How do you choose what parts to follow?

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

In your judgement what do we obtain if we precisely follow the Ten Commandments? Impossible to do without Gods grace. With Gods grace, if we succeed, we shall hear, "Well done my good and faithful servant. . ."Are each of the Commandments mandatory and must every one be followed in order for God to love us?In order for God to love us? No. In order for us to love God? Yes, each and every one is mandatory. Or, if the laws aren't absolutely mandatory, where is the break point, how many Commandments may believers break before God sends us to he77? When you choose to break a Commandment you choose condemnation, not so much God sending you but God letting you go there.

I hope this helps clarify my position.

The New Testament, the Gospel of Christ is the "good news", the news that salvation is His undeserved gift to imperfect believers because it cannot be earned by works of the Law even if you want to call them the Ten Suggestions. If that's wrong then John 3:16 has no fixed meaning and nothing was changed with the New Testament; I don't think you actually believe that.

John 3:16 says that whoever believes in Jesus will not perish, but shall have eternal life. So then, do we believe Jesus when He said the road to destruction is wide, and the gate to eternal life is narrow? Do we believe Him when He said He would separate the sheep from the goats, and then tells the goats they didn't feed, clothe or comfort Him? Do we believe Him when he said whoever loves Him follows His Commandments?
My question still stands: where did you hear this way of interpreting Scripture? Did you make it up yourself? Or did you get it from somebody else?

Please read everything of mine as brother-to-brother. I respect your views as I sense that you are a good and faithful Christian.

[dverna]

We should never lose sight that the Bible was written by men. Within it are many truths that we should live by to please our Father, and to be "good" people.

For me, there is less consternation and thrashing around if I accept that the Bible is not 100% accurate. Some parts of the Bible are plainly in need of wordsmithing or "interpretation" to be acceptable...others parts are foolish....not many but they are there. Start with your turtle dove example, Genesis (and the differing theories by theologians), acceptance of slavery, Ephesians 5:22, etc. etc.

God gave us not only choice, but common sense. When those who make studying the Bible their life work cannot agree 100%, what makes us think we "know" exactly what it says or means?? KISS.

I feel sorry for those who believe every word in the Bible is 100% correct. Dogma is easier than thinking. If, centuries later and after numerous iterations, God meant for us to rely on theologians (who are just men) to understand the Bible He made a number of grave errors. First, not making it simple and succinct. Second, making it a document this is NOT timeless (as it should be). Third, not "correcting" or updating it after centuries have passed and He sees us wallowing in multiple Christian sects and their interpretations.

Use the few good (and universally accepted) instructions in the Bible to live your life by. Ignore the ones that do not make sense. Like I said...KISS.

Honor and worship God, accept Jesus, love others, and live by the 9 Commandments He did not rescind. (See even God makes mistakes...we did not need 10).

[Ickisrulz]

Some parts of the Bible are plainly in need of wordsmithing or "interpretation" to be acceptable...others parts are foolish....not many but they are there.

There are many people who find the concept of God becoming man and dying for our sins to be foolish and even blasphemous. How do you know this biblical assertion is not a falsehood made up by man?

When you go down the road claiming that the Bible contains the words of God, but is not the Word of God you create many stumbling blocks for your belief system and spiritual life.

Just because the Bible was not written in the way you would have done it, does not mean it is imperfect. Additionally, just because God has varied his methods in dealing with man does not mean he is imperfect.

I take you to be an honest person. But I encourage you to re-think claiming that God makes mistakes and is not perfect. God's address to Job comes to mind. We humans have no power and no knowledge compared to God. Who are we to claim that he is wrong? None of the biblical writers, prophets or Apostles ever hinted to such an idea.

[jmort]

Exactly Right On

[T_McD]

While this thread has been a civil discussion, it exemplifies my misgivings about the church. One is expected to leave critical thinking at the door. How exactly does paragraphs of genealogy contribute to my faith?

How do you rationalize the inconstancy found in scripture?

[Ickisrulz]

While this thread has been a civil discussion, it exemplifies my misgivings about the church. One is expected to leave critical thinking at the door. How exactly does paragraphs of genealogy contribute to my faith?

How do you rationalize the inconstancy found in scripture?

