Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

I believe that you agreed that it would be wrong for us to commit genocide but you also agree that it is ok for God. Capital punishment is judgement, however it still requires somebody to carry it out, and even under judgement that act is going to harden the heart of the executioner and the God I worship is a god who wants to see our hearts softened.However we are covering the same ground over and over. I contend that we have to understand the Scriptures as a complete narrative, from creation to new creation. It is the story of God working through the hearts and minds of the humans He created. It includes history told from a specific point of view, there is poetry, beautiful allegories and so on, but it does all string together. In the scriptures we can see a multitude of different perspectives of different authors and we through it all we gain a picture of the nature of God, His desires for us and we get a broad idea of His long term plan for His creation. I think that when we try and understand the Bible as being inerrant we lose perspective on God and what He is doing. If however we understand it as a narrative of God working through imperfect humans we can gain the perspective that God wants us to have.Neither of us are ever going to have certainty. My starting point is the resurrection which leads me directly to the Gospels. I then go to the OT to understand the Gospel message as Jesus was Jew speaking to the Jews of the day in terms that were meaningful to them. I then look to the Epistles to understand what His followers understood of all that Jesus did and said. Their views would be important as they had access to people that been with Jesus and heard what He had to say which would encompass far more than what we have available today.My own imperfect understanding is based on the Jesus I see in the Gospels. I take on faith that the writers of the Gospel were not in error when they tell of Christ’s resurrection and I take on faith that their best efforts to record Christ’s message are very close to accurate in spite of there being minor inconsistencies in the accounts.As far as what happens at the end of time I’ll leave that up to God trusting in the fact that He is a God of mercy, love and justice and that those are the qualities that will be used when our hearts are judged. I trust in his justice to understand the heart of an infant who died before ever being able to make a moral decision - I trust in His justice to understand the heart of a murderer who had been brutally abused as a child — I trust in His justice to understand the heart of someone who was mentally ill and I trust in His justice to understand my heart even when my theology is off the mark.If God is a god as you understand Him who sanctions genocide and public stoning then to be very honest I’m fine with being judged on that basis as well. That isn’t where my heart is and as a result I'm be imaging Him properly so I guess I’ll be in trouble. But on the other hand I don’t want to spend eternity under the dictates of a that kind of god. I do however desire to spend eternity under the God we see who washed the feet of the disciples, and welcomed the outcasts to His table.

Rigthly so, because I mixed up the scriptures. The Old Testament guys (good and bad) all went to 'sheol' when they died. Elijah is the only one I am aware of who is described as being lifted up to heaven at the end of his earthly life without ever being dead or buried.

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO:
An eternal person cannot die. Being dead for just one minute results in an end to someone's claim to eternity. Jesus was dead for three days.

​

PURPLEDAWN:
Says who??????? Where are these rules for eternal beings????? The supreme being is not human, how do you know what constitutes death for such a being????

​

Where's your support that an eternal being who has taken human form, will cease being eternal because the human form died and the eternal being continued?

---

ALTER2EGO -to- PURPLEDAWN:
For someone who claims to not believe in the Trinity, you are sure doing a good demonstration of being a Trinity apologist. Now you have Jesus being the "supreme being." In reality, there are no scriptures in the Bible that describe him as such. The scriptures refer to Jesus Christ as the "Son of God," as the "Messiah," as the "Mediator," etc. But never is Jesus referred to as the supreme being, because the only supreme being in existence is Almighty God Jehovah.FYI: I gave two different definitions of "eternal" in this thread. If you would like to see them, read the very last post on Page 14 of this thread, as well as the very first post on Page 15 of this thread. Read both of the aforementioned posts a few times if you have to, and then reflect on what you've read. Maybe then it will sink in.

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO:
An eternal person cannot die. Being dead for just one minute results in an end to someone's claim to eternity. Jesus was dead for three days.

​

PURPLEDAWN:
Where's your support that an eternal being who has taken human form, will cease being eternal because the human form died and the eternal being continued?

---

ALTER2EGO -to- PURPLEDAWN:
I never said that. You are getting me mixed up with somebody else. I simply stated that an eternal person cannot die. That part about "the human form died and the eternal being continued" is something you read in somebody else's post and not mine.

