Debunking the literal truth of Noah and the great flood

@TheLonelyPuritan,

TheLonelyPuritan;82110 wrote:

Maybe the Roman Catholic Church has such a goal, but not I or any Christian I know.

Does this statement imply that, somehow, those people practicing the Roman Catholic faith are not fellow Christians?

@TheLonelyPuritan,

TheLonelyPuritan;82110 wrote:

Now, the thing you have to understand is that the bible says all men are born evil. It never attributes any kind of redeeming quality to the natural human being. What Jesus said about the children does not contradict this doctrine.

But you said: "The Midianites were a wicked race". Do you mean they were more wicked than other races (e.g. the Israelites), and therefore deserved to be singled out for punishment? And did this apply to every single Midianite, so that Midianite babies were more wicked than other babies? If so, please explain how this could be. And if not, please explain why you think God would treat equally sinful races unequally.

TheLonelyPuritan;82110 wrote:

I have hated God. We commit an act of utter hatred against God every time we sin. This means that for most of my life, I was a God hating man. Still, by His mercy, I now love Him. However, I am susceptible to sin, as there is still some corruption in my flesh. This by no means justifies my sin.

Aren't you being inconsistent here? You argue:
1. We show hatred of God by the mere fact of sinning; and this falsifies any belief we may have that we love God.
2. You still sin, but nevertheless you now really do love God (to a limited extent).
How can this be so? How do you know that the effect of your sin is now alleviated?

And one other point puzzles me. If everyone is born evil, that means they are evil before they have committed any act. Now, I could understand this if it meant that everyone is potentially evil, and is therefore certain to commit sinful acts which will deserve punishment. But I cannot see how they deserve punishment before they have done anything! A genetic predisposition to sin is not in itself culpable, since it is not our choice. It is only when we act sinfully that we are wilfully defying God.

@ACB,

ACB;82123 wrote:

But you said: "The Midianites were a wicked race". Do you mean they were more wicked than other races (e.g. the Israelites), and therefore deserved to be singled out for punishment? And did this apply to every single Midianite, so that Midianite babies were more wicked than other babies? If so, please explain how this could be.

The Midianites were not necessarily more wicked than Israel, and Israel wasn't all too great either. Still, God chose to be merciful to Israel, and not so much to the Midianites.

Quote:

And if not, please explain why you think God would treat equally sinful races unequally.

Moses asked God that same question, to which He replies:

Exodus 33:19 wrote:

And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Quote:

Aren't you being inconsistent here? You argue:
1. We show hatred of God by the mere fact of sinning; and this falsifies any belief we may have that we love God.
2. You still sin, but nevertheless you now really do love God (to a limited extent).
How can this be so? How do you know that the effect of your sin is now alleviated?

Well, there are certain things that should appear in the life of someone who is born again. A sin, for a Christian, is still an act of hatred against God, but it is always followed by repentance. A Christian will hate sin, and love righteousness, because He loves God.

Quote:

And one other point puzzles me. If everyone is born evil, that means they are evil before they have committed any act. Now, I could understand this if it meant that everyone is potentially evil, and is therefore certain to commit sinful acts which will deserve punishment. But I cannot see how they deserve punishment before they have done anything! A genetic predisposition to sin is not in itself culpable, since it is not our choice. It is only when we act sinfully that we are wilfully defying God.

Well, it's not so much that people are considered sinners because they are guilty of having committed a sin, but that people sin because they are sinners by nature. For example, a person who intended to murder someone, but didn't get the chance to do it for some reason or other, while not being as bad than someone who did murder, is still evil on the inside. This is evident by his desire to murder. So it is that all the intents of man's heart are only evil continually (Gen 6:5) from birth (Gen 8:21). A genetic predisposition to sin is not punishable by us, as we don't know the intent of their heart, but God also judges peoples' hearts.

jgweed wrote:

Does this statement imply that, somehow, those people practicing the Roman Catholic faith are not fellow Christians?

