MVP says...
God desires us to know about Him and His wants and needs but has shunned his responsibility to tell us those things.
@MVP
Yes, and no. Yes, God desires a relationship with us. But, no, God has not "shunned his responsibility".
He has entrusted the message to His church.
Earlier, you asked, why it was any of my responsibility to spread the gospel message.
The answer to that question remains the same. It is a task that has been entrusted to me.
It's not my (or Ray's) responsibility to "save" anyone; that is God's prerogative alone. The task of the Church is to let His light shine, to share His message with all of the world.
November 30, 2010 10:21 AM
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The real question
MVP asks...
How many denminations are there?
@MVP
You are of course inquiring about denominations within the Church, not of U.S. Treasury Notes.
There is one. There is one church. There is one head, Christ. Within the church, there is unity. The church is a single unit. One.
There are many parts, and not all the parts are the same.
There are non-essentials that can be debated vigorously within the church. But those topics are secondary, and are no reason for division.
On essential Christian doctrine, the body of Christ stands as one.
MVP asks...
How many people saying they have the right message?
@MVP
Most people believe they are right. Some people are willing to admit that their knowledge is imperfect, and are open to correction. But some people have already made up their minds, and have invested so much in "being right" that they are unwilling or unable to admit they might be wrong.
MVP asks...
How many SEEMINGLY contradictory statements in the bible that lead to ambiguity?
@MVP
Seemingly contradictory statements needn't lead to ambiguity. I believe that they lead us to a better understanding.
Seeming contradictions are indicators to us that we have not grasped the meaning. It shows that we've missed the meaning, probably because we've injected our own meaning in place of the author's intended meaning.
Seeming contradictions in the Bible do not present an obstacle to understanding. The real obstacle is one's belief that one is already right.
But the real question, MVP, is not whether I am "right". The essential question, the one upon which my eternity hinges, is whether I am "right with God".
Will I be saved, or will I be condemned?
There is no ambiguity in the answer to that question.
November 30, 2010 10:15 AM
How many denminations are there?
@MVP
You are of course inquiring about denominations within the Church, not of U.S. Treasury Notes.
There is one. There is one church. There is one head, Christ. Within the church, there is unity. The church is a single unit. One.
There are many parts, and not all the parts are the same.
There are non-essentials that can be debated vigorously within the church. But those topics are secondary, and are no reason for division.
On essential Christian doctrine, the body of Christ stands as one.
MVP asks...
How many people saying they have the right message?
@MVP
Most people believe they are right. Some people are willing to admit that their knowledge is imperfect, and are open to correction. But some people have already made up their minds, and have invested so much in "being right" that they are unwilling or unable to admit they might be wrong.
MVP asks...
How many SEEMINGLY contradictory statements in the bible that lead to ambiguity?
@MVP
Seemingly contradictory statements needn't lead to ambiguity. I believe that they lead us to a better understanding.
Seeming contradictions are indicators to us that we have not grasped the meaning. It shows that we've missed the meaning, probably because we've injected our own meaning in place of the author's intended meaning.
Seeming contradictions in the Bible do not present an obstacle to understanding. The real obstacle is one's belief that one is already right.
But the real question, MVP, is not whether I am "right". The essential question, the one upon which my eternity hinges, is whether I am "right with God".
Will I be saved, or will I be condemned?
There is no ambiguity in the answer to that question.
November 30, 2010 10:15 AM
The same people
MVP asks...
So the bible goes out of its way to enforce the idea that men are wretched sinners deserving of hell but has the same people as the message bringers?!
@MVP
Yep.
Who has the need of a physician, those that are well, or those that are ill?
The church is not a museum for saints, but is a hospital for sinners.
God has chosen to use imperfect men, wretched sinners, to bring the message to the world, to deliver the good news of Jesus.
November 30, 2010 9:40 AM
Delete
So the bible goes out of its way to enforce the idea that men are wretched sinners deserving of hell but has the same people as the message bringers?!
@MVP
Yep.
Who has the need of a physician, those that are well, or those that are ill?
The church is not a museum for saints, but is a hospital for sinners.
God has chosen to use imperfect men, wretched sinners, to bring the message to the world, to deliver the good news of Jesus.
November 30, 2010 9:40 AM
Delete
I'm okay with that
MVP asks...
If the judge finds me guilty of a murder, and the penalty is life imprisonment, then the penalty must be carried out. The penalty is on me, but the court is satisfied if someone else is imprisoned for for me. I therfore go completley unpunished for something that I am responsible for.
You OK with that? It was your analogy!
@MVP
Yes, I'm okay with that. I'm totally okay with that, on one condition. I will stipulate the person that takes your place in prison, the person that bears the penalty for the crime you committed, does so by his own choice. I'm totally okay with that.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. ... It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known. -- Charles Dickens
November 30, 2010 9:35 AM
If the judge finds me guilty of a murder, and the penalty is life imprisonment, then the penalty must be carried out. The penalty is on me, but the court is satisfied if someone else is imprisoned for for me. I therfore go completley unpunished for something that I am responsible for.
You OK with that? It was your analogy!
@MVP
Yes, I'm okay with that. I'm totally okay with that, on one condition. I will stipulate the person that takes your place in prison, the person that bears the penalty for the crime you committed, does so by his own choice. I'm totally okay with that.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. ... It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known. -- Charles Dickens
November 30, 2010 9:35 AM
The body of Christ
@MVP
The phrase "body of Christ" is not "gobbledigook" [sic].
The term has you flummoxed. The meaning is not clear to you. Perhaps this will help.
The term "body of Christ" refers to the members of His church throughout history. The "body of Christ" is the church, composed of all of those that have accepted Jesus Christ as personal savior.
cf. Mark 14:22
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body-whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 (NIV)
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. Ephesians 1:22-23 (NIV)
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 1 Corinthians 12:27 (NIV)
The "body of Christ" is a complex term... it encompasses many ideas, including the idea of unity (the body is one unit, even though it is made up of many parts), and including the ideas of organization, the idea of purpose, the idea that it is suitable for work, et al.
It is a complex term, so your confusion is understandable.
