Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 7:12 AM
125 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 123 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   I'm trying: a stairway to heaven?
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 4623 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 31 of 303 (255522)
10-29-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Brian
10-29-2005 4:44 PM


Re: Different deals
Brian writes:

They'll burn in Hell, if Xians want to steal another people's God then they need to accept Him warts and all.

Strange.

Where is there a reference to "hell" in the Hebrew Scriptures?

I thought the Christian concept of hell was stolen from the pagans.

Brian writes:

The Israelites would be under the Old Covenant, while Christ offered a new salvic path under the conditions of the New Covenant.

Which "old covenant" are we refering to?

Noah's?

Abrahams's?

Moses'

Solomon's?

Now that I think of it, is the term "old covenant" even found in the Hebrew Scriptures? If so, which covenant is it talking about? Or are we talking about the Christian perspective of the "older coventant" which Paul seems to refer to under Moses?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Brian, posted 10-29-2005 4:44 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2005 6:39 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded
 Message 36 by Brian, posted 10-30-2005 5:12 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1532 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 32 of 303 (255524)
10-29-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-29-2005 6:32 PM


Sheol/Hell
quote:
Where is there a reference to "hell" in the Hebrew Scriptures?
Sheol is the equivalent of hell in the OT.

NOTE: Crosswalk.com is an excellent place to do searches in the Bible.


"When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country." -Elayne Boosler-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-29-2005 6:32 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-29-2005 6:46 PM purpledawn has not yet responded
 Message 35 by ReverendDG, posted 10-30-2005 1:58 AM purpledawn has responded

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 4623 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 33 of 303 (255529)
10-29-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by purpledawn
10-29-2005 6:39 PM


Re: Sheol/Hell
I know that, but I didn't think many traditional Jewish people actually thought it refered to anything beyond the grave itself: ie', dirt.

If Brian's going to stress that Christian's have to accept the Israelite God warts and all, it would at least be nice if he could clarify exactly what the warts are -- and according to which view at that. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2005 6:39 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2068 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 34 of 303 (255560)
10-29-2005 10:17 PM


Missing advice
Pity Jesus didn`t drop a line or two about bacteria.
  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2185 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 35 of 303 (255574)
10-30-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by purpledawn
10-29-2005 6:39 PM


Re: Sheol/Hell
Hmm from what I remember Sheol is more like Hades than the Christian hell, ie: both the good and the bad go there, sheol at least from what I have read is the land of the dead, doesn't the greek translation call it Hades at one point?

Christian hell is more like the norse land of the dead and the hindu hell roled into one


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2005 6:39 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by purpledawn, posted 10-30-2005 7:24 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 36 of 303 (255590)
10-30-2005 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-29-2005 6:32 PM


Re: Different deals
Hi X

Strange.

Where is there a reference to "hell" in the Hebrew Scriptures?

I thought the Christian concept of hell was stolen from the pagans.

Who mentioned 'Hell' in the OT?

You are talking present tense, you said 'happens' not 'happened'. So you are obviously talking about after the birth of Christ as you mention Him in your example. Thus, children, or anyone else for that matter, who were born before the birth of Christ had to have some other salvic path. They couldn't be 'saved' by an option that wasn't yet available to them. But, this idea of salvation is sometimes far different in the OT than it is in the NT, it is normally deliverance from a natural disaster, or from an oppressing nation, it is more of an historical salvation. But, there is eschatological salvation in the OT, however it is not that clear. There appears to be two different types of ES, one is the establishment of peace and co-operation between all nations (Isaiah 2:2-4, and Micah 4:1-4, the other is at the end of history (apocolyptic)where God will dispose of His enemies and reward the faithful.

In the context of the Xian Bible, hell is a Xian concept, and according to Xianity people who do not embrace the Lord Jesus will end up there. The comment about accpeting Him warts and all is a reminder that Yahweh is a jealous assed God, if you don't worship Him and play by His rules He isn't going to hesitate in condemning you. So, accept that Yahweh is not this old fluffy grandad with a conscience, He is a vengeful, warrior God who has fought many battles alongside the Israelites. Xians have adopted this Semite god, a wrathful, jealous god, then they want to change His nature because they cannot cope with a god who would condemn what they see as an innocent baby! The OT is quite clear about what happens if you do not follow God's conditions, He has no hesitation in squashing you.

