FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-28-2001, 01:06 AM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I got this from pg 19, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth by John Allegro.

"It has to be acknowledged that the average western churchman is lamentably ignorant about the Jewish background of his faith, and would silently applaud the sentiment expressed in W.N. Ewer's quip, How odd of God to choose the Jews.

thanks, offa
 
Old 06-28-2001, 06:21 AM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hi, Tercel.

I like to think you were honestly amused by my post, so I'd like to say that it's refreshing to have a Xn laugh at my jokes.

Keep in mind that jokes are only funny if there's at least a kernel of truth to them.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
My reply was specifically in answer to Kosh and Kosh only. </font>
Oh sorry. I thought this was a public forum. My mistake.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I can believe words, but yes I'd agree: Actions are more important. That's why God letting his Son die so that all nations might be blessed is so important.</font>
It hasn't escaped my attention that you're changing the subject. We're discussing God changing his mind here, not "God letting his Son die so all the nations might be blessed."

But since you mentioned it, I'd like to point out that God required his Son to die. According to standard Xn dogma, it was planned before God made the worlds, and Xst even asked to let this cup pass from him. Make no mistake: it was obligatory.

Also...wouldn't it be more correct to say, "God required his Son to die so that all the nations of the world which remained after centuries of God-commanded genocide at the hands of his 'chosen' might be blessed"? (I know it's wordy and bunglesome, but I'm a stickler for expressing ideas as accurately as possible.)

And there's a little something bugging me about the suggestion that "that was then, this is now and we are lucky enough to have Xst's blood to atone for our sins," because I've heard that before (as you may imagine, this is not my first argument with a Xn). The impression I get from this idea, each time I hear it, is that as far as we are concerned, those ancient peoples really didn't matter, that they were perhaps lesser than us, not as important, or were just there for God to "warm up" on. I see this attitude as extremely egocentric and selfish beyond anything of which I am capable. I have yet to run into a Xn who can explain this problem away.

The doors are thrown open to you, should you wish to take a stab at it. ("Xst's blood was retroactive" will not be accepted unless you can produce BC&V to back it up.)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It looks to me like many of the quoted verses show God changing his mind. But that's probably not what you want to hear from a Christian, is it? </font>
Au contraire. Again, I find it most refreshing.

My next question to you is how, exactly, you maintain your faith when you admit your holy scriptures are errant. This is a question that has plagued me for many years. I'm truly fascinated.

diana
 
Old 06-28-2001, 05:04 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Kosh,
My point is that God didn't change his mind about the Jews. Throughout the OT there are indications that through the Jews God will bring blessings to all nations of the world. The subsequent fulfillment of this through Christ and the Christian Church can hardly be taken as an example of God changing his mind.

Diana,
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It hasn't escaped my attention that you're changing the subject. We're discussing God changing his mind here, not "God letting his Son die so all the nations might be blessed."</font>
Oh now I'm changing the subject? As I recall it, it was you who began this tangent by saying:
"All nations of the earth will be blessed? Really, now. Do you usually believe someone's words...or his actions?"