HTH
The phrase "body of Christ" is not "gobbledigook" [sic].
The term has you flummoxed. The meaning is not clear to you. Perhaps this will help.
The term "body of Christ" refers to the members of His church throughout history. The "body of Christ" is the church, composed of all of those that have accepted Jesus Christ as personal savior.
cf. Mark 14:22
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body-whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 (NIV)
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. Ephesians 1:22-23 (NIV)
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 1 Corinthians 12:27 (NIV)
The "body of Christ" is a complex term... it encompasses many ideas, including the idea of unity (the body is one unit, even though it is made up of many parts), and including the ideas of organization, the idea of purpose, the idea that it is suitable for work, et al.
It is a complex term, so your confusion is understandable.
HTH
Heaven and hell
@Iago
There is much misinformation about what the Bible says about heaven and hell, from many sources.
First, we must recognize that the words heaven and hell are English words, with no direct ties to Hebrew or Greek roots.
Hebrew is a very literal language. The English word heaven is usually used by translators in the place of the Hebrew word shamayim. The Hebrew word is most commonly thought to mean "the skies", literally, the atmosphere above the earth.
Similarly, the Hebrew word sheol is most commonly thought to mean "the grave", literally, the earth below.
Why, then, would translators choose the English words "heaven" and "hell", rather than a more literal translation to "the skies" and "the grave"?
We need only look to Isaiah for more detailed descriptions of ethereal things (chapter 6) and of infernal things (chapter 14). Those passages make clear to us that there is a very real "heaven" and a very real "hell" beyond the earthly meaning of the symbols.
The very clear teaching of the Bible is that the dead will be resurrected. Both the wicked and the righteous will be raised, and will be judged.
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2 (NIV) cf. Isaiah 26:19
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out-those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. John 5:28-29 (NIV) cf. Revelation 20
Question for you, Iago. When you stand before the throne and God declares a verdict, what will that verdict be?
And don't be fooled into thinking that you can offer "contradictions in the Bible" as a defense. That won't work.
The contradictions we "find" in the Bible are a clue to us that we have missed the meaning. They indicate that we have grasped the real meaning, most probably because or we have injected our own meaning.
November 30, 2010 9:24 AM
There is much misinformation about what the Bible says about heaven and hell, from many sources.
First, we must recognize that the words heaven and hell are English words, with no direct ties to Hebrew or Greek roots.
Hebrew is a very literal language. The English word heaven is usually used by translators in the place of the Hebrew word shamayim. The Hebrew word is most commonly thought to mean "the skies", literally, the atmosphere above the earth.
Similarly, the Hebrew word sheol is most commonly thought to mean "the grave", literally, the earth below.
Why, then, would translators choose the English words "heaven" and "hell", rather than a more literal translation to "the skies" and "the grave"?
We need only look to Isaiah for more detailed descriptions of ethereal things (chapter 6) and of infernal things (chapter 14). Those passages make clear to us that there is a very real "heaven" and a very real "hell" beyond the earthly meaning of the symbols.
The very clear teaching of the Bible is that the dead will be resurrected. Both the wicked and the righteous will be raised, and will be judged.
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2 (NIV) cf. Isaiah 26:19
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out-those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. John 5:28-29 (NIV) cf. Revelation 20
Question for you, Iago. When you stand before the throne and God declares a verdict, what will that verdict be?
And don't be fooled into thinking that you can offer "contradictions in the Bible" as a defense. That won't work.
The contradictions we "find" in the Bible are a clue to us that we have missed the meaning. They indicate that we have grasped the real meaning, most probably because or we have injected our own meaning.
November 30, 2010 9:24 AM
No plan B
MVP said...
Spencer believes there was another way (though he is not specific in any way about how) so that those people who did/do not have the gospel can still enter heaven
@MVP
I have corrected you on this before, several times. And I will correct you again.
There is no "other way".
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 (ESV)
There is no "plan B".
MVP asks...
After Jesus died did the rule 'believe in and repent in Jesus to get into heaven' become reality?
No, this is and was the reality from the very beginning, from before the universe was created, from before there was time.
Again, I refer you to chapter 11 of Hebrews. The truth existed and was known, even though it was not seen.
November 22, 2010 6:03 AM
Delete
Spencer believes there was another way (though he is not specific in any way about how) so that those people who did/do not have the gospel can still enter heaven
@MVP
I have corrected you on this before, several times. And I will correct you again.
There is no "other way".
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 (ESV)
There is no "plan B".
MVP asks...
After Jesus died did the rule 'believe in and repent in Jesus to get into heaven' become reality?
No, this is and was the reality from the very beginning, from before the universe was created, from before there was time.
Again, I refer you to chapter 11 of Hebrews. The truth existed and was known, even though it was not seen.
November 22, 2010 6:03 AM
Delete
Jesus prayed to himself
MVP said...
So Jesus went and prayed to himself.
Remind me again - how is Christianity NOT a polytheistic religion?
@MVP
Jesus prayed to the Father.
To remind you again: Jesus and the Father are one:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Deuteronomy 6:4
cf. Mark 12:28-34
There is one God, and God is revealed in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
One God, three persons.
The three persons of the Godhead are manifested in relationship to one another. For example, the Father sends the Son, the Son prays to the Father, the Father and Son send the Spirit.
This idea of "one God, three persons" is an idea that we may not be able to fully comprehend, but it is an idea that we can apprehend.
November 21, 2010 7:47 PM
So Jesus went and prayed to himself.
Remind me again - how is Christianity NOT a polytheistic religion?
@MVP
Jesus prayed to the Father.
To remind you again: Jesus and the Father are one:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Deuteronomy 6:4
cf. Mark 12:28-34
There is one God, and God is revealed in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
One God, three persons.
The three persons of the Godhead are manifested in relationship to one another. For example, the Father sends the Son, the Son prays to the Father, the Father and Son send the Spirit.
This idea of "one God, three persons" is an idea that we may not be able to fully comprehend, but it is an idea that we can apprehend.
November 21, 2010 7:47 PM
The sins of the parents
Steven J said...
