I went to church the other day ( I had an obligation ) and the priest was this quite young sturdy woman. I talked to her for a while before the ceremony and she talked about how it was sometimes difficult for her to not be able to chose what excerpts from the Bible she should talk about. They apparently have a schedule to follow. On the schedule this day was the part where Jesus said to someone something like: "Give to the emperor what belongs to him and to God what belongs to God" ( I'm sure someone can provide a more accurat bibleqoute here ) , regarding a question of money.
This priest had interpreted that Jesus was being sarcastic here and that this was a personality trait that he often displayed thoughout the whole Bible, but that people very often misses this, of interpret it differently than her.
So she was then at the ceremony talking about the importance of giving to those who have nothing and etc.
My interpretation of the same thing would have been that too, but also that Jesus was saying that money had no value, that if we give back the money to whoever made them, whos face is on the coin, then money would lose its value. By doing this we could ignore and refuse money to have control over our lives. Like you give back a toy to the child who has its name on it. Oh, this must be yours dear...
And how many times is the Bible being interpreted differently? Every time somebody reads it, I suppose. So every new priest that starts a preching carreer gives a totally new angle on the religion. So how can anybody really claim that their religion provides the truth, when everybody within that religion interprets it differently?

Bible interpretations fall on the individual (thief) I mean priest, or in your case priestest individuals had started feuds, and out right seperation of church because of bible interpretations, what it is accepted by one group, is totally objectionabel to the other. this is why it is acceptable to atheist that the bible is not a good source of knowledge, it is written by more than one author, sometimes contradicting itself, and exagerating reality, to fit their needs to control the ignorant masses.

The recent gay bishop, comes to mind. The acceptance of this person to bishophood, is a world wide contradiction, with threats of separation by other groups among the same congregation;

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/bishop/

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/06/bishop/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3199156.stm

On the one hand, we have here a group following political correctness and accepting an openly gay man to bishophood, on the other a rather more orthodox group with old fashion values object to such a discrace upon their views.

What is the interpretation of the bible on this matter?. The openly gay bishop, claims that there is nothing wrong, with him being a bishop, or that the bible does not state he shouldn't be bishop, for his sexual choice. It seems others differ greatly from this (interpretation) of the bible.

;)

I think the meaning of that passage is that the people shouldn't complain about taxes, since the money was printed (minted) by caesar, and you are just returning it to him. Not that we shouldn't use money, but that it is a small human concern, god will provide.

Of course, people interpret the stories in the bible in various ways. They would have you believe that there is only one interpretation, but language doesn't work that way.

"The truth that can be told is not the eternal truth"
Lao Tzu

Jesus himself said that many people would interpret the stories wrong.

Originally posted by spidergoat
Jesus himself said that many people would interpret the stories wrong.

In his case, Jesus intentionally led his audience down the garden path, so to speak, so they wouldn't understand his teachings and be saved. He did sometimes explain his parables to his disciples behind closed doors after everyone else had been sent away, and the explanation was pretty frightening (see Jesus' final solution in Matthew 13:36-42). Jesus wasn't all sweetness and light, but for some reason Christians have always been blind to this fact.

Originally posted by Yes
And how many times is the Bible being interpreted differently? Every time somebody reads it, I suppose. So every new priest that starts a preching carreer gives a totally new angle on the religion. So how can anybody really claim that their religion provides the truth, when everybody within that religion interprets it differently?
Firstly, I'm not sure which church you went to - I presume Catholic. They have a very strict liturgical programme that has been worked out in detail beforehand. The same passages and verses are used by all the churches on a specific date. Protestant churches took it over from the Catholic church at first (you'll find a similar programme in the Lutheran church for example), but most have moved away from such a set framework, although it's beginning to come back in a much more constructive (and less binding) form. The more "charismatic" churches have none of it - the preacher chooses the topic. The liturgical reading programme provides a guideline that more or less covers the basic doctrines and prevalent topics in the Bible throughout the Biblical year, but leaves the preacher to present and illustrate the specific passges as he sees fit. But it's definitely not binding - if there is a time or topic that is more relevant to the day, the preacher is free to present it.