While biblical genealogical records may not mean anything to you, they did to the original audiences. Genealogies were especially important to show the lineage of Christ and his connection to David (and the first man) as promised in Old Testament prophecy.

Properly interpreted Scripture does not present inconsistencies. What specific problems do you have in mind?

[dverna]

There are many people who find the concept of God becoming man and dying for our sins to be foolish and even blasphemous. How do you know this biblical assertion is not a falsehood made up by man?

When you go down the road claiming that the Bible contains the words of God, but is not the Word of God you create many stumbling blocks for your belief system and spiritual life.

Just because the Bible was not written in the way you would have done it, does not mean it is imperfect. Additionally, just because God has varied his methods in dealing with man does not mean he is imperfect.

I take you to be an honest person. But I encourage you to re-think claiming that God makes mistakes and is not perfect. God's address to Job comes to mind. We humans have no power and no knowledge compared to God. Who are we to claim that he is wrong? None of the biblical writers, prophets or Apostles ever hinted to such an idea.

The fact that God has varied His methods of dealing with man is only one of the "proofs" of His imperfection. It does not diminish His power. or His love for us, or that He was the ultimate Creator; but power does not equate to perfection in every act and decision He made.

My faith is not based on Him being perfect. I do not need Him to be perfect. Just as my natural father, loved me and did the best he could, I trust in the love of God and that He always tries to do His best...that is good enough for me. If I had to believe God and the Bible are perfect, I would likely revert back to atheism. Too many things do not "add up" for me.

I know I will never find a church that accepts this view. I still attend church as it helps me think things through.

On the core principles of how we should live, there is little or no disconnect that occurs with my opinion that God and the Bible are less than perfect.

I welcome your words of encouragement. Even if my spiritual development is retarded by my current thoughts, at least I am no longer an atheist. For those who have never been there, it is huge leap to accept God and Jesus when you have not been raised as a believer in ANY God.

For those of you that question God, the Bible and religion I offer my take. Accepting an imperfect God is better than not believing at all IMHO, and salvation only comes from accepting Jesus. Do not dismiss the entire Bible for sections that we either cannot understand or seem inconsistent. Lastly, be wary of religion. There is no "right" one....but you may find one that works for you most of the time; and there is much to be gained by being with others who believe.

[Ickisrulz]

The fact that God has varied His methods of dealing with man is only one of the "proofs" of His imperfection. It does not diminish His power. or His love for us, or that He was the ultimate Creator; but power does not equate to perfection in every act and decision He made.

My faith is not based on Him being perfect. I do not need Him to be perfect. Just as my natural father, loved me and did the best he could, I trust in the love of God and that He always tries to do His best...that is good enough for me. If I had to believe God and the Bible are perfect, I would likely revert back to atheism. Too many things do not "add up" for me.

I know I will never find a church that accepts this view. I still attend church as it helps me think things through.

On the core principles of how we should live, there is little or no disconnect that occurs with my opinion that God and the Bible are less than perfect.

I welcome your words of encouragement. Even if my spiritual development is retarded by my current thoughts, at least I am no longer an atheist. For those who have never been there, it is huge leap to accept God and Jesus when you have not been raised as a believer in ANY God.

For those of you that question God, the Bible and religion I offer my take. Accepting an imperfect God is better than not believing at all IMHO, and salvation only comes from accepting Jesus. Do not dismiss the entire Bible for sections that we either cannot understand or seem inconsistent. Lastly, be wary of religion. There is no "right" one....but you may find one that works for you most of the time; and there is much to be gained by being with others who believe.

Can you please share with me your criteria for determining if a biblical story or assertion is true or false? Is it just a matter of what rings true to you?

God's revelation of himself to man, as well as his expectations of and requirements for man have been progressive. God did not start off demanding that "every thought be obedient to Christ. (2 Cor 10:5)" This would not have been possible without the coming of the Holy Spirit, who could not come until after Jesus' work had been accomplished. Jesus could not perform his mission until certain things had happened.

