peterbilt1

Theology, Philosophy, Religion, ect. are all relationships with information. All is an exercise of the mind and the human will...once in a while, life intrvenes and you find yourself in situations of great hardship. At that point it ceases to be a relationaship wih information--no longer a philosophy, no longer a religion, no longer a theology. Your life is reduced to survival--breathe in, breathe out, and watch time pass. In these times, the exercise of the mind and the will are gone. IT IS IN THAT TIME that all the "other stuff" is gone, and then we truly find who we are, what our character is, and there, in the arena of our own life, we find God. There we find our purpose, and there we find hope. At least that's how it happenesd for me, but I learn a lot slower than a lot of folks.

nezmot

This is the bit I don't get. God/Jesus tells us that Jesus is sent by God "that the world through him shall be saved" - Now I can understand this if it relates to the world listening to Jesus' fundamental message of love thy neighbour and all that.

BUT

What I don't understand is where the whole sacrificial business comes in. What was going to happen if Jesus hadn't appeared when he did? Was God going to smite us all for our sins unless he got blood? That seems wrong somehow.

So I'm trying to reconcile a number of issues here - all of which are declared as truth at one point or another, by some group or other.
Jesus' divinity.
Jesus' status as sacrifice
Jesus' status as saviour (a saviour from ourselves, from God, from who, or what?)
The trinity in general
God's inability to commune with us in person,
and God's professed love for us, his creation.

The best reconciliation I can (still) think of is that God manifested himself as one of us, and lived among us, grew even to love us, even though he was killed by us - but has forgiven us our sins, saving us from immediate peril (God's angry retribution) on the one hand, and showing us the power of Faith, Forgiveness and His message, thus saving us from ourselves on the other.

squirrelyburt

God is patient and loving. Maybe God can't come in person because he gave us free will, and if he were to come in person it may influence our free will. He wants us to experience life and then come back to him, not by his influence but by our own need to know him.

__________________
If you've ever felt there was a reason to be afraid of the dark, you were right.

Rodney

God's right here in the room with you, right now. And I'm not speaking metaphorically. If you're looking for fireworks and a glowy figure in the sky, it's you that's looking for the metaphor, not the real thing.

guthmund

Jesus was a sacrifice (as I've previously pointed out), but he had to willingly offer himself. It was Jesus who had to decide that mankind was worth saving. It raises an interesting question assuming you believe full-faith in all this. What would have happened if Jesus Christ had simply walked away? Of course, that raises even more questions like....could Jesus have simply walked away? As half-man/half-god, whole man, or whole god (depending on your point of view), did he possess free-will at all? Could he have simply decided humanity was a lemon and waltzed his way up to Heaven?

It's a noodler...I honestly don't know... Assuming there was no sacrifice, I guess God would have gone that way he did with Noah (Genesis 6, I believe?) and flooded the world to rid the earth of the unrighteous.


That works as well as anything I can come up with.

Listen, if you're looking for definitive answers to these questions, you're not going to find them. I can argue the many sides of any of those statements. There is no "correct" answer. If you'd like to argue doctrine and dogma, then fire away, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking for. You seem to be looking for absolute validation of your personal faith and that's...just not possible. I can certainly cite scripture that supports your argument, but understand that religious source material, for the most part, is incredibly schizophrenic... That is to say, I can certainly support your personal point of faith with validating material, but I could do the same for several 'opposing' schools of thought, in some cases using the same material.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

nezmot

I'm looking for a version of events that makes sense - trying to piece together a system that works, that's self-cohesive, or at least one that's not self-contradictory. By doing that, it should be possible to piece together more information about the nature of God and the universe. I'm unhappy with many aspects of the traditional interpretation of the bible - they don't fit into the story they purport to - so I'm just trying to come up with some alternative answers that fit the facts (or at least some of the facts I've chosen to highlight - not very scientific I know - but I don't know where else to start) and which might shine a light on other mysteries in the bible.

I think it's important to question, and to reinterpret the bible in terms of how we understand the universe today - and to try and find some kind of rational place where science and religion can live together in a complimentary kind of existence.

guthmund

Well said.

Specifically what aspects of 'the traditional interpretation of the bible' are you unhappy with?

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

nezmot

Hmm. Well, the most specific thing that I can think of is this so called 'good news' that Jesus was our saviour and that he 'died for our sins'. I just don't see it being a rational transaction. I can see how Jesus was a great teacher, and can see how his message of love thy neighbour can bring both practical and spiritual benefits.

I can see how a strong faith can give someone strength through adversity and provide cohesion to a society. And perhaps I could describe him as a saviour in terms of inspiring a socially cohesive society that spread through much of Europe, holding it together and helping to preserve the technology and learning of the ancient times (Israel, Greece, Egyptian, and Babylonian knowledge) through the dark times (in monestaries and the like) that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. Though without the Roman Empire (and Constantine in particular) in the first place, and the expansionist kingdoms of Europe from the 1500s onwards in the second, I wonder whether Christianity would be anywhere near as widespread as it is today.

