To All The Unbelievers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
I’m an atheist.

I reject the notion of God.
I reject the notion of an afterlife.

I reject the notion that I’m a sinner - and subsequently that I will have to answers for my actions AFTER I’m dead.

Actions speak louder than words and surely it is more important to be a good person than a good christian?

However, that does not for a nanosecond mean that I do not have a ‘moral code’ that I live by - It’s just one based on tangible principles and concepts. Of course I believe it’s good to be good, but not out of fear of someone/something else which is the jist I get from the OP’s first post. Just because I derive pleasure from doing good and trying to help those I can.

I am answerable to myself, and those close to me - no-one else. I therefore reject comprehensively the notion that my concerns about people who DO absolutely no question exist make me in any way less of a person or ‘good’ person than someone who only cares about what the big fella in the sky thinks.

But each to their own. However, just as I wouldn’t try to dissuade someone who believed blue was yellow, I wouldn’t try to talk someone out of their religious beliefs.

Just wish people extend the same respect and courtesy to me and my belief in myself as controller of my destiny, rather than a higher force.

Also - posted this elsewhere but didn’t receive an answer - still unsure of the supposed mechanics of how exactly Jesus dying on the cross saved everybody’s souls… Not a joke, just genuinely interested because I don’t get how one is related to the other.

Have you ever read the Bible? What do you think was the purpose of the Old Testament Jewish animal sacrifices. These people were just “out there,” or crazy? Why the need for a blood atonement?

The answers, sir, are waiting for you in God’s Word. I know that you stated that you don’t even believe in God – do you really think the entire complex universe just “popped out” of nowhere like the evolutionists would have us believe. If so, who created the material that went “bang” in the first place?

I hope that you will do more to investigate your claims of the non-existence of a Creator and your claim of self-destiny. I mean, when you really think about it – we cannot even stop from dying. How could we control our eternal destiny?

[/quote]

I, like the vast majority of Christians I speak to, have not read it cover to cover but I have browsed extensively.

Not sure what this talk of animal sacrifices is about but certainly yes, I do think that sounds crazy and out there. Possibly even bordering on the barbaric.

What sort of deity would create all this wonderful stuff and then demand that on a weekly basis you kill some of it just to make him happy? How does that work?

I never spoke about an afterlife - I spoke about being in control of my destiny, which I will be until I die (or get caught for all those murders I did lol). I don’t give thought to what comes after because nothing comes after and its subsequently a short conversation.

Erm… To my way of thinking (again, each to their own) there IS no eternal destiny. Why should we seek to stop dying? When I go it will (hopefully) be after living a full and good life so I will live on in other’s memories - Plus I’ll be buried in a bio-degradable coffin to eventually becoming plant/worm food and giving something back to the Earth. A bit hippyish I know, but I see no reason to figure a God into my plans.

Your point about the big bang is an interesting one. You see, there is evidence that supports that theory whereas there is none that supports creationism and the assumption that people and dinosaurs living together in the garden of Eden ever happened. Except in a highly subjective and often mis-interpreted book.

Now I don’t know what came before, but just because we haven’t discovered the answers yet, we don’t have to cop out and say God made it.

By that reckoning we would still be blaming God for turning people ‘mad’ when in fact they have what we now know to be a severe medical condition .

As for His word, I really don’t think you’ll find it in a document that was originally used as a means of social control and that has been continually bastardised, mistranslated and reinterperated over the course of centuries. The Bible is Man’s word - Not God’s.

If he exists, I’m sure (okay I wish) originally God’s word was just one paragraph.

‘Be nice to each other and see if you can’t all work together to travel to the stars and find out a bit more about the universe. Meet you at Alpha Centuri.’

And then we (humanity) fucked it up and distilled that over two thousand years into mumbling in cold buildings and calling other people sinners.

Still no response on the mechanics of how Jesus dying on the cross equates to my soul being saved. Would love to hear about that.

And please, I’m not having a dig as I genuinely respect people of all faiths, just as I respect the rights of people like myself that believe in themselves, science and what can be proven.

But I feel belief in a God is one thing. Blind, unquestioning and literal readings of every aspect of the Bible are quite another.

242

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
I’m an atheist.

I reject the notion of God.
I reject the notion of an afterlife.

I reject the notion that I’m a sinner - and subsequently that I will have to answers for my actions AFTER I’m dead.

Actions speak louder than words and surely it is more important to be a good person than a good christian?