Anyway, why use a baby as an example, why not use a 55 year old severly mentally handicapped man who doesn't have the capacity to understand the gospel? Oh, of course he will not go to hell because it doesn't fit with what you want God to be. What is the problem with accepting that Yahweh is a jealous God who has throughout OT 'history' happily muredered men, women, and children, do you have a problem with worshipping a God who is like that?

Which "old covenant" are we refering to?

Noah's?

Abrahams's?

Moses'

Solomon's?

Well, all of these, plus quite a few others are part of the 'Old Covenant'. I was using 'covenent' in its simplest sense where the word for 'covenant', berit means "relationship". (Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible(1994, W.E. Mills (ed), Cambridge, p.181.)

Christians apparently have a new relationship with God, a new covenant. This is why we have a collection of texts called the New Testament. The word 'testament' in this context is the Latin word that was chosen as a translation of the biblical idea of 'covenant', in this context the word 'covenant' is taken as being an agreement between two people or parties (Reading the Old Testament, an Introduction (1984), Lawrence Boadt, Paulist Press, New York, p.19). So, the covenants with Abraham, Moses, et al, are all part of the old relationship (covenant) that God had with His people.

Now that I think of it, is the term "old covenant" even found in the Hebrew Scriptures?

Well, it isn't found explicity, but one day it will be the old covenant. The Jews do not have an "old covenant" because they are still enjoying the same one, but there will be a Jewish "new covenant" one day.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, all talk about a future covenant with Yahweh. (Isiah 61:8, Jeremiah 31:31-33, 32:40, Ezekiel 34:25, 37:26).

Or are we talking about the Christian perspective of the "older coventant" which Paul seems to refer to under Moses?

This would be the most accurate approach.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-29-2005 6:32 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-30-2005 10:39 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1532 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 37 of 303 (255593)
10-30-2005 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by ReverendDG
10-30-2005 1:58 AM


Re: Sheol/Hell
I agree that Sheol is equivalent to Hades, an underworld.

Unfortunately some Bibles translate Sheol as Hell. A Catholic Bible I have translates Sheol as Hell in the OT.

I was giving Mr. Ex a general direction.

I think I'm going to start a thread about Hell not being a place of eternal torment.


"When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country." -Elayne Boosler-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ReverendDG, posted 10-30-2005 1:58 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by iano, posted 10-31-2005 4:36 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

Jackie
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 303 (255598)
10-30-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Chiroptera
10-29-2005 6:31 PM


He certainly can do anything he wants.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 10-29-2005 6:31 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 39 of 303 (255602)
10-30-2005 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jackie
10-29-2005 6:25 PM


Sentiments are nice, but....
Hi Jackie,

Atheists will be welcome in heaven.

Why? God is a jealous God, see what He did to the Israelites during the period of the Judges when they didn't give Him full respect.

Babies don't go to hell ( there is no hell), I think most Christians are more progressive then that, this day and age.

Great, no reason to live a good life then?

If there is a God he will have to forgive us all because we are all imperfect.

So, I can look forward to sharing heaven with Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Marquie de Sade, and all the other evil humans that have ever lived?

If we will all be saved, why did Jesus have a three hour extravaganza on a cross?

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jackie, posted 10-29-2005 6:25 PM Jackie has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 15 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 40 of 303 (255643)
10-30-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
10-29-2005 1:21 PM


Ringo writes:

Allow me to refer you back to your (failed) analogy in Message 9: The soldiers who went over the top did obey the command. Even the ones who failed to reach their objective did obey the command.

Your expanding on the analogy unnecessarily. The analogy ends at going over the top - not whether you subsequently storm machine gun nests. Do you obey the command "go over the top" or not? If you do fine. If you don't shot at dawn.

