--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi XFrodoBagginsX,
You seem to have a firm grip on the Bible...
Respectfully, I submit a few questions that have troubled me when I read the Bible.
Some of these questions are from my own life, others are from various acquaintances I have encountered over the years.
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
Under the law you were if you were a Jew. We are no longer under the law, but under grace as romans clearly states, therefore it would be murder for you to do so.
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
Now I am sensing some sarcasm here. We are no longer under the law. Also, I don't believe that God was condoning it, but that He was agnoledging that it went on and putting conditions on it at that time. No you shouldn't.
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Under the law, no longer pertains to us.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
More sarcasm, God wasn't condoning slavery just putting conditions on what was inevidably going on.
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
I love shrimp myself. Since homosexuality is listed as a sin under grace it is still a sin. Since shellfish is not listed under grace, could you pass the shellfish please?
My teenage son became rebellious, disobedient, and drank and ate too much. I knew that the Bible required me to gather my neighbors together and take my unruly son to the edge of the city and stone him to death (Deut. 21:21). Should I have obeyed the Bible?
You should obey the bible and not murder Him, since we are no longer under the law. If we were under the law, then I would say stone away.
My neighbor suspects his young vivacious wife with infidelity. He is consumed with jealously just thinking about this. His wife denies his accusations. The Bible (Numbers 5:11-31) provides a way to reconcile this dilemma for the couple. What it allows, is, for the husband to take his wife to the priests, or rabbis, and have her fed poison. If she is innocent she will not be harmed. If she is guilty she will get what she deserves; her insides will bloat and her thighs will rot away and she won't be able to have any more children (they already have five). My question to you is: "Do you believe this a failsafe way for my neighbor to handle this problem?"
More law verses. We are not under the law. Do you ever read the new testiment? Read Romans Read 1 and 2 Corinthians. Read Acts. Read the new testiment.
I recently heard of someone who has come down with leprosy, of all things. According to the Bible (Leviticus 14:1-8), the first step in cleansing leprosy is to have the priests or rabbis to kill a dove and spill its blood into an earthen bowl. Then the priest or rabbi is to take a live dove and, dip it in the bowl of the blood of the first dove. Then the live bird is to be loosed in the fields. If this doesn't work one can take a larger more expensive animal, such as sheep, and do a similar exercise (the priest gets to eat the meat). Would you advise that this person to follow the Bible's advice?
You must live in Africa since I don't know of a single case in the world other than there. Also it isn't even the same disease as back then. We are not under the law read the new testiment.
My spouse, -- "the wife of my bosom" -- for some 57 years, has, in recent years, sought comfort and solace in some aspects of the "New Age" religions. She has talked repeatedly and glowingly, to me, other members of our family, and people generally, about the joy and contentment she finds in some aspects of this. Sometimes I fear she may be becoming a later-day pagan. She has definitely turned away after other gods. I am told (Deut.13:6-11), in no uncertain terms, that I must personally kill her, lest she contaminates me and others with these gentler, un-God like, non-biblical beliefs. I really don't want to stone her to death. Our children and our grandchildren love their mother and grandmother very much, and are opposed to my killing her, refuseing to help me as they are required to do. After all she is her children's mom. Is there any way out of this for me?
We are not under the law. If you had read the whole bible for yourself you would have known that.
I have two brothers who pre-deceased their wives. One of these women was childless. I understand that it was my duty as the husband's brother (Deut. 25:5-10), to go in unto this childless sister-in-law, and bed her, and take her as my wife and bring up an heir for my poor dead brother. Did it matter that I was already married? Did it matter that my wife took a dim view of my actually doing this?
Did you expend all of this energy just to prove me wrong? Now that you have a firm grip on the law, read the new testiment which states that we are no longer under the law, but under grace. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law.
XFRODOBAGGINSX wrote:nothing that you have said proves that the bible contracts it's self. All it proves is that the different authors wrote it from different perspectives.
Here is a great example:
Mt 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Mr 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Lu 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Joh 19:19 ¶ And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Put them all together and they say:
THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
There is NO contradiction, just 4 different perspectives. If anything, this VALIDATES the word of God, not disproves it.
