It's always been in my nature to argue. Not in the sense that I would go out and disagree with anything and everything just to get the thrill of a good "heated debate", but I love defending my position. This little trait is ever apparent when the topic of God arises in social situations. I love it. Nothing satisfies me more than hearing someone else's opinion about this most important of topics, sharing my own and providing reasons for my convictions. It pains me to say, but there is also a kind of satisfaction in being proven wrong at times. It's like I missed something, or just plain ignored it, and then, in the heat of the battle, it was re iterated back to me in a way I could see my own misinformed opinion. I will never admit it to my foe at the time (no one likes looking stupid, eh), but when they bring something up for which I was mistaken, I get a sort of thrill. It's like I'm one step closer to possibly knowing what this whole mess is about. So, this passion for debate has ignited many conversations with friends about God and theology. Most of them being about the god of the Bible, I recall endless hours spent quoting scripture and weaving my way through fact, fiction and, my personal favorite, interpretation. One very interesting phenomenon I noticed while talking with Christians about their theology is how often they excuse some of the claims of their Holy book with the Argument of Context.
To put it simply, the Argument of Context claims that a particular notion is exempt from rational judgment and scrutiny because of the time it was written. The obvious place to start looking for ludicrous claims in the Bible is our beloved Old Testament. I must confess, it really makes for a good read at times because it includes a lot of the essentials needed to compile a gripping plot and amusing story. Containing violence, deceit, incredible bravery, victory against impossible odds, romance, debauchery, forgiveness, fiery judgment and weeklong parties, it's quite surely Earth's bestselling book ever. To begin on a quite shocking note, the Old Testament has some warped views on rape, saying that a women who is violated must marry her attacker and, in some cases, even be stoned to death with him because she didn't have the presence of mind to call for help (see Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 and 28-29). Even though I'm sure some radical people out there still hold some of these views today, the greater portion of humanity can agree they are somewhat "far-fetched". Especially when considering the punishment of death for homosexuals and non-believers (see Leviticus 20: 13 and 2 Chronicles 15: 12-13). The god of the Old Testament also has assassins on his pay-roll. Yes, the angels of death are of great importance to our father (see Exodus 23: 23). To end this rather bitter paragraph on a somewhat funnier note, I need not refer further than Deuteronomy 23: 1, where a man whose testicles are crushed or cut off cannot enter the Assembly of God. The line's gotta be drawn somewhere right!?
Any Christian would refute that the Old Testament is particularly that; old. I would be ignorant in saying that I did not recognize Jesus as "revolutionizing" this law. The bible presents him as challenging the teachers of the law during his time on Earth and even, in some cases, intensifying the law. Only one thing troubles me slightly. If we look up Matthew 5: 17-20, Jesus seems to be a firm upholder of the Law of Moses. He even says that "until Heaven and Earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished". So, according to this quotation, we should still kill homosexuals and heathens while also condemning a woman to marry a man who rapes her. Nevertheless, this little contradiction does nothing more than highlight some of the inconsistencies in the text of the Bible. For the rest of this essay, I will humbly assume that Jesus does practice what he preaches in that he loves everyone and doesn't have any particular desire to demolish the so called "wicked". It is interesting to note though, if we assume that Jesus did come to revolutionize the old law, that "God's word" is anything but eternal. It had to be changed to work for a new age on Earth. How long before we need to amend our already revised Holy books to fit in with our image of the world and how we think it should be governed by our creator. Before you know it, we will be quoting from the Newer and Newest Testaments, too!