And nobody obeys the command "Love God/Love your neighbour.

Obedience is not about 100% success. Never was. Never will be. Obedience is about doing your best.

Assertion that obedience means trying to obey seems to me to be self-refuting. No matter: the purpose of this thread is to offer the chance for "try" to be extracted from the bible on matters of obeying the law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 10-29-2005 1:21 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 10-30-2005 1:35 PM iano has not yet responded

iano
Member (Idle past 15 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 41 of 303 (255645)
10-30-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-29-2005 3:09 PM


Re: So Heaven is not about trying?
mrx writes:

Did Adam go to hell?

I haven't really checked out his story but recollect there is little said about him subsequent to his intro role. Whereas one might know someone (in the bible) is saved, a dearth of info doesn't mean they go to Hell. Anyway, Hell, as far as I understand it comes after Judgment - which hasn't happened yet

What do you feel was the end result of original sin?

I reckon it meant that every descendant of Adam gets the same (spiritual) genetic mutation. Sinful nature. There is no end result as such...it continues on its way today for those who are still spiritual descendents of Adam. The reason for the virgin birth was to break the mutant line, stop the infection transmitting to Jesus. Thus Jesus got the exact same chance that Adam got. A clean slate - free will only to obey or not obey.

Do you believe the "Spirit of God" referenced in the Hebrew Scriptures (aka Old Testament) is a reference to the Holy Spirit?

like "the spirit of God hovered over the waters?" Yup

What happens to babies if they die before they believe or know Jesus?

Don't know. "God wants that none should perish" How he does it for such babies or a sheep herder up the side of a mountain in Tibet, whose never heard the name Jesus I'm not sure. But I reckon he is able to find a way.

How were the Israelites of the Hebrew Scriptures saved from the damnation of hell if they didn't know Christ yet?

In the same way we can look back and trust God that he took action at a certain past time, to save us and forgive tomorrows sin, then, so the faithful in the OT looked forward to the time when God would provide a saviour. They wouldn't have seen it as clearly as we can but the characteristics are the same:

People trusting in God and not themselves, recognising sin in themselves. People believing God and it being credited to their account as rightouesness. Its an eternity thing...

If Jesus indeed takes on the wages of sin for us, does this also mean that he'll endure our hangovers for us too.

A man reaps what he sows in this particular case I'm afraid to say :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-29-2005 3:09 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16223
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 42 of 303 (255646)
10-30-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by iano
10-30-2005 1:02 PM


iano writes:

Your expanding on the analogy unnecessarily. The analogy ends at going over the top - not whether you subsequently storm machine gun nests.

So you arbitrarily cut off your own analogy where it ceases to illustrate your point?

Fine, let's look at the situation before your chosen cut-off point:

Do you obey the command "go over the top" or not? If you do fine. If you don't shot at dawn.

Suppose a soldier goes up the ladder, bullet through the forehead. Dead. Didn't make it up the ladder. Didn't make it to dawn. Shooting him again seems a bit redundant, doesn't it?

He did obey the order. He just didn't succeed 100%.

nobody obeys the command "Love God/Love your neighbour.

You've been given examples - Job, for instance - in whom "no fault was found". They did succeed 100%, according to the Bible.

the purpose of this thread is to offer the chance for "try" to be extracted from the bible on matters of obeying the law.

You need to pull your head out of... Romans... and look at the Big Picture: ALL of the Bible suggests that God is a "righteous and holy" father. Do you agree with that?

If you do, how can you even suggest that a father would demand more than their "best try" from his children?


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 10-30-2005 1:02 PM iano has not yet responded

Legend
Member (Idle past 3080 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 43 of 303 (255653)
10-30-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by iano
10-29-2005 12:40 PM


Jesus gave directions
Legend writes:


If what he said couldn't be achieved, then Jesus would have lied or intentionally mislead the audience and the man who asked him the question.

iano writes:

Non sequitur. Q: "How do I jump over the moon?" A: "Jump over the moon"

Maybe you're confused about what a sequitur is. Here's a definition from Merriam-Webster online:

quote:
sequitur: the conclusion of an inference

Your inference : Jesus gave the man directions that didn't lead to where the man wanted to go.