The advantage of such a reading programme is that is offers a continuity from one service to the next. Especially for people who go to church frequently it is much more informative, because you get the context and progression in. And if you attend a service in your home town one week, travel on business and attend another church the folowing week, you can still follow the sermon but with another preacher! It's sometimes very refreshing, because of the differences in personality and approach of different preachers.

This brings me to your second point. Remember that preachers do train to get the position, so they have a good idea of what the essential doctrines of the Bible are, and so do the elders of the church, who can determine if a preacher starts going off on a tangent. And this is another area a reading programme helps with: as a structured guideline that the congregation can follow, it's also a learning tool. These things don't fall out of the sky you know - many, many Christians discuss and contribute to them at various levels. It's also an ecumenical tool, because quite often the programme stretches across denominations.

I think the crucial misconception is that each interpretation presents a new theology ("religion" is not the right word). The only claim is that the Bible provides the truth. This is where the expression sola scriptura comes from. Any church who confesses this is bound to the authority of scripture. And it really represents a complete theology on its own already. It's only the application that differs according to circumstances, and that is why studying its principles are so important. A new interpretation isn't the same thing as a new truth, and people should be extremely wary of any such claims to a "new truth" (Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians etc. are examples). But circumstances differ from church to church, that is already evident even in the New Testament itself, and therefore judgement calls are necessary. Structures such as the reading programmes or church hierarchies aren't there to indoctrinate or disenfrachise, but to safeguard healthy theology.

The goal is always transparency, not secrecy as Nehushta would like you to believe.

Originally posted by Jenyar
The goal is always transparency, not secrecy as Nehushta would like you to believe.

Okay, so either I'm lying about Jesus' "final solution" and his secrecy about it or the bible is lying. Read Matthew 13 and you tell me.

Originally posted by Nehushta
Okay, so either I'm lying about Jesus' "final solution" and his secrecy about it or the bible is lying. Read Matthew 13 and you tell me.
I have, now I wonder if you understand it.

These things were mysteries until they were revealed, and they were only revealed when Jesus was revelaed as the Christ. What Jesus was doing is arming those "who had ears" with the information necessary to understand God's salvation. The parables were the seeds He was planting. The rest of his life was the water that would make them grow - nothing else would.

I think I have asked you this in another thread somewhere, but do you understand the parables? If you were paying attention ("have ears") you will have heard and understood, just as Jesus' audience could have. But if you insist the parables are unresolved mysteries, then Jesus was right, wasn't he?

Originally posted by Jenyar
These things were mysteries until they were revealed, and they were only revealed when Jesus was revelaed as the Christ. What Jesus was doing is arming those "who had ears" with the information necessary to understand God's salvation. The parables were the seeds He was planting. The rest of his life was the water that would make them grow - nothing else would.

I think I have asked you this in another thread somewhere, but do you understand the parables? If you were paying attention ("have ears") you will have heard and understood, just as Jesus' audience could have. But if you insist the parables are unresolved mysteries, then Jesus was right, wasn't he?

Where did I say that the parables were unresolved mysteries? And how could I fail to understand their meaning as I eavesdrop from this vantage point in time on his then private communication with his disciples? Oh he was planting seeds alright - he was the enemy planting the tares! And he can hardly wait for the day when the fire is kindled to destroy the tares he planted himself! He lives to cause division among family members, and was even disrespectful to his own family members. Even if he was indeed the best of them, he was still nothing but a brier, sharper than a thorn hedge - and most certainly not the "God of salvation" (see Micah 7:2-7).

Originally posted by Nehushta
Where did I say that the parables were unresolved mysteries? And how could I fail to understand their meaning as I eavesdrop from this vantage point in time on his then private communication with his disciples? Oh he was planting seeds alright - he was the enemy planting the tares! And he can hardly wait for the day when the fire is kindled to destroy the tares he planted himself! He lives to cause division among family members, and was even disrespectful to his own family members. Even if he was indeed the best of them, he was still nothing but a brier, sharper than a thorn hedge - and most certainly not the "God of salvation" (see Micah 7:2-7).
Nice of you to quote Micah. He was talking about corrupt people. The day of the watchmen came and went, and you didn't heed the warning.

You imply that the parables were unresolvable. That even those people who knew Jesus would not be able to discern their meaning. But they were a natural watershed - each a self-sharpening double-edged sword. You are cutting yourself on them and you don't even realize it.