But even reading it in the actual Bible, it's not at all obvious how one reconciles God's claim in Exodus that He punishes children to the fourth generation for the sins of their parents, with the command in Deuteronomy that we are forbidden to do this, much less with the promise in Ezekiel that God will not do this. It's not clear how God could show Moses His "back parts" if "God is spirit," lacking both physical location and bodily form, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman.
@Steven J
That passage in Exodus 33 is really speaking to God's revelation. You ask how God can show His "back parts". You might also ask how God can move His "hand", or show His "face". The emphasis of this passage is not on a description of God's physical body parts (hand, back or face.)
The references to body parts are a metaphor, they are representative of the truth. They paint a word picture which helps us understand the meaning, that not everything has been revealed to Moses, and that God will reveal more of Himself in the future, foreshadowing his revelation in the person of Jesus.
The Bible is a notable work of literature (as Dawkins correctly points out). The Bible, as literature, and makes extensive use of literary figures of speech (such as metaphor, personification, hyperbole, etc.).
To read the Bible only in a woodenly literal way is to miss the real meaning. Jesus mostly taught using parable, a form of metaphor.
As to children inheriting the sins of the father down through N=2,3,4 generations... there are two distinct perspectives we need to take into account in these passages: temporal and eternal.
From a temporal, earthly perspective, we know that a man's actions have consequences, not just on him, but on others. Consider one man that murders another man. The action has consequences on both men, and on their families, on their children, and on their neighbors, on and on.
A man's actions can result in consequences for his children, grandchildren, and generations to come. When a man is sent to prison for murder, one consequence is that a son may not finish school, may not go to college, and that will affect the rest of his life. The son reaps a temporal "punishment" for the sins of his father.
This is in complete accord with the Bible. We note that God makes no promise to insulate children from temporal consequences of their father's actions.
The other, more important perspective that we need to take into account is the eternal. In this regard, God DOES make promise that each individual is responsible for his own thoughts and actions. On the day of judgment, no man will be judged for the sins of his ancestors. That is, no son will be eternally "punished" for the sins of his father.
When we examine those passages in light of those two different perspectives, the Bible more clearly reveals the truth to us, and we see that those passages are not contradictory.
Why should the Bible even talk about the "sins of the father" and subsequent generations? Perhaps it is to address a common misunderstanding, a belief that what happens to us on earth reflects on God's eternal judgment on us. (And there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding on this by many misguided teachers.)
I'm not in total agreement with that particular quote from Shaw, but he does highlight an important truth. We, as human beings are wont to do, often inject our own meaning into the words of Scripture.
One of the ways we have of recognizing that we have, in fact, injected our own meaning, is by way of the contradictions we "find" in Scripture. When we examine the passages more closely, taking into account the context and purpose, and asking the relevant questions, and give ourselves the freedom to have our initial understanding be incomplete or wrong, then the truth of Scripture can reveal itself to us.
I hope this finds you well.
November 27, 2010 10:09 AM
Blogger
But even reading it in the actual Bible, it's not at all obvious how one reconciles God's claim in Exodus that He punishes children to the fourth generation for the sins of their parents, with the command in Deuteronomy that we are forbidden to do this, much less with the promise in Ezekiel that God will not do this. It's not clear how God could show Moses His "back parts" if "God is spirit," lacking both physical location and bodily form, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman.
@Steven J
That passage in Exodus 33 is really speaking to God's revelation. You ask how God can show His "back parts". You might also ask how God can move His "hand", or show His "face". The emphasis of this passage is not on a description of God's physical body parts (hand, back or face.)
The references to body parts are a metaphor, they are representative of the truth. They paint a word picture which helps us understand the meaning, that not everything has been revealed to Moses, and that God will reveal more of Himself in the future, foreshadowing his revelation in the person of Jesus.
The Bible is a notable work of literature (as Dawkins correctly points out). The Bible, as literature, and makes extensive use of literary figures of speech (such as metaphor, personification, hyperbole, etc.).
To read the Bible only in a woodenly literal way is to miss the real meaning. Jesus mostly taught using parable, a form of metaphor.
As to children inheriting the sins of the father down through N=2,3,4 generations... there are two distinct perspectives we need to take into account in these passages: temporal and eternal.
From a temporal, earthly perspective, we know that a man's actions have consequences, not just on him, but on others. Consider one man that murders another man. The action has consequences on both men, and on their families, on their children, and on their neighbors, on and on.
A man's actions can result in consequences for his children, grandchildren, and generations to come. When a man is sent to prison for murder, one consequence is that a son may not finish school, may not go to college, and that will affect the rest of his life. The son reaps a temporal "punishment" for the sins of his father.
This is in complete accord with the Bible. We note that God makes no promise to insulate children from temporal consequences of their father's actions.
The other, more important perspective that we need to take into account is the eternal. In this regard, God DOES make promise that each individual is responsible for his own thoughts and actions. On the day of judgment, no man will be judged for the sins of his ancestors. That is, no son will be eternally "punished" for the sins of his father.
When we examine those passages in light of those two different perspectives, the Bible more clearly reveals the truth to us, and we see that those passages are not contradictory.
Why should the Bible even talk about the "sins of the father" and subsequent generations? Perhaps it is to address a common misunderstanding, a belief that what happens to us on earth reflects on God's eternal judgment on us. (And there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding on this by many misguided teachers.)
I'm not in total agreement with that particular quote from Shaw, but he does highlight an important truth. We, as human beings are wont to do, often inject our own meaning into the words of Scripture.
One of the ways we have of recognizing that we have, in fact, injected our own meaning, is by way of the contradictions we "find" in Scripture. When we examine the passages more closely, taking into account the context and purpose, and asking the relevant questions, and give ourselves the freedom to have our initial understanding be incomplete or wrong, then the truth of Scripture can reveal itself to us.
I hope this finds you well.
November 27, 2010 10:09 AM
Blogger
David goes to his son, where?
@Steven J
We know that David is dead and buried (Acts 2:29), and we know that he will be resurrected (Jeremiah 30:9), and will rule as a prince (or king) over the 12 tribes of Israel (Ezekial 34), with the apostles each one a throne over one of the 12 tribes (Matthew 19:28)
Jesus taught that no man, presumably including David, had yet ascended to heaven (John 3:13). And Jesus teaches that his followers will inherit the kingdom of God when Jesus comes again, the second coming.