My conclusion : Jesus lied to the man.

Now, are you *sure* this is a non-sequitur ?!

---------------------------------------------------------------

iano writes:

Just to clarify the above point: if the directions are (and can only be): London? .....second right, is all useless...... if the person cannot read.

And if I know that the person cannot read yet I still give him written directions then that means that I don't want this person to get to London. Is that it ? Jesus didn't want the man to get saved ?!

Let me re-iterate my point: When the rich man asks Jesus how to get saved, he's not asking a hypothetical question. He's not saying "what would one do in the unlikely event one would want to get saved ?" If that was the case, then you might have a point that Jesus would give him the general directions without caring about whether they could be followed or not.

But that's not the case. The man wants to get saved. He's asking Jesus a direct and immediate question. He says "tell me what to do to get saved". And Jesus tells him. If he knew the directions he gave couldn't be followed then he lied to the man. Do you think Jesus was a liar ?

Let me ask you again: Someone wants to get to London and he asks me for directions. If I tell him "get on the M4, etc" knowing full well that the M4 is closed, then haven't I just mislead the man ?

Yes or No ?

This message has been edited by Legend, 10-30-2005 02:55 PM


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by iano, posted 10-29-2005 12:40 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-30-2005 10:48 PM Legend has not yet responded
 Message 49 by iano, posted 10-31-2005 5:06 PM Legend has responded
 Message 51 by iano, posted 10-31-2005 5:23 PM Legend has responded

Legend
Member (Idle past 3080 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 44 of 303 (255668)
10-30-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by iano
10-29-2005 12:40 PM


Re: Love with all your heart
iano writes:

Which part of the word 'Command' do you not understand?

the part where the command is supposed to be absolute, total and measurable.

iano writes:

Patently our version of love is a bit hit and miss compared to Gods standard.

True, but you know what - it doesn't matter! Jesus doesn't say "love your neighbour like God does", he says "love your neighbour like yourself". He says "love with all your heart and soul". *Yours*, not Gods.

iano writes:

Best of your ability is not in the bible. "Love your neighbour as yourself" is a command. There is neither heart/soul/mind nor any other clause that can be seen to diminish the command as being total.

How's the command total ?!?

Does it say "Love your neighbour as yourself, totally and without fault" ??

Does it say "Love your neighbour like God does" ??

It simply says "Love your neighbour as yourself". Clear and simple.

You're the one who's claiming that this implies total and unfaltering success.

You're the one who'll have to show me that it means "totally, continously and faultlessly".


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by iano, posted 10-29-2005 12:40 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by iano, posted 10-31-2005 5:45 PM Legend has responded

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 4623 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 45 of 303 (255717)
10-30-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Brian
10-30-2005 5:12 AM


Re: Different deals
Brian writes:

Hi X

Hi again.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Strange.

Where is there a reference to "hell" in the Hebrew Scriptures?

I thought the Christian concept of hell was stolen from the pagans.

Brian writes:

Who mentioned 'Hell' in the OT?

You are talking present tense, you said 'happens' not 'happened'.

No. I'm talking about your previous message in which the following is recorded...

Message 28 writes:


Mr. Ex Nihilo speaking to iano writes:

What happens to babies if they die before they believe or know Jesus?

Brian speaking to Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

They'll burn in Hell, if Xians want to steal another people's God then they need to accept Him warts and all.


Please note that I'm trying to debate with iano about the finer points of salvation within the generally assumed Christian contexts. You're apparently trying to throw the direction of my inquiry back into the finer (and more obscure) details found within the Hebrew Scriptures.

Message 28 writes:


Mr. Ex Nihilo speaking to iano writes:

How were the Israelites of the Hebrew Scriptures saved from the damnation of hell if they didn't know Christ yet?

Brian speaking to Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

The Israelites would be under the Old Covenant, while Christ offered a new salvic path under the conditions of the New Covenant.