I'll explain it to you. Remember that Jesus' parables are explained as fulfilling Psalm 78 in Matthew 13:35?


Psalm 78

1 O my people, hear my teaching;
listen to the words of my mouth.
2 I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter hidden things, things from of old-
3 what we have heard and known,
what our fathers have told us.
4 We will not hide them from their children;
we will tell the next generation
the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD ,
his power, and the wonders he has done.
5 He decreed statutes for Jacob
and established the law in Israel,
which he commanded our forefathers
to teach their children,
6 so the next generation would know them,
even the children yet to be born,
and they in turn would tell their children.
7 Then they would put their trust in God
and would not forget his deeds
but would keep his commands.
8 They would not be like their forefathers-
a stubborn and rebellious generation,
whose hearts were not loyal to God,
whose spirits were not faithful to him.
Jesus was drawing from tradition when he told the parables. As I said, he was planting seeds that would bear fruit once they were watered. Those people who heard the first parable and said to themselves "we don't understand it, but we have seen this Jesus is filled with wisdom and we would like to learn what he means", were the "good soil". Or who do you think went to the first churches? Who did the disciples teach? When Jesus began a parable with "the kingdom of heaven is like...", those who were interested would make an effort to understand, and they would seek out this kingdom of heaven. And they would find it with the God of Israel (Psalm 103:19; Daniel 2:44).

But the people who said "this man is talking nonsense," or "it's too much trouble to understand what he means" where not fit for the kingdom Jesus would establish.

Surely you don't think Jesus' audience were limited to the space of one chapter to understand what they were told or not? Jesus was establishing a tradition of teaching that would end up as "Christianity". People who think he never meant his teaching to become a religion are the same people who think those who missed what he said in ten minutes, also missed it for the rest of their lives.

The disciples understood the parables (Matt. 13:51) and they would have taught it to anybody who still believed in Jesus even after he was gone, because that was his command to them (Matt 14:14, 45; Matt 28:20; John 21:15-25)

Originally posted by Jenyar
Nice of you to quote Micah. He was talking about corrupt people. The day of the watchmen came and went, and you didn't heed the warning.

Micah 7:2 says The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.

During this time, according to Micah 7:6, the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.

According to the NT, Jesus is a man, so logically speaking, he cannot be not "upright among men," unless Micah is much mistaken. Also, Jesus is the one who caused all this division in the first place, so that's another strike against him. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.

You imply that the parables were unresolvable.

No - I merely implied that Christians cannot resolve them, since they refuse to look at them through anything other than gospel-colored glasses.

I'll explain it to you. Remember that Jesus' parables are explained as fulfilling Psalm 78 in Matthew 13:35?

Right. The following verse is my personal favorite from Psalms 78:

Psalms 78:49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.

Obviously, God is not above sending evil representatives among the people. And if he'd do it to the Egyptians, he'd do it to the Jews too, particularly when he promised them a stumblingblock.

According to the NT, Jesus is a man, so logically speaking, he cannot be not "upright among men," unless Micah is much mistaken. Also, Jesus is the one who caused all this division in the first place, so that's another strike against him. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.

Excellent point! Well said.

According to the NT, Jesus is a man, so logically speaking, he cannot be not "upright among men," unless Micah is much mistaken. Also, Jesus is the one who caused all this division in the first place, so that's another strike against him. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.

No, Jesus wasn't quite on earth in Micah's time.

Your translation is wrong on the Psalm. It should read "angels of death".

Originally posted by Nehushta
Micah 7:2 says The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.

During this time, according to Micah 7:6, the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.

According to the NT, Jesus is a man, so logically speaking, he cannot be not "upright among men," unless Micah is much mistaken. Also, Jesus is the one who caused all this division in the first place, so that's another strike against him. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.
The Bible also says "Abram believed the LORD , and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Gen. 15:6)

Nobody is upright (righteous), they can only be made (credited to be) righteous by God who is righteous. To everybody on earth this is available through faith - but Jesus was both credited righteousness and One who could credit righteousness to men, because He was the righteous man. That is why He said he came to call "not the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17).