Your assertion that there is no contradiction is absolutely ridiculous. It has nothing to do with author perspective, it is BLATANT contradiction. I have no idea why you quoted the passages you did. It would've strengthened your argument much more had you used any of the 6 examples I presented to you.
There is THREE different versions of Jesus' last words. How many last words can you have? Did he die three different times on the cross (actually it was most likely a stake, there's no evidence he died on a T shaped apparatus.)?
Did one of the dying thieves believe in Jesus? It's a simple Yes or No answer. If one person says Yes (Luke) and two people say No (Matthew and Mark) isn't that a contradiction?
Did he drink on the cross? Again a Yes or No answer. Some (Luke, Matthew) say Yes while another (Mark) says NO. That's not a contradiction?
How many people were at the tomb? John is pretty adamant that Mary Magdalene was the only one there. The other writers list two, three, even four or more people being present.
The death and resurrection of Jesus is pivotal to Christianity yet it is absolutely impossible to reconstruct the events in any sort of intelligible manner using the bible. It simply cannot be done.
If those six examples were not satisfactory for you I'd be more than happy to provide more examples for you.
XFRODOBAGGINSX,
Thank you for the reply. Though, I don't know why you have to get upset when I ask about Biblical Passages? I thought that is what you are offering to answer.
The title of the thread you posted is "How to Get to Heaven" so I am asking you questions regarding this.
Why do you seem angry?
Anyway, it seems you are saying pretty much to ignore the Old Testament? Or are you saying just ignore parts of it?
I don't know why you think I am being sarcastic. We are talking about our souls! It seems like if I am going to base the fate of my soul on a book, I should truly understand it.
Moving on to the New Testament:
In the New Testament, Jesus says:
Matt 5:29-30
"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
My right hand and my right eye have indeed offended me at different points in my life. Am I morally obligated to cut off my hand and gouge out my eyes and throw them away?
And please don't tell me that "this wasn't meant to be read literally." If that is the case, we can read the entire Bible as an allegory or a symbolic tale or something and when it is written "Do not fornicate" well we could just say "that wasn't meant to be read literally."
I mean, who decides which passages to read literally and follow closely, and which passage to say "oh, no, I don't really like that passage, it must mean this instead...."
***
Re: Old Testament, you said that we should read the New Testament and do not do the laws of the Old Testament.
What do you think of this:
(Matthew 5:17-20) Jesus says: "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. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 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. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
It appears to me here he is saying to still follow all the laws of the Old Testament. Are you telling us we don't need to anymore?
I'm new to this thread and am quite impressed by the bible knowledge articulated here. What I can't understand is why everybody thinks the choice is between heaven and hell. The bible clearly states that the choice for Adam and Eve was life or death. If they had obeyed they would still be here and we would have no war, crime, sickness or death. If there were a worse punishment (hell) than death do you not think that God would have warned Adam and Eve of it?
Solomon reiterates that concept in Proverbs 2:21,22 when he says "For the upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it."
Wasn't it Jesus who said the meek shall inherit the earth?
I understand that there are some from earth who will be taken to heaven where they will rule as kings and priests over the earth. (Revelation 5:10) This is apparently a number smaller than the number of those governed.
So, what's the problem with living forever on earth? It seemed desirable enough for many angels to forsake their heavenly position before the flood.
And what makes you think that a loving God would roast one of his creatures in hell? You've got to be kidding.
extra medium wrote:In the New Testament, Jesus says:
Matt 5:29-30
"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
My right hand and my right eye have indeed offended me at different points in my life. Am I morally obligated to cut off my hand and gouge out my eyes and throw them away?
And please don't tell me that "this wasn't meant to be read literally." If that is the case, we can read the entire Bible as an allegory or a symbolic tale or something and when it is written "Do not fornicate" well we could just say "that wasn't meant to be read literally."
I mean, who decides which passages to read literally and follow closely, and which passage to say "oh, no, I don't really like that passage, it must mean this instead...."
