Problem with the Bible

[Charity]

Where does God, when He gives the sacrificial system, say that it is meant to be fulfilled in the death of the Messiah?


What? So God isn't in control?


Really? Does God say that in the Torah when He mandated the sacrificial system? Does he ever say "This is how you deliver yourself. You bring me blood."?


Jesus didn't do anything but talk and die.

In Genesis when God cursed the serpent, he promsied us a deliverer.
Isaiah gives a clear promise of the Messiah..
In John Jesus spoke of the OT prophecies and clearly stated "These speak of Me"
You do know of the blood sacrifice for atonement, the sacrificial lamb, well Jesus became that sacrifice...

Your other answer, Yes God has control, but Christians believe God gave us free will to choose...

Like I stated elsewhere earlier today, the whole sacrificial system of the OT was a symbolic portrayal to be fulfilled in Christ. The Passover, celebrated at the time of the Exodus of enslaved Israelites from Egypt, is the fullest picture of Christ's sacrifice. Each believing family slew a perfect lamb and put its blood on the doorposts of the house. The angel of death, would pass over that house when he saw the blood. Those believers escaped the judgment of having their firstborn die. As with other sacrifices, the elements of the perfection of the lamb, the shedding of blood, and substitution were all present. Christ was the fulfillment of all tht the Passover Lamb stood for. He became the "Lamb of God", who takes away the sin of the world. Those people of faith offered animal sacrifices in OT times looked forward to the coming Messiah. The animal sacrifices did not save, but faith in what they symbolized did. We Christians, by faith see Jesus as the fulfillment of those symbols...

Jesus did talk, He did die, But he arose from the grave. He did it all for us, the believers. If Jesus had not been fully God, He could not be our Savior from sin. On the other hand, if He were God and yet did nothing on our behalf that is, did not do something to bring us to God, then He would not be our Savior. Jesus not only could save men, He did.....
:faint: I don't know about you, but I'm exhausted, what a lot of work to try to prove a point that you don't believe anyway....Oh well my bad.....

 

[McBell]

I still say God didn't change....

that is your right and privilege.
I just happen to disagree.

God never set man up to fail,

The only way that god did not set man up to fail in the OT is for God to not know that man would fail his 613 rules.

Man himself failed.

Man had loads of help.

That wasn't part of the plan....It's like death, God didn't create death Cain did that when he killed Abel. People turned to their own ways.

Wasn't part of the "plan"?
What plan?
Why would an all knowing being need or have a plan?
I mean, if he already knows...

God's plan for deliverance was built on the sacrificial system. Jesus accomplished what the OT priests could only hope for. After the Garden of Eden, He promised victory over evil and a Deliverer. After the Garden of Eden God instituted the Blood sacrifice, final deliverance came with Christ's sacrifice.

Which was all a part of his plan, right?

How ever you think it sounds best to you, so be it.....

It is not a matter of what sounds best to me.

It is a matter of what logically follows given the premises offered up by Christians.

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.

That doesn't sound like much choice there...

There is context to everything, captives does not equall slaves, captives is POWs, now love between captors and captives are not unheard of, did you see the words wife?,

Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” Exodus 21:16

Does the above verse condone slave trading or give a proscribed punishment for it?,

 

[Sleekstar]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

Tony, what do you mean when you say he "believes it word for word," but that certain things can't be taken literally?

 

[McBell]

There is context to everything, captives does not equall slaves, captives is POWs, now love between captors and captives are not unheard of, did you see the words wife?,

Seeing as there is not even an implication that the woman has to consent....
But don't let that stop you from adding what you want.

Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” Exodus 21:16

Does the above verse condone slave trading or give a proscribed punishment for it?,

Sounds like you grasping at straws to me.
The most obvious difference is the one presented by TonyG is about women and the one you try to compare it to is about men.

 

[Riverwolf]

Seeing as there is not even an implication that the woman has to consent....

There's also not necessarily anything, technically speaking, that indicates there's not consent.

 

[footprints]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

Who are we TonyG, we are people, and is us who make the rules.

The whole object of the bible is continual improvement for the better. Not to keep the barbarianism of the past or maintain the status quo. Christians especially after reading the New Testament and words of Jesus, should be able to read back through the old testament and say, whoa, that doesn't align with what Jesus said, that has just got to go. Keeping in mind Jesus was trying to tell the Jews, hey you have lost sight of God, come back, you are on the wrong track, Heaven is this way.