While the New Testament is far less radical, it does contain some verses that may raise a few eye brows in the 21st century. The first I will cite is one previously used on this blog, and refers to Paul's chauvinistic treatment of women (see 1 Timothy 2: 11-12). The context of argument will undoubtedly refute that times were different back then; women didn't have the rights they do now. Fair enough. But if we make that claim, then our Bible is severely outdated and is in need of revision, much like the kind of revision Jesus gave the Old Testament. Another not-so-crazy yet obsolete verse in the Bible is when Jesus teaches that if a man is to even look at a woman with lust in his eyes he has committed adultery with her in his heart, and therefore is subject to the appropriate punishment. I won’t be audacious enough to speak for the entire male population here, but I simply doubt there is a man alive today that has not and does not continue to commit that dyer sin. It simply seems out of touch with today's culture. The final passage I would like to bring under the magnifying glass is the chapter in 2 Corinthians warning good, law abiding Christians to not be "yoked" with non believers. The first two sentences in the passage claim that all non believers are wicked people who dwell in darkness. A stark comparison to the believer forever embellished in light and righteousness. Only religion could come up with such derisive ideas. Aren't we all designed to appreciate and value our diversity? Did Jesus not teach us to love one another unconditionally and without a price tag? This last passage, found in 2 Corinthians 6: 14-18, pains me more than any other in the New Testament. It preaches ignorance and the idea that we should not learn about our fellow humans and appreciate our differences but instead, advises Christians to stick to the pack so as to not waste time discovering the dark unbeliever who will surely have nothing in common with a child of the Bible. This seems to be yet another ploy by religion to keep its followers in line and from discovering the wonders of interaction with people of different convictions. It seems our world is not just being torn and divided by wars fought in the name of different gods, but also by the prevention of love amidst two varying individuals. How very sad.
To summarize, the argument of context is one essential to a Christian in defending their faith. How else would you explain separatism, murder and rape? It is inevitable that such problems would arise when constructing an eternal book of worship about God, especially when written by humans. I realize I have extensively criticized the Bible in this post and concede that I don't believe it is entirely filled with such ludicrous, outdated and obsolete claims. I'm very sure, what with all religions being so similar to one another, that quite possibly all other forms of belief consist of such passages unknown in today's modern world. The message I am trying to convey is that if we have to take so much of this Holy book in context now, how much longer will it be before it is utterly out of tune with reality and outdated? Although a Christian, Muslim or Jew might need context to justify their beliefs, God does not. If any of these books were his word, they would be truly everlasting.....
Well obviously there is plenty for an apologetic to argue here, however, since you say that 2Corinthians 6:14-18 troubles you the most that is what I will touch on. I will quote it here just so that there can be no confusion about what I speak. "Do not be yolked together with unbelievers. For what do righteuosness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belail? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
ReplyDelete"Therefore come out from them and be seperate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receice you." "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." -2Corinthians 6:14-18 NIV.
You said that it distresses you because it "preaches ignorance and the idea that we should not learn about our fellow humans". I am struggling to find evidence of that statement in these verses. Nowhere in the verses is Paul, or God, teaching ignorance and that we shouldn't learn about our fellow humans. He is simply teaching us to not marry an unbeliever. And I believe that he is teaching that because of the struggles that we will have with our spouse if we do. And he hints at this in the first couple of verses by comparing the 2.
Well, first off i DO most certainly believe it preaches ignorance and the idea that we should not learn about our fellow humans when it says, "Therefore come out from them and be seperate, says the Lord". This is segregation and division; both two traits we have learned are terrible when it comes to race but, as far religion is concerned, they have been deemed OK. This troubles me, greatly.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in the first couple of verses he, Paul, not God, hints at how he believes Christians are superior to non believers. Only one of the beginning few sentences states that he thinks they don't have "anything in common", which is fair enough. The others are merely used to slander the people who believe something different, thereby leading Christians to steer clear of "wickedness", "darkness" and "belial" (a demon in the Bible....charming). Talk about loving unconditionally, eh?
I think that the evidence of separatism, which directly leads to ignorance, and feelings of superiority are easy to find in this passage.