Therefore, God gave man incremental steps to bring him closer to living the life he was meant to. This included the prohibition in the Garden, the removal of universal evil with the flood, institution of man-administered penalties, physical separation of those who might be loyal to him from their neighbors and eventually the Law. Each of these steps, was intended to reveal God's desire for man, improve man's existence and show how man is prone to failure. The final step was the coming of the Messiah who finished the plan that God had all along; the "Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8). Each of the aforementioned steps was perfect, but did not result in the fullness of its potential because of human response. This includes the work of Jesus Christ. Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient to save every person on earth. But because of man's failure to respond, most will not benefit from Jesus' work.

God's means of dealing with man has been and will always be perfect. The imperfect response of his creatures will often thwart his efforts.

[jmort]

"The fact that God has varied His methods of dealing with man is only one of the "proofs" of His imperfection. It does not diminish His power. or His love for us, or that He was the ultimate Creator; but power does not equate to perfection in every act and decision He made."

If you are a Member of The Body of Christ, I implore you to disregard this utterly and completely.
The Pit cometh to this sub- forum
Wow, just Wow. Don't go there.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

How do you rationalize the inconstancy found in scripture?

Can you please share with me your criteria for determining if a biblical story or assertion is true or false? Is it just a matter of what rings true to you?

These are totally awesome questions guys! I love it.

I will point out that none of the ideas I've expressed on this thread are invented by me. I'm just paraphrasing thoughts and teachings that have been handed down for ages.

Here is how many men far holier than I approach these questions, let's first see if we can agree on some basic principles:

A) Do you agree that when someone says something, the words they say can often be interpreted in different ways, sometimes wildly different?
B) Do you agree that when someone writes something the same problem can arise? E.g. the statement, "I never said he stole the gum." If you say this sentence several times, but each time put vocal emphasis on a different word, it changes the meaning quite a lot.
C) Do you agree that the best way to find out what someone meant when they said or wrote something is to go directly to that someone and ask them?
D) Do you agree that when that someone is no longer available to directly ask, the next best way to decipher a cryptic statement is to ask people who knew that person really well?
E) Do you agree that when a person stands nothing to gain by saying something but they say it anyway, they are likely telling the truth?
F) Do you agree we ought to apply the same level of skepticism about the existence of Alexander the Great, or things he said and did?

Next:
Look at the very last verse in the Gospel according to John (I'm Catholic, I don't memorize chapter:verse numbers as a general rule). He says something like, Jesus said and did many other things, so much that all the books in the world could not contain them if they were written down. That seems like a clue that if you are operating on the Bible alone, you're going to miss some things. If you think about it, Jesus spend 3 years preaching and traveling with his Apostles. There has to be a TON of stuff that he explained over the campfire as they were hiking between towns (the Gospels allude to this).

Finally lets compare two Gospel stories I hope you're familiar with:
One is where Jesus says, "if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away." The other passage is where Jesus says "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall have eternal life."

These are both passages that can be understood in wildly different ways. So let's go ask Jesus what He really meant. Not possible? Do you think the 12 Apostles had a chance to ask Him? We don't really have anything written by any of the 12 that elaborate on this, but it seems reasonable that the people most qualified to understand what Jesus meant by these wild statements were those who lived to see Him & the Apostles face to face. If that is the case, then history should record descriptions of early Christians gouging out their eyes and cutting off their hands, as that would have been passed down through oral tradition. I've never heard of such a thing, but I have heard the claim that early Christians were accused of cannibalism. This would suggest that the early Christians were preaching that the Eucharist was Christ's flesh and blood. There is also a guy named St. Ignatius of Antioch who said, "...they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ..." St. Ignatius was martyred in 107 A.D. and he lived early enough to study under John the Apostle. So doesn't it seem likely that this belief existed from the very beginning of the Church?

Now if you apply the principles outlined in A through F you can see that a given passage can be confusing but by careful historical research you can get some perspective that helps understand what it meant. This is primarily why Catholics and Orthodox do not subscribe to "Bible alone" theories. Now, it is still possible that these teachings are wrong, and something in the historical record is awry. But if you want to deny Christianity based on a very high standard of evidence, then you ought to apply that same high standard of evidence to other parts of history such as the events and statements of Alexander the Great. Much of what is known about him depends on an oral tradition that lasted centuries before anything was written down, yet I know of no worthy historian who denies the existence of Alexander the Great.

[Alabama358]

These are totally awesome questions guys! I love it.

I will point out that none of the ideas I've expressed on this thread are invented by me. I'm just paraphrasing thoughts and teachings that have been handed down for ages.