But my belief does not extend to offerings and sacrifices (which really belies the mumbo jumbo of our prehistory) and in Jesus' case, it wasn't even a sacrifice since the people doing the crucifying didn't believe in God, nor did they particularly care about the person on the cross. To sacrifice means to gladly give up something of value - the Romans did not hold Jesus in any great esteem at that time.

Perhaps Jesus could be said to have sacrificed himself - but to what purpose? and to whom?

I want to know the rationale behind this event, in order to try and determine what processes might be at work beyond our normal day-to-day existence. If God really does accept sacrifices, then how come we don't ritually slaughter beasts or even people anymore? Does the sacrifice have to be pure? Given of its own free will? Does it have to be a man, or does it have to be a supernatural sacrifice? And that leads us back to this question of Jesus' divinity.

If he was divine, and of God - then to whom did he sacrifice himself?

asaris

Well, I can't answer all of your questions, but I do know why we don't sacrifice animals anymore. The sacrifice of animals in the OT was an imperfect symbol of Christ's perfect sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice is perfect and completely sufficient, so we don't need to offer sacrifices anymore.

Also, he sacrificed himself to God. Yes, I know that the Trinity doesn't exactly make rational sense, but hey, if this was something people made up, don't you think they'd have bothered to have things make sense?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

guthmund

I'm going to take them a bit out of order, if that's alright. There are many arguments and many points to be made, but I'm only going with what is the strongest argument in my opinion and the points that support it.

That being said...

asaris is right in saying that the sacrifice of animals in the OT was an imperfect in the eyes of God. In fact, God didn't really like the fact that we sacrificed anything to him. He spoke both through Jeremiah and Hosea.

That's what it says in the Bible and presumably the words of the Prophets carry a great deal of responsibility for the abolition of sacrifice. In the real world, there were some very practical reasons why this happened.

I'm simply going to quote a Straightdope article and say... (definitely read the rest....)

The short answer is that sacrifice was centralized in the Temple at Jerusalem, and when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans, sacrifice was no longer possible. Prayer replaced sacrifice as the form of worship.

I agree on that last point. It's interesting to wonder what would have happened had not all the cards fallen into place for the spreading of Christianity. Would Paul have been has successful in spreading his message travelling in another empire, especially a less 'civilized' empire?

That straightdope article I linked to above has a bit on the different types of sacrifice. I've read all kinds of arguments and I tend to agree, that Jesus, I think probably would've fallen under the definition of a 'peace offering' as Jesus had no sin to expiate or atone for. Even the undeniably strange acts of Jesus at the Last Supper seem to make a bit more sense if you look at it this way. Jesus claims the bread his his flesh, the wine his blood and encourages his disciples to partake. Sacred meal. Sacred sacrifice shared (metaphorically) among priests (well, disciples... ) and donors.

So, Jesus didn't die for our sins, but rather was a peace offering to God, who was irritated at us because of our sins. I assume Jesus offered himself because he seen something worth a crap in mankind worth saving. I certainly don't think he had to, but he did. Isn't that 'good news.' Well, I guess it depends on how you look at it, eh?

The Trinity is a little tougher to handle. It would be simplisitic to say that Jesus sacrificed himself to...himself. (I did it earlier, but that was wrong...)

The vast majority of Biblical scholars that believe in the Trinity tend to argue that while God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost may be of the same stuff, they are definitely distinct entities, kind of like twins.... Although even that's not entirely accurate because, as I've mentioned before, Jesus and God may be of the same stuff, but they certainly aren't equals in any sense of the term. Jesus is a servant of God and the Bible (through various instruments) goes to great lengths to suggest that Jesus, while superior to man, is inferior to God. (....servant of God; whom God raised.)

God is all powerful, all knowing...so on and so forth; Jesus seems to have none of these qualities. He has limitations both in his 'power' and in his 'knowledge,' which, of course, God doesn't.

Was Jesus just God in limited form? Limited form (imperfect knowledge and limited power) seems to imply that God can change, which doesn't happen. God is God in every and all forms.
Can he become God later? No. God is forever. The Alpha and the Omega, right?
That's a little long winded and kind of piece meal, so I'm not sure I answered all you're questions...or even one question completely.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

PastorTim

Hello,

Though I've commented above on in response to other posts, I suppose jumping in at this point without reading the whole thread is a bit like walking on a lake you think is frozen but might not quite be 100%

But, hey, I've done that before too. Go figure.

Good use of "imperfect." However the Bible also tells us that ~ Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It also makes it clear that the OT sacrifices were types pointed to the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus ~ John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

That's pretty good. But for me the short answer is not that sacrifices were no longer "possible" but after the sacrifice of Jesus they were no longer necessary.