"where I will be, there you will be also"
And Hebrews clearly teaches that those that died before the time Jesus walked the earth did not yet inherit the promise, not even Abraham (cf. Acts 7)
The resurrection of the dead will occur when Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 4)
So, when David says that he will go to his son... is he meaning that he will go to his son in the grave, when he is dead and buried?
Or, is perhaps David looking further ahead than that, and looking forward to his inheritance, his existence in the coming Kingdom of God?
November 25, 2010 8:15 PM
We know that David is dead and buried (Acts 2:29), and we know that he will be resurrected (Jeremiah 30:9), and will rule as a prince (or king) over the 12 tribes of Israel (Ezekial 34), with the apostles each one a throne over one of the 12 tribes (Matthew 19:28)
Jesus taught that no man, presumably including David, had yet ascended to heaven (John 3:13). And Jesus teaches that his followers will inherit the kingdom of God when Jesus comes again, the second coming.
"where I will be, there you will be also"
And Hebrews clearly teaches that those that died before the time Jesus walked the earth did not yet inherit the promise, not even Abraham (cf. Acts 7)
The resurrection of the dead will occur when Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 4)
So, when David says that he will go to his son... is he meaning that he will go to his son in the grave, when he is dead and buried?
Or, is perhaps David looking further ahead than that, and looking forward to his inheritance, his existence in the coming Kingdom of God?
November 25, 2010 8:15 PM
Contrary statements
darkknight56 requests ...
Please explain how both could be right when they are both making contrary statements.
@darkknight56
Both can be right because the two are not contrary statements.
The apparent contradiction is superficial; it's not real. There is no real contradiction.
When we take a closer look at what Scripture says, paying attention to the context and the purpose, the apparent contradiction simply evaporates.
We can give numerous examples of paradoxes in the Bible, examples of apparent contradictions. But upon careful examination, these apparent contradictions turn out to be illusory.
(There is no need for me here to present you with examples. I'm certain you have a long list of contradictions "found" in the Bible.)
This particular case, the proposed "contradiction" about the destiny of infants and small children that die, is not a contradiction in the Bible.
When we "find" a contradiction in Scripture, that's a clue to us that we have missed some part of the meaning. It's a clue to us that we've read our own meaning into the text, rather than allowing the text to communicate its meaning to us.
Don't fall into the dangerous trap of rejecting the truth of Scripture because of invented contradictions.
November 25, 2010 9:54 AM
Please explain how both could be right when they are both making contrary statements.
@darkknight56
Both can be right because the two are not contrary statements.
The apparent contradiction is superficial; it's not real. There is no real contradiction.
When we take a closer look at what Scripture says, paying attention to the context and the purpose, the apparent contradiction simply evaporates.
We can give numerous examples of paradoxes in the Bible, examples of apparent contradictions. But upon careful examination, these apparent contradictions turn out to be illusory.
(There is no need for me here to present you with examples. I'm certain you have a long list of contradictions "found" in the Bible.)
This particular case, the proposed "contradiction" about the destiny of infants and small children that die, is not a contradiction in the Bible.
When we "find" a contradiction in Scripture, that's a clue to us that we have missed some part of the meaning. It's a clue to us that we've read our own meaning into the text, rather than allowing the text to communicate its meaning to us.
Don't fall into the dangerous trap of rejecting the truth of Scripture because of invented contradictions.
November 25, 2010 9:54 AM
Hebrews 11
MVP said...
All you say is "Hebrews 11" which has nothing to do with repentance or Jesus (it does in fact show other ways in which people got into heaven - by faith - so your "repentance to Jesus is the only way" is refuted by your own bible reference)
@MVP
Hebrews 11 has EVERYTHING to do with Jesus. And it does NOT "in fact show" any OTHER way "in which people got into heaven [sic]". It shows that the ONLY way to be saved is by way of Jesus.
And, just to clarify, I've not used the phrases "repent in Jesus", "repentance in Jesus", or "repentance to Jesus".
You are the one that chooses to use those awkward constructs. Given the large degree of confusion you have about some pretty simple ideas, well, it just leaves one to wonder what sort of meaning you twist into those awkwardly constructed phrases. I'm not even going to venture a guess what you mean.
But I would like to clarify something for you. In the Bible, the verb "repent" refers to a physical action. It is an action. It means that I stop moving in the direction one I'm heading, I stop dead in my tracks, and I to turn around. I turn around 180 degrees, facing in the complete opposite direction, and I begin moving in the new direction. That's the word picture of what the word "repent" means.
In Biblical terms, the term "repent" means that I stop moving away from God, with my back to God, and I stop and turn to face towards Him, and I begin moving towards Him.
There is a Biblical focus on "repentance". And this is because this is an action that is under my control. It is a decision that I am free to make. It's a choice that no one else can make for me.
God promises to honor my decision. If I choose to move away from Him, then God will honor that decision even after I die. God allows me to make the choice. If my desire is to move away from God, and that's the decision I make, then God will honor that choice when I die. God will not force me to be in His presence.
God gives me a choice. But... I have to make that choice now, before I die.
Have you made your decision, MVP?
It's not too late, for you to stop moving in the direction you are heading, and to turn back towards God.
The choice is yours.
November 24, 2010 12:48 PM
All you say is "Hebrews 11" which has nothing to do with repentance or Jesus (it does in fact show other ways in which people got into heaven - by faith - so your "repentance to Jesus is the only way" is refuted by your own bible reference)
@MVP
Hebrews 11 has EVERYTHING to do with Jesus. And it does NOT "in fact show" any OTHER way "in which people got into heaven [sic]". It shows that the ONLY way to be saved is by way of Jesus.
And, just to clarify, I've not used the phrases "repent in Jesus", "repentance in Jesus", or "repentance to Jesus".
You are the one that chooses to use those awkward constructs. Given the large degree of confusion you have about some pretty simple ideas, well, it just leaves one to wonder what sort of meaning you twist into those awkwardly constructed phrases. I'm not even going to venture a guess what you mean.
