Debunking the literal truth of Noah and the great flood

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

JEROME phil
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 04:11 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth writes:
Quote:
To keep this simple, how about we limit our exchange to the hypothetical I presented in my last post, except I'll broaden it a bit. My question is, essentially, is it possible to be a devotee of Jesus by only relating to Jesus? For example, if I were going to be a devotee of Jesus, I'd only consider words attributed to him. I might read others' accounts (such as those found in the Gospels) searching for how Jesus "felt" to those writers (whoever they were), but their own personal interpretations would hold no weight unless they jived with what I personally took from my study of and feel for Jesus.


I will answer as I have in my previous posts, except I will narrow it a bit: No. One cannot be a Christian (at least not a consistent one) if they do not accept the whole of Scripture, as Christ Himself said:
Quote:
"Scripture cannot be broken" [John 10:35].

And to the temptations of the devil, Christ Himself replied:
Quote:
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" [Matthew 4:4].


You then make the argument:
Quote:
In this approach, nothing said by anyone but Jesus is considered automatically true. So I am free to reject every religious concept, belief, ritual and anything else that wasn't directly taught by Jesus himself. Of course, that includes the belief that the Bible is inerrant and that I must believe, follow or obey it in order to be a "true" Christian.


You are either incredibly ignorant of the teachings of Christ and the texts of Scripture, or you are deceitfully wicked in attempting to formulate a false hermeneutic. Christ, indeed, spoke of men as instruments of God's word. Of Paul the Lord says to the reluctant Ananias:
Quote:
"Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel" [Acts 9:15].

And of Moses:
Quote:
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me" [John 5:46].

And to St. John:
Quote:
"Write what you see..." [Revelation 1:11].

And to all of the Apostles:
Quote:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" [Matthew 28:19-20].

And again:
Quote:
"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you" [John 16:12-15].


Therefore, your heretical hermeneutic is defeated by its own weapon, as the very words of Christ attest against it.

You then write:
Quote:
The little thought problem I presented to justify my way of being a Christian was to ask if someone could be a true devotee of Jesus while he was alive; i.e., before the resurrection, before the NT, before all church dogma was developed, etc. It is obviously ridiculous to think Jesus needed any of that stuff to help him create "Christians," and if so, then neither are they needed now.


Christ cannot be separated from His person or His work. Belief demands an object; and "it is obviously ridiculous" to assert, as you do, that belief can take hold of nothing; as, according to your own peculiar exegetical endeavors, Christ can be believed in without being Christ [???]. And yet, though you try desperately, you have not escaped the question: Who is Christ, that we might believe in Him?

Christ asked the disciples:
Quote:
"Who do people say that I am?"

The disciples responded:
Quote:
"John the Baptist; others say, Elijah; and other, one of the prophets."

Then Christ asked:
Quote:
"But who do you say that I am?"

Peter rightly confessed:
Quote:
"You are the Christ" [Mark 8:27-29].


Again, St. Thomas says of Christ:
Quote:
"My Lord and my God!" [John 20:28].


And John the Baptist exclaimed of Him:
Quote:
"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" [John 1:29].


And Christ of Himself:
Quote:
"Before Abraham was, I AM" [John 8:58]

And again:
Quote:
"I and my Father are one" [John 10:30].

And again:
Quote:
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" [John 10:11].


The doctrine of Christ is, if rightly taught, the Word of Christ. To argue that Christ ought to have been able to accomplish Christianity in some other way is frivolous. Christ has done what the Scriptures said He would:
Quote:
"All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" [Isaiah 53:6].



JEROME

---------- Post added 07-15-2009 at 05:39 PM ----------

Alan McDougall writes:

Quote:
Jesus "did not preach grace" Paul the debatable apostle did. In the gospels attributed to Jesus, even the slightest minutest sin would send you to hell, unless you repented day and night


Have you actually read the Gospels, Alan?

What of the Lord's words to Ananias that St. Paul was a chosen instrument of Christ's?

What of Christ's words that God did not send Him to the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him? This being accomplished by the gracious words: "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." [John 3:16-17]

Quote:
We are expected to fight against the very nature God hard wired into us Like my brother Roger once said the Christian fundamental "Fun Police" are out in force to prevent any sort of enjoyment. Heck man even eating is a sin.


Read Genesis over, Alan. Sin came into the world through the fall of Adam, not by the gracious will of God.

Obviously you have not read Paul either; he condemned legalism in all of its forms. So did Christ, and so do all Christians (those who do not suffer from inconsistencies, however--the "moral majority" comes to mind).


On a somewhat separate note, I suggest that, rather than taking several passages of Scripture out of their proper context in an effort to "beef-up" your meager and weakening position, you ought to actually read Scripture first, rather than play expert (very childish you know).

If not, perhaps your signature ought to be altered-

From: It is important to me to learn what I do not know.

To: It is possible for me to know what I have never learned.



JEROME
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 06:25 pm
@Alan McDougall,
JEROME

I have read through the entire bible a few times having read Genesis etc many times, the gospels hundreds of times

OH yes I have read the epistles as well and your position that you are the only knowledgeable one on the forum and the rest of us are illiterate ignoramuses is offensive to me and most unchristian like in behaviour

Be more like the sweet lord you are supposed to follow and I will take you more seriously Mr JEROME
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 06:57 pm
@JEROME phil,
JEROME;77480 wrote:
You are either incredibly ignorant of the teachings of Christ and the texts of Scripture, or you are deceitfully wicked in attempting to formulate a false hermeneutic.


[SIZE="3"]I am not ignorant of his teachings, but you are boringly and boorishly dogmatic, a shameless opportunist using the obscurity of the internet to condescend, insult, trample other points of view, and otherwise behave as a craven internet flamer. I'll leave you to your spineless games; likewise, I'd appreciate your silence towards me.[/SIZE]
 
JEROME phil
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 07:32 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;77501 wrote:
JEROME

I have read through the entire bible a few times having read Genesis etc many times, the gospels hundreds of times

OH yes I have read the epistles as well and your position that you are the only knowledgeable one on the forum and the rest of us are illiterate ignoramuses is offensive to me and most unchristian like in behaviour

Be more like the sweet lord you are supposed to follow and I will take you more seriously Mr JEROME



You may assert to your heart's content that I have been nothing but crude and insulting to you and others here, Alan, but the fact of the matter is: I have taken the time to respond in detail to your objections, and all you have done is whine and complain that I am "not being nice."

Grow a pair.