However, that does not for a nanosecond mean that I do not have a ‘moral code’ that I live by - It’s just one based on tangible principles and concepts. Of course I believe it’s good to be good, but not out of fear of someone/something else which is the jist I get from the OP’s first post. Just because I derive pleasure from doing good and trying to help those I can.

I am answerable to myself, and those close to me - no-one else. I therefore reject comprehensively the notion that my concerns about people who DO absolutely no question exist make me in any way less of a person or ‘good’ person than someone who only cares about what the big fella in the sky thinks.

But each to their own. However, just as I wouldn’t try to dissuade someone who believed blue was yellow, I wouldn’t try to talk someone out of their religious beliefs.

Just wish people extend the same respect and courtesy to me and my belief in myself as controller of my destiny, rather than a higher force.

Also - posted this elsewhere but didn’t receive an answer - still unsure of the supposed mechanics of how exactly Jesus dying on the cross saved everybody’s souls… Not a joke, just genuinely interested because I don’t get how one is related to the other.

Have you ever read the Bible? What do you think was the purpose of the Old Testament Jewish animal sacrifices. These people were just “out there,” or crazy? Why the need for a blood atonement?

The answers, sir, are waiting for you in God’s Word. I know that you stated that you don’t even believe in God – do you really think the entire complex universe just “popped out” of nowhere like the evolutionists would have us believe. If so, who created the material that went “bang” in the first place?

I hope that you will do more to investigate your claims of the non-existence of a Creator and your claim of self-destiny. I mean, when you really think about it – we cannot even stop from dying. How could we control our eternal destiny?

I, like the vast majority of Christians I speak to, have not read it cover to cover but I have browsed extensively.

Not sure what this talk of animal sacrifices is about but certainly yes, I do think that sounds crazy and out there. Possibly even bordering on the barbaric.

What sort of deity would create all this wonderful stuff and then demand that on a weekly basis you kill some of it just to make him happy? How does that work?

I never spoke about an afterlife - I spoke about being in control of my destiny, which I will be until I die (or get caught for all those murders I did lol). I don’t give thought to what comes after because nothing comes after and its subsequently a short conversation.

Erm… To my way of thinking (again, each to their own) there IS no eternal destiny. Why should we seek to stop dying? When I go it will (hopefully) be after living a full and good life so I will live on in other’s memories - Plus I’ll be buried in a bio-degradable coffin to eventually becoming plant/worm food and giving something back to the Earth. A bit hippyish I know, but I see no reason to figure a God into my plans.

Your point about the big bang is an interesting one. You see, there is evidence that supports that theory whereas there is none that supports creationism and the assumption that people and dinosaurs living together in the garden of Eden ever happened. Except in a highly subjective and often mis-interpreted book.

Now I don’t know what came before, but just because we haven’t discovered the answers yet, we don’t have to cop out and say God made it.

By that reckoning we would still be blaming God for turning people ‘mad’ when in fact they have what we now know to be a severe medical condition .

As for His word, I really don’t think you’ll find it in a document that was originally used as a means of social control and that has been continually bastardised, mistranslated and reinterperated over the course of centuries. The Bible is Man’s word - Not God’s.

If he exists, I’m sure (okay I wish) originally God’s word was just one paragraph.

‘Be nice to each other and see if you can’t all work together to travel to the stars and find out a bit more about the universe. Meet you at Alpha Centuri.’

And then we (humanity) fucked it up and distilled that over two thousand years into mumbling in cold buildings and calling other people sinners.

Still no response on the mechanics of how Jesus dying on the cross equates to my soul being saved. Would love to hear about that.

And please, I’m not having a dig as I genuinely respect people of all faiths, just as I respect the rights of people like myself that believe in themselves, science and what can be proven.

But I feel belief in a God is one thing. Blind, unquestioning and literal readings of every aspect of the Bible are quite another.
[/quote]

I appreciate your views, although I obviously disagree with them. I don’t think we can really get into the mechanics of Jesus’ work on the cross, because of your total rejection of God and His Word. I do respect the right for you to believe what you wish, but I am always saddened when people express faith in God as a “cop out” to intelligent thought. If God is really God, doesn’t it make sense that our finite minds couldn’t contain all of His truths?

Anyway, I do hope that you will someday go on an honest search for absolute truth. Until then, all this will be is a back and forth of positions that will not change – on both sides.

I do appreciate your civil “deameanor” as this is refreshing, considering all of the people who get very personal, unfortunately, on these threads.

