to Christians in this forum...

Leviticus 14 leaves no doubt that God causes leprosy. God also offers an absurd "cure" for leprosy. Do you believe this stupid treatment would actually work?

Since we're playing these little rhyming word games I thought I'd throw this one out: in Matthew 19:5 Jesus clearly approves of marriage and says it is not only desirable but necessary. But in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says marriage should be avoided. IYO, what would Jesus have said about Paul's words?

Mnenth writes:

quote:

---

leviticus 14 never says that god caused leprosy...

---

Go back and read verse 34.

quote:

---

it provides an old testiment method for healing, which doesnt apply anymore, since jesus came.

---

Where in the bible does it say that?

Mnenth observes:

quote:

---

1 corinthians 7 is Paul saying that people should stick with their husband/wife, and not go around sleeping (fornicating) with other people.

---

Indeed it is. However in the course of doing so, Paul makes it very clear that he feels marriage is an undesirable necessity. This represents a drastic difference of opinion between Paul and Jesus.EDITED to correct quote command error.[This message has been edited by berberry, 04-03-2004]

funkman cavils:

quote:

---

Regarding the subtitle of this thread, we should listen to both the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles because they are both God-breathed, and there are no contradictions.

---

According to Romans 1, Jesus was the son of Joseph. According to Matthew 1 it was the holy ghost. Is Joseph the holy ghost?According to John 2 Jesus approves of drinking wine. Paul, in Romans 14, clearly does not.A few other NT contradictions:According to 1 John 3 whoever abides in Christ does not sin. But Paul disagrees, as he says in Romans 3 that all are sinful. Does the word 'all' exclude Christians?According to 1 John 4 God is love, but according to Paul in Romans 9 God hated Esau. Are love and hate the same thing when it comes to God?Sorry if you want specific verses quoted. Whenever I do that, I get cursed for taking passages out of context. I do not wish that you should read any of my quotes out of context, so in most cases I will quote entire chapters. I don't think it should be necessary that I link the relevant chapters. Your statement above makes it quite clear that you know everything the bible says, so it would be redundant for me to provide links.

funkman writes:

quote:

---

From the way you throw verses around...

---

Earlier in this thread you said there were no contradictions in the bible. I cited a few mild ones and you accuse me of throwing verses around? You're not interested in debating, you want to preach.

quote:

---

I am surprised, then, that you cant' figure out the answers to these "contradictions" yourself.

---

In fact, you haven't said anything I haven't heard before, so yes, I do know the "answers", as you euphemistically call them.

quote:

---

Jesus did not have an biological father.

---

I disagree, but that's beside the point since you believe in magic. Still, even a magic man doesn't have more than one father. Either Joseph was the father or God was. Remember, the bible is supposed to be inerrant. It cites two different fathers for Jesus. That's impossible.

quote:

---

...the wine of Jesus' day was very watered-down...

---

Then why did Paul feel it was necessary to avoid it? How can watered-down wine be a "stumbling block" to faith?

quote:

---

The word "hate" as used in this Romans passage does not mean what you are implying it to mean.

---

Hate means hate, not unchosen. Point me to any reputable etymology that says otherwise.

quote:

---

So these examples of contradictions you cite are merely taken out of context...

---

I cite entire chapters and I'm still accused of taking things out of context? Just what constitutes "context" to you?

quote:

---

...or they are twisting of words.

---

You, with absolutely no justification at all, choose to redifine the word 'hate', and you accuse me of twisting words? Have you no shame?It's amazing how you fundies will resort to anything to support your fantasies of biblical innerancy. If there's no other way to explain a problem passage, you change the meaning of the words to suit your fancy. Not very clever, really.

funkman asks:

quote:

---

But even though you've heard these answers before, you still choose not to give them any credence?

---

It's not that I "choose" not to give them credence, it's that I don't see any credence in them.

quote:

---

Why do you disagree? Do you have some evidence to the contrary? And don't use an "every human has to have a biological father" argument - as you already noted, I believe Jesus was a "magic man."

---

Because if Jesus was indeed the son of God, then no human could be anything more than a step-father. Adoption is a legal term and I don't recall any passage stating that Jesus was ever adopted.This is a narrow point, I'll grant you, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

quote:

---

There are plenty of things that are not necessarily sinful that people can consider as stumbling blocks to their faith.

---

I never should have implied that this was a true contradiction. To me it seems more like a difference of opinion between Jesus and Paul. I still see it that way, but again, we will obviously continue to disagree on this.

quote:

---

The root of the Greek word used in this verse is "misew." The meaning of this word may not have carried the full force of the word "hate" that we use today. But even if it did, the word "hate" does have more than one meaning.

---

I am not a textual scholar, but as I understand it virtually all English translations of the bible say that God hated Esau. Hating a person is not the same thing as hating a vegetable. For the almighty God to hate anyone for any reason whatsoever is entirely inconsistant with the idea that God is all-loving. Love and hate are mutually exclusive.At the very least, your interpretation leaves open the overwhelming likelihood that God saw no reason to be precise with such a strong word as 'hate' when he wrote his inerrant book. It doesn't seem logical to assume that God would use such a word when he didn't really mean it.

quote:

---

Context is the entirety of Scripture.

---

Should I then quit citing anything at all and just give vague references to the bible itself? That doesn't make sense.