You write:
Quote:
Be more like the sweet lord you are supposed to follow and I will take you more seriously


Perhaps, in your hundreds of times of having read the Gospel of St. John, you "missed" these words of Christ, meek and mild:

Quote:
"Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because the truth is not in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God" [John 8:43-47].


JEROME

---------- Post added 07-15-2009 at 08:48 PM ----------

LWSleeth;77505 wrote:
[SIZE="3"]I am not ignorant of his teachings, but you are boringly and boorishly dogmatic, a shameless opportunist using the obscurity of the internet to condescend, insult, trample other points of view, and otherwise behave as a craven internet flamer. I'll leave you to your spineless games; likewise, I'd appreciate your silence towards me.[/SIZE]


Yes, LWSleeth, I am dogmatic (even boringly so); to this I will proudly concede.:Glasses:

However, how have I used the "obscurity of the internet to condescend, insult, trample other points of view"? What does this even mean? Seriously.

I must only assume that you, having nothing of insight, ability, or significance to contribute to our debate, are left to play rhetorician, sophist, and petulant child.


JEROME
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 09:12 pm
@JEROME phil,
How on earth must a Christian accept modern scripture when there were Christians prior to the writing of modern scripture?

Jerome, Jesus was referring to the scripture that existed in his time - the Jewish scriptures. It would be impossible for him to have referred to the New Testament given that the New Testament did not exist at the time of his teaching.

If one must accept the New Testament as it stands today in order to be a Christian, then there could not have been Christians prior to the canonization of those texts (Which means that the Bishops who busied themselves with compiling modern scripture could not have been Christians at the time of their toil), and anyone who preferred other Gospels and what we now call apocryphal scripture could not have been Christians.

A further difficulty is the question of which set of Scripture must one accept to be a Christian? The Roman Catholic set? If so, then Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Christians of Ethiopia cannot, by definition, be Christian. But this seems remarkably arbitrary - just as arbitrary as saying that in order to be a Christian one must accept any X book(s).

Now, Jerome, I understand that religious discussion can quickly heat up, but calling other members "petulant children" is not acceptable on this forum. Please refrain from name calling in the future - and if you cannot manage to reply to a post without resorting to playground antics, then simply refrain from replying.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 01:19 am
@xris,
xris;77437 wrote:
Alan on a still summers evening i can hear the sound of pans pipes drifting across the mist covered valley and smell honeysuckle in the air.I believe in fairies and many chuckle at my admission but then fundamentalist fools, all of them, think i am a heathen and need salvation.I have respect for those who have found their god but blind obedience to scriptures bewilders me.
Christ never intended this dogmatic attitude he came with a message of love not this autocratic zealot manic crap.


That is beautiful xris!! like a strange surreal evening on an alien planet, with its three yellow moons reflecting on the still waters of its purple ocean.

There trees don't stand still but each night lift up their roots and gather in groups of vibration energy that emanates from their assure flowers.

Of course making such imaginary statements are blasphemy to the closed minded fundamental exclusives.

Let them keep their cultish beliefs that all revolve around death and read their musty smelling hymn books as they sing songs about gods funeral

God is more loving non-judgemental than they give him credit for, he loves us all, he did not create man to destroy 99.99999 in the flames of hell.

Look at this guys especially JEROME how truly small we are in the grand order of things REALLY GUYS IT IS A GREAT SLIDE SHOW!!

fascinantingfinal.pps
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 02:28 am
@JEROME phil,
JEROME;77514 wrote:
You may assert to your heart's content that I have been nothing but crude and insulting to you and others here, Alan, but the fact of the matter is: I have taken the time to respond in detail to your objections, and all you have done is whine and complain that I am "not being nice."

Grow a pair.

You write:


Perhaps, in your hundreds of times of having read the Gospel of St. John, you "missed" these words of Christ, meek and mild:



JEROME

---------- Post added 07-15-2009 at 08:48 PM ----------



Yes, LWSleeth, I am dogmatic (even boringly so); to this I will proudly concede.:Glasses:

However, how have I used the "obscurity of the internet to condescend, insult, trample other points of view"? What does this even mean? Seriously.

I must only assume that you, having nothing of insight, ability, or significance to contribute to our debate, are left to play rhetorician, sophist, and petulant child.


JEROME
I dont believe one word of the bible came from god and those who claim it is are deluded.It was written by man and no one can even prove the existance of jesus, let alone claim his sacred.There are messages in the bible but you it appears are completely oblivious to it.I think you better search for humility in your great book and read.

---------- Post added 07-16-2009 at 03:34 AM ----------

Alan McDougall;77589 wrote:
That is beautiful xris!! like a strange surreal evening on an alien planet, with its three yellow moons reflecting on the still waters of its purple ocean.

There trees don't stand still but each night lift up their roots and gather in groups of vibration energy that emanates from their assure flowers.

Of course making such imaginary statements are blasphemy to the closed minded fundamental exclusives.

Let them keep their cultish beliefs that all revolve around death and read their musty smelling hymn books as they sing songs about gods funeral

God is more loving nonjudgemental than they give him credit for, he loves us all, he did not create man to destroy 99.99999 in the flames of hell.
Thanks Alan there is more love in one childish laugh than a certain persons blinkered faith.I was in a good mood as my daughter has just got her science degree,reading this thread makes me wonder if education maketh the man.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 04:10 am
@xris,
xris;77602 wrote:
I dont believe one word of the bible came from god and those who claim it is are deluded.It was written by man and no one can even prove the existance of jesus, let alone claim his sacred.There are messages in the bible but you it appears are completely oblivious to it.I think you better search for humility in your great book and read.

---------- Post added 07-16-2009 at 03:34 AM ----------

Thanks Alan there is more love in one childish laugh than a certain persons blinkered faith.I was in a good mood as my daughter has just got her science degree,reading this thread makes me wonder if education maketh the man.


Congratulations xris both to you, an obvious loving proud father, and to your remarkable daughter please relay my congrats to her also

I am the proud father of four daughters three of them university graduates and sadly the youngest mentally challenged but no less loved because of her disability.

My lovely girls have not been brought up with fundamentalist hateful garbage, I and my my wife have instilled in them a love and respect for their fellow human beings. None of us are church goers, and only the god of cultish fundamentalist would confine us to hell because of that.

Their god equates more to the devil than the loving forgiving god I believe in. Yes I have been naughty in my life and I love my most rebellious naughty child as much as I love the others, as I am sure you or any parent does.