The process is described clearly by Paul:

Romans 4
20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." 23The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

If you're still confused:

Romans 5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
No - I merely implied that Christians cannot resolve them, since they refuse to look at them through anything other than gospel-colored glasses.
You said yourself you had the priviledge of retrospect - so do we. But Christians have the added priviledge of actually believing what Jesus said. Through what other glasses would you have us look at the gospel? If you look at it through anything but Christ, it ceases to be "gospel" (good news).

Right. The following verse is my personal favorite from Psalms 78:

Psalms 78:49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.

Obviously, God is not above sending evil representatives among the people. And if he'd do it to the Egyptians, he'd do it to the Jews too, particularly when he promised them a stumblingblock.
Someone being tested by God is far better off than someone being tested by Satan. Unless you lose faith, hope and love, you have nothing to worry about - and nothing can make you lose any of those when they are all made as choices.

As for the Jews, there is an old custom that if someone wishes to accept their faith they will ask "why do you want to come into Israel, don't you know that God is presently putting us through much suffering, persecution and hardships?". And if the person is sincere, he will say "I am not worthy of such hardships". Or something along those lines. Christians have something similar: "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain."

Originally posted by okinrus
No, Jesus wasn't quite on earth in Micah's time.

Micah was speaking of a time when there would be division and strife between members of the same household. Jesus himself claimed credit for this division, and even proclaimed this as his very purpose in Luke 12:49-53:

I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.


Your translation is wrong on the Psalm. It should read "angels of death".

My translation is wrong? I admit that I have been around the block once or twice, but King James I'm not. :rolleyes: The word translated to "angel" in this verse is mal'ak," which basically means messenger or representative; the word that was translated to "evil" is "ra'," which does mean evil or bad. So where's the problem in my translation?

Originally posted by Jenyar
The Bible also says "Abram believed the LORD , and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Gen. 15:6)

Nobody is upright (righteous), they can only be made (credited to be) righteous by God who is righteous. To everybody on earth this is available through faith - but Jesus was both credited righteousness and One who could credit righteousness to men, because He was the righteous man. That is why He said he came to call "not the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17).

Jesus himself admitted he was not good (see Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19). I am saying nothing more than what he himself has revealed to those who have ears to hear.

You said yourself you had the priviledge of retrospect - so do we. But Christians have the added priviledge of actually believing what Jesus said. Through what other glasses would you have us look at the gospel? If you look at it through anything but Christ, it ceases to be "gospel" (good news).

Truer words were never spoken, although you have undoubtedly overlooked the truth in them.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by okinrus
[B]No, Jesus wasn't quite on earth in Micah's time.

Your translation is wrong on the Psalm. It should read "angels of death".
----------
M*W: If my memory serves me correctly, I seem to recall that all the Christians on the forum have, at one time or another, stated that "Jesus was the Word made flesh," and "the Word was with God, and the Word was God," from the beginning of Genesis?

In almost no places in the bible is "all" used in an exclusive sense.


My translation is wrong? I admit that I have been around the block once or twice, but King James I'm not. The word translated to "angel" in this verse is mal'ak," which basically means messenger or representative; the word that was translated to "evil" is "ra'," which does mean evil or bad. So where's the problem in my translation?

It is clear in that passage that "angel of death" is the angel that God sent over passover. http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/questions/answer/god/character/createevil.xml/

Originally posted by okinrus
It is clear in that passage that "angel of death" is the angel that God sent over passover. http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/questions/answer/god/character/createevil.xml/

Your link had nothing to do with angels of death. It turned out to be nothing more than a Christian response to God's OT claim to have created evil. Their denial appears to be based on nothing more than the Christian inability to assimilate such ideas about the god they worship, despite the fact that this revelation allegedly came from God himself.

Two words come to mind here: intellectual dishonesty. God doesn't have to deceive Christians - they do it quite willingly to themselves!

No, it had the definition of "ra" in hebrew. Your perception was that it met "evil" but it really is the opposite of shalom. While "ra" could mean evil, the context of the words before "ra", "He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation", tell us that a true translation would read angel of death.


Two words come to mind here: intellectual dishonesty. God doesn't have to deceive Christians - they do it quite willingly to themselves!

It's quite apparant that you are not posting anything of value.