This way of dismissing my claim as a fallacy always strikes me as a really cheap shot that would discredit all claims to categorize members of any group at all according to their defining characteristics. It seems designed to destroy a person's ability to think as a matter of fact if you aren't allowed to notice and define the peculiar characteristics that set apart the members of one group from another. In fact it's so bad I can't even think of a case that really IS a fallacy.So one couldn't for instance describe the members of any Indian tribe in a way which would distinguish them from members of any other tribe without being accused of committing this fallacy. Or members of any biological family or any other group of anything.Perhaps you can enlighten me by explaining clearly how my defining Christians according to their historical characteristics amounts to a fallacy? How is it any more fallacious, say, than defining one variety of chickadee from another] according to their distinguishing characteristics?Christians throughout history HAVE been distinguished by their adherence to the Bible as the only rule of authority, and those who call themselves Christians on any other basis are not Christians. Christians are also defined by belief in the Deity of Christ. There are other characteristics needed to refine the definition further but there is nothing wrong with the FORM of the definition. Even if you disagree with my definition, there is nothing wrong with it AS a definition, there is nothing fallacious about it.====================================================================================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Because it's just your own personal definition and it's a definition which excludes the vast majority of Christian groups, including the largest - Catholics. It's more akin to saying that a tiger is not a felid (cat) because you're a lion and only lions can be felids.As far as the real world is concerned there are many sub-sects of Christian, of which your particular sect is but one. You can attempt to define yourself out, but in doing so, you commit the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

That's nuts. The definition I give is historically true. Catholicism is NOT Christian although there may be some Catholics by the historical definition who are. Catholicism is in fact the very definition of Antichrist, and that is a historical fact.By your thinking there couldn't be such a thing as a heresy. Those who deny the Deity of Christ are NOT Christians, they are heretics. That's the HISTORICAL definition. Historically Christians have been known as "BIBLE BELIEVERS," that means those who think their own feelings trump the Bible are at least playing with heresy and may be over the line.I am very careful NOT to define Christianity by my "sect" which is Calvinist Baptist. I do not disqualify Arminians and paedobaptists from the definition. I define it in accord with the Creeds and Confessions which are not that limited.You don't know what you are talking about.But then you wouldn't be alone in that respect here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The definition of Christian is not someone who believes in the bible:Christian (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of JesusChristian - definition of Christian by The Free DictionaryBut of course, all Christians DO believe in the bible. They just don't believe in it the way you do.You just know that your opinion about everything is special and right - even though pretty much everyone on the planet disagrees with you from science to your religion. It's a weird place to be.

quote:

---

For someone who claims to not believe in the Trinity, you are sure doing a good demonstration of being a Trinity apologist. Now you have Jesus being the "supreme being." In reality, there are no scriptures in the Bible that describe him as such. The scriptures refer to Jesus Christ as the "Son of God," as the "Messiah," as the "Mediator," etc. But never is Jesus referred to as the supreme being, because the only supreme being in existence is Almighty God Jehovah.

---

Then you aren't paying attention. My contention is that the writers of the Bible did not dismiss the existence of other deities and would have no problem referring to the risen Jesus as a deity or divine being.I did not present Jesus as the supreme being. My argument has been that he is not YHWH. In the sentence you quoted I am talking about YHWH, not Jesus.My problem with you is the fiction you're presenting with no support. The meaning of the word eternal doesn't explain what constitutes death for a deity.You have been told several times that Jesus did not end. Otherwise who was Paul talking to???So I ask again, where are these rules for eternal beings??? What constitutes death for an eternal being???As for taking human form. I didn't say you said it, but in the the Book of John, Jesus is presented as an eternal being taken human form and you're the one saying that Jesus is an eternal being that died.That's why I asked, where's your support that an eternal being who has taken human form, will cease being eternal because the human form died and the eternal being continued?The definition of eternal doesn't tell us what constitutes the end for an eternal being.ABE: We really don't need fictional gymnastics to counter the 3 in 1 idea. The scripture and reality of the time do most of the work, IMO.Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