Take care…

243

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I appreciate your views, although I obviously disagree with them. I don’t think we can really get into the mechanics of Jesus’ work on the cross, because of your total rejection of God and His Word. I do respect the right for you to believe what you wish, but I am always saddened when people express faith in God as a “cop out” to intelligent thought. If God is really God, doesn’t it make sense that our finite minds couldn’t contain all of His truths?

Anyway, I do hope that you will someday go on an honest search for absolute truth. Until then, all this will be is a back and forth of positions that will not change – on both sides.

I do appreciate your civil “deameanor” as this is refreshing, considering all of the people who get very personal, unfortunately, on these threads.

Take care…

[/quote]

Wow. Not often I get called civil. lol

I just figure if you can’t have a polite conversation with someone you disagree with then the real points you discuss fall by the wayside, and anonymous internet arguing is so very petty.

It IS however important to me that my beliefs are not seen as a rejection of God, but rather an embracing of what we (humanity) is capable of when we only answer to ourselves.

I think it is a natural Human instinct to want to believe that there is a higher power and an underlying purpose to their lives. I’m sure ants have a God too.

I can’t speak for anyone else who is not religious but we are born knowing nothing of a God until we are taught/indoctrinated (delete as applicable). However, we ARE born very quickly experiencing the wonders of science, trial and error, action and consequence.

This I think is the reason why many people put their faith in what they can see, touch, feel or understand to be provable.

Re the ‘cop out’ comment. I meant that if we stopped searching for answers that science provides everything would just be attributed to it being ‘God’s will’ etc… How many cures for diseases were discovered by people that said ‘no, this is not God’s will, there must be more to it than that’?

People that are not of faith are also looking for the absolute truths, and luckily they are looking in many different places to devoutly religious people. This must be a good thing, surely. It’s not like if we find it before you we won’t share… Or will we? lol

It is a hubristic assumption made by many religious people (not just Christians) that just because you don’t believe in God, you do not seek these truths.

Finally, I just have to say that when someone is trying to get a better understanding of where you are coming from, telling him you won’t explain one of the fundamental aspects of your entire faith because of their rejection of God - Well, it doesn’t really help people get you properly does it?

I wasn’t asking so I could then knock it down. It’s just that no-one seems to able to explain it to me.

See you at Alpha Centuri. In fact, I’ll race ya.

244

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Well, after 9 pages, nobody seemed to answer the challenge that I originally gave when I first began this thread.

So here goes to all of you scoffers and unbelievers once again:

The Challenge: What are YOU [individually] going to do about your SIN? [/quote]

How’bout you steve0?

What you gonna do, brother?

What you gonna do when Hulkamania runs wild on you?

245

[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Well, after 9 pages, nobody seemed to answer the challenge that I originally gave when I first began this thread.

So here goes to all of you scoffers and unbelievers once again:

The Challenge: What are YOU [individually] going to do about your SIN?

How’bout you steve0?

What you gonna do, brother?

What you gonna do when Hulkamania runs wild on you?
[/quote]

Hey Pookie. Good to hear from you!

Yes, I already settled my sin question awhile ago. You see, I have come to a saving knowledge that Jesus died for my sins and I have prayed and asked him to be my personal Savior 11 years ago. He came into my life, saved me, and gave me a purpose to life – to tell others about Him.

Thanks for caring!

246

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Yes, I already settled my sin question awhile ago. You see, I have come to a saving knowledge that Jesus died for my sins and I have prayed and asked him to be my personal Savior 11 years ago. He came into my life, saved me, and gave me a purpose to life – to tell others about Him.

Thanks for caring!

[/quote]

Yeah, He stopped over for a cold beer the other day and we had a good laugh at that prank he pulled on you.

He’s got this thing about pranking the gullibles. He tells great stories about all those institutionalized schizophrenics that really did hear His voice and got locked up for it. It never gets old, that one.

He drank all my Heineken, but that’s ok, 'cause He changed a couple of 5 gallons jugs of water into exquisite French wine before He farted rose petals and ascended away to the sound of trumpets. Always getting carried away with the theatrics that Jesus.

Maybe next time I can get Him to imprint His face on a grilled-cheese and sell it to some reta… er, I mean devout faithful for 28,000$

247

steveo5801: Would you be willing to answer this question?

Do you believe that that Bible is the literal words of God? Or are the scriptures more like parables that are up for interpretation?

For example, people often will use these passages to taunt Christians:

  • I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

  • Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

  • I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

So what are your thoughts on this?