JEROME I love God but not the unpleasant God you try to force upon the rest of us.
 
JEROME phil
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 01:01 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas,

First, I want to thank you for actually addressing my post; it seems to be a rare occurrence on this forum.

You assert:
Quote:
Jerome, Jesus was referring to the scripture that existed in his time - the Jewish scriptures. It would be impossible for him to have referred to the New Testament given that the New Testament did not exist at the time of his teaching.


Christ's words testify otherwise:
Quote:
"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." [John 16:12-15]


St. Peter tells his readers in his second epistle:
Quote:
"Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience fo our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." [II Peter 3:14-16]


And St. Paul writes of Scripture to Timothy:
Quote:
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." [II Timothy 3:14-17]


Therefore, to assert that Christ's words:
Quote:
"Scripture cannot be broken" [John 10:35].

pertain only to the Old Testament Scripture is to presume that Christ, "the Word made flesh" [John 1:14]; in Him dwelling "the whole fullness of deity bodily" [Colossians 2:9]; having been glorified in the Father's presence "before the world existed" [John 17:5]; was only able to speak of that Word which existed at that particular moment in history, one in which the fullness of revelation was not yet complete.
As Hebrews 1:1-2 states:
Quote:
"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."


You then write:
Quote:
If one must accept the New Testament as it stands today in order to be a Christian, then there could not have been Christians prior to the canonization of those texts (Which means that the Bishops who busied themselves with compiling modern scripture could not have been Christians at the time of their toil), and anyone who preferred other Gospels and what we now call apocryphal scripture could not have been Christians.


The Word of God, as is admitted by all orthodox Christianity, existed verbally prior to its being written. For faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ [Romans 10:17].

Quote:
A further difficulty is the question of which set of Scripture must one accept to be a Christian? The Roman Catholic set? If so, then Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Christians of Ethiopia cannot, by definition, be Christian. But this seems remarkably arbitrary - just as arbitrary as saying that in order to be a Christian one must accept any X book(s).

Here we must distinguish between the homolegoumena (those books of Scripture unanimously received as canonical by the ancients), the antilegomena (those books of Scripture lacking universal approval), and the apocrypha (those books considered, by near unanimous agreement among the ancients, and especially of Christ--as he speaks of the Jews possessing Scripture, who had not the apocryphal writings--non-authentic).

Therefore, those are Christians who accept and believe in entirety the homolegoumena as the inspired and inerrant Word of God. This is agreeable within the whole of historic Christendom.

You conclude:
Quote:
Now, Jerome, I understand that religious discussion can quickly heat up, but calling other members "petulant children" is not acceptable on this forum. Please refrain from name calling in the future - and if you cannot manage to reply to a post without resorting to playground antics, then simply refrain from replying.


You must be kidding, Didymos.

Alan writes of me: "Let them keep their cultish beliefs that all revolve around death and read their musty smelling hymn books as they sing songs about gods funeral."

Xris writes of me: "I dont believe one word of the bible came from god and those who claim it is are deluded.It was written by man and no one can even prove the existance of jesus, let alone claim his sacred.There are messages in the bible but you it appears are completely oblivious to it."

LWSleeth writes of me: "I am not ignorant of his teachings, but you are boringly and boorishly dogmatic, a shameless opportunist using the obscurity of the internet to condescend, insult, trample other points of view, and otherwise behave as a craven internet flamer. I'll leave you to your spineless games; likewise, I'd appreciate your silence towards me."


Yet, have I raised any objection? Rather, I have only spoken the honest truth, namely, that rather than contend with my actual arguments, they instead retreat to the role of petulant child, sulking over the defeat and embarrassment of being outsmarted and outwitted by a "deluded", "cultish", "boringly dogmatic" Christian.


JEROME
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 04:46 pm
@Alan McDougall,
JEROME

Think man!! would we all have responded like we did if we were not provoked to do it

Read your own posts.

I would like to know are you a literal believer in every word in the Bible, if so please explain just one Chapter, Numbers 31 where God tells Moses to commit murder all the Midianites, including, men , little boys and all the woman "except the virgins" which they can keep for their own pleasure. An act of genocide if I ever read about one

This forum is not about trading insults but about adults sharing and learning from each other without throwing personal hurtful comments directly at us as you did

Moved article of mine about Numbers 31 forward
...................................................................
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 04:55 pm
@JEROME phil,
But now you are using what Peter says after New Testament scripture was already in circulation (though, much of that is now apocrypha). Peter's words are not the words of Jesus. By my line of argument, even Peter cannot be taken to be authoritative - authority is in the hands of Jesus alone. A person might reject the notion that Peter properly understood the message of Jesus, and therefore reject his commentary on Jesus' teaching. Citing Peter cannot make the argument you are tasked with - and it is not small task!

I can understand if you want to argue that Jesus was referring to Scripture as in any teaching directed by God. And I can buy that argument. However, Jesus never gives us a list of works that fit that bill. What an individual practitioner takes and believes to be the Word of God, given that Jesus did not make specific recommendations regarding NT and NT apocrypha, is up to the individual conscience of that practitioner.

Furthermore, not all orthodox branches of Christianity accept the same set of scripture. There are differences between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles, as well as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. There is not one single Orthodox Bible.

As for the claim of these texts existing verbally prior to being written down, historically, this is not completely true. The texts that were set down do originate from the oral tradition, but there is no way to be certain that the oral tradition was perfectly transcribed into the written version. Oral tradition tends to quickly develop a variety of strains as the telling passes from one to another. It is highly unlikely that a single oral strain was perfectly related from it's conception into writing without change. In fact, if we look to the Bible, we can see evidence of this splintering of the oral tradition - the best case of this evidence are the vast difference between the Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel. And that is without even looking at the various differences in the Synoptic Gospels, much less looking at the apocrypha, and some of that apocrypha pre-dates some of the Gospels (and if they pre-date a Gospel, historically, we have to recognize that they are probably closer to whatever oral tradition was popular in the area of the writing).

You mention the homolegoumena, and I'm glad that you did. But first, I do not think the distinction meets the objection. Even if there are universally accept books, there are still a great many contested books, books which some people say are the Word of God and the very same books being denied by others as the Word of God. This disagreement creates enough ambiguity in what exactly is the Word of God that Christians can have remarkably diverse and different sets of Bibles.

Further, I do not think the homolegoumena exists as you describe it, being some sort of "those books of Scripture unanimously received as canonical by the ancients". This set of texts is typically agreed upon as belonging to the canon, however, there were ancients who disagreed. Marcion of Sinope is the classic example, and there were a great many others as well.