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

I know, I'm biased. But I prefer to believe God had a hand in the matter of the spread of Christianity ~

Galatians 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

At least that's one understanding I believe is conveyed by "when the fulness of the time was come."

Well, you are of course free to believe that, but the sentiment that "Jesus didn't die for our sins" is a direct contradiction of Scriptures:

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Galatians 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

That's ummm interesting. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 10, the following exchange takes place:

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Now it seems reasonable if those in Jesus's own day who did not believe in Him, yet still understood that He was making a claim of equality with the Father, then we should also. When did we become smarter than they?

Further, the Russellites [ie: "Jehovah's Witnesses" so-called] attempt to construct the same claim in their perversion of John 1:1.

In the King James [and most other English translations], that verse reads:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Russelites like to change that to "and the Word was a god."

Frankly, there's absolutely no grammatical [nor theological] support for it. And this verse makes it very clear that the Biblical claim is that Jesus and the Father are one in the same essence.

Don't confuse order in the Godhead with inequality.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[Yes, I'm well aware of the supposed controversies surrounding 1 John 5:7. After examining the evidence, I accept it as Scripture, so I quote it as an authority on the subject.]

Compare the appearance of God in Isaiah 6 with the appearance of God in Revelation 1.

Further, Paul declares in Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Jesus is the Son of God and God the Son.

True. Yet Jesus did limit Himself in some of the prerogatives of Deity in His incarnation ~

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

But that was a voluntary limitation on His part, "to the glory of God." It does not invalidate the fact that He was / is very God of very God.

And you're right -- And that is Who Jesus claimed to be, and is: Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. 12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. 17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. ~ And although in the context of Heb. 13 that verse speaks more to the fidelity of Jesus, yet it also can be validly quoted to support His immutability, when speaking of Jesus as God.

I've heard a lot of analogies used in an attempt to help explain the Trinity. I don't like most of them. But one which seems to come closest in terms of Biblical accuracy, is that of a Law Office.

We can imagine a Law Office with three partners, each one separate yet equal in terms of the authority of the office, yet each one with a different specialty. One perhaps is a specialist in civil law, one in criminal law, one in corporate law. And so each one might handle different matters, yet any one of them is authorized to speak and act on behalf of the office. Yet only one of them might do that in the normal course of affairs and events.

Well, those of you who have pondered the question of the Trinity certainly can appreciate where that analogy goes, and recognize as with any analogy it's not perfect by any means. But I dare say better than "ice / water / steam" etc..

So I won't bore you with any more of those details.

Thanks for letting me cross the pond, at my own peril I'm sure. Blessings...

__________________
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ~ Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour

guthmund

Oh, absolutely. If you were looking for the definitive answer in the text of the Holy Bible itself then Hebrews 10:7 is certainly a fair place to start. In this instance I decided to direct his question to a fairly reputable source that offered a sound argument without having to resort to "Because God said so."



Bad turn of phrase. Let's try it this way... It's my understanding of Christian theology that Jesus' death simply opened up the possibility for the sinners to save themselves. It wasn't an 'everybody get out of hell free' card. He didn't wash the world clean and expiate all sin from everyone.

Jesus couldn't rid the world of sin completely without voiding God's gift of free will or revoking God's law and its punishment for poorly exercising that same free will. He could however offer an alternative path that would help to nullify the repercussions of that sin when we stood in judgement. We can choose to sin against God, which normally would be irrevocable, but thanks to Jesus' sacrifice we can also choose salvation.

Let's go to the scripture...

God spoke the Law. Exodus 20: 1-26

These are the commandments that God gave Moses to give God's chosen people. They are part of his covenant to them. The Law is holy and righteous and to break any of these laws is of infinite offense (remember...God is eternal and everlasting) to God. A sin that will be accordingly punished.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death;

This, of course, assumes that you don't believe in original sin or that man is born with sin as evidenced by these two passages from the book of Romans although there are similar mentions all throughout the book...John, I believe has a few.

Romans 5:12 - Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned

Romans 3:10 - As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one

Either way, sin is now on the table and consequently the sinner has done terrible offense to God. Offense that must now be paid for. Too bad we can't.

Galatians 2:16 - ....for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Romans 8:3 - For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh....

Kind of a long road to get to the idea that it's through Jesus Christ that we are saved of our sins rather than the notion that Jesus died to rid us of all sin everywhere, which seems kind of implied by the language.....maybe I'm reading too much into it, eh?

Oh, salvation through Christ...right.
Titus 3:5-7 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Romans 5: 8-9
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Galations 2:20 - I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Romans 10:9-10 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

Jesus died for our sins? I guess technically that's true, but it doesn't apply across the board to everyone, only to those that ask...

Revelation 3:20 - Behold I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him.


hang on...part II coming up soon...