248

[quote]remyc88 wrote:
steveo5801: Would you be willing to answer this question?[/quote]

I would like to begin by saying that looking at your questions, I am a bit suspect of your motives. Please forgive me if I am wrong, but I have a feeling that you really don’t wish to have these questions answered to learn anything, but to perhaps, disparge the Word of God. I have no problem answering question or debating, but I will say from the outset that I will no longer engage people whose sole purpose is to bring ridicule to what I believe to be God’s truth. Again, forgive me if I am wrong here, but I wanted to make this clear from the outset. [quote]

Do you believe that that Bible is the literal words of God? Or are the scriptures more like parables that are up for interpretation?[/quote]

I believe that the Bible – the O.T. and N.T. is the literal Word of God. Yes, of this I am sure. The Bible claims to be God’s inspired Word in many places, and verifiable, fulfilled prophecy shows this also. [quote]

For example, people often will use these examples:

  • I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

  • Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

  • I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

So what are your thoughts on this?[/quote]

My thoughts on this have not changed since I last answered these types of questions on this thread – or it could have been on others.

What one must understand is that the Bible is God’s story of His creation and dealings with mankind. Now while God’s eternal truths have not and never will change – e.g. we are saved through faith the way Abraham was back in Genesis 15 – while God’s truths don’t change, God’s dealing with mankind – what is required of us – has changed and can be thought of as distinct periods of time where God has focused on a particular people or group.

The time period that you speak of is the time of the Law given to the Jewish people (the nation Israel) since you quote the Law from the Torah. The Torah (Law) was given to Israel after they were redeemed with God’s stong hand out of Egypt to keep them separate and apart, awaiting Messiah’s (Jesus’) coming to Earth.

The Mosaic Law, which the Bible clearly teaches, only applies to Israel in a Theocracy.

Today, we are in the age or dispensation of Grace, where God is dealing, not with Israel, but with a group called the Church. The Church is made up of Jewish and non-Jewish (Gentile) believers in Jesus. The Law is not for the Church as a matter of external rules to be followed, but (as is taught in Jeremiah 31:31 ff) it is God’s rules in the hearts of His redeemed people. God expects those who come to Him today to simply “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ…” as Paul and Silas told the jailer in Phillipi when he asked how he might be saved. The N.T. is what teaches what we are to do today, and thus we don’t stone people no more than we require Church members to eat Kosher.

Hope this fully answers your questions.

~Steve

249

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

The Mosaic Law, which the Bible clearly teaches, only applies to Israel in a Theocracy.
[/quote]

Nuh huh, saith the Lord.

Matthew 5: 17-19
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: [u]but whosoever shall do and teach them,[/u] the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

250

[quote]futuredave wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

The Mosaic Law, which the Bible clearly teaches, only applies to Israel in a Theocracy.

Nuh huh, saith the Lord.

Matthew 5: 17-19
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: [u]but whosoever shall do and teach them,[/u] the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[/quote]

Your misapplication and misrepresentation of Scripture is truly amazing. Consider the entire cousel of God:

?“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;?And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby?c: ?And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. ?For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.?Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; ?And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;?In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: ?In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:15-22

?“And not as Moses,which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished” 2 Corinthians 3:13

“?For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. ?But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away?” 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

“Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first [the Law], that he may establish the second [Grace]. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hebrews 10:9-10

Now, the Scriptures that YOU referenced also makes the same point. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, not confirm it as a rule of life! Where, my misguided friend, do you see in the N.T. letters which are for the Church a command to keep the Law? It is not there!

Finally, if the Church needs to keep the Law (since your theory is that it is not just for the Jewish people) then can you please show me where the church, historically or otherwise, has kept Kosher? If you must keep the Law, you must keep it ALL (James 2:10).

Jesus Christ came to do what the Law could not do – completely once and for all pay the penalty for sin – so that Israel would be free from the Law and Gentiles might be partakers with the Jews in having access to God.

251

steveo5801 Thanks for answering my questions. Just a note but I’m not trying to disparage Christianity, but I do question it because I suppose that’s my nature–I simply just question things. My family goes to Church every Sunday but at the same time, I often feel a disconnect because whenever I start to ask questions, I am told by others that “It’s simply not our place to question God.”

Let me see if I can sum up what’s being said. In the OT God listed a bunch of rules to follow because of the original Sin left by Adam? But then Jesus died for our Sins and thus the rules in the OT were no longer needed.

And so all we need for Salvation (instead of following those OT rules) is to accept Jesus’ sacrifice.

I suppose my problem comes in with the different sects of Christianity. Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Protestants, Episcopalians, etc. all believe that more is required to enter Heaven.