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But since you mentioned it, I'd like to point out that God required his Son to die. According to standard Xn dogma, it was planned before God made the worlds, and Xst even asked to let this cup pass from him. Make no mistake: it was obligatory. </font>
I do find it rather amusing to hear an atheist telling me what to believe. If you are suggesting that Christ's crucifixion was anything other than an entirely voluntary act then I will have to disagree with you. (I think all other Christians would as well.)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also...wouldn't it be more correct to say, "God required his Son to die so that all the nations of the world which remained after centuries of God-commanded genocide at the hands of his 'chosen' might be blessed"? (I know it's wordy and bunglesome, but I'm a stickler for expressing ideas as accurately as possible.)</font>
In short... no it would not be more correct to say that. Christ's death has implications for all people who have ever and will ever lived, not merely those who are lucky enough to live after and hear of his death.
'Genocide' is one way to put it, 'righteous judgement on evil-doers' is another.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And there's a little something bugging me about the suggestion that "that was then, this is now and we are lucky enough to have Xst's blood to atone for our sins," because I've heard that before (as you may imagine, this is not my first argument with a Xn). The impression I get from this idea, each time I hear it, is that as far as we are concerned, those ancient peoples really didn't matter, that they were perhaps lesser than us, not as important, or were just there for God to "warm up" on. I see this attitude as extremely egocentric and selfish beyond anything of which I am capable. I have yet to run into a Xn who can explain this problem away.</font>
Of course the ancient peoples mattered, and of course they were as important as us. If Christ is God and God is eternal, then Christ's death must have eternal implications and not be limited by time or space. Christ said "no one comes to the Father but through me". Does this then mean that those who lived before Christ are not able to come to the Father? Of course not, the death of Christ transcends mere time and the forgiveness of the Father has always been available to all. This is shown clearly by God's actions in the Old Testament: God was able to forgive people for their wrongdoings. How could he do this if Christ had not yet come? He could do it because Christ had already come, for Christ is the master of Time not its slave.
Yet we still have something more than those who lived before Christ: During our lives in this world we have knowledge of how God sets people right with him. We can observe God's ways and see how he acts in the world. Yet this advantage is only a temporary one and a tiny one at that, as Paul says:
"There are inspired messages, but they are temporary; there are gifts of speaking in strange tongues, but they will cease; there is knowledge but it will pass. For our gifts of knowldge and of inspired messages are only partial; but when what is perfect comes, then what is partial will disappear.
When I was a child, my speech, feelings, and thinking were all those of a child; now that I am a man, I have no more use for childish ways. What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. What I know now is only partial; then it will be complete - as complete as God's knowledge of me." (1 Corinthians 13:8-12)

It is Christ's death that makes forgiveness possible and through Christ God can forgive sin for any who wish it. When the day of final judgement comes Christ will be there for all: those who lived prior to Christ will not be at a disadvantage to those who live after, and those who have not heard will not come off worse than those who have heard.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">My next question to you is how, exactly, you maintain your faith when you admit your holy scriptures are errant. This is a question that has plagued me for many years. I'm truly fascinated.</font>
Why shouldn't I? Bible inerrancy is dependent upon belief in God, not the other way around. If I believe in God then I might (or might not) decide that the Bible is the Word of God and Inerrant. But even if the I was to examine the Bible and find it had no errors, would I then decide that God must exist? Probably not.
When an inerrantist speaks of the God written scriptures I get the impression of God himself manipulating the writer like a puppet to write what He wants written. This is all well and good but it seems to go pretty heavily against the idea of Free Will in which I am a pretty firm believer.
Why might we think that the Bible should be innerant? Well a couple of verses say as much, but you should rightly recognise this as circular logic. And then there's the rather suspect "I think God would make an inerrant Bible". Of course I say "I don't think God would make an inerrant Bible"... and we are back where we started.
Why should the Bible be inerrant? In actual fact I think it is almost doctrinally required for the Bible to be errant. Everyone agrees that it is written by human authors (regardless of where they might have got their ideas from) and humans are corrupt/flawed. The Bible surely must be tainted to at least some degree by the humaness of its writers, copiers and translators. Many Inerrantists argue that any errors or contradictions result from the human error introduced by the copiers and translators, but seem to conveniently forget that the writers were human too. The argument that "I think God would have stopped this happening" is a fairly weak appeal to opinion and is obviously special pleading.
We can gain further insight by asking the question "what is the Bible?". What we call "The Bible" is a disparate collection of many books by many different human authors who lived over a time period of a thousand years or perhaps much more. Most of the books in the Bible are written by the authors with the sole purpose of addressing certain issues or answering particular religious or moral questions or their day. I doubt in general (With the possible exception of the Gospels) that the writers had any intention of contributing to "The Bible" or much thought to the eternal significance of their work. Christians however recognise the (eternal) importance and timelessness of these writings and that they cover important, moral, historical and theological issues and so we call these writings canonical. Behind the thoughts, ideas and histories presented by the writers in these books we can get a glimpse of God, and his ways, and see his hand moving in creation.
It is thus almost a mistaken emphasis to hold the writings themselves up as the great thing, the truely great thing is the glory and majesty of God which we can glimpse as his plan unfolds throughout human history.
Any condractions or errors we find in these books we should realise for what they are: The humaness of the writers coming through. But when a writer shows that they accepted the then-universal belief in a flat world are we to declare the bible "errant" and therefore not believe the writer when he describes a victory in battle for God's people? Or when Paul and James disagree on whether faith alone saves are we to ignore them when they both tell us not to judge fellow believers?
We may find some historical contradictions and find some descripancies in theology between different writers, but this in no way justifies taking everything they write with a grain of salt. They were human, and therefore subject to being wrong occaisionally just as much as everyone else.
To me, whether I believe "The Bible" to be inerrant or not seems to me completely irrelevant to whether I believe in the existence of God or whether I believe in the ressurection of Christ.