Your link had nothing to do with angels of death. It turned out to be nothing more than a Christian response to God's OT claim to have created evil. Their denial appears to be based on nothing more than the Christian inability to assimilate such ideas about the god they worship, despite the fact that this revelation allegedly came from God himself.

Most of the Pslams are not revelation, or oracles directly from the Lord. They are songs of praise deemed inspired by the Church father's. The book of Amos says, "If the trumpet sounds in a city, will the people not be freightened? If evil befalls a city, has not the LORD caused it?" it's clear that when Amos usese "evil" he does not mean evil that is in opposition to God. If you look up the definition of "evil" in the webster dictionary, you will find a second definition that means "misfortune". Furthermore, you keep on trying to find contradictions to prove that God is evil without realizing that God defines what is evil. He could just as well define what we know evil as good and we would be non the wiser.

Originally posted by okinrus
While "ra" could mean evil, the context of the words before "ra", "He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation", tell us that a true translation would read angel of death.

This appears to be just another non sequitur of yours.


It's quite apparant that you are not posting anything of value.

Then we should get along swimmingly.


Most of the Pslams are not revelation, or oracles directly from the Lord. They are songs of praise deemed inspired by the Church father's.

Since when are any of the passages in the book of Isaiah considered Psalms? The link you sent me to was explaining the meaning of Isaiah 45:7, which is what I was commenting on here. You're the one who tossed in the red herring to begin with - did you expect me not to read it or comment on it?


The book of Amos says, "If the trumpet sounds in a city, will the people not be freightened? If evil befalls a city, has not the LORD caused it?" it's clear that when Amos usese "evil" he does not mean evil that is in opposition to God.

Who said anything about evil being in opposition to God? Isaiah 45:7 says God created evil - so it is obviously not in opposition to him.


If you look up the definition of "evil" in the webster dictionary, you will find a second definition that means "misfortune".

Nothing evil about causing someone else misfortune, is there? :rolleyes:

Furthermore, you keep on trying to find contradictions to prove that God is evil without realizing that God defines what is evil. He could just as well define what we know evil as good and we would be non the wiser.

Apparently this has indeed been the case for several thousand years now. :rolleyes:

Nothing evil about causing someone else misfortune, is there?
If you narrow the definition of evil down to that, then I can see why you would describe God as "evil".

God brings many things over people that they would describe as evil. Job realized this when he said "if we accept the good from God, shall we not also accept the bad?". What he calls bad, you would call evil - that doesn't make it evil, much less God.

To a godless man every evil can be ascribed to "God", because God doesn't exist to him - and the absence of God is the definition of evil.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, (Isaiah 5:20)

Originally posted by Jenyar
To a godless man every evil can be ascribed to "God", because God doesn't exist to him - and the absence of God is the definition of evil.

And here we have yet another definition of evil. But I'm not so sure I agree with it, given what God himself considers good and evil. Take Lot, for example - did God not consider him a righteous man? And yet look at how he treated his own virgin daughters - first he offered them to an angry mob of would-be angel-rapers in order to save his guests from this humiliation, and then he later he relieved them both of their virginity himself in a cave where they were hiding out following the destruction of their city (blaming these lecherous acts on them, of course). How evil is that? But apparently God counts this as good.

And to save space, I won't go into the details of King David's own lechery in this post, but suffice it to say he wasn't any better, and yet this is the man whose throne God has allegedly established forever, and through whom the messiah was supposed to descend. God doesn't appear to be a very good judge of character, if you ask me.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, (Isaiah 5:20)

That's what I'm saying!

The Bible is full of sinners who are redeemed by their faith in God. Not the least of whom is David himself. That says a lot about them (and us), and about God. Believers are not God, men are not God - and therefore as Jesus said: "not good". That included himself as a man born into the world.

Originally posted by Jenyar
The Bible is full of sinners who are redeemed by their faith in God. Not the least of whom is David himself. That says a lot about them (and us), and about God. Believers are not God, men are not God - and therefore as Jesus said: "not good". That included himself as a man born into the world.

So if a sinner as vile as David could be redeemed by faith in God alone, what was the purpose of sending Jesus?

This appears to be just another non sequitur of yours.

You have clearly shown on this forum that you are incapable of understanding anything in context. When given a series of words detailing God creating distruption ahat follows with an angel of "ra" where "ra" could mean evil, misfortune, bad, and distruption; you chose to believe the translation with evil , and even then, you believe that the evil spoken of is Satanic in direct opposition to God.


