Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[sojourner]

It still makes your emphasis on political power moot. Their history is full of highs and lows and political action is not stressed to any degree in the prophecies. They were not looking for what you say they were; they were waiting for what the prophecies said, a Hebrew king [and here, yes, a political king at the head of the nation] of the Davidic line who would bring the Jews home, rebuild the temple and usher in an age where the Commandments were followed naturally as part of every man's heart. Jesus simply failed at ALL these major efforts.

That's all there is to it, really.

Yep. Because, as it turns out, (no offense to Jewish friends) God's realm is not the Jewish state.

 

[1robin]

I don't see the difference between that and the era of the Babylonian exile.

I am going to have to shorten this stuff somewhere so do not be surprised or offended if I deleted something I didn't think crucial. As for this are you saying that in the Bible there is a provision that specifically suspended the law during the captivity?

In Zechariah 14 it says nations who don't go up to celebrate Succoth will suffer drought and plague.

So the poor African that has no idea what it is he is even supposed to do brings draught on an entire nation through an act that he had no choice about. I do not think the God you are describing is worth worship. That seems absolutely malevolent. It is also verifiable that there are indeed believers in every country that do not observe the law including Israel and it is equally true that the entire Earth is not suffering a continuous draught. Something is out of whack in your logic. By the way the God I worship is benevolent and saves that African anyway because he believed not because of what he ate.

If you killed a ram and offered it as sacrifice, you'd probably get punished like Saul did. And you can slaughter all the Rams you want if you're Muslim or having a feast.

I was pointing out that some of the laws besides being long past their purpose and not just inconvenient are also illegal.

Again, It doesn't matter if you find it bizarre.

It certainly does matter if I find your conclusions illogical and devoid of reason. At least it does if that is true. If a spirit told you that the only way to get to heaven was to wear your socks wrong side out, I would hope you would reject it based on reason.

There are no stories about Christians as a whole apart from brief explanations of the Jerusalem Church.

There are over 40 extra Biblical accounts that mention Christians to varying degrees just in their first few centuries. You are correct that since God had become the God of everyone instead a single nation to some extent that Christians as a nation are not spoken of as often. The fact remains that the Jews are recorded as having disobeyed God on an almost continuous cycle. There are no Biblical stories of parallel Christian actions in general.

You mean via the Romans?

Primarily yes.

Illogical to you?

Being that I am who you are talking to then it's kind of relevant.

Tell that to the Jews, minus the ones that require a temple, priesthood, and Sanhedrin. I hope I don't have to keep repeating.

Are you actually defending the claim that there exists perfect Jewish people somewhere that perfectly obey the law? First I do not have to tell them anything, God said that if any man claims to be without sin (to heve perfectly obeyed the law) then he is a liar and the truth is not in him. That pretty much trumps anything I can say. Second the only group of people that Jesus sportingly criticized were Jewish priests. Because they thought they were righteous by claiming to follow the law, but were actually wicked.

Ah, you have the ability to prove my claims aren't true, fascinating. Are you a prophet or something?

It is not worthy of the effort to disprove a claim that results in the condemnation of every soul on Earth. I wish you would concentrate on the issue instead of these personal perceptions of my intent.

Sorry if you don't like my perspective, Christians seem to suffer just as badly as Jews did in the OT worldwide.

It was not the perspective. It's perspective was irrelevant.

By "expert" you mean those who are in the orthodox church and already believe as you do?

Nope, I mean the majority conclusion of respected Biblical scholars and textual critics.

Who is us?

The ones who has received the Holy Spirit by virtue of being born again. Since that is an inescapable conclusion form the claim why are you asking this?

The verse doesn't imply that they won't suffer for their sins in purgatory. Even Jesus warned his own disciples to be careful.

Purgatory? As far as I can find that doctrine first appear with Christianity and is primarily a Catholic tradition. How is it compatible with Judaism?
Anyway:
1. Then you are saying that the Holy Spirit must go to purgatory (whatever that is) or betray his promise.
2. Yes he warned against disobedience but not in relation to salvation but to ensure effectiveness and productivity and to avoid temporal punishment.
3. Christ said he came to forgive all sin. For what sin is someone in this purgatory place.
4. Neither the word purgatory nor the Latin word it is derived from appear in the Bible.

Indeed. That's why I include everything Jesus says, which most Christians noticeably don't.

I am glad but that is not the usual sticking points. It is instead what do those words mean in the over all narrative. Some of them are very hard to resolve.

Paul was the greatest expert? Sheesh, it's hard arguing against assertions you make up when you can decide what's true or not.

