Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 4:55 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, Tangle (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 4/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 84 of 161 (532406)
10-23-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Blzebub
10-23-2009 3:20 AM


Incorrect Information
quote:
The condition of having incorrect or false knowledge.
So which verse had incorrect information?
Please show evidence that the information was incorrect at the time of writing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 3:20 AM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 12:14 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 90 of 161 (532440)
10-23-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Blzebub
10-23-2009 12:02 PM


Re: Errors
quote:
This is what the thread is supposed to be about. A clear "mission statement" which sets out the rationale for belief: the bible is the word of god, and cannot be questioned. You appear to agree with my own opinion, which is that the bible was written by men, and contains numerous errors. So I don't understand why you are arguing with me.
Actually he said his rationale for justifying any of his beliefs. As I've said before, he isn't making a blanket statement like you are. Also notice he didn't mention a perfect God or that the Bible is without error or that God actually wrote the Bible. That's why I said: Before you can claim that an error in the Bible means God is not flawless, you need to connect God to the production of the Bible.

You are the one asserting that an error or contradiction in the Bible means God is not perfect (flawless). You haven't shown evidence to support that contention.

Yes, the Bible was written by men. I don't know about numerous errors, but odds are there are some true errors. I'm arguing with you because you're making unsubstantiated claims and aren't backing them up with any rational reasoning for your end conclusion.

Just like the deal with Lot.

quote:
The most recent defence of Lot's "righteousness" is certainly one of the most outlandish opinions I have ever seen from a religious apologist:
I'm not defending Lot's righteousness. You supposedly want to discuss contradictions that in your mind means God is not perfect, but you are actually comparing the Bible writings with today's morality. You not actually dealing with what is written. You are casting your own judgment on the actions of the characters.

In the story of Lot, he is not chastised for offering his daughters. The story doesn't deem him unrighteous for that action. It probably has something to do with the culture of the time, but the fact is the story doesn't make an issue of it. Now a later author has a certain point to make concerning righteousness and he doesn't make an issue of it either. You also have to remember that the average person in that time probably didn't have a Bible and by 100-160 CE, the author of 2 Peter was probably talking to Greeks who are not as familiar with the OT stories.

quote:
I think that if your argument reaches the point where it relies on an extremely unlikely (and frankly rather silly) premise, such as this suggestion of yours that in Lot's time, offering ones daughters to a rapacious mob was viewed as a righteous act, then the onus is on you to provide some evidence to support this premise, and not on me to refute it.
This is rich coming from the guy who won't provide evidence for his own assertions.

My attempt was to get you to think of the period the story was set in, but to no avail. It is irrelevant though, because the story itself does not deem him unrighteous for the offer. I don't see that it deems him unrighteous for what his daughter's did either. Bottom line: The actual story does not contradict what the author of 2 Peter was telling his audience. We may find the action repugnant and immoral, but that doesn't mean the verses contradict.

Learn the difference between contradictions/inconsistencies between dogma/tradition and what's written in the Bible and contradictions/inconsistencies between Bible writers.

Edited by purpledawn, : Typo


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 12:02 PM Blzebub has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 91 of 161 (532453)
10-23-2009 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Blzebub
10-23-2009 12:14 PM


Re: Incorrect Information
quote:
At least one of the two different threshing-floor prices must have been incorrect at the time of writing, and indeed at any other time. The price was already paid, and is an immutable fact (whatever the price actually was).
They could both be wrong. Who cares?

The point here is that you're getting stuck on a difference that is insignificant. It has no theological value. It has nothing to do with whether God is perfect or if the Bible is the word of God.

You're wasting time, trying to make issues out of nonissues.

All you're showing is that you haven't done your homework and are unable to objectively read the simple reading of the writings.

I'm probably the most neutral person here (IMO) when it comes to reading the Bible text. I'm not the most knowledgeable, but my belief system doesn't need protecting. Dogma is what I battle. Hell, I've argued that the fires of Hell have gone out and there is no eternal torment!