Jesus also said something about it being easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle. He was a master of similes and hyperbole. Are we not able to understand that if there is anything in our lives preventing us from following the word, we should remove it? Our eye might not cause us to sin, but our desire to watch TV might be strong enough.
Don't get me wrong, there is such a thing as spiritual fornication. It's just not what Jesus was talking about when he used the above illustration.
neologist wrote:extra medium wrote:In the New Testament, Jesus says:
Matt 5:29-30
"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
My right hand and my right eye have indeed offended me at different points in my life. Am I morally obligated to cut off my hand and gouge out my eyes and throw them away?
And please don't tell me that "this wasn't meant to be read literally." If that is the case, we can read the entire Bible as an allegory or a symbolic tale or something and when it is written "Do not fornicate" well we could just say "that wasn't meant to be read literally."
I mean, who decides which passages to read literally and follow closely, and which passage to say "oh, no, I don't really like that passage, it must mean this instead...."
Jesus also said something about it being easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle. He was a master of similes and hyperbole. Are we not able to understand that if there is anything in our lives preventing us from following the word, we should remove it? Our eye might not cause us to sin, but our desire to watch TV might be strong enough.
Don't get me wrong, there is such a thing as spiritual fornication. It's just not what Jesus was talking about when he used the above illustration.
Since you brought up that parable it is interesting to note, that parable is mistranslated. This story was told to a fishing village and in this village the word used in the context of their culture did not mean camel but a thick piece of rope. So what Jesus really said to them is, "It is easier for a piece of rope to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." Something to that affect which makes a lot more sense than comparing a camel to a needle. Kind've scary to think what other mistranslations have occurred through time if a word like "rope" can be misconstrued into "camel."
SN95 wrote:
Since you brought up that parable it is interesting to note, that parable is mistranslated. This story was told to a fishing village and in this village the word used in the context of their culture did not mean camel but a thick piece of rope. So what Jesus really said to them is, "It is easier for a piece of rope to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." Something to that affect which makes a lot more sense than comparing a camel to a needle. Kind've scary to think what other mistranslations have occurred through time if a word like "rope" can be misconstrued into "camel."
Interesting and thank you for the info. It is hyperbole, nevertheless.
More information on camel: "A question has arisen as to whether "camel" should not be more correctly rendered "rope" in this instance. In fact, George M. Lamsa's translation uses the word "rope" in the main text, and a footnote on Matthew 19:24 reads: "The Aramaic word gamla means rope and camel." Also, the Greek words for rope (ka´mi·los) and camel (ka´me·los) are very similar, and it has been suggested that there was a confusion of the Greek words. It is noteworthy, though, that A Greek-English Lexicon (by Liddell and Scott, revised by Jones, London, 1968, p. 872) defines ka´mi·los as "rope" but adds that perhaps it was coined as an emendation of the phrase, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," thus indicating that ka´me·los, rather than ka´mi·los, appeared in the original Greek text." (Insight on the Scriptures, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988, Vol 1 p.395)
neologist wrote:extra medium wrote:In the New Testament, Jesus says:
Matt 5:29-30
"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
My right hand and my right eye have indeed offended me at different points in my life. Am I morally obligated to cut off my hand and gouge out my eyes and throw them away?
And please don't tell me that "this wasn't meant to be read literally." If that is the case, we can read the entire Bible as an allegory or a symbolic tale or something and when it is written "Do not fornicate" well we could just say "that wasn't meant to be read literally."
I mean, who decides which passages to read literally and follow closely, and which passage to say "oh, no, I don't really like that passage, it must mean this instead...."
Jesus also said something about it being easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle. He was a master of similes and hyperbole. Are we not able to understand that if there is anything in our lives preventing us from following the word, we should remove it? Our eye might not cause us to sin, but our desire to watch TV might be strong enough.
Don't get me wrong, there is such a thing as spiritual fornication. It's just not what Jesus was talking about when he used the above illustration.
See there you go. I respect your posts a lot. But here you are saying you know what Jesus really meant. How do you know this?