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

PastorTim

I must confess I'm not quite sure what you're arguing for, or against. And I mean no disrespect in saying that. It's possible I missed something by coming in at the end here. I'm sure I have because you're seem to be quite strong in what your expressing. So forgive me if I have.

But right here you seem to suggest that God / His Word isn't a reputable source? If God is the Creator of all, and if He is the one who holds the "key" / entrance to Heaven / Hell, then why isn't "Because God said so" sufficient?

Now whether a person believes that is another argument, yes? But that is the basis I'm approaching this from, and you seem to be, so...

The Bible begins with a presupposition: "In the beginning, God..." It presupposes He was there before anything else. And pretty much everything else comes from that presupposition. [Gen. 1-11 is a necessary foundation to understand most everything else in the Bible.]

And that seems to me to be the reason so many try to do away with God. No God, no one to be responsible to except for yourself.

So I frankly reject the notion that God isn't a reputable source for absolute truth. I believe the Bible declares that it is His Heaven, His salvation, His eternity, and He can set the rules and limitations in any way, manner, shape or form He pleases.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Frankly, the consistent message of the Bible is that there has always been only one way to approach God: His. Revelation has been "progressive" -- that is, given over time until the full revelation came, a completed Bible. Not that it had to be complete from His perspective -- Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. -- But from ours.

The Bible is pretty clear: Jesus is the sacrifice for sin. Pointed towards and pictured in the Old Testament, proclaimed as such in the New.

That's precisely the point of -- 1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

So again, I'm not quite sure what you're arguing for or against.

True. Which is why God gave the world a gift of love -- John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

He didn't need to come and condemn the world, He needed to come and "save" the world -- John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

As you point out, salvation is an offer, man can choose it or not. -- John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

What is the purpose of the law? -- Romans 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

However -- Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

God remains just in punishing sin through the Cross -- Colossians 2:13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; -- So that He can justify all who believe.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish or point out here. There's no inconsistency. "Sin" is established in Paul's argument, followed by the notion of just penalty for the same -- along with God's gracious gift of salvation to all who believe -- Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The whole point of the passage which begins with Rom. 3:10 is to prove we are all sinners [through v.18 or so].

Well, I suppose technically you can't. But that's the net effect of not accepting God's gracious offer of salvtation through the Cross. You pay for your sin forever in hell.

Yes, and? God never intended the law to be that which permanently satisfied His holy demands. It was always Jesus -- 1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

No, I don't think you are. Because while the complete redemption of all has not yet been accomplished, that is what we are looking forward to -- Romans 8:17 ¶ And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint–heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.

Eventually -- a while in the future! -- we get to a new heaven and a new earth. And that is all part and parcel of Jesus death, burial and resurrection -- in God's plan and economy to rid His Creation of all vestiges of sin. Not now, but in His time.

Salvation as applied to the sinner comes in three "tenses" or "phases" -- 2 Corinthians 1:9 But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: 10 Who delivered us from so great a death, [PAST TENSE, our "justification," which happens the moment we are born again] and doth deliver: [PRESENT TENSE, our "sanctification, which is worked out from the moment we are born again until...] in whom we trust that he will yet deliver [us]; [FUTURE TENSE, our "glorification"]

Yes. That is the consistent message of the Bible. Man sinned. God saves. Man doesn't deserve it, can't earn it or pay for it. God offers it freely -- not that it didn't cost Him something. It's a very valuable "thing," salvation, bought at a high price -- the precious blood of Jesus, 1 Pet. 1:19 above.

[Although it's really not a "thing" but a Who.]

But that is how He provides it to us "free" -- paid in full.

I don't know. Are you suggesting that after God's done all the work and paid all the price, allowing us to ask for forgiveness is an outrageous demand?

And I mean no disrespect to what you're trying to argue, for or against. I suppose it might help if you could give me a bit of a refresher just what it is you're trying to prove or disprove. I think this discussion might seem a bit more fruitful if I was on the same page as you, but I'm afraid I'm not. Sorry. [Ironic. Because in many respects we do seem to be on the same page. But I think I'm clearly missing something.]

I never have liked this verse being applied to a context of salvation, or the offer of salvation to sinners. I don't believe the context of Rev. 3 allows for it.

Blessings.

__________________
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ~ Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour

guthmund

First of all, I re-read a lot of what I put up and I was a quite flippant. So for that, I apologize.

Truth be told, I'm not arguing for or against anything. I have no particular stance to defend. It's impossible to definitively prove or disprove anything as it concerns religion. I just enjoy the discussion and the easiest way to keep the discussion going is to play devil's advocate...no matter how poorly you play the role sometimes.

Is God's word sufficient? Isn't the Bible good enough to stand as a definitive source on its own? Yes and no...like you said, your approach is based on your belief. The problem, if you can even call it a problem is that you assume I do as well. So because the word of God is law, for you the Bible is an authoritative source.