Catholics have additional sacraments; Jehovah’s Witnesses have strict dietary and living rules; Mormon’s have an additional book of the Bible; and Episcopalians who believe things that are contrary to what other sects believe! (And let’s not forget the Jews and Muslims who don’t even believe that Jesus is their way to salvation)

And that’s the difficulty that I have. What if there is more to simply accepting Jesus’ sacrifice? What if I need to do more? And if I do, then who’s right? Who’s the person that determines what needs to be done?

What if you’re wrong and simply accepting Jesus’ is not enough?

252

Let me add to my previous post as I’ve had some time to think about it.

According to the Catholic Church, the sacrament of Communion is required because Jesus said in John 6:53 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

So the Catholics read that passage and interpreted it a certain way. Now other’s who read that passage interpret it another way.

What if they’re wrong? What if the Catholics are right?

If this is the case, shouldn’t I live my life with utmost care?

Shouldn’t I go through with the Catholic sacraments, live with the Jehovah Witnesses dietary restrictions, follow the Articles of Faith defined in the Book of Mormon, and shun the technological advances like the Amish?

If I live my life this way, and all God really wanted us to do was accept Jesus, then I’m saved regardless. But if God required additional means to enter Heaven, then those groups that didn’t perform then will not be saved.

The Bible can only be word for word literal. It cannot be any other way.

253

[quote]Professor X wrote:
In fact, I truly believe the only reason you aren’t a part of a Crusade to kill the non-believers if they don’t convert is because in this day and age, you would get arrested.[/quote]

I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inqisition, again.

254

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
Professor X wrote:
In fact, I truly believe the only reason you aren’t a part of a Crusade to kill the non-believers if they don’t convert is because in this day and age, you would get arrested.

I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inqisition, again.
[/quote]

NO-ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

Sorry, couldn’t resist it.

255

[quote]remyc88 wrote:
Let me add to my previous post as I’ve had some time to think about it.

According to the Catholic Church, the sacrament of Communion is required because Jesus said in John 6:53 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

So the Catholics read that passage and interpreted it a certain way. Now other’s who read that passage interpret it another way.

What if they’re wrong? What if the Catholics are right?

If this is the case, shouldn’t I live my life with utmost care?

Shouldn’t I go through with the Catholic sacraments, live with the Jehovah Witnesses dietary restrictions, follow the Articles of Faith defined in the Book of Mormon, and shun the technological advances like the Amish?

If I live my life this way, and all God really wanted us to do was accept Jesus, then I’m saved regardless. But if God required additional means to enter Heaven, then those groups that didn’t perform then will not be saved.

The Bible can only be word for word literal. It cannot be any other way.[/quote]

Try Greek Orthodox. They claim to practice “Christianity” with all the same magic rituals that the apostles followed.

See: Apostolic Succession.

Turns out they are the only ones going to heaven. Everyone else, Catholics and Protestants alike, are going to hell.

256

[quote]remyc88 wrote:
steveo5801 Thanks for answering my questions. Just a note but I’m not trying to disparage Christianity, but I do question it because I suppose that’s my nature–I simply just question things. My family goes to Church every Sunday but at the same time, I often feel a disconnect because whenever I start to ask questions, I am told by others that “It’s simply not our place to question God.”

Let me see if I can sum up what’s being said. In the OT God listed a bunch of rules to follow because of the original Sin left by Adam? But then Jesus died for our Sins and thus the rules in the OT were no longer needed.

And so all we need for Salvation (instead of following those OT rules) is to accept Jesus’ sacrifice.

I suppose my problem comes in with the different sects of Christianity. Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Protestants, Episcopalians, etc. all believe that more is required to enter Heaven.

Catholics have additional sacraments; Jehovah’s Witnesses have strict dietary and living rules; Mormon’s have an additional book of the Bible; and Episcopalians who believe things that are contrary to what other sects believe! (And let’s not forget the Jews and Muslims who don’t even believe that Jesus is their way to salvation)

And that’s the difficulty that I have. What if there is more to simply accepting Jesus’ sacrifice? What if I need to do more? And if I do, then who’s right? Who’s the person that determines what needs to be done?

What if you’re wrong and simply accepting Jesus’ is not enough?[/quote]

Questioning is actually good – we learn that way. The main aspect of a relationship with God, however, is faith. Faith is not the absence of our intellect, but it does transcend intellect in that we know that God’s ways and thoughts cannot be apprehended simply by human intelligence (Isa. 55:9-10).