Well, I was referring certain high-ranking Roman Catholics or Roman Catholic priests, who may be using their church to gain money. Come to think of it, protestants can do the same. Also, I believe there could be fellow true Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, but not because of their teaching, but in spite of them. Why is this? Because they hold to tons of unbiblical doctrines and deny tons of biblical ones. The biggest is their denial of salvation by faith alone.

Alternatively, I believe there could be some members within the protestant church who are 'good church members', but are not born again.

@TheLonelyPuritan,

What is there in the bible that gives you authority to claim it is true?How do you prove that it is written by god?Not one of its scriptures can be historicaly proven.With this tremendous truth how can it be trusted?
If it is by faith alone, then no dogma can be attached to it.

@xris,

xris;82259 wrote:

What is there in the bible that gives you authority to claim it is true?How do you prove that it is written by god?Not one of its scriptures can be historicaly proven.With this tremendous truth how can it be trusted?
If it is by faith alone, then no dogma can be attached to it.

According to fundamentalists, although we are all filthy sinners in the eyes of God, he welcomes into heaven some filthy human sinners and bans other equally filthy sinners from heaven for all eternity.

In fact this selective judgement gets worse, now you have sinners eating at Gods table and sinners who are no less bad burning in torment in a lake of fire forever and ever, day and night without ceasing there screams reaching up to heaven in their everlasting torment

We have to be found written into the Book of Life if not bad luck!

Revelations chapter 2 verse 23 And "I will kill her children with death"; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts;and "I will give unto everyone of you according to your works"

The problem with the above verse is that according to literal fundamentalst we are all haters of God all filthy sinners. This leads me to this question "I will give unto everyone of you according to your works But our "WORKS ARE ALL THE SAME, THEY END UP IN HEAVEN AND WE END UP IN HELL."

This is not fair judgement this is favourism at its worst

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;82264 wrote:

This is not fair judgement this is favourism at its worst

Yes, the quotation from Exodus in post #143 makes that quite clear.

@ACB,

ACB;82271 wrote:

Yes, the quotation from Exodus in post #143 makes that quite clear.

I see God as just and his mercy will go to those who deserve it, maybe God has a limit to his mercy in one scripture he says "I will not always strive with man", is an example

But I will never accept that God is going to eliminate or annihilate most of his created human beings or burn them in eternal torment

@Alan McDougall,

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Early psychedelic literature at its best. What a great crazy book.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;82314 wrote:

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Early psychedelic literature at its best. What a great crazy book.

Sadly even the sweet agnostic old lady backing apple pie for here beloved grandchildren. Bad luck granny you did not accept the gospel so you are going to be thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented day and night forever.

This is the screwed logic I am trying to get any literal believing fundamentalist to rationalise to me and to themselves

@Alan McDougall,

Mr. McDougall writes:

Quote:

xris as much as we try JEROME continues to avoid a direct answer and persists in muddling the whole debate with reams out of context scripture.

Please, show me a single verse of Scripture that I have taken out of its proper context, Mr. McDougall.

But you will do no such thing-will you, Mr. McDougall?

(Moderator note: content deleted)

You write:

Quote:

I do not believe all scripture is literal true. If it were then the universe would have had to be created in six days.

And so it has, for it is written:

Quote:

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." [Genesis 1:31]

And again:

Quote:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation." [Genesis 2:1-3]

And again:

Quote:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." [Exodus 20:11]

You write:

Quote:

Obviously he thinks I am ignorant on Biblical scripture when I can quote reams of the stuff from memory.

You have not quoted "reams of the stuff from memory", Mr. McDougall. Rather, you have restated poorly from memory those verses which you mistakenly set in conflict with others that you also restate poorly from memory.