Brian.


See how iano is stressing that only those who know Christ will be saved -- and see how I'm asking him how the people within the Hebrew Scriptures were saved if they didn't know Christ?

It seems to me that iano is indirectly admitting that the people of the Hebrew Scriptures knew Christ back then -- and that this "knowledge" was sufficient for salvation even though they didn't know exactly who they were worshipping.

Besides that, the Christian Scriptures, as I pointed out before, do not seem to make this critical distinction between before Christ and after Christ in regards to the co-heirship of the non-Israelites. Non-Israelites were apparently always co-heirs with the Israelites well before Christ came -- even if the Israelites and the non-Israelites did not know this.

I've already pointed this out (to iano) in Ephesians 3:4-6 NIV back in the Sola Scriptura thread: Message 98.

Furthermore, as I pointed out to iano, the Christian Scriptures note that sin is not taken into account when there is no law. In addition to this, the Christian Scriptures clearly sate that "all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law."

When I read a passage like "sin is not taken into account when there is no law", I'm reading someone who judges in proportion to what is revealed.

Similarly, when I read "all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law", I'm reading a passage which quite explicitly states that those who "know better" will be judged "more harshly".

What do these passages mean to you?

Brian writes:

So you are obviously talking about after the birth of Christ as you mention Him in your example.

To iano? Yes, of course I am. But my questions to him are not of the same nature as your questions to me.

Brian writes:

Thus, children, or anyone else for that matter, who were born before the birth of Christ had to have some other salvic path. They couldn't be 'saved' by an option that wasn't yet available to them. But, this idea of salvation is sometimes far different in the OT than it is in the NT, it is normally deliverance from a natural disaster, or from an oppressing nation, it is more of an historical salvation. But, there is eschatological salvation in the OT, however it is not that clear. There appears to be two different types of ES, one is the establishment of peace and co-operation between all nations (Isaiah 2:2-4, and Micah 4:1-4, the other is at the end of history (apocolyptic)where God will dispose of His enemies and reward the faithful.

Yes. I know all this.

What do you think David meant when he said he will see his son again -- the one who passed away after 7 days?

Brian writes:

In the context of the Xian Bible, hell is a Xian concept, and according to Xianity people who do not embrace the Lord Jesus will end up there.

And yet the Christian concept of hell bears a striking resemblance to the Greek concept of Hades -- more so than the Hebrew concept of Sheol. I will also note that Hades did not require specific beliefs in order to avoid its despair. One's actions were basically all that counted -- and good actions enabled you to avoid it.

I think a problem arizes within reading the Hebrew Scriptures within a Christian context. Although the tragic deaths and torments of those under the Israelite's law were seen as symbolic of being cast out, this doesn't necessarilly imply damnation later within the Christian context. Many people were executed back during the days of the Israelites for reasons of guilt that today (by Christian standards) they would no longer be considered guilty of.

To assume that physical execution under the "Old Testament Law" necessarilly equals spiritual damantion under the "New Covenant Gospel" is wrong in my opinion.

In the case of Noah and later Lot, we definitely see a kind of physical judgement from God which (in Christian Scriptures) is seen as being symbolic of spiritual damnation.

However, there are many other types of physical executions for reasons which, as I noted before, people would no longer be considered guitly of if they were living in the age of Christ. Even in the case of Noah and Lot, I'm also sure that some that perished were perishing for reasons that they had no control over. Ezekial quite plainly states that the soul that sins will die.

Brian writes:

The comment about accpeting Him warts and all is a reminder that Yahweh is a jealous assed God, if you don't worship Him and play by His rules He isn't going to hesitate in condemning you. So, accept that Yahweh is not this old fluffy grandad with a conscience, He is a vengeful, warrior God who has fought many battles alongside the Israelites.

Actually, I do picture God as vengeful, warrior God who has fought many battles alongside me in my most troubling spiritual times. Not sure where you get this picture of the Father Time/Aunt Jamima delux combo.

Brian writes:

Xians have adopted this Semite god, a wrathful, jealous god, then they want to change His nature because they cannot cope with a god who would condemn what they see as an innocent baby!