Since when are any of the passages in the book of Isaiah considered Psalms? The link you sent me to was explaining the meaning of Isaiah 45:7, which is what I was commenting on here. You're the one who tossed in the red herring to begin with - did you expect me not to read it or comment on it?

I posted the link about Isaiah 45:7 because it is a similar passage and gives a detailed description of what "ra" means.

Originally posted by okinrus
When given a series of words detailing God creating distruption ahat follows with an angel of "ra" where "ra" could mean evil, misfortune, bad, and distruption; you chose to believe the translation with evil , and even then, you believe that the evil spoken of is Satanic in direct opposition to God.

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. Read again what I posted earlier:

Who said anything about evil being in opposition to God? Isaiah 45:7 says God created evil - so it is obviously not in opposition to him.

I'm not sure what part of "God created evil" you don't understand.

Originally posted by Nehushta
So if a sinner as vile as David could be redeemed by faith in God alone, what was the purpose of sending Jesus?
Ah, but you have to ask what (or more precisely, whom) he had faith in. If God didn't bring salvation, David would have had faith in vain - as would we all. Faith in anybody else but God would have died with David.

Originally posted by Nehushta
I'm not sure what part of "God created evil" you don't understand.
Are you saying that evil is an absolute force?

Originally posted by Jenyar
Ah, but you have to ask what (or more precisely, whom) he had faith in. If God didn't bring salvation, David would have had faith in vain - as would we all. Faith in anybody else but God would have died with David.

Maybe you should try explaining it to me like I'm 6 years old, because I have no idea what you're saying here.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Are you saying that evil is an absolute force?

No - I'm saying that if God is indeed the first principle and the foundation of all things, as Christians seem to assert, then it is certain that God must have created both good and evil; furthermore, without God's ongoing complicity, evil would simply cease to exist. Or do you argue that God is not omnipotent after all, and that evil is a force greater than God?

Originally posted by Nehushta
Maybe you should try explaining it to me like I'm 6 years old, because I have no idea what you're saying here.
A sinner as vile as David can only be redeemed through faith in God. Faith doesn't exist in isolation. David was credited with righteousness because he had faith in God. Consequently, if God did nothing, David would have hoped in vain, trusted God in vain, and had faith in vain - God would have let him down. But God did make good on his promise to bring salvation to all mankind, and He did it through Jesus.

No - I'm saying that if God is indeed the first principle and the foundation of all things, as Christians seem to assert, then it is certain that God must have created both good and evil; furthermore, without God's ongoing complicity, evil would simply cease to exist. Or do you argue that God is not omnipotent after all, and that evil is a force greater than God?
Non sequitur. God created light and separated it from darkness. Similarly it could be said He created good and separated it from evil. If God didn't order things, everything would have remained chaos. So without God's ongoing complicity, evil would be all that exists.

Originally posted by Jenyar
A sinner as vile as David can only be redeemed through faith in God. Faith doesn't exist in isolation. David was credited with righteousness because he had faith in God. Consequently, if God did nothing, David would have hoped in vain, trusted God in vain, and had faith in vain - God would have let him down. But God did make good on his promise to bring salvation to all mankind, and He did it through Jesus.

This does not answer the question of why Jesus was needed. If a person can be redeemed solely through faith in God, then obviously Jesus is redundant.


Non sequitur. God created light and separated it from darkness. Similarly it could be said He created good and separated it from evil. If God didn't order things, everything would have remained chaos. So without God's ongoing complicity, evil would be all that exists.

Are you saying that chaos is evil? So then who created the chaos?

If by create evil, you mean giving us the ability to disobey God then yes, in God's perfect wisdom he gave us the ability to do evil
thus creating it.


This does not answer the question of why Jesus was needed. If a person can be redeemed solely through faith in God, then obviously Jesus is redundant.

This is sola-fide salvation. Not all christians believe in it.

Originally posted by okinrus
If by create evil, you mean giving us the ability to disobey God then yes, in God's perfect wisdom he gave us the ability to do evil
thus creating it.