The passage "come out from them and be seperate" isn't talking about everday life. Its talking about marriage. You have to remember to keep within the context of the chapter when you try to break down what the verse means. Paul is simply emphasizing that believers and unbelievers will not be happy in marriage together. That is why he uses light and darkness to be compared. Christians have the light of slavation and unbelievers the darkness of deception. He also uses righteuosness and wickedness; unbelievers, because of their refusal to accept Truth cannot be anywhere near righteousness. Nowhere in these verses is God or Paul teaching us not to love one another as human beings. The reason why he (Paul) compares Christ and Belail is because christians are disciples of Jesus and should strive to live as he did, unbelievers cannot live as Christ because of their ignorance and their blatant refusal to accpet the Truth. If you deny Gods word, than you may as well be a demon because you don't know the ways of Christ; that is what he (Paul) is saying in that comparison.
ReplyDeleteAgain, im gonna have to disagree. I acknowledge he is talking about marriage, but its still a matter of segregating two different communities because....well, i honestly don't see any other reason except that it would be hard to live w someone of a different belief. But, when was ANYTHING good ever easy?
ReplyDeleteThe point im trying to make is to believe in all that, you must have faith. You simply cannot claim a Christian is righteous and will go to heaven and a non believer is darkness and will go to hell. Its just rather snobby, if you look at it closely. I don't think Paul has ANY right to judge whether someone is dark or bright, good or bad, demon or angel. Only God cant do that; not Paul, not a book, not popular opinion, not a verse like the one we're dealing w here.
I realize that in this particular passage you would like read in black and white, but i argue that you must read between the lines of what is being said. If you still cant see, look at the world today; torn and divided because EVERY religion claims they are right while everyone else is wrong. It really is separating us, beginning with the black and white that is the unity of marriage, which I personally believe transcends ANY belief in a god or religion because, at the end of the day, i doubt that god really cares what name we call "him" by. There is only one. Just because you call him Jesus and someone else Allah, doesn't mean one of you is destined to burn in hell or be compared to a demon of Satan. Hopefully the world will shed this notion of the possession of absolute truth, begin to love each other and stop separating one another because of theological ideas that cannot ALL be correct. Who knows, maybe none of them are.
It wouldn't be hard, it would be stressful, full of disagreement and quarrel every Sunday when mommy or daddy decides that they want to take the kids to church and the other disagrees. Segregation in that specific manner I support all day every day, because normal marriage isn't easy let alone being married to someone with a different faith.
ReplyDeleteNow this second paragraph of yours is where political correctness weasels its way in. No one asked back then, and they shouldn't nowadays either, if they hurt your feelings when they shared TRUTH with you. Now being polite is a totally different thing, that Im always for. But if your fat, your fat; can't escape it, its fact and in the same way Paul is approaching the people in this book. He is not judging, he is simply re-stating what God said. God is the one who first said that christians are righteous and ubelievers arent and all that; all Paul is doing,is simply saying it again. He was the first Jonathan Edwards if u will. No one is reading anything in black in white; in fact, nearly all of the Bible is written in a way that neither me, nor you, nor my father, nor anyone else on this planet can completely comprehend. That is another fact. And this next point, I will not hold against you for any reason because it is a typical stereotype and misconception of Christianity; and this is another thing that seperates us from all other religions. The goal of Christianity is NOT out to rip other religions apart and put them down, but simply to open peoples eyes to the Truth of Gods true word. Now in order to do that, you have to make sure that unbelievers KNOW that if you are not Baptized and accept Christ as your savior, you're goin nowhere but straight to hell. Its the same way in every day life; people let u know when you are wrong; as they should.
What u described the marriage as is VERY true, it WOULD be hard. All im saying is, why would Jesus ever want us to take an easy route for ANYTHING!? I think thats the point where ur not entirely seeing what im trying to highlight. His disciples knew they'd be screwed being Christians, but they still did it. Much in the same way as i believe a marriage can still thrive w differences of faith. Yes it would be hard, but verses like the one at hand that DO segregate are just unnecessary.... Much like most of what Paul decided was in his right to teach.
ReplyDeleteOk, well I think you know me well enough to know that im no fan of political correctness...at all. And thats not what im going for here. What im trying to make u see is my perspective of things. Im neither a Christian or a Muslim or anything else. Imagine how it looks like to me. Various groups of all ALL claiming to be right while, and yes it is the case, putting everyone else down coz they BELIEVE they have so-called truth. Lets make it clear theres a difference between knowing smth to be true and having faith in smth that it is true. Religion requires faith.