But I would like to clarify something for you. In the Bible, the verb "repent" refers to a physical action. It is an action. It means that I stop moving in the direction one I'm heading, I stop dead in my tracks, and I to turn around. I turn around 180 degrees, facing in the complete opposite direction, and I begin moving in the new direction. That's the word picture of what the word "repent" means.
In Biblical terms, the term "repent" means that I stop moving away from God, with my back to God, and I stop and turn to face towards Him, and I begin moving towards Him.
There is a Biblical focus on "repentance". And this is because this is an action that is under my control. It is a decision that I am free to make. It's a choice that no one else can make for me.
God promises to honor my decision. If I choose to move away from Him, then God will honor that decision even after I die. God allows me to make the choice. If my desire is to move away from God, and that's the decision I make, then God will honor that choice when I die. God will not force me to be in His presence.
God gives me a choice. But... I have to make that choice now, before I die.
Have you made your decision, MVP?
It's not too late, for you to stop moving in the direction you are heading, and to turn back towards God.
The choice is yours.
November 24, 2010 12:48 PM
Monday, November 29, 2010
God's responsibility
MVP asks...
How is that your responsibility? Thats God's responsibility, if He exists. And he has shunned it.
God has not shunned the responsibility. God has entrusted the task to the body of Christ. God has delegated the task to the church.
we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.
1 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (NIV)
God has given me the responsibility of serving his church by proclaiming his entire message to you.
Colossians 1:25 (NLT)
And the things you have heard me [Paul] say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.
2 Timothy 2:2 (NIV)
This is God's command. This is his mandate for His church.
God entrusts ordinary people with this weighty responsibility. And this is not a mistake; this is God's sovereign plan.
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Matthew 28:18
So, yes, I have been commissioned to preach the good news of Jesus.
November 29, 2010 12:36 PM
How is that your responsibility? Thats God's responsibility, if He exists. And he has shunned it.
God has not shunned the responsibility. God has entrusted the task to the body of Christ. God has delegated the task to the church.
we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.
1 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (NIV)
God has given me the responsibility of serving his church by proclaiming his entire message to you.
Colossians 1:25 (NLT)
And the things you have heard me [Paul] say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.
2 Timothy 2:2 (NIV)
This is God's command. This is his mandate for His church.
God entrusts ordinary people with this weighty responsibility. And this is not a mistake; this is God's sovereign plan.
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Matthew 28:18
So, yes, I have been commissioned to preach the good news of Jesus.
November 29, 2010 12:36 PM
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Punishment of the children
Steven J said...
But even reading it in the actual Bible, it's not at all obvious how one reconciles God's claim in Exodus that He punishes children to the fourth generation for the sins of their parents, with the command in Deuteronomy that we are forbidden to do this, much less with the promise in Ezekiel that God will not do this. It's not clear how God could show Moses His "back parts" if "God is spirit," lacking both physical location and bodily form, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman.
@Steven J
That passage in Exodus 33 is really speaking to God's revelation. You ask how God can show His "back parts". You might also ask how God can move His "hand", or show His "face". The emphasis of this passage is not on a description of God's physical body parts (hand, back or face.)
The references to body parts are a metaphor, they are representative of the truth. They paint a word picture which helps us understand the meaning, that not everything has been revealed to Moses, and that God will reveal more of Himself in the future, foreshadowing his revelation in the person of Jesus.
The Bible is a notable work of literature (as Dawkins correctly points out). The Bible, as literature, and makes extensive use of literary figures of speech (such as metaphor, personification, hyperbole, etc.).
To read the Bible only in a woodenly literal way is to miss the real meaning. Jesus mostly taught using parable, a form of metaphor.
As to children inheriting the sins of the father down through N=2,3,4 generations... there are two distinct perspectives we need to take into account in these passages: temporal and eternal.
From a temporal, earthly perspective, we know that a man's actions have consequences, not just on him, but on others. Consider one man that murders another man. The action has consequences on both men, and on their families, on their children, and on their neighbors, on and on.
A man's actions can result in consequences for his children, grandchildren, and generations to come. When a man is sent to prison for murder, one consequence is that a son may not finish school, may not go to college, and that will affect the rest of his life. The son reaps a temporal "punishment" for the sins of his father.
This is in complete accord with the Bible. We note that God makes no promise to insulate children from temporal consequences of their father's actions.
The other, more important perspective that we need to take into account is the eternal. In this regard, God DOES make promise that each individual is responsible for his own thoughts and actions. On the day of judgment, no man will be judged for the sins of his ancestors. That is, no son will be eternally "punished" for the sins of his father.
When we examine those passages in light of those two different perspectives, the Bible more clearly reveals the truth to us, and we see that those passages are not contradictory.
Why should the Bible even talk about the "sins of the father" and subsequent generations? Perhaps it is to address a common misunderstanding, a belief that what happens to us on earth reflects on God's eternal judgment on us. (And there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding on this by many misguided teachers.)
I'm not in total agreement with that particular quote from Shaw, but he does highlight an important truth. We, as human beings are wont to do, often inject our own meaning into the words of Scripture.
One of the ways we have of recognizing that we have, in fact, injected our own meaning, is by way of the contradictions we "find" in Scripture. When we examine the passages more closely, taking into account the context and purpose, and asking the relevant questions, and give ourselves the freedom to have our initial understanding be incomplete or wrong, then the truth of Scripture can reveal itself to us.
I hope this finds you well.
But even reading it in the actual Bible, it's not at all obvious how one reconciles God's claim in Exodus that He punishes children to the fourth generation for the sins of their parents, with the command in Deuteronomy that we are forbidden to do this, much less with the promise in Ezekiel that God will not do this. It's not clear how God could show Moses His "back parts" if "God is spirit," lacking both physical location and bodily form, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman.
@Steven J
That passage in Exodus 33 is really speaking to God's revelation. You ask how God can show His "back parts". You might also ask how God can move His "hand", or show His "face". The emphasis of this passage is not on a description of God's physical body parts (hand, back or face.)