I do not, nor have I, mocked your "lack of Biblical knowledge"; I do, however, resent your arrogantly proclaimed "expertise" regarding the Holy Scriptures, as though the Bible were a book that did not make you its perpetual student,but rather-as you so nauseatingly esteem yourself to be-its sole and sovereign master; as if you, or any other for that matter, could ever fully divulge the infinite riches and wisdom inborn in that singular text, that Holy Writ breathed out by the very mouth of God.

You write:

Quote:

Must we accept ever word in the Bible as literal truth; of course not it is not a historical book.

The Scriptures are certainly not-first and foremost that is-concerned with historical matters, but rather spiritual ones, being the Word written for our salvation and redemption from the power of sin, death, and the devil.

However, since the Scripture is God's own Word to man, all that is included therein is thus wholly inspired, infallible, and inerrant. Hence, when the Scriptures speak of history, its telling of history is wholly inspired, infallible, and inerrant. Likewise, when the Scriptures speak of science, its telling of science is wholly inspired, infallible, and inerrant.
(Moderator note: content deleted)

You write:

Quote:

Do I have to discard the whole bible because I don't accept it to be literal, again of course not, God gave me a mind so I can discern and distinguish beautiful truths be they biblical or not, and reject nonsense like Numbers 31 as the work of a war lord in the person of Moses?
JEROME after listening to all of your arguments of Literal truth of the bible, I reassure my initial belief is that the bible stories are based on an almost total fiction.

Again, as I have already asked another presumably vacationing member of this forum, how is it that you may discern what is the Word of God and what is not? How is it that you are able,(Content deleted) to distinguish between what is and what is not divinely inspired? Will only that which conforms to modern historical data be considered the true "Word of God"? If so, does this not entail that verses once thought to be uninspired, by virtue of a corroborating archaeological find, become inspired? Did the verse, then, achieve inspiration on account of the archaeological find or did inspiration objectively precede it? If the former is the case, you are left with a "holy text" wholly dependent upon the workings and strivings of men; if the latter is the case, you are left to be devoured by the cruel jaws of doubt, uncertainty, and error: a savage maw you appear to be in danger of making your permanent habitation.

You write:

Quote:

I have not found a reliable explication of the absent of ice ages in the bible, they are not present even in the background scenario. The bible and is literal believers of it can not justify the observable evidence of the fossil record, species divergence and the geological evidence that range from mountain formation to climatologic analysis in gases trapped in ice layers in some regions of the planet; the believers of the bible, cannot also explain the astronomical phenomena that surrounds us (like elements formation in the stars and planetary formation).
When they drill down into ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica, they extract core samples that record history in ice core rings that go back hundreds of thousands of years, how can anyone support the six day creation story in the light of this indisputable evidence that our planet is unimaginably old?

Again, the Scriptures are not principally concerned with matters historical and scientific, but rather with those things pertaining to our salvation by grace, through faith in Christ.

Therefore, because the Scriptures do not speak upon all matters of science, this does not translate into meaning that it is "missing" anything necessary, or even relevant; as the Holy Scriptures are not a science textbook, but the saving power of God to all who believe it.

Now, in regards to the fossil record, how does this matter stand in conflict to the Scriptural account of creation and the flood? The fact that millions of fossils are laid down throughout the entire face of the earth, which needed to be trapped, buried, and cemented quickly, beautifully conforms to the data involved in the account of the Noahic flood.

In regards to star formation, stellar evolution is first presupposed in the estimation of the ages of the stars, thereafter these ages (which were arrived at through a stellar evolutionary presupposition) are utilized in establishing a system for stellar evolution (that very thing presupposed). The circumference of this circularity in reasoning is so profoundly narrow that it must by necessity leave the adhering scientists spinning wildly in place; which explains quite well the cause and origin of this confused and deluded formulation.