It's probably true that if you believe in Heaven, it also stands to reason that you believe in God as well. God, as keeper of the keys to the kingdom gets to set his rules for entrance to his home. That's really not the issue though, in my opinion.

nezmot asked what had happened to the practice of sacrifice. I quoted Jeremiah and Hosea, which I felt was sufficient to cover that corner. But there is also some significant historical records concerning the end of the practice of sacrifice among the early Jews. Well, indirect historical records.... Anyway, since nezmot didn't ask why God Himself stopped the practice of sacrifice, I felt that the straightdope article was worth a mention.

I can see why you're confused as to what the hell I mean, I've read over what I posted two or three times and it's really not that clear. My apologies. I have poorly tried to write what my brain was attempting to explain.

The phrase, "Jesus died for our sins" implies to me two things. The first is that his choice to die on the cross was truly altruistic. That his sacrifice was designed to bring salvation to mankind unequivocally. That whether I want it or not, Jesus has become my sin for me and saved my soul from eternal damnation free of charge. But it's not free of charge, is it? You have to proffer belief. You have to believe in both the Father and the Son. You don't get to Heaven if you don't believe in its divine kingship and you don't get to Heaven if you deny Christ. Faith is what is asked of you for salvation. Belief in the Holy Father and belief that his Son was sent to save you. So there is an exchange....and salvation isn't 'free' after all. Is 'belief' all that important? To some it is nothing...what does it matter if I choose to believe in Christ. It can't hurt to cover all my bases, yes? To others belief is everything and should not be thrown around lightly and needlessly.

The second is that it sort of implies that all sin is gone. That our sins are gone, which isn't really all that true.. I mean, if Jesus' sacrifice had washed away the infinite offense we've done to God then why does salvation still require faith? If the infinite offense has been nullified, then doesn't everyone who leads a just life and not just those that have accepted Christ has personal savior and such get to go to Heaven?

That's just it, God isn't asking for anything..He's designed the rules such that I've no choice but to acquiesce to his demands if I want to go to Heaven. If I'm a Christian and I want to go to Heaven there is no choice. I can live my life in service to God, I can abide by all his rules and do good works and none of it matters if I refuse the notion of Christ as savior. There is no choice. Well, no realistic choice. I could choose to deny Christ and spend eternity in Hell, but what kind of choice is that. Here buddy, life eternal, all your loved ones, Christmas everyday or....fire and brimstone, a really bad landlord to deal with and the ever present threat of being poked with pitchforks. It's only a 'choice' by the basest of definitions. "Allow us to ask for forgiveness," indeed. It's easy to be seen as benevolent when you make all the rules.


Good discussion. I've confused it a bit...but good, nonetheless

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Tachion

There are a lot of problems with the Bible when it comes what God is or will/won't do. It appears to be pointless to use the bible to figure it out since it is all over the map. For example here is a little opposite of what you think the bible says:

Is he about Love? These say something different:

"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." (Leviticus 26:22)

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)

"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)

"When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

"You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 28:53)

"The Lord said to Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their horses.' " (Exceedingly cruel.) (Joshua 11:6)

"... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." (Judges 21:10-12)

"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass .... And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

Is he about good? These say the opposite:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Exodus 32:14
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Joshua 23:15
Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things.

Judges 9:23
Then God sent an evil spirit

1 Samuel 16:14
But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

2 Samuel 12:11
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house

1 Kings 9:9
...therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil.

1 Kings 14:10
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam

2 Kings 6:33 ...Behold, this evil is of the LORD;

2 Kings 21:12 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle.

2 Kings 22:16 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place

2 Chronicles 34:24 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof...

Nehemiah 13:18 Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city?

Jeremiah 4:6 Set up the standard toward Zion: retire, stay not: for I will bring evil from the north, and a great destruction.

Jeremiah 6:19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people

Jeremiah 11:11 Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon them

Jeremiah 25:29 For, lo, I begin to bring evil

Jeremiah 35:17 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them:

Jeremiah 44:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Ye have seen all the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, and upon all the cities of Judah

Jeremiah 45:5 ...behold, I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the LORD:

Jeremiah 49:37 ...I will bring evil upon them, even my fierce anger, saith the LORD; and I will send the sword after them, till I have consumed them:

Micah 1:12 .... evil came down from the LORD

Micah 2:3 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, against this family do I devise an evil


And some general Huh?

"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31)
"Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14)

"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18)
"the whole world is under control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19)

And Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world." (John 9:39)
"I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47)

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1)

"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30)
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)

PastorTim

Hello Guthmund,

No apology necessary.

I guess if you're not really arguing for or against anything, no point in "arguing!" LOL

I will say that I agree to a point that it's impossible to definitely prove or disprove anything with regards to religion. Although with religion I think it's easier to prove / disprove things. I don't have much use for religion.