 

[TheKnight]

In Genesis when God cursed the serpent, he promsied us a deliverer.

Really? I don't see where a deliverer is promised.

Isaiah gives a clear promise of the Messiah..

Indeed he does. He does not anywhere say that the Messiah will come and end the sacrificial system. Let's stay focused on what I asked you. Where does it say that the Messiah will come and die once and for all ending the sacrificial system?

In John Jesus spoke of the OT prophecies and clearly stated "These speak of Me"

I could do the exact same thing. It doesn't make me God.

You do know of the blood sacrifice for atonement, the sacrificial lamb, well Jesus became that sacrifice...

I know of the blood sacrifice. I know of the sacrificial lamb used on Yom Kippur. I also know that a human is not eligible to be a sacrifice (human sacrifice is murder) and I also know that you can't "become" the sacrifice.

Besides, sacrifice is not the end all be all of atonement.

Your other answer, Yes God has control, but Christians believe God gave us free will to choose...

So wait. I still don't understand. God has control, but He gave us free will to create death even though it wasn't a part of His original plan? Is that what you are saying?

Like I stated elsewhere earlier today, the whole sacrificial system of the OT was a symbolic portrayal to be fulfilled in Christ.

Really? Do you even know the "whole sacrificial system"? Let me answer, no, you don't. Because the majority of the sacrifices were not sin sacrifices. If you don't believe me, go read Leviticus.

The Passover, celebrated at the time of the Exodus of enslaved Israelites from Egypt, is the fullest picture of Christ's sacrifice. Each believing family slew a perfect lamb and put its blood on the doorposts of the house. The angel of death, would pass over that house when he saw the blood. Those believers escaped the judgment of having their firstborn die. As with other sacrifices, the elements of the perfection of the lamb, the shedding of blood, and substitution were all present. Christ was the fulfillment of all tht the Passover Lamb stood for. He became the "Lamb of God", who takes away the sin of the world. Those people of faith offered animal sacrifices in OT times looked forward to the coming Messiah. The animal sacrifices did not save, but faith in what they symbolized did. We Christians, by faith see Jesus as the fulfillment of those symbols...

But the passover lamb was not for overlooking sin. The passover lamb was so that the angel of death would not come kill your firstborn. Are you saying that the reason you believe in Jesus is because you don't want the angel of death to kill your firstborn at night?

Jesus did talk, He did die, But he arose from the grave. He did it all for us, the believers. If Jesus had not been fully God, He could not be our Savior from sin. On the other hand, if He were God and yet did nothing on our behalf that is, did not do something to bring us to God, then He would not be our Savior. Jesus not only could save men, He did.....
:faint: I don't know about you, but I'm exhausted, what a lot of work to try to prove a point that you don't believe anyway....Oh well my bad.....

You know, perhaps it brings you comfort, but I don't know how you can stand to believe in a religion where you can say that someone is God and then say that they could not do something all in the same sentence. God could not this, God could not that, God didn't expect this, God didn't expect that. And you want other people to believe in that too huh?

 

[Zardoz]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

Wow, this thread meanders all over, but nobody addresses this. Where does the Torah say that "slavery is ok."??

In an age where slavery was commonplace and hereditary, the Torah called for a limit, a deadline every seven years when slaves were set free. Are you familiar with the Torah on this subject? Do you know that a slave who decides that he does not want to be free is taken to the doorpost and the ear, the very ear that heard that G-d meant that we should be free, is pierced?

 

[TheKnight]

Wow, this thread meanders all over, but nobody addresses this. Where does the Torah say that "slavery is ok."??

In an age where slavery was commonplace and hereditary, the Torah called for a limit, a deadline every seven years when slaves were set free. Are you familiar with the Torah on this subject? Do you know that a slave who decides that he does not want to be free is taken to the doorpost and the ear, the very ear that heard that G-d meant that we should be free, is pierced?

I addressed it.

 

[Zardoz]

I addressed it.

I stand corrected, sorry brother, after a couple dozen posts I couldn't read any further. :sorry1:

 

[Charity]

that is your right and privilege.
I just happen to disagree.


The only way that god did not set man up to fail in the OT is for God to not know that man would fail his 613 rules.


Man had loads of help.


Wasn't part of the "plan"?
What plan?
Why would an all knowing being need or have a plan?
I mean, if he already knows...



