of the Jewish community and became prevailingly non-Jewish. As early as the time that Paul wrote his letter to it, a generation or less after the resurrection, the church in Rome was predominantly Gentile. This in itself was highly significant: Christianity had cease to be a Jewish sect and, while having roots in Judaism, was clearly new and different from that faith. In becoming non-Jewish in its following, Christianity was entering into the Hellenistic world. In becoming non-Jewish in its following, Christianity was entering into the Hellenistic world. (Page 75)

As the separation between Judaism and Christianity became more obvious and as the majority of Christian converts began to be drawn from the Gentiles, while antagonism between Jews and Christians did not decline, persecution of Christians by Jews was less frequent. (Page 81)

Few of the second and third century apologists devoted much attention to the Jews and Judaism. By the time that they wrote, the separation of the Christian community from Judaism was almost complete and Christians were being drawn primarily from paganism. (Page 83)

quote:
Frankly the gospels only make sense when told within their Jewish context. As I said earlier just about everything Jesus talked about referred back to the then Hebrew Scriptures.
You mean Jewish context that supports one's Christian belief. I showed you Jewish context concerning the hand washing and you don't even consider it, IMO, because it conflicts with your beliefs.

quote:
Jesus’ own method of explaining Himself was to refer them back to their Scriptures. Yes, the Gospels bring clarity to the OT concerning the nature of God and how to understand it, but the OT brings understanding of who Jesus is and what He was about. The OT contains the opening chapters for Jesus who draws the Israel story to its conclusion.
No the authors' method of explaining Jesus refers back to the Scriptures and most are incorrect. Notice the author didn't list anything. There's nothing about Jesus in the OT. Luke 24:46-47 is not in the OT. Wouldn't that be evidence that the author made it up?

quote:
Do you really think that the use of condescending language strengthens your argument?
It has nothing to do with my argument. You wanted opinion. I gave it to you.

You're interpreting the Bible to fit your beliefs and as I've said before that's your prerogative, but it's rather useless in a debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by GDR, posted 03-23-2012 9:32 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 03-24-2012 8:50 PM purpledawn has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 277 of 304 (657029)
03-24-2012 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by purpledawn
03-24-2012 4:02 AM


A Jewish Jesus
GDR writes:

My contention is God always disapproves of genocide.

purpledawn writes:

Whatever helps you hang on.

And what keeps you hanging on is to construct a god whose morality changes over time. Your god approves of having His chosen people commit genocide and these same chosen people he wants to be involved in the stoning to death of, amongst others, difficult children, those who pick up firewood on the Sabbath. However you then have him changing his mind 2000 years ago and not believing in that anymore and that he wants people to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. Can you tell us where your god stands on these issues today?

purpledawn writes:

Christianity still went to the Gentiles.

Primarily yes but it was the Jews who took it to the Gentiles in the first place. Certainly over time I would agree that the gentiles, not having the knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures that Paul and others did, would lose some of the connections to Christ’s Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, who spoke and ministered to an almost exclusive Jewish audience while explaining His messianic message, as well as His relationship with the Father in terms of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Jesus only makes sense within a Jewish context. As Christians we call Him the Messiah. Outside of Judaism what does it mean to be the Messiah? Where else would we get a concept of Jesus as part of the Godhead, or as a deity without Judaism. Look at this from Daniel 7.

quote:
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Jesus says this in Matthew 5.

quote:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Here is the dictionary definition of fulfill.

quote:
Bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).

Jesus is saying that He is the fulfillment or climax of the Torah and the Prophets. As I said Jesus only makes sense in a Jewish context. To say otherwise is ridiculous no matter how much the early church was made up of Gentiles.

Look at Matthew’s account of the gospel. He starts right off by writing giving a genealogy to establish Jesus as the fulfillment of the Israel story. In verse after talking about the Virgin birth Matthew refers back to Isaiah in verse 22 when he says, “all this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophets”. He then goes through the story of John the Baptist as Elijah and so on all through his telling of the Gospel.

Here is Paul in his letter to the Romans. Look how He starts it in Chap 1 vs 4.

quote:
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
From Romans 15:
quote:
4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

As I said it is utterly ridiculous to try and understand Jesus by disregarding His Jewish context. Jesus was a Jew preaching to fellow Jews.

purpledawn writes:

You mean Jewish context that supports one's Christian belief. I showed you Jewish context concerning the hand washing and you don't even consider it, IMO, because it conflicts with your beliefs.

I have no problem with it. The hand washing was a law born out of Jewish tradition and not the Torah to the best of my knowledge. I agree that Jesus fulfilled that as well. So what?

purpledawn writes:

No the authors' method of explaining Jesus refers back to the Scriptures and most are incorrect. Notice the author didn't list anything. There's nothing about Jesus in the OT. Luke 24:46-47 is not in the OT. Wouldn't that be evidence that the author made it up?

Most are not incorrect. You have picked out one that does pose something of a problem. One thing to remember though is that the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus used were not exactly the same as what we call the OT. Even at that we can take this passage from Daniel 7 that I quoted earlier.
quote:
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
, and combine that with the story of Jonah as contained in this quote from Matthew 12.
quote:
40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

purpledawn writes:

You're interpreting the Bible to fit your beliefs and as I've said before that's your prerogative, but it's rather useless in a debate.