Your question about all the different “forms” of Christianity is a good one and is often problematic for many people. To this I simply say that the answer to this dillema is not to follow any “sect,” but to simply follow God and His Word. This does, by necessity, require that you place your faith in His Word (the Bible) and simply follow what God says in it. Many years ago, before I came to faith, I concluded that all these religions couldn’t be all correct at the same time. Therefore I concluded that they were all wrong. What I failed to realize is that man made “religions” could be wrong, but God’s Word is correct.

You asked “what if I am wrong?” Well, it is not important if “I” am correct. What is important is that God is correct as presented in His Word. I am placing my eternal destiny in the God of the Bible, and I have complete peace and confidence in Him.

If I were you, I would begin to read the Bible (the N.T. especially since this directly relates to the Church Age) and discover God’s truth for yourself.

Take care…

257

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
futuredave wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

The Mosaic Law, which the Bible clearly teaches, only applies to Israel in a Theocracy.

Nuh huh, saith the Lord.

Matthew 5: 17-19
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: [u]but whosoever shall do and teach them,[/u] the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Your misapplication and misrepresentation of Scripture is truly amazing. Consider the entire cousel of God:

?“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;?And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby?c: ?And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. ?For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.?Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; ?And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;?In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: ?In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:15-22

?“And not as Moses,which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished” 2 Corinthians 3:13

“?For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. ?But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away?” 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

“Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first [the Law], that he may establish the second [Grace]. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hebrews 10:9-10

Now, the Scriptures that YOU referenced also makes the same point. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, not confirm it as a rule of life! Where, my misguided friend, do you see in the N.T. letters which are for the Church a command to keep the Law? It is not there!

Jesus Christ came to do what the Law could not do – completely once and for all pay the penalty for sin – so that Israel would be free from the Law and Gentiles might be partakers with the Jews in having access to God.[/quote]

StevO…

I’m quoting your Lord, who seems pretty explicit. I’m not sure why you are quoting a man was not one of his disciples and never even met him.

[quote]
Finally, if the Church needs to keep the Law (since your theory is that it is not just for the Jewish people) then can you please show me where the church, historically or otherwise, has kept Kosher? If you must keep the Law, you must keep it ALL (James 2:10).[/quote]

The early church, as led by Peter and Jesus’ own brother, James, kept the law, including circumcision, keeping kosher, not eating the meat of the pagan sacrifices, etc.

This was at the heart of the dispute in Paul v. James & Peter (whom Jesus annointed with his own hands.)

Matthew 16:17-18
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[ and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Yet in Galatians 2:11, Paul calls out Jesus’ hand-picked man. “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.”

Wrong about what? The Law, which Paul felt was unnecessary. Paul never met Jesus (though he claimed to be swept up into heaven and given information that Jesus failed to mention to his own disciples). Yet, he felt he had authority to challenge Peter and James, who were as close to Jesus as any human being could have been.

Clearly, the earliest “Christians,” before Paul, were observant Jews.

They were sort of like the Lubavitch Hasidim in NY who are awaiting the return of Rabbi Schneerson, who they believe is the messiah.

I’m surprised that you are not aware that the earliest of Christians, post-Jesus and pre-Paul were observant Jews.

258

[quote]remyc88 wrote:
Let me add to my previous post as I’ve had some time to think about it.

According to the Catholic Church, the sacrament of Communion is required because Jesus said in John 6:53 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

So the Catholics read that passage and interpreted it a certain way. Now other’s who read that passage interpret it another way.

What if they’re wrong? What if the Catholics are right?

If this is the case, shouldn’t I live my life with utmost care?

Shouldn’t I go through with the Catholic sacraments, live with the Jehovah Witnesses dietary restrictions, follow the Articles of Faith defined in the Book of Mormon, and shun the technological advances like the Amish?

If I live my life this way, and all God really wanted us to do was accept Jesus, then I’m saved regardless. But if God required additional means to enter Heaven, then those groups that didn’t perform then will not be saved.

The Bible can only be word for word literal. It cannot be any other way.[/quote]

Good questions again, but the Bible deals with this one as well. If you read chapter 1 of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, you will see that Paul warned the believers in Galatia to reject anything added to Christ’s sacrifce. He called this “another gospel,” which is not “another.” In the original Greek (the language that the N.T. was originally written) the two words translated “another” are different words in Greek.

Paul actually said that this "another (of a different kind) of Gospel is not ‘another’ (of the same kind) of Gospel. Paul writes that anyone giving you such a different gospel should be “accursed.” Accursed means to be cut off from the eternal life that is in Jesus Christ. We can see what the actual Gospel (which means “good news”) is by reading the first four verses of 1 Corinthians 15. Paul tells us what we must believe. That is Christ died, was buried, and rose again. That is all.