Which was all a part of his plan, right?


It is not a matter of what sounds best to me.

It is a matter of what logically follows given the premises offered up by Christians.

Originally, man was holy and the basic inclination of his nature was toward God. He was not neutral toward God.
At creation, man had no original inward tendency to sin, as we have now. Though he was capable of being tempted, he was neither compelled nor impelled to sin. Both Adam and Eve deliberately chose to sin, as a free act.
If things had stayed as they were in the original creation, all would have been well. Sin and Death, with all their disastrous consequences for the human race, would never have into being. Their rebellion brought disaster to their descendants...God didn't set mankind up to fail, Mankind set themselves up.....

Why does the premise of the Christians create such controversy, If you don't believe that is fine. What result do you want to receive from your attempts to discredit our belief?

You say man had loads of help....Yes unfortunately he had woman, which turned out to be more of a problem than a helpmate...Temptation over rides common sense.

 

[McBell]

Why does the premise of the Christians create such controversy

Got me.
You should probably ask the Christians.
I mean, it is their collective premises that do not add up.

If you don't believe that is fine.

Why thank you.
I am so glad to have some ones permission....

What result do you want to receive from your attempts to discredit our belief?

What makes you think I am trying to discredit your beliefs?

God knows Christians do not need any help from me.
They are doing a right fine job at it all by themselves.

You say man had loads of help....Yes unfortunately he had woman, which turned out to be more of a problem than a helpmate...Temptation over rides common sense.

I said man meaning mankind.

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

Seeing as there is not even an implication that the woman has to consent....
But don't let that stop you from adding what you want.


Sounds like you grasping at straws to me.
The most obvious difference is the one presented by TonyG is about women and the one you try to compare it to is about men.

Could you actually read Tony's text before commenting on it, to be specific, this part of it.

"But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb."

So she has to do certain things in order to live there, ie before she may= be allowed to live there, SHE must shave her head and pare her nails etc.
And then it follows on.
If she does not do the above= no marriage ie choice and a rather visible sign to others that it was her choice too.
If that is adding what I want rather than just reading the text, then so be it.

In my quote masculine is attributed to both captor and captive, are you saying by your logic that means if a woman steals and sells a man or another woman she goes scott free, or a man steals and sells a woman etc?
If the writers of the law didnt write he/she every five seconds, it simply reflects the ancient times rather than our "that hurt my feeling so I will sue" present.

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

I said man meaning mankind.

So you can say man meaning mankind? interesting.

Can I quote you on that in every future conversation where its relevant?

 

[TheKnight]

I stand corrected, sorry brother, after a couple dozen posts I couldn't read any further. :sorry1:

No problem! It's the kind of thing that should be doubly addressed anyways.

 

[Humanistheart]

Yes, and it is a norm that every culture had in the Old Testament. It would have been useful when people had slaves. .

The cultural practices of other cultures affects god's descision toward slavery and morals for his people does it? How interesting.

I mean, if you really wanted to have them, I'm sure you could move to the Middle East and purchase a few... Living the Biblical life lol.

I wasn't aware I'd expressed an interest in owning slaves. Perhaps you can quote a posting of mine that did?

 

[McBell]

Could you actually read Tony's text before commenting on it, to be specific, this part of it.

"But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb."

So she has to do certain things in order to live there, ie before she may= be allowed to live there, SHE must shave her head and pare her nails etc.
And then it follows on.
If she does not do the above= no marriage ie choice and a rather visible sign to others that it was her choice too.
If that is adding what I want rather than just reading the text, then so be it.

In my quote masculine is attributed to both captor and captive, are you saying by your logic that means if a woman steals and sells a man or another woman she goes scott free, or a man steals and sells a woman etc?
If the writers of the law didnt write he/she every five seconds, it simply reflects the ancient times rather than our "that hurt my feeling so I will sue" present.

So you can say man meaning mankind? interesting.

Can I quote you on that in every future conversation where its relevant?

Your skill in ratification is most impressive.
Most impressive indeed.

 

[Riverwolf]

The cultural practices of other cultures affects god's descision toward slavery and morals for his people does it? How interesting.

Well, if God doesn't speak the language of the people, his messages would be completely worthless.

 

[301ouncer]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

Hi tonyg. 301 from gim. lol.

did you get your speakers fixed? to liesten to the videos I posted?