The references to body parts are a metaphor, they are representative of the truth. They paint a word picture which helps us understand the meaning, that not everything has been revealed to Moses, and that God will reveal more of Himself in the future, foreshadowing his revelation in the person of Jesus.
The Bible is a notable work of literature (as Dawkins correctly points out). The Bible, as literature, and makes extensive use of literary figures of speech (such as metaphor, personification, hyperbole, etc.).
To read the Bible only in a woodenly literal way is to miss the real meaning. Jesus mostly taught using parable, a form of metaphor.
As to children inheriting the sins of the father down through N=2,3,4 generations... there are two distinct perspectives we need to take into account in these passages: temporal and eternal.
From a temporal, earthly perspective, we know that a man's actions have consequences, not just on him, but on others. Consider one man that murders another man. The action has consequences on both men, and on their families, on their children, and on their neighbors, on and on.
A man's actions can result in consequences for his children, grandchildren, and generations to come. When a man is sent to prison for murder, one consequence is that a son may not finish school, may not go to college, and that will affect the rest of his life. The son reaps a temporal "punishment" for the sins of his father.
This is in complete accord with the Bible. We note that God makes no promise to insulate children from temporal consequences of their father's actions.
The other, more important perspective that we need to take into account is the eternal. In this regard, God DOES make promise that each individual is responsible for his own thoughts and actions. On the day of judgment, no man will be judged for the sins of his ancestors. That is, no son will be eternally "punished" for the sins of his father.
When we examine those passages in light of those two different perspectives, the Bible more clearly reveals the truth to us, and we see that those passages are not contradictory.
Why should the Bible even talk about the "sins of the father" and subsequent generations? Perhaps it is to address a common misunderstanding, a belief that what happens to us on earth reflects on God's eternal judgment on us. (And there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding on this by many misguided teachers.)
I'm not in total agreement with that particular quote from Shaw, but he does highlight an important truth. We, as human beings are wont to do, often inject our own meaning into the words of Scripture.
One of the ways we have of recognizing that we have, in fact, injected our own meaning, is by way of the contradictions we "find" in Scripture. When we examine the passages more closely, taking into account the context and purpose, and asking the relevant questions, and give ourselves the freedom to have our initial understanding be incomplete or wrong, then the truth of Scripture can reveal itself to us.
I hope this finds you well.
November 27, 2010 10:09 AM
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Another Contradiction
imadallasguy burbled...
So your contention is that the Bible says that babies go to heaven and also says babies go to hell.
@imadallasguy
No, that is not my contention. That "contradiction" is your own invention. You built that one yourself, you own it, not me.
I suggest that we allow Scripture to reveal the truth to us, rather than making a sport of rejecting truth because of contradictions we invent.
I believe Amy2 has already provided you relevant scripture verses. But to summarize...
Scripture reveals to us that infants are not condemned to hell. As one example, King David's newborn son became ill, and died after seven days.
Does the Bible say that David's infant son is destined to hell? No. The Bible indicates (quite clearly) that he is destined for "the house of the Lord", together with King David.
cf. 2 Samuel 12:22-23, Psalm 23:6
Jesus reveals in his teaching that little children are eligible to inherit the kingdom of God.
cf. Matthew 18:3-5, Luke 18:16-17
It's clear that infants and little children are not destined to hell.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A man does not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself. A man rejects the Bible because it contradicts him. -- (?) paraphrase of Spurgeon (?)
November 24, 2010 11:48 AM
So your contention is that the Bible says that babies go to heaven and also says babies go to hell.
@imadallasguy
No, that is not my contention. That "contradiction" is your own invention. You built that one yourself, you own it, not me.
I suggest that we allow Scripture to reveal the truth to us, rather than making a sport of rejecting truth because of contradictions we invent.
I believe Amy2 has already provided you relevant scripture verses. But to summarize...
Scripture reveals to us that infants are not condemned to hell. As one example, King David's newborn son became ill, and died after seven days.
Does the Bible say that David's infant son is destined to hell? No. The Bible indicates (quite clearly) that he is destined for "the house of the Lord", together with King David.
cf. 2 Samuel 12:22-23, Psalm 23:6
Jesus reveals in his teaching that little children are eligible to inherit the kingdom of God.
cf. Matthew 18:3-5, Luke 18:16-17
It's clear that infants and little children are not destined to hell.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A man does not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself. A man rejects the Bible because it contradicts him. -- (?) paraphrase of Spurgeon (?)
November 24, 2010 11:48 AM
Inflict those punishments
Iago blathered...
For any "Real Christian" out there, still waiting to hear regarding Leviticus 20 and why you are not out there doing anything about the laws laid out by God ? I mean God did lay out what He finds detestable. And since God is unchanging he must still find those things detestable. And since God laid out the punishments rather clearly regarding those acts, he must still want you to inflict those punishments.
Why aren't you lobbying for those punishments to be made mandatory ?
@Iago
I'm certain this has been explained to you before. The instructions to which you refer were given to the descendants of Jacob, the tribe of Israel.
"Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves" Leviticus 11:44 (ESV)
"Consecrate yourselves and be holy," Leviticus 20:7 (ESV)
It is not incumbent upon gentiles, or the New Covenant church to adhere to the rules and regulations of the Mosaic law, which was intended for the Jewish nation.
The church is instructed NOT to abide by the Levitical purity ritual sacrifices, and NOT to adhere to the dietary restrictions.
The Bible also teaches that it is not necessary for New Covenant followers to first convert to Judaism.
There is no need for gentiles to be encumbered by the rules and regulations laid down for a "tribe of illiterate, nomadic sheepherders"
The Mosaic law of the Old Covenant was only a shadow. The reality was revealed in the person of Jesus.
cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23–26, Hebrews 10, Acts 10, Matthew 15
So, that answers your question as to why Christians aren't out calling for adherence to the Mosaic Law and Levitical rituals.
If that's not enough of an answer, it is enough to get you started on your own research.
I trust you find this helpful, and I hope this finds you well.
November 24, 2010 12:18 PM
For any "Real Christian" out there, still waiting to hear regarding Leviticus 20 and why you are not out there doing anything about the laws laid out by God ? I mean God did lay out what He finds detestable. And since God is unchanging he must still find those things detestable. And since God laid out the punishments rather clearly regarding those acts, he must still want you to inflict those punishments.