Also, there still exists the problem of Christians existing prior to these texts being written. Even if we assume that the oral tradition was perfectly preserved in the writting, there would have been the majority of Christians who were only familiar with a portion of that oral tradition - and even after the writing down, and een after the canonization of those writing, there were a great many Christians who kept a set of works that differed from the canon.

Even today there are many Christians who keep for Scripture a set of texts quite different from any canon. And I see no reason to deny them as Christians simply because some body of men decided upon a set of books that another man disagrees with to some extent.

The bottom line is, Jerome, that Jesus did not tell us which books were Scripture and which were not. It is up to we mortals to wade through the material and rely upon our own good conscience when deciding which texts are and which are not the Word of God.

As for the language: please understand me, my friend. Your language was inappropriate - we do not name call. The other members you mention have been here for some time, they know the rules, and the moderating team is aware of what transpires. My remark to you was not the issuing of an infraction or anything like that - I was simply trying to give a newer member a heads up on what is and what is not tolerated. I strongly advise you not to persist in what a moderator has asked you to end, especially when you have now been asked twice to desist.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 08:49 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Hi Thomas maybe some of us are not aware of the meaning of . Homolegoumena - it is a word for canonisation of the bible or accepting scripture as the true word of God, agreeing on the contents by a council


Those works which were unanimously accepted by the councils were called Homolegoumena. The prefix homo means the same. The root word logo means to say. So the word Homolegoumena means to say the same things or to agree
 
JEROME phil
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:42 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas,

Again I thank you for your thoughtful post.

You write:
Quote:
But now you are using what Peter says after New Testament scripture was already in circulation (though, much of that is now apocrypha). Peter's words are not the words of Jesus. By my line of argument, even Peter cannot be taken to be authoritative - authority is in the hands of Jesus alone. A person might reject the notion that Peter properly understood the message of Jesus, and therefore reject his commentary on Jesus' teaching. Citing Peter cannot make the argument you are tasked with - and it is not small task!


It seems you have purposely forgotten, or conveniently ignored, the words of Christ in the Gospel according to St. John:

Quote:
"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." [John 16:12-15]

And again, Christ says:
Quote:
"Sanctify them [the Apostles] in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
I do not ask for these only, [John 17:17-20]

Further still, Christ gives this commission to the Apostles:
Quote:
"And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you [the Apostles] always, to the end of the age.'" [Matthew 28:18-20]

And as Christ commands in the book of Acts:
Quote:
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." [Acts 1:8]

Immediately after this command, St. Peter preaches:
Quote:
"This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this [that is, this sermon] that you yourselves are seeing and hearing." [Acts 2:32-33]

It follows, then, that Peter's words are the very words of Christ's command and commission to the Apostles, of which St. Peter was head. Therefore he writes, according to Christ's previously established will and authority, and by the promised power of the Holy Spirit:
Quote:
"And we [the Apostles] have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." [II Peter 1:19-21]

And again:
Quote:
as they do the other Scriptures." [II Peter 3:15-16]

And again, drawing no distinction between the prophets of old and the Apostles of new:
Quote:
"Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look." [I Peter 1:10-12]

And again:
Quote:
the word of the Lord remains forever.' And this word is the good news that was preached to you." [I Peter 1:23-25]

Likewise, the same gift and authority was given to the Apostle Paul, of whom the Lord spoke:
Quote:
he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and children of Israel." [Acts 9:15]

Thus St. Paul:
Quote:
"The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." [I Corinthians 14:37]

And again:
Quote:
"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the words of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers." [I Thessalonians 2:13]

And again:
Quote:
"But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
[II Thessalonians 2:15]

And again:
Quote:
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." [II Timothy 3:14-17]

Do these words of the Apostles not "glorify" Christ, and "declare" to all the things of Christ, just as Christ said they would? [John 16:12-15] Are these words not spoken by the Apostles, of whom Christ foretold that by their word many would believe in Him? [John 17:17-20] Are these not the Apostles to whom was given the promised Holy Spirit [Acts 1:8] by the command of the resurrected and glorified Christ, who had been given all authority and power in heaven and earth? [Matthew 28:18-20]

Therefore, the objection that the Apostle's word is not Christ's word is without any foundation, sense, or credibility, but rather emerges from the desperate and embittered rage of the sophists and philosophers, who, upon hearing that the canon is closed, that the Word of God stands as it is written, and that we are commanded to abide by it without any addition, subtraction, or substitution of our own, formulate and fabricate condemnations of all kinds toward it, being utterly appalled at how God could have completed His Self-revelation without so much as a whisper of contribution from their "pious self-consciousness"; their "theological ego."

You also write:
Quote:
I can understand if you want to argue that Jesus was referring to Scripture as in any teaching directed by God. And I can buy that argument. However, Jesus never gives us a list of works that fit that bill. What an individual practitioner takes and believes to be the Word of God, given that Jesus did not make specific recommendations regarding NT and NT apocrypha, is up to the individual conscience of that practitioner.


And again you write:
Quote:
The bottom line is, Jerome, that Jesus did not tell us which books were Scripture and which were not. It is up to we mortals to wade through the material and rely upon our own good conscience when deciding which texts are and which are not the Word of God.


This is where our disagreement resides: you speak on your own behalf, as a "free-thinking theologian", who has left the doctrine of divine inspiration to pursue his own exegetical abilities and dogmas. Yet, how is it, I might ask, that you, on the one hand, insist that St. John's Epistles are not Christ's Word, and on the other hand, insist that the quotes of Christ in St. John's Gospel is Christ's Word. Did not St. John write both? How do you know that Christ's Word, as quoted by St. John, is actually Christ's Word, and not merely St. John's literary illusion and/or fancy?

Thus, if you are to be consistent with your explicit rejection of Scriptural inerrancy, you must denounce the whole of Scripture as having nothing to do with Christ. That is, you must disregard any word that is written as Christ's true word; and to do this is to stand upon a weak and weary foundation:
Quote:
"Jesus said to them, 'Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.'" [John 8:42-47]

And again:
Quote:
"Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." [John 18:37]

And again:
Quote:
[John 20:31]

And again:
Quote:
"I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." [John 10:14-16]


You write:
Quote:
Furthermore, not all orthodox branches of Christianity accept the same set of scripture. There are differences between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles, as well as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. There is not one single Orthodox Bible.

