So how are we to determine which action to believe in a case as mentioned before, where in the old testament, God tells us to kill, or shows us that killing is acceptable through his own actions, yet in the Old Testament not much later, God tells us that "Thou Shall Not Kill". If we are to believe every word as literal, how can we explain this contradiction?

I think the meaning/intent in your examples is basically the same and see no differences.

 

I think studying the intention is acceptable as the apostles did that when Paul called Peter out for (if I remember right) what he was eating.

 

I think when you question God's Word is when you read something, don't like it and say "I ain't believing in that." Then it becomes your religion and not Christianity.

 

I'm fine with that response but I hope you see what I was saying about your earlier post. You were using that usual phrase of "Believe all or doubt it all." That to me is often used by those who refuse to entertain discussion/debate concerning scripture because they just don't want recognize that scripture may be interpreted in a different direction than my own.

 

BTW, as to a differences on John 14:2, talk to some older people who absolutely demand "a mansion" from Jesus and not some room. Even though the word literally only means "an abiding place."

 

As to Romans 16, there is intense debate/discussion on women roles there that some would hold as "my interpretation" or you just don't believe the Bible.

I'm fine with that response but I hope you see what I was saying about your earlier post. You were using that usual phrase of "Believe all or doubt it all." That to me is often used by those who refuse to entertain discussion/debate concerning scripture because they just don't want recognize that scripture may be interpreted in a different direction than my own.

 

BTW, as to a differences on John 14:2, talk to some older people who absolutely demand "a mansion" from Jesus and not some room. Even though the word literally only means "an abiding place."

 

As to Romans 16, there is intense debate/discussion on women roles there that some would hold as "my interpretation" or you just don't believe the Bible.

 

I would be scared to demand anything from Jesus. It is by grace that He gives us anything.

So how are we to determine which action to believe in a case as mentioned before, where in the old testament, God tells us to kill, or shows us that killing is acceptable through his own actions, yet in the Old Testament not much later, God tells us that "Thou Shall Not Kill". If we are to believe every word as literal, how can we explain this contradiction?

 

I believe it says, You Shall not murder.

or if you are the King James group, Thou Shalt Not Murder.

 

And that would be a good example of what I am meaning. Kill and Murder is two different things and meanings but your quote changes what the meaning of that 10 Commandment meant.

I believe it says, You Shall not murder.

or if you are the King James group, Thou Shalt Not Murder.

 

And that would be a good example of what I am meaning. Kill and Murder is two different things and meanings but your quote changes what the meaning of that 10 Commandment meant.

 

How are kill and murder two different things? They are both taking the life of another human being. It's a contradiction any way you try to spin it.

How are kill and murder two different things? They are both taking the life of another human being. It's a contradiction any way you try to spin it.

 

Disagree. I am driving a car and I lose control and hit a passenger, killing them.

 

Did I murder them? Planned it out and set the plan in motion that led to me intentionally killing them?

Disagree. I am driving a car and I lose control and hit a passenger, killing them.

 

Did I murder them? Planned it out and set the plan in motion that led to me intentionally killing them?

 

But the way it is used in the Old Testament, God intentionally killed the people he did, there is no doubt. So I ask, how can you not view that position and the one found just a few books later of "Thou Shall Not Murder", as anything other than a contradiction?

"If your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out. It is better for you to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna of fire, where their worm doesn't die, and the fire is not quenched.

For everyone will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt. Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, with what will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another." Mark 9:47-49

 

 

 

"If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge will turn you over to the constable, and the constable throw you in into prison. I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny." Luke 12:58-59

 

"...for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that there is, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or straw, the work of each one will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only through fire." 1 Corinthians 3:11-15

 

I think these scriptures support exactly what I am saying. God's judgment is a redeeming justice. We will be separated until "we have paid the last penny." "The person will be saved, but only through fire." it is a cleansing fire that redeems us. Just as the fiery coal cleansed the lips of Isaiah.

 

You are destined to die only once, after that you can still face redemption.

The way Jesus portayed himself only gives us two options. He was either crazy by claiming He was the Son of God or He was the Son of God.

 

Scripture does the same thing by saying every word is God-breathed. Either you take every word as accurate or you can question it all in it's entirety.

 

Straw man argument. The Bible never claims to be a science or history book and it certainly does not claim to the exhaustive revelation of God.

 

I can believe that it is true in its entirety without believing it literally. Some of it is, i believe a truth myth. . . "What i am about to tell you is true, and some of it actually happened." 7 days to create the earth, or an awesome story that places God at the center of creation?

I was not picking on you directly, and I fully understand your displeasure with those who for all variety of reasons, insist that their way is the only way. I was referring to those who set up separate denominations, cults or sects based upon highly selective interpretations that suit their agenda... and ability to assert power over others. This has been a danger - spiritually speaking - the entire history of man.