I mean evil. You know, like hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, tsunamis - acts of God that can leave families homeless or dead. I mean plagues and viruses that maim and/or kill. Or how about the fact that animals are designed to kill one another in order to feed themselves and their young? Is any of this the work of a loving God?


This is sola-fide salvation. Not all christians believe in it.

Do you believe in it? If so, then please explain why it was necessary for God to send Jesus to earth to save us? And if not, then please explain what happened to everyone who lived before Jesus' time? Were they all consigned to the flames of hell, regardless of their faith in God? Or do you not believe in hell?

Originally posted by Nehushta
I mean evil. You know, like hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, tsunamis - acts of God that can leave families homeless or dead. I mean plagues and viruses that maim and/or kill. Or how about the fact that animals are designed to kill one another in order to feed themselves and their young? Is any of this the work of a loving God?
No, that's life, and we have to deal with it. They are traditionally called "acts of God" because people have little or no control over them. But that's why there are other people to help them - they represent the real act of God. Blaming God or not believing in Him isn't going to change your circumstances, but believing in Him does change who you are under the circumstances.

If you really care about people who suffer under predators, hunger and poverty, do something about it: that's God's will. Because God will put an end to death and decay, so should we. Doing good can only make it better - sin will only make it worse.

Do you believe in it? If so, then please explain why it was necessary for God to send Jesus to earth to save us? And if not, then please explain what happened to everyone who lived before Jesus' time? Were they all consigned to the flames of hell, regardless of their faith in God? Or do you not believe in hell?
I think it's an erroneous belief, and probably so does okinrus. Protestants sometimes tend to over-emphasize faith so that works don't seem necessary (I know, I'm one) - but that is not what Jesus taught or Paul said. Faith without works is a shell without substance. And works without faith are meaningless (as far as salvation is concerned).

Before Jesus' time people we looking forward to Jesus' time. They put their faith in God and He rewarded that faith with Jesus. Jesus died for everybody past and present. Their faith connected them with God's salvation, and therefore with Christ's eventual atonement.

That is why the Bible says "Abraham was credited with righteousness because of his faith". His works had nothing to do with his salvation, but it had everything to do with his faith. Do you understand it now?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenyar
Because God will put an end to death and decay, so should we.
----------
M*W: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see, genetic decay is STILL occurring. Someone was quoted saying, "He who is not busy being born is busy dying." In essence, we are all in a state of "decay" from the moment we're born. As for death, there is no finality of the One Spirit, so I don't see how it would be necessary for "God to put an end to death." The concept of "death" seems to be an issue only with those who believe they need a redeemer to save them from this concept. That's just not necessary if the One Spirit of God is eternal.
---------
Before Jesus' time people we looking forward to Jesus' time. They put their faith in God and He rewarded that faith with Jesus. Jesus died for everybody past and present. Their faith connected them with God's salvation, and therefore with Christ's eventual atonement.
----------
M*W: "Before Jesus' time people were looking forward to" the coming messiah who was not necessarily the Jesus of your belief. Your statement that "Jesus died for everybody past and present" is ambiguous. Aside from my not personally not believing this, I know of umpteen Christians who have adamantly said that ONLY those who believe in Jesus as the Savior are saved, so who is right about this concept, you or the majority of other Christians? The point is, who are all of you to judge anyway? We have the One Spirit of God that indwells within us, so why would our soul need to be redeemed anyway? It wouldn't.
----------
That is why the Bible says "Abraham was credited with righteousness because of his faith". His works had nothing to do with his salvation, but it had everything to do with his faith. Do you understand it now?
----------
M*W: Good point! So those who are "credited with righteousness because of their faith" are eligible to receive salvation according to the Christian concept? That would mean there are many other righteous folks of ALL faiths that are saved per your Christian definition. Statistically speaking, these righteous non-Christian folks would total about 2/3 of the population of the planet who don't believe in or even know who Jesus was. Sounds to me like there is absolutely no need for Christianity to exist, if what you say is true, we would all be saved. So what was the purpose of Jesus if we will be saved on our faith? And who will determine our faith, since faith is something that can't really be seen. It's something that exists in the heart. If faith is seen, then it would be considered to be works. So this concept is contradictory. In our beginning, we were all created the same. It was through the "good works" of man that the divisions of race, nations, religion and gender came to be. Until we return to the One source of creation, these divisions will continue to divide the human race. With God, there are no divisions. God is One.

if what you say is true, we would all be saved.
Abraham had faith in El Shaddai. El Shaddai was revealed to Moses as YHWH. Jahweh was called Adonai by the Jews out of reverence. The Greek translation of Adonai is LORD. What was Jesus called? Our Lord.