-Tercel

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited June 29, 2001).]
 
Old 06-29-2001, 02:20 AM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

God changes his mind all the time. He has low blood sugar.
 
Old 06-29-2001, 07:45 AM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
Kosh,
My point is that God didn't change his mind about the Jews. Throughout the OT there are indications that through the Jews God will bring blessings to all nations of the world. The subsequent fulfillment of this through Christ and the Christian Church can hardly be taken as an example of God changing his mind.
</font>
As Diana has pointed out, prior to the NT
there were not attempts to convert the world
to Judaism. They were conquering nations
(sometimes ruthlessly - Ruth had already passed on ... :-) ) and using their God
to justify it.

Then all of a sudden... poof! Here's Jesus,
and he's here to tell you why now (after all
these years) you should go out and "convert"
(newspeak for conquer by the Catholic church?) the world.

OT - God only cares about the Jews
NT - God decides he wants it all.

Change of mind?

Also, if the Jews were (are?) gods chosen
people, and Christianity tells us that the
only way to God is through the salvation of
Jesus Christ, and the Jews have rejected
Jesus, does this mean that they're not
his chosen people anymore?

Change of mind?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Christ's death has implications for all people who have ever and will ever lived, not merely those who are lucky enough to live after and hear of his death.
'Genocide' is one way to put it, 'righteous judgement on evil-doers' is another.
</font>
OK, now we got yer number..

Diana - should we start another thread
regarding the inerrancy comments and
just they don't "throw the baby out with
the bathwater"?

 
Old 06-29-2001, 08:08 AM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Exclamation

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
Kosh,
My point is that God didn't change his mind about the Jews. Throughout the OT there are indications that through the Jews God will bring blessings to all nations of the world. The subsequent fulfillment of this through Christ and the Christian Church can hardly be taken as an example of God changing his mind.

Diana,
Quote:
It hasn't escaped my attention that you're changing the subject. We're discussing God changing his mind here, not "God letting his Son die so all the nations might be blessed."</font>
Oh now I'm changing the subject? As I recall it, it was you who began this tangent by saying:
"All nations of the earth will be blessed? Really, now. Do you usually believe someone's words...or his actions?"