As for the claim of these texts existing verbally prior to being written down, historically, this is not completely true. The texts that were set down do originate from the oral tradition, but there is no way to be certain that the oral tradition was perfectly transcribed into the written version. Oral tradition tends to quickly develop a variety of strains as the telling passes from one to another. It is highly unlikely that a single oral strain was perfectly related from it's conception into writing without change. In fact, if we look to the Bible, we can see evidence of this splintering of the oral tradition - the best case of this evidence are the vast difference between the Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel. And that is without even looking at the various differences in the Synoptic Gospels, much less looking at the apocrypha, and some of that apocrypha pre-dates some of the Gospels (and if they pre-date a Gospel, historically, we have to recognize that they are probably closer to whatever oral tradition was popular in the area of the writing).

You mention the homolegoumena, and I'm glad that you did. But first, I do not think the distinction meets the objection. Even if there are universally accept books, there are still a great many contested books, books which some people say are the Word of God and the very same books being denied by others as the Word of God. This disagreement creates enough ambiguity in what exactly is the Word of God that Christians can have remarkably diverse and different sets of Bibles.

Further, I do not think the homolegoumena exists as you describe it, being some sort of "those books of Scripture unanimously received as canonical by the ancients". This set of texts is typically agreed upon as belonging to the canon, however, there were ancients who disagreed. Marcion of Sinope is the classic example, and there were a great many others as well.

Also, there still exists the problem of Christians existing prior to these texts being written. Even if we assume that the oral tradition was perfectly preserved in the writting, there would have been the majority of Christians who were only familiar with a portion of that oral tradition - and even after the writing down, and een after the canonization of those writing, there were a great many Christians who kept a set of works that differed from the canon.

Even today there are many Christians who keep for Scripture a set of texts quite different from any canon. And I see no reason to deny them as Christians simply because some body of men decided upon a set of books that another man disagrees with to some extent.


Concerning the canon of Scripture, you seem to concede that Christ speaks of the entire Jewish Scripture (the Old Testament) as the true and abiding word of God. Here we can both agree. However, we depart from agreement at this point, namely, that a Christian cannot exist prior to the completion and/or circulation (written or oral) of the "modern" New Testament canon. Yet, once again, Scripture refutes you:
Quote:
"Then he [Christ] said to them, 'These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.'" [Luke 24:44-49]

And again:
Quote:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." [John 8:56]

Hence, as Christ and Scripture testify: Abraham was a Christian (which, needless to say, turns your own argument's weapon against itself, in such a skillful and masterful way, that it strikes it prostrate to the same filth and excrement from which it came).

For when I spoke, in my last post to you, that, to be a Christian, one must believe in the inerrant and infallible Word, I spoke in reference to the apparent "discrepancy" and/or "inconsistency" among the canons of the historic Eastern and Western Churches that you now also assert.

Let me be clear: a Christian is made solely by the operative working of the Holy Spirit through faith in the Gospel of Christ, namely, that Christ is God made flesh [John 1:14]; that He died for the world's sins upon the cross [John 3:16]; that He was raised from the dead three days later [Mark 16:6]; and that we are justified freely for His sake by grace through faith [Ephesians 2:8,9].

However, as Scripture itself testifies, neither the Gospels, nor the flesh of Christ were on this earth during the Old Testament era, and yet, they were all saved according to the promise [Hebrews 11:39,40] of the coming Messiah who would crush the head of the serpent, defeating with Him death, hell, and the devil for all of His people [Genesis 3:15; Luke 2:11].

For one to disregard the Scripture as being wholly inerrant and infallible is both dangerous and foolish, yet one may still be a Christian (though this is due, necessarily, to a felicitous inconsistency between their theological theory and practice, and, of course, to the infinite and unsearchable grace and mercy of God); for to be saved one need only to believe in Christ as the mediator, propitiator, and sanctifier of the whole human race.

This can be seen in both the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches, as both have reverted to pagan theology in regards to the article of justification (the Chief Article of the Church of God; upon which it stands or falls). They both deny the authority, efficacy, sufficiency, and perspicuity of Scripture by consolidating all authority to the "Church", thereby making that institution which was made by the Word of God, the maker of the Word of God; the creation, then, becomes the Creator; the clay the potter, etc.

And yet, while the Roman and Eastern Churches are heterodox in doctrine, yet there are certainly Christians who belong to them, though not without a felicitous inconsistency existing between the confession of their church body before men, and the confession of their own hearts before God.

You conclude:
Quote:
As for the language: please understand me, my friend. Your language was inappropriate - we do not name call. The other members you mention have been here for some time, they know the rules, and the moderating team is aware of what transpires. My remark to you was not the issuing of an infraction or anything like that - I was simply trying to give a newer member a heads up on what is and what is not tolerated. I strongly advise you not to persist in what a moderator has asked you to end, especially when you have now been asked twice to desist.


I prefer to call that which it is. Therefore, while I will certainly not purposely attempt to deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame my neighbor, nevertheless, it seems the greatest mode of prevention--to my calling certain members of this thread petulant children, that is--is for those certain members of this thread to cease from such occupations and activities.

Thank you for the "heads up" though.


JEROME
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 08:47 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Thomas,

No need to go to Bible college thanks to JEROME.

Jerome you did not address my post about Numbers Chapter 31.Rationalise that Chapter in the light of a God of mercy and love?.

The Middianites were equally Gods creation , why an horrifying act of Genocide?

So I will repost it here again for your attention

Numbers Chapture 31?

I have great difficulty in rationalizing this chapter with a concept of a good loving God as depictured by the lord Jesus Christ. Someone help me please! The bible states that God is the same, yesterday, tomorrow and forever.

This does not seem to be the case if one analyses and compares the awful chapter 31 of the book on Numbers, in relation to the loving, forgiving, Father God, that the Lord Jesus presented in the four gospels. Answer this and I will be able to press on. Note I do not have much time left. I am so tired and weary now!

Numbers Chapter 31 Please explain!!!

1) Verse: 2 the Lord said to Moses take vengeance on the Middianites. In direct contrast, Jesus said, forgive those who hate you and despitefully use you. It is easy to love those that love you, but I say love those that hate you. Vengeance is mine said the lord I will recompense. However, here God appears to go against his own word and commands Moses to take vengeance.