You don't know what you are talking about. Your dictionary definition is sadly lacking.What you call my "special" position, and my "sect" actually represents the MAJORITY of Christian churches. Just a few off the top of my head:Lutheran Missouri Synod,
Presbyterian Church in America (NOT PC USA),
Covenant Presbyterian,
some Anglican (admittedly not many these days),
some Methodists (same as Anglican),
Wesleyan,
Southern Baptist,
Independent Baptist,
Fundamental Baptist,
Church of the Nazarene,
Calvary Chapel,
Assembly of God,
many, perhaps most, independent Bible churches and Community churches,
Christian and Missionary Alliance churches,
Congregationalist,
and let's also include the Amish and the Hutterites because their basic beliefs are in line with the others,
and the European groups the Waldensians, the Albigensians, the Huguenots.
There are many more but these are off the top of my head and they represent thousands of churches and millions of believers. What makes them Christian is their STATEMENTS OF BELIEF, their belief in the inerrant Bible, their belief in the Deity of Christ.THAT's how I'm using the term "Christian." Your dictionary definition is way too vague, leaving it open for all kinds of heretics to claim to be Christian.What makes Catholicism NOT Christian?They put Church tradition on the same level as the Bible and in fact in practice tradition usually trumps the Bible
They put the Pope on the level of God. "Vicar of Christ" puts him on the level of the Holy Spirit who alone according to scripture deserves that title.
They call him "infallible." Nobody is infallible but God.
Praying to "saints" and "Mary" This is pure paganism
Requiring celibacy of their priests, which has led to rampant sexual immorality throughout the history of the "Church," both heterosexual and homosexual. The Bible specifically refers to "forbidding to marry" as an offense that some in the "Church" will come to embrace.
Covering up the criminal actions of the pedophile priests and paying bribes for silence by the thousands
Also "forbidding meats" which at least up until Vatican II they did on Fridays.
Treating Mary as a special intercessor; Christ is according to scripture our Intercessor.
Imputing immaculate conception to Mary; Christ alone was conceived pure
Calling Mary Co-Redemptrix with Christ; Christ alone is our Redeemer.
Transubstantiation or the magical transformation of a piece of bread into the actual body of Christ
Not sharing the cup of wine with the congregation, only the bread
Indulgences; Yes they still have them
Praying for the dead; people paying for masses for the dead
The Mass itself, a resacrifice of Christ; that is blasphemy
The belief that they have the right to persecute, torture and murder people they call "heretics" according to their false doctrine. Yes, this is still canon law.
Their denial of salvation by Christ alone through faith alone, in fact they anathematize/curse those who believe this
Their accumulation of vast wealth which they hoard
Their ambition to recover the worldly power they had in the "Holy Roman Empire."
They are a political entity as well as a religion, seeking worldly domination.
They've historically supported the murdering Catholic tyrants, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, the Croat leader, can't ever remember his name, and many others, many Catholic tyrants whose Catholicism is ignored by the media. They considered Hitler to have been doing the work of the "church" as a "Christian" in his murders.
Their weird garb goes back either to pagan Rome or to Babylon. What's Christian about all that finery, those jewels etcThat's just a few of the reasons off the top of my head why Catholicism is anything but Christian.======================================================================================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is rank rotten heresy which violates both letter and spirit of scripture as I have described here more than once, and you will not find anything in any of the historical writings to support such a foul idea.

Maybe you don't realize it but to those of us who are not Christians there isn't much difference between the various brands that call themselves Christians. It's like arguing whether Bigfoot is a blonde or a brunette.As far as we, the majority, are concerned, if the Catholics call themselves Christians, they're Christians. The "historically true" definition is less important than the working definition.

Then let's try the Wiki So, not surprisingly, a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ. It's always been a bit of a puzzle to me why there are so many different Christian sects believing different things - some 30,000 apparently, but regardless of that, your particular belief is obviously not in a majority.The wiki has it as:Catholic 1.2bn
Protestant 600-800m
Eastern Orthodox 230m
Anglican 85m
Oriental Orthodox 82m
Restorationism 0.6m
Unitarian 0.6mI'm afraid I can't tell how many of the 600-800m Protestant sects you agree with - but you'll find the list here so you can establish the extent of your minority:List of Christian denominations by number of members - WikipediaOf course, if you simply declare those denominations that you disagree with 'not true Scotsmen' you will have a 100% majority.

Yes, I'm aware of that and it certainly is a difficulty that I don't know how to surmount. You have at EvC some true Christians but a lot of people who call themselves Christians whose actual beliefs don't fit the description. Surely it matters what the truth is whether you believe any of it or not, but getting across what the truth is meets with objections here that are not exactly built on a mere interest in the truth but formed out of hatred for Christianity, hatred for religion, and preconceived notions. Unitarians are NOT Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT Christians, Mormons are NOT Christians, the Roman Church is NOT Christian. There are reasons why that can be spelled out. It seems to me it should be a simple matter of acquiring information, but the prejudice against my beliefs is a barrier that I can't get through. But there are objective criteria that I've been trying to spell out that would inform you if you were willing to learn it. There is thread after thread after thread here about religious questions of every kind, most of them argued by Christians or by "Christians." Some of it is pure nonsense. If you read these threads at all wouldn't you like to understand what's true and what isn't? Isn't that the point of debate, supposedly? Or is it just to win points and who cares about the truth?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : quEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why don't you consult a Christian source instead of Wiki which gets all kinds of apostates and heretics to write its stuff?