You have not made a case for your conclusion: If god is perfect, and the bible is god's word, then the bible must be inerrant (without error). If the bible is god's word, yet contains errors, then god is not perfect. Like I said, the Bible is not considered the word of God because it is inerrant. Before you can claim that an error in the Bible means God is not flawless, you need to connect God to the production of the Bible.

If what you want to show is that God is not flawless, then you picked the wrong way to go about it. You haven't or won't provide the evidence that makes the connection. Slamming God or Christianity is not support or evidence.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 12:14 PM Blzebub has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 94 of 161 (532486)
10-23-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Granny Magda
10-23-2009 3:05 PM


Short Off Topic for Thanks
Thank you GM and CS. It is nice to know that my thoughts (unorthodox as they are sometimes) are appreciated.

Now if I can blow out all my birthday candles tomorrow without melting my eyebrows, it will be a great ending to the week.

Thanks
PurpleDawn Purple


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Granny Magda, posted 10-23-2009 3:05 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Perdition, posted 10-23-2009 3:58 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 96 of 161 (532499)
10-23-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Perdition
10-23-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Short Off Topic for Happy Birthday
Thank you and I am glad you enjoy my posts. Granny did write an excellent post.

My sister surprised me with an early cake and had 6 little 50 candles. So apparently I'm going to be 300 years old!

Now back to the topic before I have to chastise myself.

Are there any real contradictions within the Bible that make any theological difference?

I'll have to look at one of those contradiction websites and see if they have any.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Perdition, posted 10-23-2009 3:58 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-24-2009 8:17 AM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 98 of 161 (532575)
10-24-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Granny Magda
10-23-2009 3:05 PM


Lot and Levite
quote:
I agree that Lot's actions come across as abhorrent to a modern audience. But the story wasn't written for a modern audience, it was written for a society where misogyny was the norm. That's the reason why Lot shows so much greater concern for protecting his male guests than for his own daughter. But it is not a contradiction. If anything, it is very much in line with the treatment of women in the Old Testament, i.e. piss-poor.
The story of Lot is probably just that, a story. (His wife turns to salt, the offspring of the daughters just happen to become the enemy tribes of Israel, etc.) What is interesting though is that that same scenario takes place in Judges 19 in an Israelite city.

In the Judges story, which is also just a story, the concubine was thrown to the wolves and didn't survive.
The Levite’s Concubine: The Story That Never Was

The article says the tale is used to show how corrupt Israel had become.

From a literary standpoint this scenario may just be a way of showing a place is corrupt, not that it really happened, since it was also used to show Sodom was corrupt.

I've read old folk tales, and they tend to be rather harsh. It makes one wonder if they are a totally true reflection of the times or an exaggerated reflection of the times. Writers tend to want the shock factor. Of course the early history of Israel may be more fiction than fact.

I do think it's dangerous when people take the stories as actual events and feel it is something to emulate. We don't follow outdated laws and ways today, so why would we want to follow laws and ways that are over 2000 years old? (rhetorical) Looking at the history of the Jews, their way and laws changed over time. The NT showed even further progress.

Religion changes over time, for better or worse, as the Bible shows. Originally the church of my childhood had two doors to enter through. The women through one door and the men through the other. They didn't sit together. That was changed before I was born, thankfully. Times change.

From our viewpoint today, these tales are an odd way to show corruption; but it may have been a significant marker for their time. We just have to remember that it wasn't written for us.

I haven't found a real theological contradiction yet, as opposed to a theological progression, from a contradiction list.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Granny Magda, posted 10-23-2009 3:05 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Blzebub, posted 10-24-2009 9:31 AM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 100 of 161 (532584)
10-24-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Blzebub
10-24-2009 9:31 AM


Kill or No Kill
quote:
My point wasn't necessarily to show so-called "theological" anomalies.
I'm not sure you really know what your point is.

quote:
But the kill/no-kill one still stands, IMO. If you accept the absurd defence that god was using men as a weapon against one another, then this clashes with statements that "god is a god of love".
Then let's actually discuss it.