The same can be said of the other objections you have made. However, I am not about to spend my time searching for the existing material, seeing that my retrieval of such information would only be met with further disingenuous demands, as no amount facts, figures, or data will prove to be beyond the realm of probability, and therefore, are necessarily resigned within the realm of doubt. The only certainty man may have, namely, faith in the written Word, has already been dismissed and condemned by you as utter inanity and foolishness. (Content deleted)

You write:

Quote:

A convincing prove in here of the Noah ark theory in the bible had not been found in this debate, JEROME you have not yet come with a realistic explication of the quantity of water necessary to flood the entire planet as the genesis claimed

Perhaps you did not know, Mr. McDougall, that the volume of water on earth is ten times greater than the volume of land above sea level [if the earth were completely flattened, water depth would be 9,000 feet above ground level].

Therefore, considering that mountains are composed of buckled and tipped sedimentary layers that were initially laid down through water as horizontal layers, they must have been pushed up after the sediments were deposited [In the Beginning, p. 40]. Thus, presuming this to be true, the pre-Noahic mountains would be sufficiently covered by the amount of water produced by the flood, even that water which now resides on the earth's present surface.

Furthermore, the Scriptures state plainly that, speaking of the subsiding flood waters:

Quote:

"The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, and the waters receded from the earth continually." [Genesis 8:2-3]

Therefore, the source of water was not limited to rain only, but to the waters that emerged from the fountains of the deep. This explains well the broken and faulted crust of the earth.

However, any attempt to refer the Scriptural account to the judgment of the "assured results" of modern science is futile, as any such attempt leaves us under the bondage of doubt, and therefore, is not a proper object of faith. Thus, the true and right office of Christian apologetics is not to demonstrate the truth of Genesis by means of the scientific method, but rather to unveil the deceitful and fallacious theories and conjectures of all opposition.

You conclude:

Quote:

. Joshua supposedly got God the not only stop the earth revolving but reversing a number of degrees. Imagine the celestial dynamics needed to do that.
"On the day that the Lord gave the men of Israel, victory over the Amorites, Joshua spoke to the Lord. In the presence of the Israelites he said 'Sun stand still over Gibeon; Moon stop over AijalonValley'. The Sun stood still and the Moon did not move until the nation had conquered its enemies. This is written in the book of Jashar. The sun stood still in the middle of the sky and did not go down for a whole day."

Here is where the polarity between you and I becomes most striking. For you see, Mr. McDougall, I, in my reading of the Scriptures, do not, by the grace of God, concern myself with my own imaginings. We are not to limit the works of God by the thoughts of man, but rather, we are to limit ourselves to trust and faith in that plain and certain Word-as little children trust and believe the word of their own earthly fathers-by which we receive life, forgiveness, and salvation, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

AMEN.

JEROME

(Moderator edit and note: I have deleted certain passages of text that can be construed as personal attacks and consequently violate Forum Rules. For the last time, I direct everyone, and especially the author of this post, to my post #139 in this very thread. Let me be perfectly clear about this: personal insults and derogatory remarks directed against another Member, even if cloaked in the tone of Cotton Mather, will not be tolerated in the Philosophy Forum.
John
Forum Administrator)

@JEROME phil,

XRIS Writes:

Quote:

Christ never mentioned gentiles,initially christianity was the preserve of Jews ,thats why Peter and Paul argued over circumcision.
Are you also saying the god of jehova was not for all humanity?What god served the rest of mankind?
Come on answer my other questions..

The New Testament interprets the Old, xris; just as that which is revealed and fulfilled always interprets that which is concealed and foretold.

And, as the New Testament speaks regarding the true identity of Israel:

Quote:

"I am speaking the truth in Christ-I am not lying; my conscience bears witness in the Holy Spirit-that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." [Romans 9:1-8]

You also write:

Quote:

But the covenant was with the Jews he never proclaimed a new one nor did his prophets prophesies one.It was only Paul who allowed gentiles.Your flogging a dead horse.Answer my other questions if you dare.
Your fundamentalist veil is drooping,your making concessions on the interpretation of the bible.

And it appears your veil of quasi-intellectual babble has, indeed, utterly fallen into that muck and mire in which its staff once stood, being rightly left to be trampled by droves of filthy and foul swine.