Said the Jew who believes in purgatory. Actually that was a mistake. I meant to say he was the greatest expert on the law of any of the early Apostles and Church fathers.
He received his final education in Jerusalem from the famous teacher Gamaliel in the acclaimed rabbinical school. Gamaliel was considered an expert on the law and despite belonging to the party of Pharisees, was a freethinking person (Acts 5:34) and an admirer of Greek wisdom.
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/bible8_e.htm
The point was the apostle that knew the most about law spent the most time speaking about grace and the insuffeciency of the law.

Whether it's reliable or not is subjective, if you use orthodox commentaries, obviously anything outside their view is going to be "not reliable".

You are probably right, nothing can ever be known, it is impossible to weight testimony and expert opinion, and God did not ever raise up people to communicate clarity concerning the word. Let's give up, turn out the lights, and go to bed.

 

[1robin]

One of HUNDREDS? I think more like the only one you can think of.

Why do you complain of personal comments that I think you falsely perceive and then make them yourself? I would have said it was the only one if that was the case. I was actually looking at a complete list of all 613. Others include a requirement to return anything found. Have you returned every pen, pencil, penny or other trivial item you have even picked up? That is not even possible in many cases. How many more do you want?

If you don't eat at restaurants and you eat Organic non-processed food, sure it is.

No it isn't. I was in the Navy who by the way is partially why Israel still exists along with their own superhuman efforts and had no idea what was in what I had to eat. You try and pull some organic only crap in there and a brig is in your future. Also organics are fairly recent inventions, it was not possible to select only organically raised stuff 40 years ago.

So you confuse "not able to know" with "Not taking the time to check it out". I've known that Pink Slime and Mechanically processed chicken contain blood for a long time. You really have no basis.

What" I didn't know there was anything it the burger but the beef claimed. I had no reason to even look.

It says he should fulfill what he vows to God, and I'm pretty sure that if someone vowed to God he was going to kill and rape everyone in sight, God would not want that. Why don't you ask the Judaism DIR what they think of that.

Actually there is a story in the Bible where a man swore to kill his own daughter. I can't remember what happened but either the law was unjust in that case or God was if he required it to be fulfilled. I can't challenge claims in the DIR. I do not even watch people I agree with when there is not someone who can challenge him when possible.

We don't know if he really had to or not.

Either he was held to the law and committed an unjust act or God let him off because it was an unjust requirement. The Bible even says that fault was found in the first covenant.

I said rattlesnake blood. You know, the poisonous part.

Rattlesnake blood is not poisonous its venom is. People here in the south have eaten rattlesnakes for eons. Not me. It is even drank as a cure by some indians.

That's because the spiritual application is also a physical application in almost every event.

Some do and some do not. Most seem to be good ideas and morally sound but spiritually neutral.

Makes no sense to you, makes sense to me. IF you defile your body with unclean things, you are defiled in Heaven.

What is unclean about a puffer fish but clean about others. Most of these dietary laws only have a physical aspect.

You repent, adopt the Law, and accept that you'll be punished for every sin in temporary purgatory.

Where is this purgatory come from? I read up on it. It did not exist in the form you are describing prior to early Christianity. It was similar to ceremony’s surrounding preparations of the dead but I will let you explain what Jewish people who believe it think it is. As for a physical place: "Birth of purgatory"
MedievalistJacques Le Goff defines the "birth of purgatory", i.e. the conception of purgatory as a physical place, rather than merely as a state, as occurring between 1170 and 1200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Purgatory
I actually like the concept but unlike many will not let that make it true for me. Being that I do not believe it exists it is hard to evaluate claims concerning it.

Huh? It's not possible to repent? Or do I not understand?

I did not say any of that either. I said that repentance since Christ came is the act that results in being born again. Repentance that does not result in that is a waste of time. If you repent outside the kingdom of God it has no effect. It is like saying that being "good" outside of being a Hebrew and adherence to Hebrew ways 4000 years ago will get you to heaven.

So does the Holy Spirit also come to Mormons and JWs?

Yes

Why does it lead people to different directions?

Nope

Why is your experience better or more real than their claims?

My experience is no better than their salvation experience.

How do you know it wasn't just Heaven prepping you to become a better soul?

That is part of what it did. Along with guarantee salvation, write my name in the book of life, allow the Spirit to come and live with me etc........

You can't sin? I doubt that.

Either argue against what I said or capitulate. I said certain things went away. In other words my conscience became quickened and far more sensitive, not perfect.

 

[1robin]

You have Christ's righteousness?