Why aren't you lobbying for those punishments to be made mandatory ?
@Iago
I'm certain this has been explained to you before. The instructions to which you refer were given to the descendants of Jacob, the tribe of Israel.
"Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves" Leviticus 11:44 (ESV)
"Consecrate yourselves and be holy," Leviticus 20:7 (ESV)
It is not incumbent upon gentiles, or the New Covenant church to adhere to the rules and regulations of the Mosaic law, which was intended for the Jewish nation.
The church is instructed NOT to abide by the Levitical purity ritual sacrifices, and NOT to adhere to the dietary restrictions.
The Bible also teaches that it is not necessary for New Covenant followers to first convert to Judaism.
There is no need for gentiles to be encumbered by the rules and regulations laid down for a "tribe of illiterate, nomadic sheepherders"
The Mosaic law of the Old Covenant was only a shadow. The reality was revealed in the person of Jesus.
cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23–26, Hebrews 10, Acts 10, Matthew 15
So, that answers your question as to why Christians aren't out calling for adherence to the Mosaic Law and Levitical rituals.
If that's not enough of an answer, it is enough to get you started on your own research.
I trust you find this helpful, and I hope this finds you well.
November 24, 2010 12:18 PM
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
It's impossible ...
imadallasguy burbled...
It's impossible to harmonize Ray's Biblical interpretation with Amy2's. So there are only three possibilities:
1) Ray is right and Amy2 is wrong.
2) Amy2 is right and Ray is wrong.
3) They are both wrong.
@imadallasguy
You've made the claim that "it's impossible".
cue the squawking parrot: unsupported assertion. SQUAWK. unsubstantiated premise. SQUAAWWK. undemonstrated proposition. AAAWWWK. I am Dimensio. SQUAAAAWWWWK
There is, of course, the fourth possibility that you choose to reject out of hand:
4) Both Ray and and Amy2 are right.
=-=-=-=-=-=
"A man does not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself. A man rejects the Bible because it contradicts him." - attribution: unknown
November 23, 2010 11:16 AM
It's impossible to harmonize Ray's Biblical interpretation with Amy2's. So there are only three possibilities:
1) Ray is right and Amy2 is wrong.
2) Amy2 is right and Ray is wrong.
3) They are both wrong.
@imadallasguy
You've made the claim that "it's impossible".
cue the squawking parrot: unsupported assertion. SQUAWK. unsubstantiated premise. SQUAAWWK. undemonstrated proposition. AAAWWWK. I am Dimensio. SQUAAAAWWWWK
There is, of course, the fourth possibility that you choose to reject out of hand:
4) Both Ray and and Amy2 are right.
=-=-=-=-=-=
"A man does not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself. A man rejects the Bible because it contradicts him." - attribution: unknown
November 23, 2010 11:16 AM
Monday, November 22, 2010
be nice to everyone
Chris B said...
I thought one of the core principles of Christianity was to be nice to everyone (or at least treat them as you'd want to be treated) regardless of time of year or religious beliefs.
@Chris B
You've been misled, if you think "be nice to everyone" is a core principle of Christianity.
November 22, 2010 5:42 PM
I thought one of the core principles of Christianity was to be nice to everyone (or at least treat them as you'd want to be treated) regardless of time of year or religious beliefs.
@Chris B
You've been misled, if you think "be nice to everyone" is a core principle of Christianity.
November 22, 2010 5:42 PM
Lurker said...
We're going to dump a bunch of your books into Boston Harbor, Ray. We've had enough of your tyranny.
@Lurker
And what's next after that? Perhaps authoring a Declaration of Independence...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that some primates are further evolved, that they accord themselves certain implicit Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
November 22, 2010 5:26 PM
We're going to dump a bunch of your books into Boston Harbor, Ray. We've had enough of your tyranny.
@Lurker
And what's next after that? Perhaps authoring a Declaration of Independence...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that some primates are further evolved, that they accord themselves certain implicit Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
November 22, 2010 5:26 PM
there should be no objection
Wait What said ...
Then there should be no objection by Christians on religious grounds to allow homosexuals the right to marry, openly serve in the Military or any other form of equal rights?
@Wait What
Christians should believe in equal rights, when speaking of the inalienable rights endowed upon all people, by the Creator. All men are created equal, and all men have equal rights.
But lets be clear: not every privilege is a "right".
I have a responsibility to provide my children with air, water, food, clothing, shelter, protection, education, and health care. All of those things I consider "rights".
But my children do not have a "right" to unlimited television viewing, unlimited cell phone usage, and unlimited purchases of video games. Those things are privileges, not rights.
My children do not have a "right" to steal, to destroy property, or to torture animals.
So, from the get go, let's be clear. Not every want and desire is to be labeled as a "right".
As to marriage, Christians see marriage as an institution of primary importance. Christians believe that God created marriage as the first and most important human institution.
Marriage was the first relationship between people; before family, before tribes, before government, before business. God designed marriage as the building block of human civilization. Marriage is important to Christians because marriage is important to God.
Christians believe that marriage was defined by God as a relationship between one man and one woman. Not between a woman and a dog. Not between a man and his motorcycle. God defines marriage as one man, and one woman.
That definition of marriage is important to Christians, because it's the definition given by God.
Then there should be no objection by Christians on religious grounds to allow homosexuals the right to marry, openly serve in the Military or any other form of equal rights?
@Wait What
Christians should believe in equal rights, when speaking of the inalienable rights endowed upon all people, by the Creator. All men are created equal, and all men have equal rights.
But lets be clear: not every privilege is a "right".
I have a responsibility to provide my children with air, water, food, clothing, shelter, protection, education, and health care. All of those things I consider "rights".
But my children do not have a "right" to unlimited television viewing, unlimited cell phone usage, and unlimited purchases of video games. Those things are privileges, not rights.
My children do not have a "right" to steal, to destroy property, or to torture animals.
So, from the get go, let's be clear. Not every want and desire is to be labeled as a "right".