Therefore, it is not as you might think – follow everything that all religions that call themselves “Christian” and then you are saved. The Bible knows no such way of salvation. The Bible teaches that we must place our entire trust upon the Lord Jesus. After all, if all these other things need to be done, that would mean that Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross was insufficient to save.

It is Christ only and only Christ!

259

[quote]futuredave wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
futuredave wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

The Mosaic Law, which the Bible clearly teaches, only applies to Israel in a Theocracy.

Nuh huh, saith the Lord.

Matthew 5: 17-19
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: [u]but whosoever shall do and teach them,[/u] the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Your misapplication and misrepresentation of Scripture is truly amazing. Consider the entire cousel of God:

?“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;?And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby?c: ?And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. ?For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.?Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; ?And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;?In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: ?In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:15-22

?“And not as Moses,which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished” 2 Corinthians 3:13

“?For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. ?But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away?” 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

“Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first [the Law], that he may establish the second [Grace]. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hebrews 10:9-10

Now, the Scriptures that YOU referenced also makes the same point. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, not confirm it as a rule of life! Where, my misguided friend, do you see in the N.T. letters which are for the Church a command to keep the Law? It is not there!

Jesus Christ came to do what the Law could not do – completely once and for all pay the penalty for sin – so that Israel would be free from the Law and Gentiles might be partakers with the Jews in having access to God.

StevO…

I’m quoting your Lord, who seems pretty explicit. I’m not sure why you are quoting a man was not one of his disciples and never even met him.[/quote]

Jesus did meet with Paul on the Damascus road (Acts chapter 9). The entire Bible is the Word of God, not just those verses that Jesus actually uttered. He actually wrote it all.[quote]

Finally, if the Church needs to keep the Law (since your theory is that it is not just for the Jewish people) then can you please show me where the church, historically or otherwise, has kept Kosher? If you must keep the Law, you must keep it ALL (James 2:10).

The early church, as led by Peter and Jesus’ own brother, James, kept the law, including circumcision, keeping kosher, not eating the meat of the pagan sacrifices, etc.

This was at the heart of the dispute in Paul v. James & Peter (whom Jesus annointed with his own hands.)[/quote]

Not true. The fact that James decided that they not eat blood, things strangled, etc. was so not to insult and put a stumbling block in the way of Jewish believers in Christ. [b] Notice, however, what HE DID NOT SAY. He did not say the non-Jewish believers needed to be circumcized. That is integral in following the Law of Moses. He didn’t say this, because we are not under the Law. Messiah came![quote]

Matthew 16:17-18
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[ and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Yet in Galatians 2:11, Paul calls out Jesus’ hand-picked man. “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.”

Wrong about what? The Law, which Paul felt was unnecessary. Paul never met Jesus (though he claimed to be swept up into heaven and given information that Jesus failed to mention to his own disciples). Yet, he felt he had authority to challenge Peter and James, who were as close to Jesus as any human being could have been.[/quote]

I think you should really read the context of the verses that you are quoting. Again, the Bible is clear that Paul did in fact meet Jesus (Acts 9) so you are completely wrong here. Also, Paul was challening Peter because He was refusing to eat with the Gentile believers when Jewish believers were around. Paul said that this behavior was wrong, because the Church of the Lord Jesus is made up of Jews and Gentiles worshipping and eating together. This is the way it is today, at least in my church. [quote]

Clearly, the earliest “Christians,” before Paul, were observant Jews.[/quote]

Yes they were – so what? They were not under the Law but under grace. [quote]

They were sort of like the Lubavitch Hasidim in NY who are awaiting the return of Rabbi Schneerson, who they believe is the messiah.[/quote]

Not at all. Schneerson was never in Israel, no less being born there which is a basic requirement of whomever you think Messiah will be. Also, Schneerson is still in his grave – Jesus rose again and was seen by many witnesses. The original Jewish believers knew that Jesus was raised and believed in Him and that He will return again. [quote]

I’m surprised that you are not aware that the earliest of Jews, post-Jesus and pre-Paul were observant Jews. [/quote]

They were Jews, but they were not strictly observant. What they did observe was more cultural rather than depending upon the Law for salvation. Otherwise, the entire N.T. would have to be dismissed. So your theory is severly flawed. Simply put, you are wrong as it comes to what the N.T. teaches. You are entiltled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to misconstrue the Bible.