For you see, xris, Christ Himself contradicts your uninformed and ill-advised contentions and conjectures, thereby slaying your argument, and leaving it to, indeed, resemble that particular vigor and vitality associated with the bloated and beaten carcass of a "dead horse":

Quote:

"Then he 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]

JEROME

---------- Post added 08-10-2009 at 08:20 PM ----------

ATTENTION: Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

Then it seems that I have understood you precisely, dear Didymos, as you, rather than contend for the obscurity of the Taoist texts (as you do the Christian texts), refer me to them as though they will, by virtue of their own perspicuity, disclose their meaning, namely, that the teaching of the Tao is not intellectually known, but only experienced.

However, to merely dismiss your error (and my having pointed it out to you) by demanding that I first "study these books" before I am able to "speak with you about them", as though this bare demand would relieve you of your blunder, is neither applicable nor pertinent to my objection.

For you see, dear Didymos, it is not my argument that the Taoist texts teach what is contrary to their obvious meaning (in fact I quite agree that the Taoist religion is primarily an empirical one--or at least claimed to be by its adherents), rather I have merely adopted the argument you use against the Holy Scriptures and applied it to the Taoist scriptures. Therefore, I need not possess any knowledge whatsoever of the Taoist texts (though I have taken introductory courses in the study of world religion that have given me a rudimentary knowledge of them), nor any other "holy books" of the East (or West for that matter), as I am not arguing over their meaning, but only that meaning which you ascribe to them, and only that which you deny the Christian Scriptures, namely, the clarity of language that demands an objective and definite sense regardless of what subjective perversions of the text may occur by individual persons.

Furthermore, why is it that you, upon being asked the meaning of the Christian texts refer the asker back to the "individual", and, contrariwise, upon being asked the meaning of the Taoist texts refer the asker to that very text in question? Why is it that I am accused of "circularity" when I refer to the Holy Scriptures as the basis for their own meaning and authority, whereas when you refer to the Taoist texts as the basis of their own meaning and authority, you deem yourself exempt from all criticism, commentary, and judgment?

In addition, what if I prefer not to recognize the Taoist texts as authoritative? What if I choose--as an "individual"--to recognize other texts as truly speaking of the Tao, despite their blatantly contradicting the recognized Tao Te Ching and Chaung Tzu? In fact, what if I were to merely write my own Taoist text (I will call it the Jer O Me) and devote myself to it in all "humility", "piety", "sincerity", "honesty", and the like? Why would you discount me my "individual" right to claim myself a Taoist?

You Taogmaticians can be so intolerant

JEROME

I still patiently await your response..........:whistling:

JEROME

@JEROME phil,

He still conceived the faith to be jewish,he did not contradict the old testament as you have pointed out so many times.If it is a jewish faith it still required any who followed him to follow his father ,the god of the jews.
You appear to want it both ways,either it is new faith or its and old faith,now you make your mind up.If Peter ,christs right hand man,his rock,saw it as jewish then who are you to change scripture to fit your narrow minded view.Your like everyone else you dont read the scriptures as defined,you interpret them for your own benefit.

@Alan McDougall,

JEROME you are a very angry man spewing out vitriolic comments instead of debating like a sensible adult

Quote:

Your vitriolic comment Jerome
Rather, you will merely skirt around any and all demands that evidence be given-and accountability be had-for your ignoble and wicked slanders, and schemingly crawl back into that foul and odious recess from whence you came; that hallowed safeguard in which you may traduce, vilify, and malign all that your forked-tongue can lash

.

That is not the kind of comment I or anyone would expect from a Christian, if you were a Christian you would be more concerned with my eternal destiny and soul than slandering me and others in this most unpleasant manner???