As to marriage, Christians see marriage as an institution of primary importance. Christians believe that God created marriage as the first and most important human institution.
Marriage was the first relationship between people; before family, before tribes, before government, before business. God designed marriage as the building block of human civilization. Marriage is important to Christians because marriage is important to God.
Christians believe that marriage was defined by God as a relationship between one man and one woman. Not between a woman and a dog. Not between a man and his motorcycle. God defines marriage as one man, and one woman.
That definition of marriage is important to Christians, because it's the definition given by God.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
are God's actions just
Steven J asks ...
Out of idle curiousity [sic], where in the Bible does God say that His actions against Pharaoh were just?
In any case, according to Deuteronomy, it is forbidden to punish offspring for the crimes of their parents (this is in notable contrast to, e.g. a Babylonian law code that prescribes that if man A kills the son of man B, man A's son can be killed in punishment, which is the sort of law code you seem to feel God is abiding by in killing the firstborn of the Egyptians). This is, of course, a rule for humans, not for God Himself, but in Ezekiel, God famously declares that He will Himself abide by this rule: each person will die for his own sins, not for the sins of his forebears.
Now, either God's treatment of the Egyptians was unjust by what are said to be God's own standards, or an unchanging God promulgating an unchanging absolute morality makes major revisions in the definition of "moral" from time to time.
Or, of course, the Bible is a purely human work reflecting the different opinions about what is moral held by different people at different times.
Side note: ancient Egypt was not a democracy. Indeed, according to the legends in Genesis, the people of Egypt were the slaves of Pharaoh, because Joseph had made them so. It seems dubiously fair to me to punish the people of Egypt for something that God Himself (who favored Joseph and brought his evil schemes to fruition) had helped to bring about: their necessary acquiescence in whatever Pharoah [sic] did.
@Steven J
Certainly, you have sufficient cognitive capacity to research the answers to these questions yourself. So, I make no effort here to answer your questions.
However, I will note that the Mosaic Law (the 613 precepts) were given to the Israelites after their release from captivity in Egypt.
These are instructions from God to his firstborn, the tribe of Jacob's descendants. It would be a categorical mistake to think that the 613 Mitzvot given in Deuteronomy are a complete description of God's moral equity.
It is also a categorical mistake to think that the Mosaic Law was incumbent on the Israelites prior to the exodus, or that is incumbent upon gentiles (i.e. everyone else who is not an Israelite), or that it is incumbent upon the church (i.e. the disciples of Jesus.)
I also note that the Bible describes "justice" as intrinsic attribute of God. That is, the Bible says that God's justice does not conform to any principle or law or standard that is external to Him.
The Bible says that God's actions are in accordance with His own nature. God is Himself the standard for His own principles, including the ideal of moral equity.
I believe (the English transliteration for) the original Hebrew theonym is tzedek, which speaks to this ideal of righteousness, moral equity and justice.
Also, I will note that God's penalty, the ten plagues, is upon Pharaoh and Egypt.
In light of this, you might consider asking yourself whether the question you asked makes sense:
Out of idle curiousity [sic], where in the Bible does God say that His actions against Pharaoh were just?
You might want to consider these questions:
Where in the Bible does it say that any action of God is contrary to any of His intrinsic attributes?
Is it possible for God's actions to violate His own nature?
If God Himself is His own self-existent standard for tzedek, is it possible for God to take any action that would not be tzedek?
Out of idle curiousity [sic], where in the Bible does God say that His actions against Pharaoh were just?
In any case, according to Deuteronomy, it is forbidden to punish offspring for the crimes of their parents (this is in notable contrast to, e.g. a Babylonian law code that prescribes that if man A kills the son of man B, man A's son can be killed in punishment, which is the sort of law code you seem to feel God is abiding by in killing the firstborn of the Egyptians). This is, of course, a rule for humans, not for God Himself, but in Ezekiel, God famously declares that He will Himself abide by this rule: each person will die for his own sins, not for the sins of his forebears.
Now, either God's treatment of the Egyptians was unjust by what are said to be God's own standards, or an unchanging God promulgating an unchanging absolute morality makes major revisions in the definition of "moral" from time to time.
Or, of course, the Bible is a purely human work reflecting the different opinions about what is moral held by different people at different times.
Side note: ancient Egypt was not a democracy. Indeed, according to the legends in Genesis, the people of Egypt were the slaves of Pharaoh, because Joseph had made them so. It seems dubiously fair to me to punish the people of Egypt for something that God Himself (who favored Joseph and brought his evil schemes to fruition) had helped to bring about: their necessary acquiescence in whatever Pharoah [sic] did.
@Steven J
Certainly, you have sufficient cognitive capacity to research the answers to these questions yourself. So, I make no effort here to answer your questions.
However, I will note that the Mosaic Law (the 613 precepts) were given to the Israelites after their release from captivity in Egypt.
These are instructions from God to his firstborn, the tribe of Jacob's descendants. It would be a categorical mistake to think that the 613 Mitzvot given in Deuteronomy are a complete description of God's moral equity.
It is also a categorical mistake to think that the Mosaic Law was incumbent on the Israelites prior to the exodus, or that is incumbent upon gentiles (i.e. everyone else who is not an Israelite), or that it is incumbent upon the church (i.e. the disciples of Jesus.)
I also note that the Bible describes "justice" as intrinsic attribute of God. That is, the Bible says that God's justice does not conform to any principle or law or standard that is external to Him.
The Bible says that God's actions are in accordance with His own nature. God is Himself the standard for His own principles, including the ideal of moral equity.
I believe (the English transliteration for) the original Hebrew theonym is tzedek, which speaks to this ideal of righteousness, moral equity and justice.
Also, I will note that God's penalty, the ten plagues, is upon Pharaoh and Egypt.
In light of this, you might consider asking yourself whether the question you asked makes sense:
Out of idle curiousity [sic], where in the Bible does God say that His actions against Pharaoh were just?
You might want to consider these questions:
Where in the Bible does it say that any action of God is contrary to any of His intrinsic attributes?
Is it possible for God's actions to violate His own nature?
If God Himself is His own self-existent standard for tzedek, is it possible for God to take any action that would not be tzedek?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)