When it comes to my relationship with God through Jesus Christ, I can and should certainly do what I can to share with you to the best of my ability. The Word of God directs --

1 Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord [are] over the righteous, and his ears [are open] unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord [is] against them that do evil. 1 Peter 3:13 And who [is] he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

I should NOT try to be a jerk!

1 Peter 3:14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

Even if I'm as nice as I can be, sometimes I'm going to suffer for it, BUT -- and here's a key to sharing concerning my relationship --

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I need to make sure I maintain as good a relationship with the Lord as I can, and then do my best to share what and how I understand my faith to be, with a proper attitude before Him and other men.

And I try to remember, He directs me to give you an ANSWER, but not necessarily satisfaction. You may not like my answer, though I should try to take care I don't do something to purposely cause you to dislike me or the answer I give. In fact, my attitude towards you should hopefully help gain me a hearing.

But whether or not my answer satisfies you, that's not for me to say. God is the One Who does the saving, working in the heart of those His Word works in. Whether it works in or not, it certainly is never wasted when I share it --

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

Clearly, I am to leave the results to Him. And I must trust Him, regardless of what happens. He is ultimately keeping the accounts --

1 Peter 3:16 ¶ Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. 17 For [it is] better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

No matter what happens to me, it doesn't give me the right to act anyway I please, even if in the flesh I'd sure like to give you a good punch in the nose [and I don't mean YOU but just in general -- hey, I'm a people, and sometimes people get hurt feelings and sometimes we get angry, etc.].

Nevertheless, what I am to try to do is follow the example of Christ Jesus my Lord --

1 Peter 3:18 ¶ For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

And if I yield to Him, He will enable me to do so --

Romans 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to [fulfil] the lusts [thereof].

Galatians 5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Ephesians 5:15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord [is]. 18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Yes, I suppose that's a crux of most matters "religious." I believe God's Word is sufficient, and that's the perspective and level I'll interact with others on. The world is replete with many who do not believe.

Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

I realize that's not likely to persuade some. But I also believe a person can have a "reasonable" and "reasoned" faith. Some may test it. Ok. If my faith can't be tested, it can't be trusted. And, I don't believe I'm going to be judged by God by what others believe or did. I'll have my hands full being judged by what I did with my faith and knowledge since coming to Christ! -- Truth is: Christians are not perfect, but we are forgiven. And for that I am thankful.

Clearly, I came into the middle of some of this, and so perhaps some of my comments were counter-productive to the original thread. Sorry to be a distraction, if I was.

I would respectfully disagree. When Jesus died on the cross, he declared, "It is finished" -- John 19:30 -- and I take that to mean that all that was necessary for the propitiation of our sin, guilt and shame was done at the cross. It is paid in full. In John 3:16 the Bible plainly declares -- John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. In 2 Corinthians 9:15 Thanks [be] unto God for his unspeakable gift.

So to emphasize for a moment, God gives freely, and Jesus is a gift. A gift is usually received, and we show bad manners if we don't at least acknowledge it with a thank you. You are right. God asks us to "repent and believe the Gospel" but I suppose I disagree with the tenor of the way you portray it. If there's an exchange, it certainly isn't even.

And I'll grant you some of what you say about "to some it is nothing." I often proclaim the fact that while I belive the Bible teaches "free grace" to sinners, free does NOT equal cheap grace. Our salvation cost God His best. We are not free to do with it as we please. But I don't suppose that was the point you were making.

Christ's sacrifice was sufficient -- 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

His sacrifice blotted out our sins -- Colossians 2:13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

So the "infinite offense" being satisfied can not be applied to you until you ask to have it applied to you -- John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Well, I mean no disrespect but it does seem to me that you are trying to present what God requires according to His Word as some kind of outrageous demand.

I suppose we could say as you do, "It's easy to be seen as benevolent when you make all the rules." But God's desire was to -- Romans 3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

And this balance could only be accomplished through the sacrifice of Christ. I say only because in God's Wisdom that was what was determined from the foundation of the world. -- Revelation 13:8 ...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

God is gracious to allow people to believe or not in this life. Most of life teaches actions have consequences. It is no different in the Spiritual realm. But still for all that God has done if your desire is to reject Him, He will still be gracious to you -- Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

You say, "Good discussion. I've confused it a bit...but good, nonetheless"

I suppose it's good if it helps bring some to faith, or helps some examine their faith. I certainly hopes no one feels judged by me. That's not my place. I'm simply trying to share what I believe the Bible teaches. At some point, for those who hear the Word, they will have to decide whether to confront the teaching / allow it to confront them. They can accept it or reject it. It won't change what is true.

I simply hope for some it will change there relationship to the One Who declared Himself to be "the way, the truth, and the life."

Along the way, I'm sure I can learn some things from other points of view.

__________________
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ~ Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour

PastorTim

Hello Tachion,

First, to be fair, your critique is not all together without merit.