Here is how many men far holier than I approach these questions, let's first see if we can agree on some basic principles:



Next:
Look at the very last verse in the Gospel according to John (I'm Catholic, I don't memorize chapter:verse numbers as a general rule). He says something like, Jesus said and did many other things, so much that all the books in the world could not contain them if they were written down. That seems like a clue that if you are operating on the Bible alone, you're going to miss some things. If you think about it, Jesus spend 3 years preaching and traveling with his Apostles. There has to be a TON of stuff that he explained over the campfire as they were hiking between towns (the Gospels allude to this).

Finally lets compare two Gospel stories I hope you're familiar with:
One is where Jesus says, "if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away." The other passage is where Jesus says "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall have eternal life."

These are both passages that can be understood in wildly different ways. So let's go ask Jesus what He really meant. Not possible? Do you think the 12 Apostles had a chance to ask Him? We don't really have anything written by any of the 12 that elaborate on this, but it seems reasonable that the people most qualified to understand what Jesus meant by these wild statements were those who lived to see Him & the Apostles face to face. If that is the case, then history should record descriptions of early Christians gouging out their eyes and cutting off their hands, as that would have been passed down through oral tradition. I've never heard of such a thing, but I have heard the claim that early Christians were accused of cannibalism. This would suggest that the early Christians were preaching that the Eucharist was Christ's flesh and blood. There is also a guy named St. Ignatius of Antioch who said, "...they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ..." St. Ignatius was martyred in 107 A.D. and he lived early enough to study under John the Apostle. So doesn't it seem likely that this belief existed from the very beginning of the Church?

Now if you apply the principles outlined in A through F you can see that a given passage can be confusing but by careful historical research you can get some perspective that helps understand what it meant. This is primarily why Catholics and Orthodox do not subscribe to "Bible alone" theories. Now, it is still possible that these teachings are wrong, and something in the historical record is awry. But if you want to deny Christianity based on a very high standard of evidence, then you ought to apply that same high standard of evidence to other parts of history such as the events and statements of Alexander the Great. Much of what is known about him depends on an oral tradition that lasted centuries before anything was written down, yet I know of no worthy historian who denies the existence of Alexander the Great.

Proverbs 26:11

[T_McD]

Pretty sure it says somewhere that men are saved by faith. What takes more faith, believing despite serious doubts and misgivings or believing in divine perfection? If ones faith can’t handle a challenge to Christ’s deity, or the divine ness of scripture, it would seem to me to be rather weak. I find more comfort in admitting ignorance and doubt than blindly following the blind.

This is the failing in organized religion, to be accepted in the club, one must agree to all tenets completely. It sets up an us vs them mindset that is absolutely the antithesis of scripture.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

As dogs return to their vomit, so fools repeat their folly.

Proverbs 26:11


Hmmm. I find your remark rather cryptic. So I could go straight to the source and ask you to please elaborate on what you mean and how this applies to my post.

Or. . . I could take the approach that your response self-interprets and just ask myself what do I think it means.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Pretty sure it says somewhere that men are saved by faith. What takes more faith, believing despite serious doubts and misgivings or believing in divine perfection? If ones faith can’t handle a challenge to Christ’s deity, or the divine ness of scripture, it would seem to me to be rather weak. I find more comfort in admitting ignorance and doubt than blindly following the blind.

This is the failing in organized religion, to be accepted in the club, one must agree to all tenets completely. It sets up an us vs them mindset that is absolutely the antithesis of scripture.

I'm not sure what this is in response to. One of my posts? If so, I don't know how it applies.

[Walks]

Thank the GOOD LORD I'm Jewish.

[T_McD]

I'm not sure what this is in response to. One of my posts? If so, I don't know how it applies.

Everyone and no one in particular.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

ok.

This is the failing in organized religion, to be accepted in the club, one must agree to all tenets completely.

Except it's not a club. And within Catholicism this statement is not true. It is true that one must assent to all dogmas in order to be considered Catholic - but that's just being honest. I mean, come on, there must be some beliefs that make Christianity, Christianity, while other beliefs are more arguable. Yes, if you are unwilling to accept that God became man, and that Jesus Christ was the divine incarnation of the God of the Hebrews (which implies perfection), then be honest, Christianity is not for you. But there are also other tenets that are argued among good Christians.