You might find it suprising that God really loves me just as much as he loves you, remember the story of the Prodigal Son if you were the father and I the son, you would not welcome but banish me back into the wilderness. God is not a repecter of men. You have the same amount of his favour as I have

Has it not dawned on you that I just might be a wayward Christian battling with the inner demons of doubt, your Un-Christian un-Christ like demeaner might drive me into the eternal wildernesses of atheism and you will have to account to God for the loss of a precious soul (mine)

Dont you know that it is LOVE that conqueres all not hurtful comments.???

You know JEROME it is not the "One you say you serve is your master" but "the One whoes will you do is your real master". Your actions on this forum make me think you are more of "an agent of the deceiver than a child of God"

Think man think ???

I am not angry with you, no I am sadened and extremely dissapointed to read such vitriolic anger, not rightious anger human fallible anger from a supposed Christian

@Alan McDougall,

XRIS WRITES:

Quote:

He still conceived the faith to be jewish,he did not contradict the old testament as you have pointed out so many times.If it is a jewish faith it still required any who followed him to follow his father ,the god of the jews.
You appear to want it both ways,either it is new faith or its and old faith,now you make your mind up.If Peter ,christs right hand man,his rock,saw it as jewish then who are you to change scripture to fit your narrow minded view.Your like everyone else you dont read the scriptures as defined,you interpret them for your own benefit.

The text clearly states that:

Quote:

"everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Therefore, the whole of the Old Testament speaks of the person and work of Christ. As Christ demonstrates to the Apostles:

Quote:

"Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, 'Thus it is written, that he 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.'"

Thus, the very Scriptures that Christ opens to the Apostles-the Old Testament-are said, by Christ Himself, to foretell of His suffering, death, resurrection, and glorification, along with the preaching of His name to all nations, not being confined to Jerusalem, but beginning in Jerusalem.

How, then, will your false dichotomy stand against these plain words of the Holy Spirit? For there is only one faith, namely, that which receives the objective Gospel promises of God; in the Old Testament, those who were saved trusted in the coming Messiah, who would suffer, die, and rise again, to bring salvation to all nations-just as Christ says of the Scriptures in these verses.

Furthermore, regarding Peter's understanding of Christianity in relation to the Gentiles, all one need to do is read Peter's sermon in the book of Acts:

Quote:

"So Peter opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I understand that God shows no impartiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. [which included those were not of the Jews] And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.'" [Acts 10:34-43]

And again:

Quote:

"While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 'Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people [the Gentiles], who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days." [44-48]

In the following chapter, Peter explains this change:

Quote:

"Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, 'You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.' But Peter began and explained it to them in order: 'I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' But I said, 'By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' But the voice answered a second time from heaven, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.' This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man's house. And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?' When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, 'Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.'" [11:1-18]

And, again, Peter speaks against those who, at the Jerusalem Council, commanded circumcision as a requirement for all believers:

Quote:

"Brother, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.'" [Acts 15:7-11]

And so, your false dichotomy is left without a leg upon which to stand; for Peter testifies that the no distinction exists between that faith of the Gentiles or the Jews (), as both necessarily attach themselves to the same object, namely, the grace of God given through Jesus Christ.

Therefore, it is not I who must re-interpret the Scriptures to my benefit (as my adherence to its clear and plain words benefit me of themselves), but rather, it is you who must distort, deface, and disfigure the simple meaning of the text in order that it might conform to your maddening arrogance and presumptions.

JEROME

---------- Post added 08-11-2009 at 03:04 PM ----------

ALAN MCDOUGALL WRITES:

You write:

Quote:

That is not the kind of comment I or anyone would expect from a Christian, if you were a Christian you would be more concerned with my eternal destiny and soul than slandering me and others in this most unpleasant manner???

Am I hearing this rightly, Mr. McDougall? Are you accusing me of slander? And not, rather, addressing your own slander concerning my having taken "reams" of Scripture from their proper context? Where are these verses, Mr. McDougall? Where is the evidence to support the slander you have made against me?