#5 from the OP:

Blzebub writes:

5. God prohibits killing:

Exodus 20:13 (King James Version)

Thou shalt not kill.

God orders killing:

Exodus 32:27 (King James Version)

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

Deuteronomy 7:2 (King James Version)

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

My response from Message 8:

PurpleDawn writes:

Exodus 20:13 is a priestly writing and later than the Exodus 32:27 story.

Deuteronomy 7:2 refers to conquering/war. The law of not killing refers to people with the nation of Israel killing each other.

Iano's response from Message 23

iano writes:

Bzlbub writes:

5. God prohibits killing:

God prohibits man killing. Thou = man

God orders killing

God doesn't prohibit God killing. Thou not= God.

In this case God is the killer and man the weapon of Gods choice. Man isn't subject to the law which prohibits him deciding to kill off his own bat in this case (think of our own laws prohibiting killing yet that same authority can instruct us to kill (executioner/soldier))

Kbertsche's response from Message 34:

kbertsche writes:

quote:
5. God prohibits killing:

Exodus 20:13 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not kill.


"Kill" is a poor translation of ratsach; it should read "murder" as it does in most modern translations.

Unfortunately your initial responses in Message 26, Message 31, and Message 38 were less than stellar and didn't address what was presented by the responders.

Participants have shown you several times that you are viewing the text with modern eyes.

Iano actually explained the difference very well. You're looking at a difference between laws for individuals, laws that deal with punishment and laws that deal with war. Do you understand the difference? If yes, why do you feel the Nation of Israel didn't function the same?

Now when you say this clashes with statements like "God is a god of love" then you are looking at current theology, beliefs, views, etc. We aren't going to get anywhere if you can't admit what you're actually trying to debate.

As far as these verses go, you need to provide evidence that the God of the OT was only presented as a God of Love or that God can't love his chosen people and still help them fight their enemies. The Nation of Israel was a Theocracy, meaning God ruled.

Bottom line is, show evidence that our statements are wrong.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Blzebub, posted 10-24-2009 9:31 AM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Blzebub, posted 10-24-2009 1:18 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 101 of 161 (532586)
10-24-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by DevilsAdvocate
10-24-2009 8:17 AM


NT vs OT
quote:
My biggest issues as far as Biblical contradictions have to do with moral contradictions/inconsistencies with the nature of God i.e. how can the good, loving God of the NT advocate slavery, buchering innocent children etc in the OT. That would be worth discussing as well.
How can the United States claim to be a free country when it advocated slavery, slaughtering natives, etc. in their history.

If you read the history of the Jews, you see a nation battling the same battles as every other nation to survive. They struggled with changes in the world around them. They were influenced by those who conquered them. They had to make changes to stay in the game so to speak. Religion also has to change, laws updated, etc. the same thing other nations do. Was Israel any worse than the other nations of the time? Didn't several groups consider themselves to be special or the chosen people of their god? I think some Native American tribes did. We don't even know if these events happened as depicted. They may have been grossly exaggerated to make Israel look fierce.

The idea that God cannot or will not allow change is something that hurts Christians and I think it hurts the religion-free who try to understand this vocal religion. IMO, it is a misconception. The Bible shows change, why do we insist it can't? If the supposed goal is for man to behave better, they have to change and the religion with them.

Gods have changed from being personifications of nature to untouchable concepts that change to stay ahead of man's knowledge.

Why is the Christian God not allowed to change by those who are religion free? I know some Christians present God as unchanging; but, IMO, that more from their own insecurity.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-24-2009 8:17 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-24-2009 3:16 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 107 of 161 (532614)
10-24-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by DevilsAdvocate
10-24-2009 3:16 PM


Is God Unchanging?
quote:
If you are advocating the Bible as a historical account of the origin of the Israelite people than I have no beef with this and therefore no beef with your interpretation of the Bible.