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But since you mentioned it, I'd like to point out that God required his Son to die. According to standard Xn dogma, it was planned before God made the worlds, and Xst even asked to let this cup pass from him. Make no mistake: it was obligatory. </font>
I do find it rather amusing to hear an atheist telling me what to believe. If you are suggesting that Christ's crucifixion was anything other than an entirely voluntary act then I will have to disagree with you. (I think all other Christians would as well.)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also...wouldn't it be more correct to say, "God required his Son to die so that all the nations of the world which remained after centuries of God-commanded genocide at the hands of his 'chosen' might be blessed"? (I know it's wordy and bunglesome, but I'm a stickler for expressing ideas as accurately as possible.)</font>
In short... no it would not be more correct to say that. Christ's death has implications for all people who have ever and will ever lived, not merely those who are lucky enough to live after and hear of his death.
'Genocide' is one way to put it, 'righteous judgement on evil-doers' is another.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And there's a little something bugging me about the suggestion that "that was then, this is now and we are lucky enough to have Xst's blood to atone for our sins," because I've heard that before (as you may imagine, this is not my first argument with a Xn). The impression I get from this idea, each time I hear it, is that as far as we are concerned, those ancient peoples really didn't matter, that they were perhaps lesser than us, not as important, or were just there for God to "warm up" on. I see this attitude as extremely egocentric and selfish beyond anything of which I am capable. I have yet to run into a Xn who can explain this problem away.</font>
Of course the ancient peoples mattered, and of course they were as important as us. If Christ is God and God is eternal, then Christ's death must have eternal implications and not be limited by time or space. Christ said "no one comes to the Father but through me". Does this then mean that those who lived before Christ are not able to come to the Father? Of course not, the death of Christ transcends mere time and the forgiveness of the Father has always been available to all. This is shown clearly by God's actions in the Old Testament: God was able to forgive people for their wrongdoings. How could he do this if Christ had not yet come? He could do it because Christ had already come, for Christ is the master of Time not its slave.
Yet we still have something more than those who lived before Christ: During our lives in this world we have knowledge of how God sets people right with him. We can observe God's ways and see how he acts in the world. Yet this advantage is only a temporary one and a tiny one at that, as Paul says:
"There are inspired messages, but they are temporary; there are gifts of speaking in strange tongues, but they will cease; there is knowledge but it will pass. For our gifts of knowldge and of inspired messages are only partial; but when what is perfect comes, then what is partial will disappear.
When I was a child, my speech, feelings, and thinking were all those of a child; now that I am a man, I have no more use for childish ways. What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. What I know now is only partial; then it will be complete - as complete as God's knowledge of me." (1 Corinthians 13:8-12)

It is Christ's death that makes forgiveness possible and through Christ God can forgive sin for any who wish it. When the day of final judgement comes Christ will be there for all: those who lived prior to Christ will not be at a disadvantage to those who live after, and those who have not heard will not come off worse than those who have heard.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">My next question to you is how, exactly, you maintain your faith when you admit your holy scriptures are errant. This is a question that has plagued me for many years. I'm truly fascinated.</font>
Why shouldn't I? Bible inerrancy is dependent upon belief in God, not the other way around. If I believe in God then I might (or might not) decide that the Bible is the Word of God and Inerrant. But even if the I was to examine the Bible and find it had no errors, would I then decide that God must exist? Probably not.
When an inerrantist speaks of the God written scriptures I get the impression of God himself manipulating the writer like a puppet to write what He wants written. This is all well and good but it seems to go pretty heavily against the idea of Free Will in which I am a pretty firm believer.
Why might we think that the Bible should be innerant? Well a couple of verses say as much, but you should rightly recognise this as circular logic. And then there's the rather suspect "I think God would make an inerrant Bible". Of course I say "I don't think God would make an inerrant Bible"... and we are back where we started.
Why should the Bible be inerrant? In actual fact I think it is almost doctrinally required for the Bible to be errant. Everyone agrees that it is written by human authors (regardless of where they might have got their ideas from) and humans are corrupt/flawed. The Bible surely must be tainted to at least some degree by the humaness of its writers, copiers and translators. Many Inerrantists argue that any errors or contradictions result from the human error introduced by the copiers and translators, but seem to conveniently forget that the writers were human too. The argument that "I think God would have stopped this happening" is a fairly weak appeal to opinion and is obviously special pleading.
We can gain further insight by asking the question "what is the Bible?". What we call "The Bible" is a disparate collection of many books by many different human authors who lived over a time period of a thousand years or perhaps much more. Most of the books in the Bible are written by the authors with the sole purpose of addressing certain issues or answering particular religious or moral questions or their day. I doubt in general (With the possible exception of the Gospels) that the writers had any intention of contributing to "The Bible" or much thought to the eternal significance of their work. Christians however recognise the (eternal) importance and timelessness of these writings and that they cover important, moral, historical and theological issues and so we call these writings canonical. Behind the thoughts, ideas and histories presented by the writers in these books we can get a glimpse of God, and his ways, and see his hand moving in creation.
It is thus almost a mistaken emphasis to hold the writings themselves up as the great thing, the truely great thing is the glory and majesty of God which we can glimpse as his plan unfolds throughout human history.
Any condractions or errors we find in these books we should realise for what they are: The humaness of the writers coming through. But when a writer shows that they accepted the then-universal belief in a flat world are we to declare the bible "errant" and therefore not believe the writer when he describes a victory in battle for God's people? Or when Paul and James disagree on whether faith alone saves are we to ignore them when they both tell us not to judge fellow believers?
We may find some historical contradictions and find some descripancies in theology between different writers, but this in no way justifies taking everything they write with a grain of salt. They were human, and therefore subject to being wrong occaisionally just as much as everyone else.
To me, whether I believe "The Bible" to be inerrant or not seems to me completely irrelevant to whether I believe in the existence of God or whether I believe in the ressurection of Christ.