In your opinion of course. There's no doubt that innocent babies are slaughtered by people who are both for God and people who are against God. There isn't, however, justification, in my opinion, that punishment resulting in physical death under the "Old Testement" necessarilly equals spiritual death within the "New Testament".

If so, then one has to also wonder what the physical retributions (which did not result in death but rather a part of the body or a monetary sum for example) were symbolic of on "spiritual level" within the current age?

For example, does "paying a sum" or "serving time" equal a delay in one's entry into heaven after death due to some sin commited and not yet atoned for?

Brian writes:

The OT is quite clear about what happens if you do not follow God's conditions, He has no hesitation in squashing you.

Go tell that to Moses and Abraham, both of whom delegated with God in order to try to save others from punishment.

Brain writes:

Anyway, why use a baby as an example, why not use a 55 year old severly mentally handicapped man who doesn't have the capacity to understand the gospel?

Probably because I'm not aware of any 55 year old severly mentally handicapped man who doesn't have the capacity to understand the gospel within the Hebrew Scriptures.

When I was talking to iano about this, I was refering to pasages like this:

Deuteronomy 2:34 writes:


At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them -— men, women and children. We left no survivors.

and this...

Warm Fuzzy Passage of the Bible writes:


"O Babylon, you devastator,
Happy shall they be who pay
you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall be they who take
your little ones
and dash them against the rock!"

Brian writes:

Oh, of course he will not go to hell because it doesn't fit with what you want God to be.

Do you desire this poor old man to go to hell? :(

But I digress. The Christian Scriptures plainly state over and over again, and in various ways, that God judges in proportion to that which is revealed. It can be succintly stated in Jesus's famous words, "Forgive them Father, for they know no what they do."

Brian writes:

What is the problem with accepting that Yahweh is a jealous God who has throughout OT 'history' happily muredered men, women, and children, do you have a problem with worshipping a God who is like that?

Happilly? :confused:

Do you have a problem with worshipping a God who is like that?

It seems to me that you do.

Anyway, I guess I do have a problem with how you've presented God because in my reading of the Scriptures I don't see a God like the one you're presenting.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Which "old covenant" are we refering to?

Noah's?

Abrahams's?

Moses'

Solomon's?

Brian writes:

Well, all of these, plus quite a few others are part of the 'Old Covenant'. I was using 'covenent' in its simplest sense where the word for 'covenant', berit means "relationship". (Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible(1994, W.E. Mills (ed), Cambridge, p.181.)

Are we allowed to pick and chose which warts we're going to adhere too?

Maybe Christ is like the Compound-W of covenanted warts.

Brian writes:

Christians apparently have a new relationship with God, a new covenant. This is why we have a collection of texts called the New Testament. The word 'testament' in this context is the Latin word that was chosen as a translation of the biblical idea of 'covenant', in this context the word 'covenant' is taken as being an agreement between two people or parties (Reading the Old Testament, an Introduction (1984), Lawrence Boadt, Paulist Press, New York, p.19). So, the covenants with Abraham, Moses, et al, are all part of the old relationship (covenant) that God had with His people.

Yes, I know.

You do realize that I'm not asking this question because I don't know, correct?

I'm asking to see how much you know.

See...take a look below...

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Now that I think of it, is the term "old covenant" even found in the Hebrew Scriptures?

:D

Brian writes:

Well, it isn't found explicity, but one day it will be the old covenant. The Jews do not have an "old covenant" because they are still enjoying the same one, but there will be a Jewish "new covenant" one day.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, all talk about a future covenant with Yahweh. (Isiah 61:8, Jeremiah 31:31-33, 32:40, Ezekiel 34:25, 37:26).

And what covenant would that be?

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Or are we talking about the Christian perspective of the "older coventant" which Paul seems to refer to under Moses?

Brian writes:

This would be the most accurate approach.

Brian.

Yes, that would be the most accurate approach, wouldn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Brian, posted 10-30-2005 5:12 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019