The problem here simply stems from the Christian BELIEVING he is above none believers (i.e is righteous, in the light and not wicked) and therefor, in a rather snobby way, saying they shouldn't unite w none believers. I think once we realize that NO ONE knows anything to be true, but simply believes, then these problems might stop. Yes, this passage is a problem to society because it preaches separatism. At the end of the day, the Muslim's belief that he has ultimate truth is just as strong as the Christians.
First off, who said anything about easy routes? Such things don't exist in reality. And again, no one is teaching segregation. Look at the section heading before verse 14 before you read any further. It is a warning to us to not be married to an unbeliever. Simple. No where does it teach, be segregated and have nothing to do with them, like you are suggesting it does. I understand how it looks to you. I have heard the opinions of people who have similar beliefs as you. And yes there is a difference between knowing and believing something is true. That's the beauty of Christianity, there are no if's and but's. It is solid, solid fact. Paul is using examples to illustrate to the naive people of Corinth that being yolked with an unbeliever is not what God wants. How is emphasizing their differences by using examples snobby? And once again, you have to understand the context and who Paul is talking to. He is talking to "newbies" if you will. They do not have the experiences of other believers, and so, Paul warns them about being yolked with unbelievers because he understands the quarrels that had taken place before he visited them.
ReplyDeleteBeing married to someone with your beliefs is much easier than w someone who isn't. Thats the easy route. Simple.
ReplyDeleteIt teaches segregation because its warning not to love a women/man with different beliefs than you, EVEN if you are "perfect" for one another. That is separatism. Granted its not a large scale, but it still derisive.
There are a LOT of ifs ands or buts in ALL religions. Christianity is certainly not exempt of this. It is no more solid fact that the Islamic faith for example, or the idea held by Jews that Jesus was not the messiah. Thats why the occupation of apologists even exists, because it is far from solid. Sooner or later religious people must conceded that they believe something to be true, they certainly do NOT know it.
The verse is snobby in the way it describes non believers. I will not re iterate what it says because this is turning into a circular argument.
Lastly.....CONTEXT! The whole point of this essay. Without the argument of context, which i urge you to read again, Christian apologies would be dead in the water.
I certainly do not believe in segregating two people from the wonders or love and marriage just because they hold two different world views. And thats what it is: NOT the possession of ultimate truth, but BELIEF in it. Just as though you believe the Muslim is mistaken, he believes you are with the same convinced tone of a believer.
Any "believer" who marries an unbeliever, does not feel love for that person, but lust that they at first mistake for love. Every relationship that I know of that has had a believer and an unbeliever marry has ended in divorce, or has been lived out in constant quarrel. It has happened within my family, so don't even try to tell me that its ok. Ok sure, there ARE if's and but's about christianity. But only because atheists and such who spend YEARS searching for "inconsistencies" within the Bible CAN'T find even ONE that won't be proven wrong, and so, have resorted to pulling one or two verses out of context so that it sounds like an inconsistency when actually it isn't. If there is even one "inconsistency" in the New Testament that I, with/without help from others, can't give an answer to, may God punish me accordingly. Now I am not saying that people shouldn't ask questions, in fact, I deeply encourage them.
ReplyDeleteThe reason apologetics HAVE to use the argument of context is because the "inconsistent" verses within the Bible are being pulled out the Bible and so, seem like they are inconsistent. I believe that you are confused about the meaning of the word context. Please clear that up so that we are on the same page. I won't say anything further about that until that issue is cleared up. Now *sigh*, back to the segregation matter. You have to understand WHO Paul is talking to here. He is talking to NEW believers in Christ who don't fully understand how to live christian lives, and so, he uses examples that are easy for THEM to comprehend. Would you attempt to teach Calculus to a child? I think not. You have to start small with math foundations and prealgebra and then work your way up to the complicated stuff. That is what Paul is doing here. Nothing more, nothing less.