-Tercel

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited June 29, 2001).]
Tercel,
I am not attacking you personally, but I cant understand how you can claim to be Christian, and yet question the Bibles validity, or the transcriptions.

The Christians I have known will quote the following verse when there is a question of the errors.

Proverbs 30
Verse 5- "Every word of God is flawless;he is a shield to those who take refuge in him".

Being a non-believer, and a questioner
of written Biblical text, I would say that the above statement in proverbs,
is contridicted in Jeremiah 8-8;
"How can you say,"We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord", when actually the LYING
PEN of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

You say that errors in the Biblical text are irrelevant, and do not have a bearing
on your belief in God's existence and Jesus'
atonement for mankind's sin, and his subsequent ressurection.

It seems to be a contridiction in terms.

Tell me what other source you can go to for
the explanation of God's relationship with mankind?

If you admit that there are questionable
parts of the Bible,then you are admitting that Christianity may be in error all together.

Its just MHO, but It would seem that you cannot have it both ways, either you believe that the Bible is the written word of God as Christianity teaches, or you believe there is error in the recorded word that is the basis for ALL
christian doctrine.

If you state that there could be errors, then you are discounting the Christian belief system's basic premise.

Christianity says that even if the word of God was not written by his own hand, that the writers were divinely guided as to the material they recorded.

So, there should be no errors.

If errors are made, then we must assume faulty information was given to be recorded.
And if we assume that faulty information
was recorded, then we must question God's
honesty in relaying that information to the scribes.

Now as to God giving faulty information, it is pretty well documented that God was at times deceptive, and actually gave mankind faulty information purposely.

Case in point: 2 Thessalonians 2
verse 11 "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie."
12- and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."

Now that verse is pretty clear, that God is being untruthful . .....period.
It doesnt matter that the justification for those lies was to deceive some wicked people,
because according to Christian doctrine,God is supposedly incapable of deception.

The majority of the Christian community adhere to the thought that God cannot lie or deceive as the source of all morality and good in the universe.

There are many instances in the Bible that
point to God's word as being suspect.
In Ezekiel chapter 20, verse 25- "I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by"
A punishment for idol worship, but a deception just the same.

Lets go on here to another example of deception by God.
1 Kings 22-23 "So now the lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The lord has decreed disaster for you".

Ezekiel 14-9-"And if the prophet is "enticed"
to utter a prophecy, I the lord have enticed that prophet and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel".

Donald Morgan compiled numerous verses as above, that shows a propensity for God to be untruthful.

If we are to take literally as many Christians say,the Bible to be truely the word of God, given directly to the scribes through divine revelation, or through the power of the Holy Spirit, and this document contains many examples of deception, then there exists a contridiction or immense proportion with regard to the doctrine of Christianity, and the actual recorded word of God.
 
Old 06-29-2001, 09:00 AM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Good morning, Tercel.

When you say God blessed all nations of the earth through Jesus Christ, you side-step the issue I had just highlighted as the problem: What about the people who came before? This is why I accused you of changing the subject.

When I asked if you believe people's words or actions, this was another way of asking you to explain your reasons for believing "all the nations of the world are blessed."