That is exactly what it means. His righteousness is accredited to my account and my sin to his legally. That does not mean that I personally act as a well as he did in any way. That is why it is said in the Bible that it is not longer I but Christ that lives in me, as well as why he was punished even though he never sinned and a Christian goes to heaven even though he does. His record is no longer the issue. That is also why Paul said that even the man who has NO works will be saved, because his works are not the issue concerning salvation.

I don't think that's what "imputed" means, I think it means that his righteousness is the basis of the sacrifice working.

That is functionally impotent. What did the sacrifice gain? God went through Hell (literally) in order to supply something. It sure as heck was not needed to give us a chance to obey a law that we never perfectly have or can. It was not to save everyone. It ws to actually save the ones who believe by a substitutionary atonement.

Sigh, more confusing "Do not agree with interpretation" with "Do not understand". Such a strange phenomenon.

What are you talking about now? I said if you are not familiar with the concept of atonement then what I said would not make sense to you. There is absolutely nothing invalid about that statement.

I don't think you're interpreting it correctly that you are "legally declared perfect". John and James and Peter urge the believer to maintain good behavior lest they burn.

Find me a single verse that literally says obey perfectly or burn. Or in your case partially obey and then partially burn for a partial time then get to heaven. Is there literal burning in your purgatory? There would have to be if your original statement was true. To save time it is only your interpretation of the few verses in James and even fewer in John and what Peter says that allow that stance to be falsely claimed even though they conflict with many dozens that far more simply and clearly state salvation is permanent from the moment we are born again.

Fully impractical? You mean in a way that you don't accept. Again, Jesus warned his own disciples to abstain from things that would place them in the fire. You suffer for each of your sins in temporary purgatory.

Fully impractical in the form of becoming too big to allow replies in the time I have. Quit assuming all these personal accusations.

Then rip out the OT from your Bible.

No. In my interpretation that is not necessary. It is logical that bull's blood is symbolic of an event that is coming that can actually remove sin and not just symbolically push it forward.

So it didn't work until the NT?

I know you are more than intelligent enough not to actually be this confused about what I say. It was never supposed to erase sin even in the OT it was to push it forward. That is why it had to be done every year. Until it pushed all sin forward until the time that the real thing came into action. It was then and only then that the sin actually was done away with. Only then was God's wrath against all sin poured out on Christ. Only then was something actually perfect spiritually that provide an actual sacrifice that did away with sin debt.

Another problem is that you seem to be a Sola Scripturist, without consulting Jewish midrash on the issue, so you're right, we'll be at a standstill. As well, I get the feeling the only scholars you'll accept are those of the Orthodox conservative standing.

I do not consider it a problem to limit what I consider as perfect truth to what is traditionally been determined to be that. I however read everything and consider everything.

And with that said, Hebrews 10:26 is quite clear that "If you continue to sin after receiving knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for your sins". So if you sin after you accept Jesus, it's going to be a hot time in hell (Purgatory).

Was it not you that I spent a page showing commentary after commentary and proper interpretations and other verses that bear out the fact that that scripture is not discussing people who are saved. In fact it does not say after accepting Jesus only you did. It says that once the truth of Jesus is known it is destruction if it is rejected and Judaism is returned to. It was specifically for Jews who were being taught about Jesus not Christians born again. If it was that would mean no human ever born would get to heaven sense all sin willfully. So it actually proves the opposite of what you claim. Context is everything.

 

[sojourner]

Context is everything.

That about sums it up for this thread.

I would add that, IMO, usually only the biblical literalist has a problem with the infallibility of the texts, for it causes his whole literal argument to crumble. That's why the texts were never treated literalistically in the beginning.

 

[Shermana]

1 Robin, not only is this getting entirely off topic, it would take over an hour to untangle all these wet knots and explain the text through Jewish and extra-canonical writings, we are coming from two views to begin with, I don't accept the NT traditional canon validity to begin with or the orthodox commentaries on them, and you kinda basically said that you''re going to limit what you accept to what has been "traditionally determined", whether you "consider" other views or not, so as you said it's best to leave it at a stalemate, at least for here unless you want to make a new thread where all things are on the table.

I'll just show you a single example of how your logic on this issue is easily defeatable:

. Others include a requirement to return anything found. Have you returned every pen, pencil, penny or other trivial item you have even picked up

Context. If you don't know who owns it, how are you supposed to return it? Do you really think that the text meant to return something to someone who you don't know who it belongs to?

And with that, I'll leave you one question: Do you even go by the alleged Council of Jerusalem's ruling to not eat blood? (Of which I should add, I believe Acts 15, as many scholars agree, is a later anti-Judaizer interpolation).