 

It may sound crazy, but I think you and I are essentially arguing toward the same goal from different angles. All I want is the truth... not what someone believes is true for them, but the actual, rock solid truth. For me, after 50 years of reading, studying and trying to understand all the major religions and beliefs, I am convinced that the Judeo-Christian Bible and Jesus Christ are the only legitimate solution to my problem of sin and separation from God. I believe this so strongly, I am betting my eternal destiny on the veracity of the information at hand.

 

Truth, by its very nature is exclusive. Either something is true or it is not. Every major religion contains a good deal of truth, but when it comes down to the nature of God and the requirements we face to connect with Him and ultimately join Him... all claims cannot possibly be true.

 

Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."[/I] I happen to believe this... but this is a very exclusive statement. In this single sentence, He effectively rules out 100 other ways and beliefs... or establishes once and for all His insanity... or complete evil in misdirecting us.

 

Either He's who He says He is, or He's a crazy, evil liar.

 

I do not believe He is insane or a liar.

 

I have not, ever "forced" my beliefs upon anyone. I will attempt to provide a basis for my beliefs, but fully accept that everyone is free to choose for themselves.

 

While I do believe the Bible is valid, I do not endorse taking every single verse literally. There are 66 books in the Bible. Some are legal. Some are poetic. Some are literary. All vary in their method of recording God's inspiration. It is important to interpret these varied methods contextually.

 

I do believe there are some passages that should be taken at face value and acted upon appropriately. There are others that require some understanding of setting, context and direct application to us here and now.

 

The bottom line is, God is more than big enough to handle our sincere questions. I encourage it highly. :thumb:

 

You take that to mean that to mean that someone has to ask Jesus to be a personal savior. what if it only means that because of Jesus' actions that we can be reconciled with God.

 

Matthew 25:36ff clearly it is Jesus speaking and he is sending people to heaven who did not even know they were serving him. How does that jive with what many believe is the "right" interpretation of "nobody goes to the father except through me."

 

i believe the incarnation of God in Jesus allows the reconciliation without the following of ancient law. It is a show of forgiveness. Because of Jesus' acts He becomes the Cosmic Christ.

I would be scared to demand anything from Jesus. It is by grace that He gives us anything.

 

Just for the record, it's not me that's demanding anything of Jesus.

 

And you must have some church that doesn't have any of these kind of narcisstic believers I've met in my years. :thumb:

I think the meaning/intent in your examples is basically the same and see no differences.

 

I think studying the intention is acceptable as the apostles did that when Paul called Peter out for (if I remember right) what he was eating.

 

I think when you question God's Word is when you read something, don't like it and say "I ain't believing in that." Then it becomes your religion and not Christianity.

 

Okay, I've been trying to avoid any overt "Catholic versus Protestant" discussion, but...what of the fact that somewhere along the line, many protestant Bibles decided to remove 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach from the Old Testament? These books were originally included in the Vulgate Bibles that circulated for the first millennium of Christianity, and they still exist in the Catholic Bibles. Wouldn't removing these books comprise "I ain't believing that?"

You take that to mean that to mean that someone has to ask Jesus to be a personal savior. what if it only means that because of Jesus' actions that we can be reconciled with God.

 

Matthew 25:36ff clearly it is Jesus speaking and he is sending people to heaven who did not even know they were serving him. How does that jive with what many believe is the "right" interpretation of "nobody goes to the father except through me."

 

i believe the incarnation of God in Jesus allows the reconciliation without the following of ancient law. It is a show of forgiveness. Because of Jesus' acts He becomes the Cosmic Christ.

Help me here Ace... are you suggesting that because of what Jesus has already done, we are all "saved" and bound for Heaven whether we consciously choose to accept and follow Him or not?

 

I'm not sure I'm following your intent here.

I disagree. I think the Bible gives us a clear indication on how we are supposed to live our life.

 

I think it does too. But I don't think it is in the form of an explicit list of things to avoid, or, for that matter, things necessary to be done (outside of the obvious exception). Without this unequivocal approach, how are we to determine when to tell someone that they should stop doing something or to live differently without adding in our own human subjectivity and societal conditioning?

The Bible tells us:

 

"Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed" Leviticus 20:9

 

"People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God" Leviticus 21:17-18

 

"Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death" Deuteronomy 13:5

 

"The eating of fat is prohibited forever" Leviticus 3:17

 

"Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles" Deuteronomy 23:1

 

"Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents" Deuteronomy 21:18-21

 

"False prophets are to be killed by their own parents" Zechariah 13:3

 

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 

 

I don't see how one can take all of those passages literally, without any interpretation or evaluation. There is some necessary interpretation to the Bible.

 

As an aside, passages like these are the reason I have extreme difficulty in valuing beliefs or arguments reliant upon the OT.