2) Verses: 3- 6 Make war and kill said the lord. This is a direct contradiction to Gods own commandment. Thou shalt not kill. Jesus said if a man strikes you on the one cheek turn and offer him the other and not to violence. Love your enemies etc etc

3) Verses: 6-13 here the armies of
Israel go out and destroy, spoil, burn and steal and plunder on Gods command. In addition, they slaughter all the adult males however; this is not sufficient blood-letting- slaughter to please Moses or God as we read from verse 14.

In contrast, Jesus said he that lives by the sword would die by the sword. The soldiers apparently somewhat kinder and merciful than Moses spared the woman and children much to Mosses disappointment and anger

4) Verse: 14 Moses was wroth (angry) with the officers. Why? Because they had not slaughtered THE WHOLE
LOT, WOMAN, CHILDREN, like they had done to the adult males.

So what is sweet kind merciful Moses proposal? Verse: 15, He says now murder all the "little boys". In ABSOLUTE contrast Jesus said blessed are the little children for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

For goodness sake is this the same merciful loving God depicted by Jesus. No this horrific story does not end yet. Moses goes on saying." Kill all the woman" except those that have not had
"sex with a man". How on earth in those remote primitive days were the soldiers to know which woman was a virgin and which were not?.

There was definitely no gynaecologist way back in 300O B.C. WERE THERE? So to me they must on Moses command raped all the woman first and then murdered those who were not virgins. Why was it necessary to rape them all? Because a woman's age does not necessarily indicate whether a woman is a virgin or not.

5) Now please learned rational bible scholar tell me that this is the same father God that is the same yesterday tomorrow and forever, I am all eyes and ears waiting for a logical explanation.

You know if one takes out the title God and Moses and replaces them with Hitler and Rudolf Hess, no one would question that it was the work of the evil Hitler regime. Would they?

Alan McDougall 13/7/2007
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 09:35 am
@Alan McDougall,
The old and the new testaments are nothing like each other but the fundamentalist it appears can reconcile his belief with the certainty they are the same god given scriptures.For even a moderate christian the comparisons must be extremely confusing.How can you represent The god of jesus with the his message and then see these awful events his father appears to command.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 09:51 am
@xris,
xris;78424 wrote:
The old and the new testaments are nothing like each other but the fundamentalist it appears can reconcile his belief with the certainty they are the same god given scriptures.For even a moderate christian the comparisons must be extremely confusing.How can you represent The god of jesus with the his message and then see these awful events his father appears to command.


XRIS I notice an absence of JEROME after I posted the less easy to defend scripture found in Numbers chapter 31

It is impossible to accept the whole of the bible as literal truth and real history can we xris?
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 11:01 am
@Alan McDougall,
For me Alan the message is enough but then man even distorts that message of love.
 
JEROME phil
 
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 10:01 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;78427 wrote:
XRIS I notice an absence of JEROME after I posted the less easy to defend scripture found in Numbers chapter 31

It is impossible to accept the whole of the bible as literal truth and real history can we xris?


Alan McDougall,

You write:
Quote:
Jerome you did not address my post about Numbers Chapter 31.Rationalise that Chapter in the light of a God of mercy and love?


Your post is-to be brutally frank-not worthy of response; and much less does it require "rationalization" of any form, shape, or kind; as it is nothing more than a veiled effort to accuse Scripture of contradiction through the use of semantic antitheses.

By this I mean, that you have purposely found one Scripture that states, "You shall not kill", and another that states, "Make war and kill", and claimed contradiction without even one reference, mention, or signification of the proper context of the verses; nor have you taken the time to cite even one comparing verse and/or chapter of the proposed discrepancies you (or another) recount.

Therefore, while I will respond this once to your foolish accusations, it is not by virtue of their deservingness, but solely by virtue of how easily and effortlessly your army of straw men can be set to flames and left to ruin.

Let us begin, then, shall we?

You write:
Quote:
Numbers Chapture 31?
I have great difficulty in rationalizing this chapter with a concept of a good loving God as depictured by the lord Jesus Christ. Someone help me please! The bible states that God is the same, yesterday, tomorrow and forever.


Before a proper response can be made, it is necessary that I first address your frequent, and seemingly innumerable, false presuppositions regarding the matters of God and Scripture.

Firstly, as concerns the proper hermeneutic of Scripture, "rationalization" is not allowed. Rather, we are to take each verse as it is written, in its own definite sense, and believe it to be true. Or, as you have chosen, reject it as offensive and nonsensical folly and madness.

Secondly, why do you claim a divergence from the person of God the Son to the person of God the Father? What makes Christ "a good loving God" and the Father a tyrant, as you so fallaciously assert? Do they not both offer salvation to those who believe in Christ [the Gospel]:

Quote:
"Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?" [Ezekiel 33:11]


And again:

Quote:
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life." [John 3:14-15]


Do they not both threaten sinners who continually resist God and bring upon themselves judgment and eventual damnation [the Law]:

Quote:
"Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die." [Ezekiel 33:13]


And again:

Quote:
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believe in the name of the only Son of God." [John 3:18]


It is a thing most predictable throughout history: the old heresy of the Church becomes the new orthodoxy of the philosophers.

And thirdly, while the Lord is most certainly immutable in nature, yet this does not translate into meaning that God is confined to man's naked-and fallen-reason. He is a God of a majesty and brilliance so lofty and unsearchable that even the angels cannot begin to fathom His being, will, or judgments. [I Peter 1:12]

You also write:
Quote:
This does not seem to be the case if one analyses and compares the awful chapter 31 of the book on Numbers, in relation to the loving, forgiving, Father God, that the Lord Jesus presented in the four gospels. Answer this and I will be able to press on. Note I do not have much time left. I am so tired and weary now!


Why do you call Christ the "Lord Jesus"? Do you believe in His name? Or is this merely a "gracious" and "exalting" title that you would give also to any "great moral teacher" of history? Considering your own denouncements and callous remarks concerning the Gospel and the historic Christian faith, I can only presume that the former is not, in fact, the case. Therefore, if indeed the latter is true, please spare me the "admirable titles" you attach to Christ, as they do nothing to convince that you believe or trust in Him any more than you do Buddha, Hindu, or that peculiar god you have manufactured to suit your own dreams.

You demand:
Quote:
Numbers Chapter 31 Please explain!!!
1) Verse: 2 the Lord said to Moses take vengeance on the Indianite's. In direct contrast, Jesus said, forgive those who hate you and despitefully use you. It is easy to love those that love you, but I say love those that hate you. Vengeance is mine said the lord I will recompense. However, here God appears to go against his own word and commands Moses to take vengeance.