Any "believer" who marries an unbeliever, does not feel love for that person, but lust that they at first mistake for love.
ReplyDelete^^^^ Im sorry, but that is deeply mistaken. I wont even waste time arguing why that is utterly wrong. I hope you open ur mind someday and see how flawed ur thinking is when writing up that sentence.
I dont know what has happend within your family personally so i will not even go there. Im not arguing that it wouldnt be hard. It would. Thats obvious. But, for the hundredth time, thats NOT a reason two people cannot be in love. Its not. Simple. Im tired of repeating myself over and over again.
As far as inconsistancies go, you dont have to look hard to find them. Trust me. But, keep a look out for future posts on the blog and im sure we can debate that "little" topic more.
The arguments of context; excusing the absurdity of a claim by the time it was written in. No matter who Paul was writing to, he's wrong. Love has no limits, even tho religion would just LOVE to impose a few. Im sorry you feel opposed to that, but let me assure you ive gone through this before and am going thru it now. PAUL WAS WRONG.
im gonna stop commenting on this particular post becuase im just repeating myself. Thanks for taking the time to comment and respond dude :)
Once again, in order to understand better what God is saying here, you have to do a little background research. Verses 23-24;28-29 of Deuteronomy 22 were rules written for the GENERATION that was going to enter the promised land. Not for all christians. Context argument for Deuteronomy: revalidated.
ReplyDeleteAnd again in 2 Chronicles, God was talking to the people who returned from captivity to rebuild Jerusalem. Not to all christians. He wanted the "new" Jerusalem to be purged of evil. Context argument for 2 Chronicles: revalidated
Again in Leviticus, this was a list of things that the ISRAELITES were expected to follow if the wanted to be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation"-Exodus 19:6. Not for all christians. Context argument for Leviticus: revalidated
As for Christ not "aboloshing" the Mosaic Law: Jesus DID abolish it when he died on the cross. Because he says "not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" Jesus DID fulfill all of the Law, which called for perfect obedience under the threat of a "curse". If yoiu want further detailed explanation of Jesus "aboloshing" the Law, here is where u shouldcontinue:http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html And PLEASE read it before u knock it. Argument of Jesus "aboloshing" the Mosaic Law: emphatically revalidated. Thanks for commenting back dude. Sorry I failed to comment on this particular point until now.
I must say freind, you sound like quite the apologetic. Though you are "enemy", i love ya! Lol, Jesus DID command that of everyone ;)
ReplyDeleteOk, i regret to inform you that you have no revalidated anything. Clearly you have missed the point of the essay, but, i will, most likely in vain, spell out for you again: If it actually were the word of god (which is most certainly is not) then you would not NEED to use context as an "excuse" for the messed up things it contains. God's word is meant to be for ALL, in theory, ofcourse. In the Bible, you concede yourself it is not for ALL. Nathan says (quite a few times): " Not to all christians"
THAT is why you cannot refute the fact that the arguemnt of context is simply a tool by the apologetic to convince weak and unthoughtful minds that such claims "aren't really all that messed up and simply wrong". They are, and context will never be enough to salvage them from the pits of a false religion.
As far as Jesus abolishing the mosaic law he says, "not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished". Nothing is accomplished coz i dont here trumpets and see someone flying in with a white horse. Therefor, they ARE still revelant (According to your deity, of course. For everyone else, they are outdated claims in a historical document)
I will concede that i have not read the article from the apologetic site you have provided. Its winding down here and i just got home from a jog. I will most definately check it out, and we can talk about it on msn ;)
Im sorry if i've been harsh in the manner i have expressed myself, but sometimes you gotta make someone hear, and not just listen. Being a budding apologetic, im sure you can empathize ;)
Peace!