God saved Abraham - just as everybody else who has faith in Him alone - through Jesus. Yes, we are all saved: by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Hebrews 9
25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people

Originally posted by Jenyar
Before Jesus' time people we looking forward to Jesus' time. They put their faith in God and He rewarded that faith with Jesus. Jesus died for everybody past and present. Their faith connected them with God's salvation, and therefore with Christ's eventual atonement.

That is why the Bible says "Abraham was credited with righteousness because of his faith". His works had nothing to do with his salvation, but it had everything to do with his faith. Do you understand it now?

No. If people had so much faith in God, they would have taken him at his alleged word, and they never, ever would have expected God to appear on earth as a man. They were looking for a king to rule on the throne of David and to lead them into peace (which Jesus absolutely did not do, by the way) - they were not looking for God incarnate, because this supposedly unchanging God had told them many, many times before to look to him only for their salvation. He also told them God is not a man, and he warned them that he would put stumblingblocks before his people to test their fidelity. People of faith would have believed him.

Originally posted by Nehushta
No. If people had so much faith in God, they would have taken him at his alleged word, and they never, ever would have expected God to appear on earth as a man. They were looking for a king to rule on the throne of David and to lead them into peace (which Jesus absolutely did not do, by the way) - they were not looking for God incarnate, because this supposedly unchanging God had told them many, many times before to look to him only for their salvation. He also told them God is not a man, and he warned them that he would put stumblingblocks before his people to test their fidelity. People of faith would have believed him.
They never interpreted eveything only literally. Just have a quick look at the Mishnah or the Talmud. Just like you, they only clung to the literal interpretation and legalistic parameters when it suited themselves. But everytime God broke out of their preconceptions they had to redefine the sincerity of their faith.

Which brings us to God's salvation. If you don't believe God already made it possible (or that you need it), your faith stops there. Then God is neither God nor man. On the other hand, there were Jews and gentiles who became convinced of Jesus' authority, and today we call them Christians. People who have faith in God believe in Him. They don't try to get out of it on technicalities.

Originally posted by Jenyar
People who have faith in God believe in Him. They don't try to get out of it on technicalities.

But what are Christians doing if not trying to get out of the responsibility for their own actions by claiming a "savior" has already taken their punishment for them, and all they have to do is accept this "free gift" and believe in him???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nehushta
[B]But what are Christians doing if not trying to get out of the responsibility for their own actions by claiming a "savior" has already taken their punishment for them, and all they have to do is accept this "free gift" and believe in him???
----------
M*W: Amen!

Originally posted by Nehushta
But what are Christians doing if not trying to get out of the responsibility for their own actions by claiming a "savior" has already taken their punishment for them, and all they have to do is accept this "free gift" and believe in him???
Sheesh. I thought this misunderstanding was cleared up in the 1800's. Why do we have to cover the same ground over and over again?

In a nutshell, then: Many people will say "Lord, Lord!" but He will answer "I do not know you". The bottom line is you can't claim God for yourself or for any anything else. You can only claim God as your father if you know Him as your father and live like His son - with all the responsibilities that goes with it. His gift was to everybody through Jesus, but only His children will inherit it.

Belonging to God means knowing He knows you, which means obeying His commandments. And if you sincerely obey them, there is no way that you can seriously think you can get away with sin. Yes, He has taken our punishment. No, it means taking up your responsibilities, because you have confessed you know that you are being held accountable for them.

Trying to get out of responsibility for your own actions is getting out from under the law (which culminates in love), thereby denying its authority, thereby denying God's authority (who demands accountability), and forfeiting your salvation.

On the other hand, what are the repercussions for someone who believes there is no God and they are accountable to nobody but themselves? In the first place: if the police can't reach him - none, but the natural "bad karma" of the deed. And in the second place: no state law can enforce sincere love. If society accepts beating your wife, then it's "right" - but love would never allow that.