Asking one's opponent to support his argument is not commonly thought of as "changing the subject," at least where I'm from. (If you prefer, I could simply say, "How do you figure?" so as to avoid confusion, although this is usually perceived as antagonistic, and tends to put my opponent on the defensive.)

By phrasing my question the way I did, I hoped to spur you to explanation while simultaneously pointing out why "all the nations of the world are blessed though Jesus" doesn't work for me: "All the nations" doesn't cover the people who came before. What about them?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I do find it rather amusing to hear an atheist telling me what to believe.</font>
Saying "according to standard Xn dogma" is not synonymous with "telling you what to believe." And you were doing so well. Be so kind as to avoid twisting my words.

The way I phrased my objection, it should have been clear that I was voicing what I understand your belief to dictate, and I also told you why I have this understanding: God's plan for Jesus to die on the cross was in place before he made the worlds AND the fact that Jesus asked to be let off the hook if it was possible. I haven't found the BC&V that says the plan was in place before he made the worlds, which is why I said, "according to...dogma." However, the suggestion that something better is already in the works starts in Genesis (3:15) with the cursing of the serpent.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If you are suggesting that Christ's crucifixion was anything other than an entirely voluntary act then I will have to disagree with you. (I think all other Christians would as well.)</font>
Actually I didn't suggest it at all. I said it outright. Feel free to disagree, but please supply the BC&V that backs up your position.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Christ's death has implications for all people who have ever and will ever lived, not merely those who are lucky enough to live after and hear of his death.</font>
So the blood of Xst is retroactive then? Please support with (you got it) BC&V.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">'Genocide' is one way to put it, 'righteous judgement on evil-doers' is another.</font>
You say potato, and I say tomato....So when the people who wrote the history books say "Well...yes, we killed them, but they were all bad," you simply believe that? Even when the genocide includes infants and slaves and cattle and horses and asses? Please demonstrate to me how these were shown to be "evil-doers" or were even capable of evil, please. Thank you.

But let me try to explain my original objection another way: as a Xn, you must believe that God's plan changed between the old covenant and the new (yes, I'm saying you have to; if you don't, you misunderstand the designation "Xn"). I don't know whether you believe the Jews were promised eternal life/death as a result of their actions, since you don't seem to require scriptural backing for your beliefs, so I will submit to you that they were not. Their god brought them luck and bounty (or not) in this life, and if they were very lucky, they'd be plucked away (in the flesh) like Elijah and taken to heaven. There was no threat of hell or promise of heaven after death.

This all changed with the new covenant. Now, everyone is threatened with hell/promised heaven (no other choice). But we all have a shot, right? One way or another, we'll live forever (a condition assumed by many to be a good thing). But the people before Xst's death just died. They had a belief in an underworld, but it just "was." Doesn't seem fair that we get a shot at eternal life while they don't, does it?

Please refer to your quote above and support it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Of course the ancient peoples mattered, and of course they were as important as us.</font>
Yes, I suppose. As the unwitting pawns of a "schoolmaster": Gal 3:24-26: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this scripture say that we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ? The Jews didn't have that. They still don't. Jesus is not mentioned once in the OT. Not once. Johnny Cochran could not make the case that the Israelites (let alone anyone else) had said faith.

The idea that the law was a schoolmaster to bring us unto Xst is usually used to discount the Jewish laws it replaces, but it also necessarily implies that the people who were under it didn't get the benefits of Xst's death. (After all, if they had their fair chances at eternal life/heaven/hell, what would be the purpose of invoking the new plan? If it was working just fine, what was the point in fixing it?)

What gives you reason (BC&V) to believe otherwise (other than the warm, fuzzy feeling you get from believing what you wish)?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Christ said "no one comes to the Father but through me". Does this then mean that those who lived before Christ are not able to come to the Father? Of course not...</font>
I agree with you up to this point.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...the death of Christ transcends mere time and the forgiveness of the Father has always been available to all.</font>
Actually, people went straight to the Father before (or he went straight to them). The "no one comes to the father except by me" was a change to the rules that went into effect with the new covenant.