Love ya too man! And that will never change. I didn't miss the point of anything, u're basically saying that if the Bible was the true word of God that it wouldn't have any contradictions, errors, and all that jazz, are u not? And that we wouldn't have to use the context argument. Guess how these "inconsistencies" came into existence. I think u know very well, but I will still explain anyways. The reason why apologetics even use the context argument is because atheists and skeptics, such as urself, pull verses out of the Bible, without any knowledge of the background information of who the book was written to, to make them sound like they contradict each other when if absolute fact, they don't. Every single "inconsistency" u came up with, I have explained in somewhat detail. I think here( please don't be offended because I know many people who are similar) u simply don't want to admit that I HAVE proven all of ur arguments invalid; whether it be here or on msn. Don't ever worry about being too harsh because I know people who won't even consider listening to me, so I respect and appreciate very much the fact that u're even taking time to reply back. Another thing; Allah and God, same thing man. Allah is simply the ARABIC way of saying the word "God"; exactly like Zot is the Albanian way of saying God. That is also a common misunderstanding between muslims and christians.
ReplyDeleteHere u're not giving Jesus ANY credit whatsoever. In the OT, some 2 thousand years before Jesus' birth, prophets tell people that one day a man will come to the earth, fulfill the Mosaic Law, and forgive man of their sins. That is why Jesus came, dude; to fulfill the prophecy and forgive man of their sins. He is the ONLY one who managed to fulfill the Mosaic Law. He obeyed it all, even the part about sacrifice. That actually was the last thing he fulfilled of the Law by SACRIFICING himself, for the forgiveness of mans sin. With his death on the cross, he effectively put an end to our "bondage" to the Mosaic Law.
As for the OT books; they do stand validated, and will for eternity. I explained very well exactly WHO God was talking to in those books. Once again, the notion that u are simply ignoring that is crossing my mind because I have given u time and time again an explanation of the background info(which can be found before the first chapter, by the way), and exactly what people group God was talking to. Hope to talk soon. Peace to u too!
Well dude, this is remenisent of the circular argument from a few weeks ago. But, nonetheless, i will pursue.
ReplyDeleteYou have again missed the point, fellow bretherin. I didnt pull ANYTHING out of context. I know full WELL how both christians and atheists argue, and you're both just as mistaken in your tactics. I AM knowledgable on the Bible (not greatly, ofcourse. I dont wanna sound arrogant here) and do know what im talking about, when it waas written, by whome it was written and TO whome it was written. (HOOOOOM!!! lol). So please, spare me your offensive words and defensive tactics in thinkin im out to attack your so called holy book.
Its not god's word coz its not written for all humans, you said so urself. Gods word doesnt need to change and doesnt need context to explain itself. I can re iterate that all day but until you come to a place to truly see and understand why.....then i cant help you.
Im gonna make like a christian and say i cant change your heart and head and the way u see things, only God can. I hope he will.
I know im being hardh and....blunt here, but please remember that its only in the realm of this particualr topic. I love you dude, so pleaase keep taking an interest in these silly posts. Im doing my best to get caught up, but its hard out here. If i can get through to ONE person, it will be worth the endevour.
See u soon bro!
Elird, I will never get tired of explaining this Mosaic Law and Jesus thing to u. So I will do it once more. PLEASE LISTEN THIS TIME. I have nothing to gain in lying to you; its your soul, not mine, so please just listen for REAL this time. You cited this verse: "Not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished". Jesus is the one who accomplished the law. And so, since it is accomplished, we are not binded to it(the Mosaic Law) any more. How is that not clear enough for u to understand? You can look urself, He DID accomplish all of it, that is why he came. If he failed, why the heck did he say at the cross "it is finished"?
ReplyDeleteThe words I use are not meant to be offensive, if u have taken them the wrong way, all I can say is thats not what I wrote them for. If I was out to offend u, believe me, you wouldn't be replying to any of my comments.