260

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
futuredave wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
futuredave wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

The Mosaic Law, which the Bible clearly teaches, only applies to Israel in a Theocracy.

Nuh huh, saith the Lord.

Matthew 5: 17-19
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: [u]but whosoever shall do and teach them,[/u] the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Your misapplication and misrepresentation of Scripture is truly amazing. Consider the entire cousel of God:

?“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;?And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby?c: ?And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. ?For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.?Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; ?And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;?In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: ?In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:15-22

?“And not as Moses,which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished” 2 Corinthians 3:13

“?For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. ?But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away?” 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

“Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first [the Law], that he may establish the second [Grace]. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hebrews 10:9-10

Now, the Scriptures that YOU referenced also makes the same point. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, not confirm it as a rule of life! Where, my misguided friend, do you see in the N.T. letters which are for the Church a command to keep the Law? It is not there!

Jesus Christ came to do what the Law could not do – completely once and for all pay the penalty for sin – so that Israel would be free from the Law and Gentiles might be partakers with the Jews in having access to God.

StevO…

I’m quoting your Lord, who seems pretty explicit. I’m not sure why you are quoting a man was not one of his disciples and never even met him.

Jesus did meet with Paul on the Damascus road (Acts chapter 9). The entire Bible is the Word of God, not just those verses that Jesus actually uttered. He actually wrote it all.

Finally, if the Church needs to keep the Law (since your theory is that it is not just for the Jewish people) then can you please show me where the church, historically or otherwise, has kept Kosher? If you must keep the Law, you must keep it ALL (James 2:10).

The early church, as led by Peter and Jesus’ own brother, James, kept the law, including circumcision, keeping kosher, not eating the meat of the pagan sacrifices, etc.

This was at the heart of the dispute in Paul v. James & Peter (whom Jesus annointed with his own hands.)

Not true. The fact that James decided that they not eat blood, things strangled, etc. was so not to insult and put a stumbling block in the way of Jewish believers in Christ. [b] Notice, however, what HE DID NOT SAY. He did not say the non-Jewish believers needed to be circumcized. That is integral in following the Law of Moses. He didn’t say this, because we are not under the Law. Messiah came!

Matthew 16:17-18
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[ and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Yet in Galatians 2:11, Paul calls out Jesus’ hand-picked man. “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.”

Wrong about what? The Law, which Paul felt was unnecessary. Paul never met Jesus (though he claimed to be swept up into heaven and given information that Jesus failed to mention to his own disciples). Yet, he felt he had authority to challenge Peter and James, who were as close to Jesus as any human being could have been.

I think you should really read the context of the verses that you are quoting. Again, the Bible is clear that Paul did in fact meet Jesus (Acts 9) so you are completely wrong here. Also, Paul was challening Peter because He was refusing to eat with the Gentile believers when Jewish believers were around. Paul said that this behavior was wrong, because the Church of the Lord Jesus is made up of Jews and Gentiles worshipping and eating together. This is the way it is today, at least in my church.

Clearly, the earliest “Christians,” before Paul, were observant Jews.

Yes they were – so what? They were not under the Law but under grace.

They were sort of like the Lubavitch Hasidim in NY who are awaiting the return of Rabbi Schneerson, who they believe is the messiah.

Not at all. Schneerson was never in Israel, no less being born there which is a basic requirement of whomever you think Messiah will be. Also, Schneerson is still in his grave – Jesus rose again and was seen by many witnesses. The original Jewish believers knew that Jesus was raised and believed in Him and that He will return again.

I’m surprised that you are not aware that the earliest of Jews, post-Jesus and pre-Paul were observant Jews.

They were Jews, but they were not strictly observant. What they did observe was more cultural rather than depending upon the Law for salvation. Otherwise, the entire N.T. would have to be dismissed. So your theory is severly flawed. Simply put, you are wrong as it comes to what the N.T. teaches. You are entiltled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to misconstrue the Bible.

[/quote]

All good points and we’ll have to agree to disagree. Or disagree on agreeing. Something.

Anyway, I do not agree that Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul claims to have had a vision of Jesus, he would also later claim to have been taken up into heaven and revealed more info by Jesus/God himself.

To me, these sound like the ravings of a schizophrenic. I don’t know why you would believe Paul, but not Mohammed or David Koresh or Joseph Smith.

And for the record, I pretty much am in favor of dismissing the entire new testament. The Jews were already practicing what God taught them and the non-jews were covered under Noahyde Law. So the New Testament is no more relevant to me than the Koran or the Book of Mormon.