Pretty sure it says somewhere that men are saved by faith.

But it doesn't, or at least didn't, say "faith alone." And nowhere does it say "blind faith". If you read my posts, what I'm offering is solid, historical evidence on which we can form a basis for our faith.

Do you believe in Alexander the Great? If you do, you are doing so on faith, because you haven't met him.

[Ickisrulz]

This is the failing in organized religion, to be accepted in the club, one must agree to all tenets completely. It sets up an us vs them mindset that is absolutely the antithesis of scripture.

It's too bad this has been your experience. I have not found things to be this way among any group of Christians or church I have associated with.

I enjoy the academic side of Christendom much more than the going to church side. I hate sitting still and being a captive audience for a person who enjoys public speaking. I like discussing biblical exposition and ideas, even though that always leads to differences of understanding.

[1hole]

[QUOTE=Black Jaque Janaviac;4648104]I hope this helps clarify my position.

So then, do we believe Jesus when He said the road to destruction is wide, and the gate to eternal life is narrow? Do we believe Him when He said He would separate the sheep from the goats, and then tells the goats they didn't feed, clothe or comfort Him? ---- Do we believe Him when he said whoever loves Him follows His Commandments?

Yes, sure believers should believe all of that but none of it addresses my question: "What do YOU believe spiritually happens if we are not perfect followers" and, by extension, "On judgement day (?), what do you believe happens to imperfect believers?" I mean do you think, "There's a legal limit to God's tolerance for human failure?" and, if you believe so, "At what point of imperfection may weak believers be consigned to he77?"

My point is, far too many well meaning Christian people get too deep into works/legalism religion and (unconsiously?) teach a works based gospel in which salvation has to be earned and then maintained by diligent rule following (usually in a specific denomination).

Legalism does that and it puts people in exactly the same spiritually oppressive box as the Pharasees did in Jesus' day. The whole book of Galatians is written specifically to oppose Christian legalisim!

That heavy load of "You must follow the rules or go to he77" did and still crushes the hearts of stumbling believers rather than reassuring them that their eternal safety is secure in the hands of a trustworthy God, not themselves, because the perfection of Jesus life is imputed by the Father to each born again believer even before we die. (Everyone knows John 3:16 but far too few know John 3:17 & 18.)

There is no grading on a curve for Christians and there is no weighing the books at Judgement Day for salvation. All believers should know THAT!


where did you hear this way of interpreting Scripture? Did you make it up yourself? Or did you get it from somebody else?

I got where I am today by a long lifetime (78 years) of prayer and reading the Book to see what it actually means without being lead by the nose in denominational traditions or doctrines. (And doing that isn't as easy as it may sound, most of us have firmly entrenched doctrinal error fixations that are hard for anyone to get passed!)

Please read everything of mine as brother-to-brother. I respect your views as I sense that you are a good and faithful Christian.[/QUOTE]

My "good and faithful" is an open question but my eternal security is solid because it rests on Christ alone, not me!

Finally brother Jac, I never once thought you mean anything less than honorable. Fact is, I love honest challenges because others force me to rethink and reappraise what and why I believe about anything. I've never learned a single thing from folks who agreed with me! Honest people do honestly hold different positions. Far too many folk seem to take disagreement as a personal affront and that should not be.

[T_McD]

ok.

Except it's not a club. And within Catholicism this statement is not true. It is true that one must assent to all dogmas in order to be considered Catholic - but that's just being honest. I mean, come on, there must be some beliefs that make Christianity, Christianity, while other beliefs are more arguable. Yes, if you are unwilling to accept that God became man, and that Jesus Christ was the divine incarnation of the God of the Hebrews (which implies perfection), then be honest, Christianity is not for you.

How can you say with a straight face that’s it’s not a “club” and then say it’s not for me? Who are you to pass judgement? You have exposed quite clearly what I am talking about. You realize this attitude is extremely evident to “non-believers” who are looking for something different but aren’t ready to jump in whole hog.

Do you believe in Alexander the Great? If you do, you are doing so on faith, because you haven't met him. Historical records are great for history. I believe both men existed, that has little to do with divine status.

Adding words for minimum length