Gods word has NEVER changed, NEVER. The only thing that HAS changed are the different translations such as the NIV or KJ version of the Bible. And once again, the ONLY reason, the ONLY reason that apologetics use that particular argument is because evolutionists, atheists, and skeptics pull verses out of context to make them sound contradictory to the Bible. And at first glance, they do seem contradictory; but when you take the time to actualy read the whole chapter (and sometimes, the next/previous one too) you can understand that that verse doesn't mean what it first looked like it meant. For example, when Jesus said to his disciples, I tell you the truth, not eveyone standing here today will die before they see me coming in the glory of my kingdom. A verse that u urself brought to me. By itself, it does INDEED look contradictory because we know that all of the disciples are dead and Jesus hasn't come back. But if you just read the first few verses of the next chapter, you can see that Jesus was telling the truth. I'll leave that to u to look up again.
These posts are far from silly. Everyone in this world today has doubts and questions about what they REALLY believe, or what someone else believes. Everyone. I respect the fact that you have admitted that, and so, I am attempting to explain it to u to the best of my ability.
Ummm, the first thing i'd like to bring up is the fact that you seem to believe im pulling, ripping and tearing bible verses out of context to MAKE them seem contradictory and wrong. I, and anyone else willing to look at the objectively, doesn't NEED to do that. They are contradictory and outdated ALL by themselves.
ReplyDeleteAs far as "Not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" is concerned, its up for interpreation. Yours being that accomplishde means Jesus dying, mine being that accomplished means when we are all (well, only the good christians, of course) in heavan and there is NO NEED for a mosaic law or any other law coz we have god and jesus to chill with us. Which one makes more sense to you, friend?
As far as " I tell you the truth, not eveyone standing here today will die before they see me coming in the glory of my kingdom." is concerned, we BOTH read around the passage TOGETHER (albeit online, but hey, gotta do what you gotta do) and found nothing. In all literall terms, you proivded no explanation to it at ALL. The only thing you could come up to explain that VERY black n white contradiction is that "Jesus sometimes spoke in metaphore". Yet, you provided no other meaning to it! Im sorry dude, but i cant let you get away with thining you explained away that eye blistering problem in the Bible. You most certainly did not, even when trying to defend it by saying i didn't read the context, which i make a point of always doing.
Please spare me the drama about how Im making u into my enemy. This isn't a contest about who can be more dramatic dude. And I by NO MEANS want to make u my enemy.
ReplyDeleteAND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT: "they are contradictory and outdated ALL by themselves." You CANNOT look at just a single verse by itself and decide that u know the meaning. Believers and unbelievers alike tend to make that mistake.
Dude. Jesus OBEYED the Mosiac Law completely. The FINAL part being that he sacrificed himself for me and u the way God instructed priests(in the OT) to sacrifice a pure bull to forgive the sins of others and themselves. Now u can choose to look at it however u want, but it is a fact that Jesus DID fulfill the Mosaic Law.
For that Jesus coming in his kingdom part. I'm pretty sure that I told u to look at the next frew verses in the next chapter. But that conv was over FB chat so Im not sure if it got through or not. I even gave u a site to look at(which DID make it through), but u took one peek at it and said "I am familiar with this website, and lets just say that its not exactly neutral" and u left it at that. Who is being ignorant now man? I offered u one explanation of it, u decided to discard it because it was a christian-based website. Who else is going to give explanations for the "inconsistencies". Certainly not atheists/skeptics, or any other religions. And its true that Jesus talked in parables and metaphores. I need not give examples because u say that u are familiar with the Bible, and I trust u with that statement, but, u continue to look at a single verse by itself and say is contradictory. And like I have previously said: I love questions about the Bible, YOUR questions help me answer questions of my own sometimes. But I don't think this debate will end until we are able to talk in person over the matters u have brought up; but until I see u again next school year and we are able to talk in person, this will have to suffice.
OK, again with this whole pulling verses out of context... i DONT do it. Dude, its just easier to read when you cite the main part. Gosh, will you let go of that wishy washy arguemtn u always fall back on. It wont work.
ReplyDeleteGuess were gonna have to dissagree with what "accomplished" actually means. Ask god when your in heaven and give me a shout out down "below" and we'll see ;) hehe
And nathan as far as jesus coming back before his diciples died..... YOU tell me why. This is the third comment you have by passed with an explantion. Going around preaching metaphore as the anwer will not fly around here. So tell me, if im wrong about him failing to come back before his diciples died, what DOES it mean?