 

[1robin]

1 Robin, not only is this getting entirely off topic, it would take over an hour to untangle all these wet knots and explain the text through Jewish and extra-canonical writings, we are coming from two views to begin with, I don't accept the NT traditional canon validity to begin with or the orthodox commentaries on them, and you kind of basically said that you’re going to limit what you accept to what has been "traditionally determined", whether you "consider" other views or not, so as you said it's best to leave it at a stalemate, at least for here unless you want to make a new thread where all things are on the table.

That is basically what I have been saying from the start.

I'll just show you a single example of how your logic on this issue is easily defeatable:
Context. If you don't know who owns it, how are you supposed to return it? Do you really think that the text meant to return something to someone who you don't know who it belongs to?

That is my point you can't do what it requires. Actually I might be able to give you this one. I looked up the scripture and it is far more "doable" than the way that list worded it.

And with that, I'll leave you one question: Do you even go by the alleged Council of Jerusalem's ruling to not eat blood? (Of which I should add, I believe Acts 15, as many scholars agree, is a later anti-Judaizer interpolation).

Nope, but maybe I should. The issue is not a heaven and hell one and that is what we have been discussing. As far as acts goes here is the most respected commentary in the world:
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
Some from Judea taught the Gentile converts at Antioch that they could not be saved, unless they observed the whole ceremonial law as given by Moses; and thus they sought to destroy Christian liberty. There is a strange proneness in us to think that all do wrong who do not just as we do. Their doctrine was very discouraging. Wise and good men desire to avoid contests and disputes as far as they can; yet when false teachers oppose the main truths of the gospel, or bring in hurtful doctrines, we must not decline to oppose them.
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=44&c=15&com=mhc
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
They were counseled to abstain from things strangled, and from eating blood; this was forbidden by the law of Moses, and also here, from reverence to the blood of the sacrifices, which being then still offered, it would needlessly grieve the Jewish converts, and further prejudice the unconverted Jews. But as the reason has long ceased, we are left free in this, as in the like matters. Let converts be warned to avoid all appearances of the evils which they formerly practiced, or are likely to be tempted to; and caution them to use Christian liberty with moderation and prudence
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=44&c=15&com=mhc
This seems to be one of those instances where the apostles opinions were offered even though a certain command of God was not available (as in Paul words concerning getting married). It also seems to be a practical request not a spiritual one and so it's disconnection with heaven in hell is reinforced.
However the next verse states that they do believe that the Spirit was now telling them that the laws in general were not to be laid on the Christians. No wonder you found it necessary to provide a disclaimer. Anyway, thanks for the info. Shalom

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yep. Because, as it turns out, (no offense to Jewish friends) God's realm is not the Jewish state.

So, you're not actually reading what I post?

A 'God's realm' comment is rather irrelevant; the prophecies still are what they are.

 

[sojourner]

So, you're not actually reading what I post?

A 'God's realm' comment is rather irrelevant; the prophecies still are what they are.

The prophecies are ultimately for a Messiah that restores a strong Hebraic state.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That about sums it up for this thread.

I would add that, IMO, usually only the biblical literalist has a problem with the infallibility of the texts, for it causes his whole literal argument to crumble. That's why the texts were never treated literalistically in the beginning.

IMO the Bible falls apart on it's own, because it is fallible. And people must make excuses for why that is, which avoid the obvious explanation. Because to them it cannot be infallible.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The prophecies are ultimately for a Messiah that restores a strong Hebraic state.

True; and it contradicts:

Yep. Because, as it turns out, (no offense to Jewish friends) God's realm is not the Jewish state.

 

[crazyrussian]

Due to 2000 years of scribe errors between 300,000 and 400,000 different errors between ancient manuscripts including entire sections of Scripture not even in the oldest manuscripts, "the adulteress woman and mark 16:9 onward", how much can you trust the Bible?

Though the bible contains the Law Jesus taught us to fulfill if we wish to walk in his way, the bible on many occastions causes us to stumble and break the law. Trust the Law and keep the law and you can have the testimony of Jesus via the spirit of truth. continue to break the law and you will be as you have been since you were born according to the flesh.

A perfect example of how the bible causes men to break the law is found in this simple illusrtation.

 

[1robin]

Though the bible contains the Law Jesus taught us to fulfill if we wish to walk in his way, the bible on many occastions causes us to stumble and break the law. Trust the Law and keep the law and you can have the testimony of Jesus via the spirit of truth. continue to break the law and you will be as you have been since you were born according to the flesh.

A perfect example of how the bible causes men to break the law is found in this simple illusrtation.

Is this entire poster devoted to the claim that Jesus did not spend three days being dead or what? I have no idea what I am supposed to get out of this thing.