So for example, I can say: When Jesus says do not be a fornicator, I can say "He meant don't do it too much, or be discreet about it and its okay. Thats what he meant. It was hyperbole and simile. "
See: Who are you (or anyone) to decide when it is hyperbole and simile, and when it is to be taken literally?
When he talked about loving your neighbor, perhaps that meant just be a little bit nice to them but don't really help them much...that was hyperbole and simile.
Who are you (or anyone) to decide when it is hyperbole and simile, and when it is to be taken literally?
Jesus gave an example of what "love thy neighbor" meant in Luke 10:29, the parable of the Good Samaritan. Good reading.
The Jews evidently knew the definition of fornication, since they were to execute those guilty of it. Likewise, Christians were ordered to put fornicators out of the congregation (a type of spiritual death).
True Christians today exert themselves to show a Christian personality. We are well aware of the consequences of fornication and adultery: disease, parentless children, not to mention the hurt inflicted on an innocent spouse. A true Christian cannot possibly practice these activities and expect anything from God.
Neologist,
I am curious as to what your definition of a "true Christian" is?
SN95 wrote:Neologist,
I am curious as to what your definition of a "true Christian" is?
The outstanding trait of true Christians is the love they have for one another. "By this," Jesus said, "all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves."(John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 13.) Look around and see what you find. Behind every abomination of human history stands some priest or cleric with blood stained hands.
True Christians look for the truth in the bible untainted by the god-dishonoring philosophies which have crept into the sects of nominal Christianity. A few of them are:
Belief in a trinity
Belief in an immortal soul
Belief in a burning hell
There's more, but I have a feeling I could become very busy substantiating these.
neologist wrote:
There's more, but I have a feeling I could become very busy substantiating these.
Not to mention transubstantiating them.
extra medium wrote:neologist wrote:
There's more, but I have a feeling I could become very busy substantiating these.
Not to mention transubstantiating them.
Don't have to. There's no such thing.
neologist wrote:extra medium wrote:neologist wrote:
There's more, but I have a feeling I could become very busy substantiating these.
Not to mention transubstantiating them.
Don't have to. There's no such thing.
It appears that some Christians do not agree with you on this. Are they not
"Real Christians" in your opinion?
Transubstantiation
Transubstantiation is the alleged process whereby the bread and wine offered up at the communion service has its substance changed to that of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ while its accidents appear to be that of bread and wine. What looks like, tastes like, etc., bread and wine is actually another substance altogether. Transubstantiation is also known as the doctrine of the real presence.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
I can see after having been a member for a short time that my views are not shared by many, if any.
That doesn't surprise me. I look at organized religion as a cancer. The clergy have oppressed humankind for centuries. Their judgment, foretold partially in Zechariah 13:4, is vividly described in Revelation Chapters 17 and 18.
BTW, transubstantiation, like the words trinity and rapture does not appear in the bible.
neologist wrote:I can see after having been a member for a short time that my views are not shared by many, if any.
That doesn't surprise me. I look at organized religion as a cancer. The clergy have oppressed humankind for centuries. Their judgment, foretold partially in Zechariah 13:4, is vividly described in Revelation Chapters 17 and 18.
BTW, transubstantiation, like the words trinity and rapture does not appear in the bible.
Neologist,
I know what you mean...well it seems like not many agree with me either. But the good thing about this place is we can try to clarify our beliefs, test them and perhaps re-evaluate our thoughts and learn from one another.
Please know I am not trying to attack you, etc. We're just on a journey for some kind of truth, hopefully.
We don't have to agree...
Take one easy example: Did the 12 apostles agree 100% on everything Jesus-related? It appears not. Oh it could probably be argued they agreed on the big overriding concepts, but it also appears they had some differences of opinions on a lot of the details.
So, if the 12 original apostles didn't agree on all this type of stuff, and they were right there and the chosen ones so to speak, how can millions of people thousands of years removed from the situation be expected to agree on all this stuff. Sometimes it amazes me that as many people still agree on as much stuff as they do agree on.