Ok dude, I admit that I sounded harsh and very repeditive of the context argument. Now u may not think that u have done it, but I'm sorry dude, you did. "They are contradictory and outdated all by themselves" is proof of that. I highlight the "all by themselves" part here. I have done it too sometimes, EVERYONE does. And I will leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteI didn't go around anything dude. Look: "I'm pretty sure that I told u to look at the next few verses in the next chapter. But that conv was over FB chat so Im not sure if it got through or not." The answer I want u to get is in the Bible in the next chapter. How u failed to deduce that, I'm not sure; but let it be clear now: For Jesus coming in his kingdom, look at the next few verses in the VERY NEXT chapter. Do that, and u will have an explanation.
And yes, I suppose it does depend on what u call "accomplished", so I am now going to leave that alone.
I recall my opinion that you will get a valid explanation of what Jesus was saying about coming in his kingdom, by the transfiguration described in the next chapter. I now accept the explanation that my parents gave me(also the one that the site that u shared with me via FB gave) about the pentecost being what Jesus was talking about when he said that not all of his disciples will taste death before they see Him coming in his kingdom. All the rest of my arguments, however, I stand by still.
ReplyDeleteJust one thing, concerning the whole "They are contradictory and outdated all by themselves", you seem to have done the exact thing u seem to loath. Taken it out of context. What i MEANT to say was that they dont NEED atheists to pull them out and mix them up to make them SEEM wrong and contridictory. They "do that all on their own". Im pretty sure i stated it the first time i wrote it but i cant be bothered to scroll up and caption it for you. At least now its clear.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't feel too good when meaning is fixed to how people want to understand it, is it? I did that on purpose so that u would finally understand where I'm coming from. And I do agree that many many verses SEEM contradictory at first glance, but I assure u that if u are truly looking for meaning and answers(which I do believe u are), it will only be a matter of time before u discover for urself that there is not a single verse in the Bible that is contradictory.But like I said in 'Jump then Fall', there is nothing that I myself can say to u that will convince of this. But that doesn't mean I will stop trying to give explanations to ur questions.
ReplyDeletelol, very funny and clever ;) And i already DO understand where ur coming from, ive seen the youtube vidoes that pull verses out from every which place and fasion them to fit the conclusions they WANT to see. Im not doing that.
ReplyDeleteAs far as there not being one contradictory verse in the bible.... well. Lol, i just wont comment ;) I should be done w my new post in a bit! woo! im super excited :P This one has taken forEVER
I know u don't agree with the no contradictions part. But like I said, it will be a matter of time if u are truly looking for answers.
ReplyDeleteI am ;) I think ive found a few. I invite YOU to truly search and scrutinize your faith. You have my assurance you will see the holes in the system.
ReplyDeleteI have found and scrutized the "holes in the system" but again, the deeper I dig, the more it fills up. At first glance, nearly everything in the Bible seems contradictory. Even at 2nd,3rd,4th, and 5th glance. I have admitted that the Bible is an unsolevable riddle at times. But I am convinced(from MY personal experience, and stories of others' experiences) that the further people dig, the more they answer previous questions that seemed to invalidate the Bible. Which Is why I say its a matter of time if u are TRULY looking. Which is also why(I think, anywho) people convert away from christianity because like u said, they see the contradictions, but they don't dig deeper and so, it does in fact look as though the Bible is full of contradictions. And like I said there is nothing that I can say that will convince u of this; its something that u have to find on ur own and submit to.
ReplyDeleteits been a while since i blogged, so bare w me. lol, i have missed it.
ReplyDeletefirst off, the contradictions DONT go away after a 7th or 8th look which u supppsdly wait around for. The still linger. People who wait arund that long are the ones in denial. Think about it.
I will continue digging deeper, i only urge that after my 9th look YOU start looking. And i mean really looking, not just trying ur hardest to make it right coz thats what u beleive. ;)
My new post will be up soon. Ow how i have missed my blog.