However this is not the perspective many fundamentalist Christians have. How do I know? I used to be one.


It's a historical account from the religious viewpoint. Some religious views of 9/11 were different than the news version. I realize it isn't a fundamentalist view. Fortunately I've never been a fundamentalist.

Is God unchanging? That is the question.

quote:
I Samuel 15:29 "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."

1 Samuel 15:29 says that God does not change his mind, but we already know that he does. Genesis 2:17 and the story of Sodom of Gomorrah. So what does Samuel mean by his statement? Is he really saying that God never ever changes his mind?

Saul screwed up and wants to be forgiven, but Samuel tells him that God has rejected him as king over Israel. IMO, what Samuel is telling Saul is that God is not going to change his mind about Saul's kingship. God made Saul king of Israel and he has now changed his mind and taken that kingdom away because Saul rejected the word of the Lord. In verse 35 is says: ...And the Lord was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

I really don't think Samuel was saying that God never changes his mind about anything. That would negate the potential for a merciful God. IMO, God has to be willing and able to change his mind to grant mercy.

quote:
Malachi 3:6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."
Again we have to look at what is being discussed. The Lord does not change what or how. The issue at had is the faithfulness of Israel. Israel has been unfaithful. IMO, God is saying he hasn't been unfaithful (changed his faithfulness) and won't destroy Israel. By not destroying Israel, God is again changing his mind. He said in Exodus that they would be his people as long as they obeyed his commandments. According to Malachi they haven't been obeying his commandments and God still isn't going to destroy them.

quote:
James 1:17 "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."
(70-100CE) This is a sermon, dealing with trials and temptations. The author is telling his audience that God will not switch and give them bad gifts. Does that mean God doesn't change in any way, shape, or form?

quote:
And not only does the Bible say God never changes, it also says his word never changes:

Psalms 119:89 "Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens."

Psalms 119:144 "Your statutes are forever right; give me understanding that I may live."

Psalms 111:7-8 "The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy. They are steadfast for ever and ever,
done in faithfulness and uprightness"


These are from songs and are the feelings of the people of the time.

IMO, when people use the word forever, the usually mean beyond their own lifetime. They really don't know if something is going to last forever.

Looking at reality, the Nation of Israel didn't last forever, how can the statutes?

quote:
Matthew 5:18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
And yet in reality Christianity dumped the majority of the Law.

quote:
I Peter 1:25-25 "For, 'All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.' And this is the word that was preached to you"
We don't know what was preached to them specifically.

Of course the other question in all of this is, what is the word of God according to the Bible? It was mentioned in Samuel, which is before any of the prophets. We know what "word of God" refers to today (most of the time), but what exactly were they referring to back then? Were they referring to the scrolls? Have we change what the "word of God" refers to? Some use it to refer to Jesus Christ.

quote:
In addition, every type of Christian church I have been to (Independent Baptist, Southern Baptist, Independent Christian Church, Church of Christ, Methodist, etc) has stated that the character nature of God does not change and his word does not change. No this is not the entirety of Christiandom but it is a large segment of it.
They say it when defending beliefs or scripture, but do their actions reflect this belief?

I agree the Bible is stagnant. Once something is in writing it doesn't usually change and if protected will last a very long time, but we do know that the Bible has been changed through the ages.

The character and nature of God changes with man. They can always point to the Bible and say see it doesn't change. Well, duh. But when we look at what the various religions present, God's character has changed.

As for the nature of God, what is the nature of God?

quote:
To me, I just think you have a less literal interpretation of the Bible than many other Christians do.
There is a difference between literal and literalism. Most Christians don't view the Bible consistently one way. Most Christians don't really read the Bible.