However, from my point of view I suppose it is in large measure dependent upon your presuppositions and the approach you make, and what underlies what you believe. For the sake of discussion may we say your point of view determines both how you see and understand a matter.

In the case of the Bible, Biblical truth, Biblical consistency, etc., I think it's fair to say you don't share my point of view, and you don't have to. I can recognize some validity in what you say from your point of view, and I trust you will be able to allow me the same kindness and latitude.

However, we engage each other in this discussion from that point of view, which is what [I suppose] makes the discussion interesting, if we find any interest in it.

So I will try to give you several initial responses from my point of view.

First, I agree that one can run the risk of abusing Biblical truth. That is, I have certainly seen a fair share of people using the Bible to support what they believed, even though I didn't believe that was what the Bible taught.

They were either reading into the Biblical text, simply imposing their own belief / definitions on to a text, altering the text to fit their belief, or lifting a verse out of context in order to prove their point. All of these are wrong and can prove quite harmful, especially in presenting what God will / won't ~ can / can't do.

In point of fact, these are quite often the very things the psuedo-Christian cults do.

It can also make it APPEAR pointless to use the Bible to figure it out, especially if it APPEARS Biblical truth is "all over the map" and in opposition to Itself.

As I happen to belief truth is that which is self-consistent, I would have a hard time ascribing to the Bible if I didn't believe it to be the most self-consistent Book in man's possession.

It has been my experience that most of the apparent contradictions in the Bible are simply that: apparent, not real. Perceived, and can be so for the variety of reasons I've already mentioned.

One of the cornerstones of hermenuetics -- at least that which I was taught -- was context. The context of the verse to the paragraph / passage it is in, to the chapter it is in, to the book, and to the testament. Sort of like concentric circles. Certainly if you life a verse out of it's context, you lose meaning.

If we see a man push his wife, we might conclude many things. But how shall we know what is true? The context of the push. If he's pushing her off a cliff, that context paints one picture. If he's pushing her out of the way of a falling object, that context paints a different picture. I don't suppose that's a great analogy, but I hope it helps explain the thought.

For example, you quote Lev. 26:22, "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." in asking if God is about love or not? It's a popular notion God is about love, and not one which I would tend to disagree. Then you bring up this terrible statement, from God to His own people, no less! Certainly doesn't sound loving!

But what is the context? Trying to be brief while presenting an accurate picture, it appears that this chapter is set in a larger context of God exhorting His children to obedience, and in fact He makes certain promises of blessings and benefits, if ~ Leviticus 26:3 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;

After exhorting them to obey, with a statement of some of the blessings to follow, He also issues a warning ~ Leviticus 26:14 ¶ But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;

And v.22, which you quote, comes as part of this exhortation and warning.

Now, again, some might still react, "Why that's quite stern of God, and still doesn't present Him as loving." Certainly, we could not simply leave the picture with such bare bones. There would be several other considerations to bring into the picture, including and not limited to -- the real nature of God, His Holiness, the purpose of His law, the nature of His people, the benefits His people had already received, the treatment the people had already given God, etc. etc. etc..

We might still come to a place where we debate whether the totality of the context argues that God is truly loving or not here. But surely we would not wish to argue the point by only examining a fraction of the picture?

And so it is often the case with verses taken out of context.

Some other points to bear in mind when trying to understand, interpret and explain the Bible are language and custom. Because we are dealing with a translation -- and even a good one -- you will never find a 1:1 convergence of meaning. There will ALWAYS be some interpretation necessary, and therefore we may need to dig underneath the Word. I will say in most instances a good and trustworthy English version can stand on it's own, but I recognize we may sometimes need help.

For example, you reference Matthew 10:28 with respect to "fearing" God in comparison / contrast to "loving" Him as well as citiing the fact that "there is no fear in love." All fine well and good. But let's begin with the first verse in the trio. Part of the difficulty here seems to be with our understanding of what "fear" is and means. While /phobeo/ most often carries some connotation to "fearing" it can also legitimately mean "to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience" and in fact even in a good English lexicon [Random House / Webster's electronic College Dictionary] one definition of the "noun" is "reverential awe, esp. toward God" and of the verb transitive "to have reverential awe of."

A simple, better, expanded understanding of what the word means immediately begins to clarify the apparent contradiction.

The fact that we are separated by hundreds and thousands of years from the people, places and events of the Bible -- not to mention in quite a different culture from the Bible -- can cause problems in understanding. A quick check of your examples didn't really fit this point, so allow me a quick suggestion of one.

The Bible proclaims Jesus to be the virgin born son of Mary. That is to say, Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Ghost. This also implies Mary was not yet married to Joseph, since pre-marital sex was not a normal practice amongst God fearing Jews. However, in the first Gospel account of His birth, the Bible says --

Matthew 1:18 ¶ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was ESPOUSED to Joseph, BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her HUSBAND, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, WAS MINDED TO PUT HER AWAY PRIVILY.