Let us begin to dismantle this army of straw by first distinguishing between the antecedent (first) and consequent (second) will of God. The antecedent will of God is one of love, desiring that all come to Him by means of repentance and faith. [I Timothy 2:4] The consequent will of God desires the punishment, judgment, and condemnation of those who refuse, reject, and despise His Word and promise of salvation in Christ [John 3:18].

Now, in regards to Matthew 5:43-48, Christ clearly speaks of God's antecedent will, being one of mercy and grace, giving to all creatures sun and rain, moon and sun, to both the just and the unjust; even though both were born deserving of nothing but damnation and destruction. That is to say, we are born enemies of God [Romans 5:12], being utterly hostile and resistant to His Word, works, and will. [Romans 8:7-8; I Corinthians 2:14] Yet still, in His infinite mercy, God has made all creatures, giving them their body and soul, eyes, ears, and all their limbs, their reason, and all their senses, and still preserves them [Small Catechism, II, Article I].

And thus there exists no "discrepancy", not due to my having "rationalized it away", but due solely to the plain and certain Word of God.

You fall into error again:
Quote:
2) Verses: 3- 6 Make war and kill said the lord. This is a direct contradiction to Gods own commandment. Thou shalt not kill. Jesus said if a man strikes you on the one cheek turn and offer him the other and not to violence. Love your enemies etc etc


Do you actually believe what it is you argue? Are you not opposed to the use of any means that justify the ends of "victory"? It seems that, here especially, your zealous infatuation with inconsistencies in Scripture have left you holding on to no more than that very thing, namely, inconsistent-and risible-rants and ravings fit only for those who seek "victory" by deceit (or doltishness).

For how is it, Mr. McDougall, that God is now made to be confined by His own Law? How is it that God, who by very description is beyond all accountability to the Law-being a Law unto Himself-is now made under the Law which He Himself created and made for man? Furthermore, what ability has man to assess whether or not the judgments and rulings of the Almighty are truly "proper" and "just"? As St. Paul writes:

Quote:
"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable are His ways!" [Romans 11:33]


And Elihu in the book of Job:

Quote:
"Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding: far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong." [Job 34:10]


Hence, your efforts are, once again, in vain. The Lord is a law unto Himself, and is never to be made accountable to the sense of justice that belongs to fallen men-both you and I.

Further still, the commandment is properly rendered: You shall not murder. That is to say, you shall not take life unlawfully. And what defines the Law but God? What determines what is a lawful taking of life or an unlawful taking than the Judge of heaven and earth? Therefore, if God, in His hidden majesty and judgment, determines that a people (such as the sinful and rebellious Midianites) are to be punished by death and killing, then, by virtue of His command and decree, it is right. For, as the theologians of old spoke: "God is outside of the Law."

You make the argument later:
Quote:
"You know if one takes out the title God and Moses and replaces them with Hitler and Rudolf Hess, no one would question that it was the work of the evil Hitler regime. Would they?"


This is a gross and pernicious claim, as, once again, you seek God upon the basis of His relation to man and the things of man, rather than upon His own Word, which is the only means by which He promises to reveal Himself to us. Thus you are left probing into the majesty of the hidden God, and you have become lost in His glory. For evil is entirely foreign to and absent from God, as He is wholly good, the Judge and Ruler of all creation.

And once again, so that you do not accuse me of "rationalization", this my answer is drawn from no other source than the clear and plain words of Scripture itself.

You insist:
Quote:
3) Verses: 6-13 here the armies of Israel go out and destroy, spoil, burn and steal and plunder on Gods command. In addition, they slaughter all the adult males however; this is not sufficient blood-letting- slaughter to please Moses or God as we read from verse 14.
In contrast, Jesus said he that lives by the sword would die by the sword. The soldiers apparently somewhat kinder and merciful than Moses spared the woman and children much to Mosses disappointment and anger


Are you so perversely opposed to defeat that you will even ignore all contexts, and in the same breath play as though you sought an honest intellectual debate? Spare me your rhetoric, and give me the context:

Matthew 26:47-56:
Quote:
"While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, 'The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.' And he came up to Jesus at once and said, 'Greetings, Rabbi!' And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, 'Friend, do what you came to do.' Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut of his ear. Then Jesus said to him, 'Put you sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?' At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, 'Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left him and fled."


What, then, does Christ speak against, and for what reason? He speaks against the use of the sword by Peter, not because the use of sword is condemned in all cases, as you dream, but because Peter continually resisted the purposed work and person of Christ, namely, His brutal crucifixion, death, and resurrection. That is to say, Christ detested Peter's unwillingness that "Scripture be fulfilled."

This same principle occurs earlier in the Gospel:

Quote:
"From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, 'Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.' But He turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.'" [Matthew 16:21-23]


What then will you bring against this passage, Mr. McDougall? Will you say that Christ's words here contradict His "loving nature", as He condemns St. Peter, who exhibits only concern for Him, as speaking the words of the devil himself? May your absurdities end here (though I suspect they will remain ceaseless).

Christ here forbids Peter, not of the concern for Christ's body and life, but of the refusal of Christ's will, work, and purpose, namely, that He die at the hands of sinners and be raised in glory on the third day to the right hand of God, to live and reign to eternity, and give everlasting life to all those who believe in His name. That is to say, Christ forbid Peter from desiring anything, no matter how apparently noble and good it was to his natural reason and judgment, other than that which fulfilled and completed the Word and will of God.

Now do you see how quickly straw men falter under the fire and hammer of God?

You write again:
Quote:
4) Verse: 14 Moses was wroth (angry) with the officers. Why? Because they had not slaughtered THE WHOLE LOT, WOMAN, CHILDREN, like they had done to the adult males.
So what is sweet kind merciful Moses proposal? Verse: 15, He says now murder all the "little boys". In ABSOLUTE contrast Jesus said blessed are the little children for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Contrast exists when two things are, in some manner or degree, associated, Mr. McDougall. In no way is your assertion that verses 14 and 15 of Numbers 31 (by the way, it is verse 17 where Moses commands that every male be killed among the little ones) are in "absolute contrast" with Luke 18:15-17 credible, as the context of both passages prove, decisively, their incommensurable nature.

St. Luke writes:
Quote:
"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." [15-17]


That is to say, Christ speaks of faith here as it pertains to the Word and promise of God, namely, a childlike trust, assurance, and certainty. It does not state, in any way, that all children will go to heaven, regardless of their faith; rather, as already stated, it states that all who receive, by faith, the kingdom of heaven with the faith of a child are adopted as the sons and daughters of God; He being their true Father, and we His true children. Therefore, the passage does not speak of children as its subject, but of the nature and character of saving faith.