You write:

Quote:

You might find it suprising that God really loves me just as much as he loves you, remember the story of the Prodigal Son if you were the father and I the son, you would not welcome but banish me back into the wilderness. God is not a repecter of men. You have the same amount of his favour as I have

I have affirmed time and again on this thread that Christ has died for all men-including you, Mr. McDougall; I have affirmed that God's first will (or antecedent will) is one that is both good and gracious towards all men; I have affirmed that God is not pleased by, nor does He desire, the death of the wicked, but that they turn from their wicked ways and live.

You, indeed, have been purchased by the blood of the Lamb, same as I. But you, Mr. McDougall, in your rejection of Christ, face that bitter and tragic end of those false prophets and teachers in II Peter 2:1:

Quote:

You write:

Quote:

Has it not dawned on you that I just might be a wayward Christian battling with the inner demons of doubt, your Un-Christian un-Christ like demeaner might drive me into the eternal wildernesses of atheism and you will have to account to God for the loss of a precious soul (mine)

Mr. McDougall, you have manifestly rejected the many Scriptures I have provided you regarding the Gospel; you deny the only God of heaven and earth, and call Him a tyrant, a murderer, a rapist, a liar, a thief, a warmonger, an unjust ruler, and a weak and impotent Creator, Sustainer, and Savior.

Enough with this empty rhetoric of yours!

You are an unrepentant sinner who hates the Words, works, and will of God. I would be doing nothing but adding to your tyranny by applying the Gospel where sin is not yet recognized or repented of, rather, it is the Law you need, Mr. McDougall, that fire and hammer of God, so that it might break to pieces the hardened heart that beats within your chest, that you so hatefully reveal by your vile words and insults regarding the infinite and eternal Triune God of all--and your only Savior!

You write:

Quote:

You know JEROME it is not the "One you say you serve is your master" but "the One whoes will you do is your real master". Your actions on this forum make me think you are more of "an agent of the deceiver than a child of God"
Think man think ???
I am not angry with you, no I am sadened and extremely dissapointed to read such vitriolic anger, not rightious anger human fallible anger from a supposed Christian

This is surely the peak of your absurdities, as my "harsh" words were directed, not towards empty and baseless appeals, as yours are, but rather towards your false accusations of me, as you wickedly slandered me, claiming that I have blasphemously disregarded the proper contexts of "reams" of Scripture.

And yet, have you given one example of this? NO! (as I knew you would not-for you could not). Rather, you have decided to play rhetorician, and instead of repenting and admitting your error you attempt to turn the tables on me, as though I am the one who spoke without cause, evidence, or right.

You are the one who is guilty of false accusations, Mr. McDougall; not I.

You are the one guilty of denying, defaming, and decrying the God of the Holy Scriptures; not I.

Let us read again my words to you, Mr. McDougall:

You first slandered me in saying:

Quote:

xris as much as we try JEROME continues to avoid a direct answer and persists in muddling the whole debate with reams out of context scripture.

To which I responded:

Quote:

Please, show me a single verse of Scripture that I have taken out of its proper context, Mr. McDougall.

But you will do no such thing-will you, Mr. McDougall?

Rather, you will merely skirt around any and all demands that evidence be given-and accountability be had-for your ignoble and wicked slanders, and schemingly crawl back into that foul and odious recess from whence you came; that hallowed safeguard in which you may traduce, vilify, and malign all that your forked-tongue can lash.

Hence, my response to you, Mr. McDougall demanded nothing more than that you provide evidence for the slander you made of me.

And what have you provided? NOTHING. Do you not see how you, by this your empty rhetoric of yours, have only served to prove my response to you as being wholly appropriate, accurate, and fitting, in that, indeed, you prefer, rather than admitting to or supporting your slander, to crawl back to, and cower in, those foul and filthy recesses from which you may lash wicked lies and malign me to your heart's content.

Therefore, either produce evidence in support of your slander, or keep your forked-tongue behind your teeth!

JEROME

@JEROME phil,

JEROME;82416 wrote:

I still patiently await your response..........:whistling:

Please, don't waste your time waiting. I'm certainly not going to waste mine. You have explained your intentions for having these discussions, and those intentions preclude any response from me.