I have a less dogmatic view.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-24-2009 3:16 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Blzebub, posted 10-25-2009 6:26 AM purpledawn has not yet responded
 Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-25-2009 7:51 AM purpledawn has responded
 Message 110 by iano, posted 10-25-2009 1:39 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 115 by Calypsis4, posted 10-25-2009 4:09 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 111 of 161 (532668)
10-25-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate
10-25-2009 7:51 AM


Re: Is God Unchanging?
quote:
I have even a less dogmatic view and that is that the Bible is a 100% human contrived work. Of course this is my belief, but it is a belief based on my life experience and the collection of historical and scientific evidence to date.
I agree. I saw it just by observing Christians. They don't necessarily practice in their day to day living what they preach or supposedly believe. (General observation of those who claim the loudest.)

I found it fascinating while looking at the Jewish religion, that when Rabbi's explain something they have no problem using legends. Abraham is the father of Judaism. We could drop the creation stories and the flood stories and it wouldn't alter Judaism supposedly. I've run into this story several times being used by Rabbis to explain how Abraham came to believe in one God. Using his own observation he decided the idols had no power.

Abraham, the son of the idol-maker Terah (Gen. R. xxxviii. 13), was, like his father, a thorough-going idolater, being chiefly devoted to the worship of the stone idol called Merumat ("Eben Marumah," stone of deceit and corruption). But on a journey to a place near Fandana (Padanaram), some of his idols were smashed, and having long felt misgivings as to their power, he became convinced of the unreality of such deities.

The legend continues with Abraham smashing or chopping up some wooden idols in his father's shop and when confronted by his father, Abraham said the one idol left standing was the one who smashed it. (There are variations on this theme.) His father didn't believe him, which shows even his father didn't really believe the idol had power.

That's what I see in many Christians. If I tell a preacher that God told me not to give money this week, he would scoff. If I would say that God gave me any instructions contrary to what they want or their traditions, they would scoff. God only speaks if it is in agreement with the established mind set, which is strange considering Jesus went against the established mind set in many instances.

The legends of the Jews seem to have the "rest of the story". I like some of the explanations given in Judaism. They refer to legends and the sages. Christians attribute everything in the Bible to God. So we have "the Bible says" or "God says". We lose the understanding of Paul talking or Isaiah talking, myths, poetry, etc.

quote:
Whether a supernatural deity called God exists or not, I feel, will never be answered 100% by science or any other human endeavor if he is truly outside the realm of our natural world. However, we can look at history so far and see a strong case that whatever people have called evidence for God, really is a sham, whether they realize it or not.
As a creative person, imagination is important. Now with a grandchild that imagination will be utilized even more. I've watched people make up explanations to fit what they saw or experienced or thought they saw or experienced, whether there is evidence for the explanation or not. My grandfather had a habit of doing that. I'm not even referring to fanciful stuff.

The ancients did the same thing. Gods were personifications of nature. The more man learns the more gods disappeared. Gods need to be moved beyond the realm of human knowledge. That's why God is out there where science can't see him. Science has already proved the existence of the ancient gods: planets and nature. Our planet and the nature on it is what sustains us. The sun never changes, east to west. Natural disasters don't care what god is worshiped.

quote:
Christians tend to rationalize any type of contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible in order to keep their worldview. Nothing wrong with this except that some Christians, like some other religious believers, overstep their bounderies and try to impose their worldview and moral authority onto other unwilling people. I say each to his/her own as long as you are not interfering with the freedoms and rights of other individuals.
I agree. Unfortunately Christianity was based on Paul and Paul was a salesman, so they are in perpetual sales mode. If you've ever been part of Amway, it seems like the same theme. IMO, preachers should be teaching practical behavior application and not continually selling the product to people who have already bought into it. The people shouldn't be selling the product, they should be examples of it.

quote:
The only reason I challenge Christians on this board is because they voluntarily come onto this board wanting to debate/discuss religious and scientific issues. If they don't like that, they don't have to be here. No one is forcing them to be on this board.
I challenge them to see the literary diversity in the Bible and what the authors were probably telling their audiences. Then they can see what lessons can be learned. I find lessons in all types of writings, religions, and experiences.