You cry:
Quote:
For goodness sake is this the same merciful loving God depicted by Jesus. No this horrific story does not end yet. Moses goes on saying." Kill all the woman" except those that have not had "sex with a man". How on earth in those remote primitive days were the soldiers to know which woman was a virgin and which were not?.
There was definitely no gynaecologist way back in 300O B.C. WERE THERE? So to me they must on Moses command raped all the woman first and then murdered those who were not virgins. Why was it necessary to rape them all? Because a woman's age does not necessarily indicate whether a woman is a virgin or not.


"So to me...?" What have your speculations and accusations contributed to the text, or debate, at hand thus far, Mr. McDougall, but falsehood and duplicity?

Virginity could be assessed without the need of doctors, Mr. McDougall. For instance, clothing and jewelry was worn, in that time and place, that specifically pertained to a woman's virginal, or marital status. Therefore we have no need to indulge in diverse fantasies-as you have, and no doubt enjoyed-as to how these women were assessed to be virgins outside of a purely visual, and non-intrusive method.

As to the matter of whether these women were raped, the burden of proof does not weigh on my position, but your own, seeing that you have introduced foreign words to the text. It is probable that these women were taken as wives, in direct contradiction to the command of God [Deuteronomy 7:3-4]. However, even if your claim were so, it too would directly conflict with this command and will of God.

You conclude:
Quote:
5) Now please learned rational bible scholar tell me that this is the same father God that is the same yesterday tomorrow and forever, I am all eyes and ears waiting for a logical explanation.


I find it peculiar, Mr. McDougall, that you have attributed to me a sort of Biblical "rationalism", claiming that the answers I have given you, and by them refuted your madness, are no more than logically contrived constructs built from my own mind and reason. And you declare this, even in the face of my direct citations of clear Scripture: book, chapter, and verse!

And in your usual shamelessly contradictory fashion you then demand: "Make this logical to me, and then I will believe." What is this I hear? First you denounce my responses as "rationalism", asserting that they are only attempts to make the illogical logical, and, immediately thereafter, you charge me with the work of producing a logical construction fit for your own delusions!

But what else should one expect but wildly desperate, and discrepant ventures at victory from a wounded and reeling opponent?

Have we not already established, on numerous occasions over the course of this thread, that Christ Himself testified to the authenticity of the Old Testament Scripture? As is written in the Gospel of St. John:

Quote:
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me" [John 5:46].


Therefore, the five books of Moses, including in them the book of Numbers, was explicitly identified by Christ, the Son of the Father, as authentically inspired, inerrant, and infallible Scripture.

And again:
Quote:
"Scripture cannot be broken" [John 10:35].


That is to say, the Old Testament Scripture, as it speaks of the eternal Godhead, is the same today, now, and forever [Hebrews 13:8].

And again:
Quote:
"I and my Father are one" [John 10:30].


This meaning: I and my Father, the Creator of the world, the Father eternal, of whom Moses wrote and spoke; with Him I am of one essence. It is this verse, therefore, that leaves all your efforts of treachery and/or ignorance broken and strewn on the jagged rocks of heresy. For how will you contend with such plain and simple language with what is decidedly contrary to it, namely, your own position?

And again:
Quote:
"They [the Jews] said to him therefore, 'Where is your Father?' Jesus answered, 'You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.'" [John 8:19]


And again:
Quote:
"So Jesus said to them, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.' As he was saying these things, many believed in him." [John 8:28-30]


Now, surely, I hope, you see how lost you are in your false contentions. For Christ here speaks of the Father, of whom Christ has already identified as the same Father of which Moses wrote, as being known necessarily by the knowing of Christ [John 8:19].

Further still, Christ states: I do nothing upon my own authority; all that I do is pleasing, and has been taught to me by the Father. It is this same Father of the Old Testament of whom Christ says He was sent by and who has not left Him, but abides with Him.

Therefore, rather than fight and battle against the clear Word of God with deficient weapons and intellect, I suggest you take note of verse 30, and consider its significance: "As he was saying these things, many believed in him."

In conclusion, then, your arguments and attempts at semantic antitheses have fallen far short of your imagined "victory." Recognize, I implore you, that this Word at which you so hastily and emphatically war and protest destroys the wisdom of the wise, and thwarts the discernment of the discerning [I Corinthians 1:19].

For as it is written:
Quote:
"Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" [I Corinthians 1:20]


JEROME
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 03:23 am
@JEROME phil,
O how i tried reading this last post,o how i tried.This should be used as an example of fundamental thinking,its the best ive seen.To see the same god who permitted his prophet bears to eat the cheeky kids and say its the same god as "he who hurts one of these children should be cast into the deapest well",is beyond comprehension.
What education, what thinking can compare christ with a message of love with the god of horrors and say they are the same.
The god of the old testament was only interested in his tribe,the others had no rights no regard for being human.When did he actually say non jews could become jewish?Early christians where only jews, not one considered it a universal faith till paul intervened.
I will ask you again jerome what proof have you that Jesus was a historic figure.
 
TheLonelyPuritan
 
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 09:51 am
@xris,
xris;78949 wrote:
O how i tried reading this last post,o how i tried.This should be used as an example of fundamental thinking,its the best ive seen.To see the same god who permitted his prophet bears to eat the cheeky kids and say its the same god as "he who hurts one of these children should be cast into the deapest well",is beyond comprehension.
What education, what thinking can compare christ with a message of love with the god of horrors and say they are the same.
The god of the old testament was only interested in his tribe,the others had no rights no regard for being human.When did he actually say non jews could become jewish?Early christians where only jews, not one considered it a universal faith till paul intervened.
I will ask you again jerome what proof have you that Jesus was a historic figure.

While I don't agree with JEROME's every doctrine, I fail to see how he hasn't argued his points well. Jesus Himself testified for the Scriptures (and that includes the book of Numbers), by saying "The Scripture cannot be broken". Furthermore, whenever Jesus refers to Scripture, He always refers to it as if it were absolute fact. We conclude, then, that Jesus Himself approved of the Israel's siege of the Midianites.
As for your statement that not one considered it a universal faith until Paul, let us look at Matthew.
Matthew 28:19 wrote:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Also, as for your denial of the existence of Jesus Christ, I doubt any modern scholar denies that Jesus walked the earth in His day. Even the secular ones.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 11:05:09