@Alan McDougall,

As for me guys I have had enough of JEROME'S insane ranting, imagine this guy as your local pastor, he would scare the life out of little children

According to his hateful gospel 99.99999999999 % of humanity are going to burn in hell forever and only he will qualify for the Kingdom of Heaven

I have not read one word of love from this most unpleasant person

@Alan McDougall,

jerome you are going to have to answer my question.If jesus was upholding the old testament as a source for believers it means we have to conform to the jewish dogma,if not then christ changed the dogma.Now you decide is it a new faith, christianity or is it jewish with a few insignificant changes..you decide.
Now i beg, answer without refering to scriptures.

@xris,

Quote:

JEROME you wrote
You, indeed, have been purchased by the blood of the Lamb, same as I. But you, Mr. McDougall, in your rejection of Christ, face that bitter and tragic end of those false prophets and teachers in II Peter 2:1:

I started this thread on the basis that much as the Bible such as the flood at the time of Noah cannot be taken as literal historical fact. If this account was exact recollection of what really happened then just like these verses seem to suggest

Genesis 7 verse 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered

Genesis 7 verse 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered

If the above two verses are literally true and absolutely accurate then all the hills and all the mountains including colossal mountains like Mount Everest and K2 which are over 29 thousand feet above sea level would have to have been submerged by the flood waters

You must always remember JEROME that the apostles and prophets were men just like you and I and scripture had to be filtered through their very finite and mortal minds

Scripture is not a facsimile from God, men wrote as they were moved and sometimes they were moved by the wrong desires of their own hearts.

I do not for one moment believe "God told Moses" to slaughter all those innocent Midianite woman and children, Moses gave the order out of his own power hungry mind because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, that is one of the reasons Moses never entered the Promised Land and you should know the Promised Land was symbolic of Heaven or Paradise.,

That was the gist of my thread "NOT THE PERSON OF JESUS WHO I LOVE MORE THAN LIFE AND WHOM I HAVE NEVER REJECTED"

@Alan McDougall,

Its amazing how you can have two men supposably worshipping the same god and be so different in their view of this god.Alan,how do you reconcile your views with a fellow christian who protrays your god in such an awful way.Christianity by its scriptures is self destroying and yet the man we call Jesus, who came with a message of love, is hidden by so much dogma.By their very presence they will destroy christianity.It forces christians of good heart to consider their beliefs.If these dogmatic anti christs have their way it will turn the moderate into secular christians with no authority.

@xris,

xris;82707 wrote:

Its amazing how you can have two men supposably worshipping the same god and be so different in their view of this god.Alan,how do you reconcile your views with a fellow christian who protrays your god in such an awful way.Christianity by its scriptures is self destroying and yet the man we call Jesus, who came with a message of love, is hidden by so much dogma.By their very presence they will destroy christianity.It forces christians of good heart to consider their beliefs.If these dogmatic anti christs have their way it will turn the moderate into secular christians with no authority.

XRIS his vitriolic outbursts and ranting and accusation and slander of not only me but you and other members makes it clear that he is full of hate and anger and as far as I am concerned disqualifies him from ever calling himself a true follower of the beautiful Prince of Peace we know as Jesus

Jesus said "Fear not for I am with you" JEROME says be very afraid you are going to burn in hell

Jesus spoke about the Father and I do not see the Father that Jesus referred to as the wrathful warlike Yahweh of the old testament

I admit I have great difficulty in accepting YAHWEH as God the Father of forgiveness and love, that Jesus prayed to all the time.

You were so right right in a previous post when you stated that according to scripture we are living in a new covenant or Testament the New cancelling out the old, How can one live by opposing covenants, you either live in the old or accept the new or reject them both

A person like JEROME makes me think that I just might be living in a phantom world

Philosophy Forum

Debunking the literal truth of Noah and the great flood

Quick Links

My Account

able2know