No, I’m using the Bible to form my beliefs. In this discussion frankly it is using who is creating a god to fit your beliefs which is neither consistent with the Bible nor with reason.

Edited by GDR, : typo


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by purpledawn, posted 03-24-2012 4:02 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by purpledawn, posted 03-25-2012 10:04 AM GDR has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 278 of 304 (657042)
03-25-2012 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by GDR
03-24-2012 8:50 PM


Re: A Jewish Jesus
quote:
And what keeps you hanging on is to construct a god whose morality changes over time. Your god approves of having His chosen people commit genocide and these same chosen people he wants to be involved in the stoning to death of, amongst others, difficult children, those who pick up firewood on the Sabbath. However you then have him changing his mind 2000 years ago and not believing in that anymore and that he wants people to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. Can you tell us where your god stands on these issues today?
You really need to be more consistent. You contend that the Bible is written by men and filled with their biases and not dictated by God; but the minute I address the book as if it is written by men you want to know how I could have such a god. You yourself say that the God of the OT is different than Jesus who you say is the embodiment of God. I don't contend that Jesus is the embodiment of God. (Love Enemies, Turn the other Cheek Message 75)

I didn't write the Bible and a religion that follows the Bible is worshiping that God. As I mentioned before, the OT is a national view and the NT is an individual view. Even though you feel the morality of a nation should be the same as an individual, they aren't necessarily.

Institutional Morality
However, it would also be a mistake to pretend that individual moral standards directly translate into institutional ones. Obviously, the two categories are governed by different standards. Institutions are different because they are comprised of a diverse group of individuals and because they exist for specific purposes. For a micro example, legal ethics requires individual attorneys acting as a part of the judicial system to behave in ways that may seem contradictory to some basic moral standards for individuals. The system exists to provide justice, which can best be insured when all the individual agents in that system act in prescribed ways according to their roles. As cogs in the system operating under an altered view of morality, individual attorneys help insure the best possible justice system. Another major example deals with domestic governmental policy; some argue that the government should act under the same moral framework as individuals, but this is not possible or advisable.

What Does It Mean To Fulfill?

Fulfill has several meanings in English, but it is the meanings in Greek (pleroo) that are important to understanding scripture. We also have to use the meaning that fits the sentence not our beliefs.

The NT doesn't show Jesus doing away with any of the laws of the OT if you understand it within Jewish context. As you pointed out in Matthew 5:17, Jesus did not come to do away with the law. The next line tells us that until heaven and earth disappear, none of the law will end.

Matthew 5:18
Solemnly I tell you that until Heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or smallest detail will pass away from the Law until all has taken place.

Then we have the warning in Matthew 5:19

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Fulfill (pleroo) doesn't mean completed as in put an end to. Look at Paul's usage of the word.

Romans 13:8
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.

Galations 5:14
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Same word. When we love one another we aren't doing away with the command we are following the command. Our own laws can be summarized that way, but that doesn't do away with the laws.

To answer your next question. "So you're saying that Christians today are supposed to be following the Laws of Moses?" No

Christians today aren't Jews. As I showed you earlier, Christianity split from Judaism and became a new religion.

Those following the physical Jesus were Jewish and were to follow the Torah. The Disciples followed the Torah even after Jesus left. Paul followed the Torah. Gentiles are not Jewish. You already know what James passed down for the Gentiles, so don't ask me about that one either.

quote:
As I said it is utterly ridiculous to try and understand Jesus by disregarding His Jewish context. Jesus was a Jew preaching to fellow Jews.
You say Jesus only makes sense within the Jewish context, but what you glean from the writings doesn't reflect that understanding.

quote:
I have no problem with it. The hand washing was a law born out of Jewish tradition and not the Torah to the best of my knowledge. I agree that Jesus fulfilled that as well. So what?
Your last statement doesn't make any sense. Go to Did Jesus Declare All Food Clean? for further discussion.

If you want to discuss what prophesies Jesus fulfilled I suggest you go to Scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah:.

quote:
No, I’m using the Bible to form my beliefs. In this discussion frankly it is using who is creating a god to fit your beliefs which is neither consistent with the Bible nor with reason.
But you aren't showing me that my facts or logic concerning the understanding of the scripture as understood in Jewish context is incorrect. You've shown me that my position conflicts with what you believe.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 03-24-2012 8:50 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by GDR, posted 03-26-2012 2:10 AM purpledawn has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 279 of 304 (657117)
03-26-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by purpledawn
03-25-2012 10:04 AM


Re: A Jewish Jesus
purpledawn writes:

You really need to be more consistent. You contend that the Bible is written by men and filled with their biases and not dictated by God; but the minute I address the book as if it is written by men you want to know how I could have such a god. You yourself say that the God of the OT is different than Jesus who you say is the embodiment of God. I don't contend that Jesus is the embodiment of God.