I still respect what you have to say--a lot.
extra medium wrote:
Take one easy example: Did the 12 apostles agree 100% on everything Jesus-related? It appears not. Oh it could probably be argued they agreed on the big overriding concepts, but it also appears they had some differences of opinions on a lot of the details.
So, if the 12 original apostles didn't agree on all this type of stuff, and they were right there and the chosen ones so to speak, how can millions of people thousands of years removed from the situation be expected to agree on all this stuff. Sometimes it amazes me that as many people still agree on as much stuff as they do agree on.
I still respect what you have to say--a lot.
It should be noted that the original 12 included Judas and no, they didn't agree on everything. I find it reassuring they were able to admit that right up until the death of Jesus they would have arguments as to who was greater. It certainly speaks for their humanity. And, really, the NT writers could have omitted these incidents or glossed them over to make themselves look better. Instead they focused on the good news (gospel) and worked very hard to spread it. And what is the good news? Part of the answer may be found in what is commonly called the Lord's prayer:
Jesus died so that:
God's name would be sanctified (Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18 Ezekiel 36:23) Satan challenged God's sovereignty, His name, His right to be God.
God's kingdom would be established (Daniel 2:44) A real government, not a condition of one's soul.
God's will would be done on earth (Psalm 37:10, Proverbs 2:21, Luke 23:43) God intended for mankind to live forever on earth.
That our sins could be forgiven. (Romans 5:12, John 3:16)
Any intelligent person who accepts the bible without question the first time it is presented strikes me as being at best credulous. My children accepted what I told them at first because they didn't have the experience to question. Then, as they matured, they would ask the logical questions so we could arrive at an answer. An adult should soon come to an understanding of what is meant by 1Thessalonians 5:21. To wit: "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine."
neologist wrote:I can see after having been a member for a short time that my views are not shared by many, if any.
That doesn't surprise me. I look at organized religion as a cancer. The clergy have oppressed humankind for centuries.
This statement I absolutely agree with.
Quote:Their judgment, foretold partially in Zechariah 13:4, is vividly described in Revelation Chapters 17 and 18.
BTW, transubstantiation, like the words trinity and rapture does not appear in the bible.
This, much like many of your other posts, is where your beliefs puzzle me. You equate organized religion with oppression yet you quote from the bible in the next breath. Do you not agree that the bible as we have it today was decided upon and formed by the very oppressors whom you despise?
Quote:True Christians look for the truth in the bible untainted by the god-dishonoring philosophies which have crept into the sects of nominal Christianity
The bible, when looked at as a collection of works from various authors, is already tainted. If not by the simple fact that the works that were deemed "inspired" were not judged by God, Jesus, or the disciples but by a ruthless murderous Roman emperor. Why after so much discovery in the last century must we still confine ourselves to this single work. What of the gnostic gospels found at Nag Hammadi? What of the Pagan religions that preceded Christianity (the originators of the Christ mythology)? Are they to be excluded simply because a roman emperor in 325 CE deemed their works unnecessary as it did not fit with his political agenda?
Terry wrote:Frodo, do you really think that a just God would design us such that it is impossible for us not to sin, and then punish anyone who did not believe that he impregnated a Jewish woman and worshipping her son is the only way to heaven?
Ask yourself what Jesus "saves" us from, if not the irrational wrath of a God who blames us for his own shortcomings.
Why did Jesus have to be sacrificed, anyway? We can forgive those who sin against us without demanding that someone die first. Are we that much better than your God?
Hard to count the number of distortions and misrepresentations of Christianity in your post, but there's a bunch.
Why don't you tackle Christianity head on, instead of setting up straw men?
Seriously, can you not admit the existence of evil in the world? It would seem obvious that mankind is not getting better, but worse. The most recently completed century topped all for mass murders by tyrants, many of them Communist (atheist). Bad company, indeed.
To answer your question then, since it is obvious that evil exists as a human malady and that mankind has not been able to rid itself of evil: God saves from sin.
Sin is defined as evil. Not behavior that is evil by your definition or mine, since both would be self-serving. Evil is that which God says it is, and no less.
If you have never done evil, then you have nothing to worry about. Let the rest of us who do sin ask God for forgiveness.