I agree, no one forces them to participate and several times I've suggested that if the Christian is uncomfortable with addressing the plain text and looking at the reality behind the Bible, they should abstain from the discussion. Usually they prefer to link me with Satan.

Take Care
Purple


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-25-2009 7:51 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-25-2009 2:26 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 112 of 161 (532669)
10-25-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by iano
10-25-2009 1:39 PM


Re: The Law vs. The Law
quote:
Rather than dumping the Law I think you'll find a change in
juristictions has come about in the life of a Christian. They are no longer subject to the 'law of sin and death' but have been transferred to a realm in which they are beholden to the 'law of the spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus'.

Whereas the penalty involved in breaking the law of sin and death .. is death, the penalty for breaking the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus is (largely speaking) knowing you've spat in the face of He who loves you.


Now there's the iano I know and love.

Remember we're in the science forum and I'm dealing with reality and the simple reading of the text.

I agree about jurisdiction, mainly because Paul dealt with the Greeks who weren't under Jewish law anyway.

As far as "law of sin or death", those are personifications. As you well know, Paul was very fond of personifications. Sin and Death do not have laws, unless you can list them for me. Sin doesn't pay wages either. The question is, what did Paul really mean?

To discuss the reality of this further, I would need to know which verses of Paul's you are actually looking at. I don't want to guess. I think this type of difference would still be on topic, since the originator doesn't really want to discuss what he provided.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 10-25-2009 1:39 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by iano, posted 10-25-2009 3:00 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 116 of 161 (532685)
10-25-2009 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Calypsis4
10-25-2009 4:09 PM


Re: Is God Unchanging?
quote:
This is an error. One might consider that God promised to bless Israel IF they would obey him and that they would see His continual care and concern IF they continued in what He commanded them. He did not change his mind: they did. So it was with Saul. Saul was anointed by God to be king but his administration was rejected when Saul did not live up to the terms of his appointment.
That's what I said. Saul screwed up and wants to be forgiven, but Samuel tells him that God has rejected him as king over Israel. IMO, what Samuel is telling Saul is that God is not going to change his mind about Saul's kingship. IOW, God is not going to give Saul back the kingdom. Samuel isn't saying that God never changes his mind on anything. He's saying that God isn't going to change his mind concerning his decision to remove Saul as king.

quote:
God never changes His mind about right vs wrong or good vs evil, but men do. God never changes His mind about His eternal promises but men do. However, when men rebel against God and do evil He will punish them in due time and that means that He can/does postpone the promises.
I'm not clear on what you're saying in relation to what I said. I am looking at the plain text. The NT has nothing to do with the plain text of the OT.

quote:
The Christians didn't 'dump' anything. What a wicked thing to say! They simply shifted gears from the law of Moses to the higher law of the Spirit. "the Law came by Moses by grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Also, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." Romans 8:2
Until you clean out the personification Paul uses, the verse by itself doesn't mean anything. You need to provide what you think Paul is saying. Paul does clear that up later starting with verse 5.

Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but hose who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

Death refers to immoral behavior or desires and life refers to moral behavior and desires. Paul isn't really dealing with what specific parts of the Mosaic law is or isn't to be followed.

I look at what the plain text is saying. Other than you didn't like the word "dumped" what is your point concerning what I had said or the topic?

Remember this is the science forum and evidence is needed to support your position.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Calypsis4, posted 10-25-2009 4:09 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Calypsis4, posted 10-25-2009 8:07 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 119 of 161 (532700)
10-25-2009 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Calypsis4
10-25-2009 8:07 PM


Re: Is God Unchanging?
Unfortunately you didn't respond to anything that deals with the topic or clarify your responses that I was unclear about. I don't see anything I can respond to that won't lead us off topic.

Please address the point of what I said and not just phrasing you dislike.

If you have an issue in another thread, address it in that thread please.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Calypsis4, posted 10-25-2009 8:07 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Calypsis4, posted 10-25-2009 9:04 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019