I have been completely consistent. It is you who said that because we see god the loving god preached by Jesus that we should be prepared to forgive the god that advocated genocide.

Yes the books were written by men but that doesn’t mean that God’s revelation isn’t in the scriptures. God does, as I said earlier, IMHO speak to mankind through our hearts, minds and imaginations. I unequivocally said that God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. The God that we see in Jesus is in the OT but so are a bunch of other more human notions. As I said, we read the OT through the lens of the NT, and we gain our understanding of Jesus through the OT.

purpledawn writes:

I didn't write the Bible and a religion that follows the Bible is worshiping that God.

Not if the Bible is misunderstood or misused so that the very image of God is perverted.

purpledawn writes:

The NT doesn't show Jesus doing away with any of the laws of the OT if you understand it within Jewish context. As you pointed out in Matthew 5:17, Jesus did not come to do away with the law. The next line tells us that until heaven and earth disappear, none of the law will end.

The point isn’t that the laws are kept out of fear of retribution but because as Paul says they are written on our hearts. You can’t be commanded to love.

purpledawn writes:

Same word. When we love one another we aren't doing away with the command we are following the command. Our own laws can be summarized that way, but that doesn't do away with the laws.

Again, how can I be commanded to love my neighbour? I can be commanded not to murder my neighbour or I will be punished but I can’t be commanded to love my neighbour. That is the point of Jesus fulfilling the law. He is saying it isn’t about keeping a set of laws like we do for ourselves within a society. It is about loving unselfishly and even sacrificially.

purpledawn writes:

You say Jesus only makes sense within the Jewish context, but what you glean from the writings doesn't reflect that understanding.

Well actually it does. All through the writings of the prophets there is the theme of Yahweh returning to His people. In particular there is the “suffering servant” in Isaiah and the “son of man” in Daniel just to name 2.

purpledawn writes:

But you aren't showing me that my facts or logic concerning the understanding of the scripture as understood in Jewish context is incorrect. You've shown me that my position conflicts with what you believe.

Look, the scriptures can be used to make God out to be just about whatever you like. Sure you can use them to depict a god who was evil but then became good if that floats your boat. I am contending that the proper way to understand the nature of God is through what we see in the life and words of Jesus, and Paul for that matter, and through that we gain understanding of what is written in the OT.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by purpledawn, posted 03-25-2012 10:04 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by purpledawn, posted 03-26-2012 6:02 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 280 of 304 (657122)
03-26-2012 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by GDR
03-26-2012 2:10 AM


Interpretation is the Topic
quote:
Look, the scriptures can be used to make God out to be just about whatever you like. Sure you can use them to depict a god who was evil but then became good if that floats your boat. I am contending that the proper way to understand the nature of God is through what we see in the life and words of Jesus, and Paul for that matter, and through that we gain understanding of what is written in the OT.
The life and words of Jesus and Paul are part of a compilation of writings written in a very very very old language and translated for our benefit. We can't understand the nature of God if we don't understand what is actually being said. As you just said, we can use the scriptures to make any type of God we want. That means you need to show evidence that your interpretation is reasonable or logical. You haven't done that yet.

I've provided plenty of links for you to counter and alternate threads to debate specific subjects. Until you counter with some evidence and reasoning, there nothing more I can add. That one has to believe or have faith is not a counter argument accepted on the science side.

Enjoyed the discourse.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Following message 281 was spam and was deleted. - Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by GDR, posted 03-26-2012 2:10 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
duckybill
Junior Member (Idle past 1520 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 10-17-2011


Message 283 of 304 (676713)
10-25-2012 1:01 AM


I take the Bible literally, unless there is VERY good reason not to.
Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by GDR, posted 10-25-2012 2:35 AM duckybill has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 284 of 304 (676724)
10-25-2012 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by duckybill
10-25-2012 1:01 AM


duckybill writes:

I take the Bible literally, unless there is VERY good reason not to.

What would constitute a very good reason not to?


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by duckybill, posted 10-25-2012 1:01 AM duckybill has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9259
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 285 of 304 (685510)
12-23-2012 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by jar
03-04-2012 2:24 PM


Re: Hidden Wisdom -- The Literalists' Nightmare
jar writes:

Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).

Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.

We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.

BUT...

If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.

Talk about a big RED flag.

That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.

So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.

And I responded...


snooze- Broadcast your self LIVE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 03-04-2012 2:24 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by jar, posted 12-23-2012 10:01 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28427
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 286 of 304 (685520)
12-23-2012 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Phat
12-23-2012 8:35 AM


Re: Hidden Wisdom -- The Literalists' Nightmare
Video links are not a response.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Phat, posted 12-23-2012 8:35 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2012 11:26 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9316
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 287 of 304 (685529)
12-23-2012 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by jar
12-23-2012 10:01 AM


Re: Hidden Wisdom -- The Literalists' Nightmare
Video links are not a response.

The video guy believes that the story of Noah is a teaching prop that is not literally true. I am not sure why Phat thinks posting a video of someone we never heard of is better that just saying that himself.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by jar, posted 12-23-2012 10:01 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Phat, posted 12-23-2012 11:37 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017