Plus, the Father forgave occasionally, when he wasn't on the rag. Most of the time, he was on the rag. He didn't even give the infants and asses a second chance. Sheesh. This is forgiveness?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">How could he do this if Christ had not yet come? He could do it because Christ had already come, for Christ is the master of Time not its slave.</font>
Xst had already come, huh? I find your theology unique and fascinating. Please produce something to substantiate your claims.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We can observe God's ways and see how he acts in the world.</font>
Please tell me what, exactly, you've observed God doing.

I appreciate your producing scripture to back up your idea that "what we see of God is a passing advantage," even though I fail to see how this comment is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">When the day of final judgement comes Christ will be there for all: those who lived prior to Christ will not be at a disadvantage to those who live after, and those who have not heard will not come off worse than those who have heard.</font>
That's a great theology. How do you substantiate it? Or do you? Give me scripture. You have a holy book. Use it.

If, however, you feel that you needn't back up anything with scripture, I'd like to know how you know anything of your god at all.

Whether you had it in mind or not, I feel testified at: you're telling me what your doctrine is, but you aren't backing if up with anything. I'm interested in your beliefs only if you can substantiate them in some way.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">When an inerrantist speaks of the God written scriptures I get the impression of God himself manipulating the writer like a puppet to write what He wants written.</font>
Luk 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

2Sa 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word [was] in my tongue.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Yep. That's certainly what it sounds like.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> This is all well and good but it seems to go pretty heavily against the idea of Free Will in which I am a pretty firm believer.</font>
Num 16:28 And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for [I have] not [done them] of mine own mind.

You're right. It does. But your scriptures are pretty clear on this.

How do you justify your position?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Why should the Bible be inerrant? In actual fact I think it is almost doctrinally required for the Bible to be errant.</font>
I mean, why do you think biblical errancy is doctrinally required?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The argument that "I think God would have stopped this happening" is a fairly weak appeal to opinion and is obviously special pleading.</font>
Isn't God a special case?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Behind the thoughts, ideas and histories presented by the writers in these books we can get a glimpse of God, and his ways, and see his hand moving in creation.</font>
You get the same thing from the Qu'ran, I understand. Perhaps you should worship Allah.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But when a writer shows that they accepted the then-universal belief in a flat world are we to declare the bible "errant" and therefore not believe the writer when he describes a victory in battle for God's people?</font>
While the victory/non-victory might be accepted, the fact that God had anything to do with it is to be seriously doubted because this "all-powerful" being isn't even aware that the earth is round.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Or when Paul and James disagree on whether faith alone saves are we to ignore them when they both tell us not to judge fellow believers?</font>
You might even question whether they weren't just making the whole thing up.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">To me, whether I believe "The Bible" to be inerrant or not seems to me completely irrelevant to whether I believe in the existence of God or whether I believe in the ressurection of Christ.</font>
Since any given portion of it may be taken "with a grain of salt," how, praytell, do you know which parts to believe and which to discard?

diana
 
Old 06-29-2001, 09:10 AM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Diana - should we start another thread
regarding the inerrancy comments and
just they don't "throw the baby out with
the bathwater"?</font>
Hell, I don't know, Kosh. This has already become so tedious that must refer to the thread title occasionally just to remember what the baby looks like.
 
Old 06-29-2001, 04:00 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by diana:
All right, BK. You have my attention. Please elaborate.

diana
</font>
What about the OT, where it was pretty hunky-dory for a man to have multiple wives and HEY!, if one of them was no longer pleasing, all he had to do was write her a bill of divorcement BUT in the NT, a man is to have just one wife and divorce is strictly forbidden, with only two exceptions? That seems like a change of mind to me.
 
Old 06-29-2001, 09:23 PM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">please tell us how in the OT, the Jews were God's chosen people, but in the NT he changed his mind and wanted everyone. Was that just a "scriptural misreading"?</font>
Kosh,

Just FYI, if you or others are sincerely interesting in trying to understand the harmony found in the Bible concerning this subject, you may be interesting in checking out this audio lecture by Dr. Richard Pratt (Reformed Theological Seminary Old Testament Scholar - the lecture is based on his book on the prophets).

Salutations,
Jim Mitchell
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.