How could Joseph be Mary's husband if [a] Mary was still only "espoused" to him, and [b] they had not yet "come together" -- literally, consumated the marriage? Further, if Joseph was considering "putting her away" -- ie: divorcing Mary -- how could he if he wasn't her husband?

Dr. Henry Morris explains it well -- "According to Jewish law AT THE TIME, the espousal was almost equivalent to marriage, except for the consummation, and could be dissolved only by a legal divorce. Infidelity during that period on the part of the bride might even be punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:23,24). Joseph, however, was a "just man" (Matthew 1:19), who loved Mary and was unwilling to have her humiliated even by a public divorce."

I emphasize "at the time" in his remarks, because that supports the point I'm making. There are many kinds of "context" to consider to rightly understand, interpret, explain and apply God's Word. Linguistic, historical, social, legal, and the larger contexts of the various settings the verse is in [passage, chapter, book, testament].

Does that makes sense?

Another facet of my point of view is that I am convinced that the Bible represents the mind of God as He has revealed it to man. Now, that revelation includes some explanation concerning the nature and character of God.

Based on that understanding, I'm not surprised if I don't fully understand everything in the Word. I have a finite mind and limited understanding, and even though God has done an excellent job of trying to communicate with me, that doesn't mean everything is crystal clear to me over night. Or even over a life time of study.

But the fact that the Word does reveal all I need to know about God's character and nature, I can begin to understand various portions of God's Word, according to this understanding, especially as I develop that understanding through careful study of and comparison of the Scriptures.

There is an incident recorded in the Gospels when some who opposed Jesus came to Him and tried to tempt Him, test Him and by somewhat of a less than honest questioning "catch Him" and His response to them was ~ Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

When we fail to understand God's Word according to the nature and character of God as revealed therein, then we err, since we have failed to learn the Scriptures, and the power of God.

Finally, I also believe that the Bible is a Spiritually inspired book. Therefore, one must possess the Spirit of God to truly be able to appreciate and understand much of it. As the Bible says ~ 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Now please do not take this as a personal assault on you. I do not mean it as such. I am simply trying to give you my point of view. But my point of view and understanding is, that if a person is not "born again" and thus does not possess the Spirit of God they can not fully appreciate the Word of God. That is in essence what I believe 1 Cor. 2:14 teaches.

Does that mean a person who does not claim to be born again can't understand anything about the Bible? Not at all. In fact, I think many times the problems people have with the Bible is not that they don't understand it, but that they do. To quote Mark Twain, "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

So, for example, many people today understand that the Bible claims God created the world in 6 literal days, but they can't reconcile that to their understanding of the world, and so reject the claims of the Bible.

Likewise, a person might see that the Bible says ~ Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; ~ and they will understand "all" means "all" but then they will try to reason somehow that doesn't apply to them, that somehow they are the exception to "all."

It's funny, but I can't tell you how many times, when I have simply quoted that verse to someone, and even offered to show it to them directly in my Bible, their response is, "Well, that's YOUR interpretation!" Yet I can't for the life of me figure out what I interpreted...

So based on my understanding of Biblical truth, I believe some things in the Bible can not be fully understood nor appreciated if you haven't been "spiritualized" or "made alive" or "born again" by the Holy Spirit.

I mean no disrespect to you, nor do I mean to presume on you. But I do believe much of what I have responded would take into account much of the apparent contradictions you raised.

Now, to be honest, you raised a whole lot of verses, and in many cases it does seem you lifted them out of context, and I frankly don't think it's worth while to go chasing a lot of bunnies down bunny trails. Whether it was intentional or not, the net effect of such a demonstration of verses is quite overwhelming, and I'm do not believe it is helpful to a productive discussion, if you truly wish to understand the issue.

You are certainly free to disagree.

However, I do not mean for that to imply that I am unwilling to specifically address what you have shared. I would simply ask this.

If you can at least see that my point of view may have some validity, and if you might allow that the way you went about demonstrating your point of apparent contradictions in the Bible was a bit over board, I would be happy to have you submit one specific set of apparently contradictory statements in the Bible. I promise I'll do my best to give you my honest understanding of how they harmonize. I can't promise you'll like my answer, nor agree. Of course, part of that depends on what you proffer as an example to study. But I simply want you to know I'm willing to try to engage this discussion further, if you would like to do so.

And perhaps we can both come to a better understanding of the point of view the other holds, in time.

My best to you, sir.

__________________
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ~ Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour

Seer666

Ford, Buick, Honda, Toyota, Smith & Weason, H&K,Browning, Benchmade, Gerber, Spiderco, Ginsu, Black and Decker, Craftman................

__________________
Bad spellers of the world untie!!!

I am the one you warned me of

I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.