SPAG or Bible?

[DKEN]

He could have just said, "burn".  I'm going to quote scripture here, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  I'll bet you know the chapter and verse.


I am posting as fast as I can.  My keyboard started on fire a little while ago, so it set me back somewhat. (sarc. off)  I really don't type all that fast.  I have always had some one else to do it.  This is hard work, I'm building up a sweat.

Now this everlasting life is it when Jesus returns to earth? or like Jesus did do you ascend to heaven after death(upon judgement of course),if so how is a normal person differ from Jesus? Theists all have their very own version of what happens SPAG at its finest.
[/quote]

Everlasting life starts now, but not in my physical body.  Chances are really good that this physical body will die before Christ returns.  I'll never have to experience the second death.  I'm sorry, I seem to have messed up the post and your quote.

[12 Monkeys]

DKEN your version of events just shows the PURE SPAG I am talking about,how does this make you different than Jesus....?

[Ivellios]

     The nation of Israel left Egypt after the 10 plagues, which were nothing more than Jehovah dissing the fake gods of Pharaoh (Pharaoh included as a god)  proving Himself stronger than them all

If they were "fake" how were they able to replicate the plagues? The only one they couldn't replicate was the reaping of the first born, but unless you know how to kill the first born twice, of course it wouldn't work. 

Second, if you've read it: Pharoh actually wanted to let the people go. YHWH "hardened his heart" ie. controlled him, simply for the sheer pleasure and joy to make people suffer and for the grand finale, mass murder.

Finally an All-Powerful God vs. imaginary beigns wouldn't have needed to go a second round. The fact that they went 10 rounds proves YHWH is on the same level as them. The one who killed the first born first was the winner, simple as that. YHWH vs Horus >> Tie. YHWH vs. Ra >> Tie. YHWH vs Amen >> Tie. YHWH vs. Isis >> Tie. YHWH vs Set 'Oops, I killed them first! You loose! NYAA NYAA NYAA!

[Ivellios]

Everlasting life starts now, but not in my physical body.  Chances are really good that this physical body will die before Christ returns.  I'll never have to experience the second death.  I'm sorry, I seem to have messed up the post and your quote.

Everlasting Life =/= dying with resurrection. It's EVER Lasting. Going metaphysical is apologetics because of Jesus' lie when he said that there were people of the generation that Jesus met face-to-face before his crucifixion would never die. God thru Paul said Jesus would return before Paul died. Before you say, "but those were only Paul's words!" 2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is god breathed. another verse: No scritpure comes to us via man but only from God, for if it came from man, it would be flawed....  Another words, the very fact that God insisted that passage be put into the bible instead of being removed is because they were also God's words. Considering he chose to do this 300 years after he via Paul wrote that... makes one wonder about God's intelligence.

Edit: removed comment that provided nothing to the discussion.

[learnin]

So you're saying that, when Jesus instructed followers to pluck out their eyes rather than look upon another woman with lust, he was only speaking to old testament people?  And you're saying this because, up until Pentecost, God's people only had the law to follow and did not have grace?

I must ask you, then.  How many old testament people do you think were walking around with their eyes plucked out and their hands missing?  Did any of Jesus' apostles pluck their eyes out or cut their hands off before Pentecost took place?

The only remedy old testament believers had against sin, then, was to cut their hands off and pluck their eyes out?   Jesus said if they didn't, they would surely go into damnation.  You said that no man can keep the law.  It necessarily follows, then, that the only way an old testament believer could escape damnation was for them to cut their hands off and pluck their eyes out.

DKEN, please.  You know this doesn't make sense and you're defending an indefensible book.  It's spag pure and simple.  I didn't want to admit it, I still fight against it at times.  Just re read what you wrote above and admit it doesn't make a lick.

I tried to post an answer last night but the timer went of on my filter and erased it. 
     In the OT the saints (believers) had the sacrifice of the tabernacle and then the temple after King David.  All of the animal sacrifices with their blood coupled with faith in the individual that their sins would be cleansed were forgiven.  Those animal sacrifices, obviously were not able to do anything to expiate their sins, nor could bulls and goats stand in the place of a man and pay for his sins as a substitute for him.  The animal sacrifices pointed to Jesus sacrifice, which was sufficient to pay for my sins.  Because of His substitutionary death on the cross, my sins are washed away, past, present, and future.  So, there is no need to cut off my hand. Jesus saves to the uttermost." (Heb. 7:25)   He is my atonement (reconciling me to God), my complete propitiation (payment in full), and now my Lord and Master because He bought me with His blood.  He paid the price for my salvation and through all eternity, I trust in Him and owe Him everything.   Now, of course, that is only activated by faith that it's real, and then stepping out and putting feet to my decision because as James says in the second chapter "faith without works is dead (fake)."
     In the OT they looked for the Messiah that would save them from their sins.  They had the Day of Atonement when their High Priest (picture of my High Priest Jesus Christ) went into the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle (picture of Jesus entering into Heaven for me as an intercessor) with blood of animals, who obviously died (picture of Jesus blood) that was sacrificed on a brass (signifying sin in the Bible as in the brazen serpent held up on a pole in the wilderness in Num. 21:9; John 3:14.)  The OT saints had Jesus for their sacrifice as well in reality.  He had not arrived on the scene, yet, so there was no way for them to know the full extent of God's plan back then.
     It has been said on this site that I have been preaching (which is nothing more or less than forth telling, speaking what I know about sin and forgiveness).  If I am not allowed to use the Book and my personal testimony, then what do I have left?  I know that this sounds like preaching, because it is.  These are my feelings and as much as I know about the subject given in bite sized pieces because of my limitations, not His.


quote fixed

I am aware of the Christian interpretation of old testament sacrifices and how they relate to Jesus' sacrifice.  But you still haven't addressed the problem under discussion.

If old testament believers had their sins taken care of by burnt sacrifices, because they prefigured Jesus' sacrifice;  and new testament believers have their sins taken care of by Jesus' sacrifice, then, why did Jesus tell us to pluck our eyes out and cut our hands off if these things cause us to sin???

Either Jesus took care of our sins or we have to take care of them.  Now, which is it?

[screwtape]

Those animal sacrifices, obviously were not able to do anything to expiate their sins, nor could bulls and goats stand in the place of a man and pay for his sins as a substitute for him. 

? why not that?  That was what yhwh specifically asked for.

So, there is no need to cut off my hand.

but the plucking of the eyes and the cutting off of hands was not in payment for sin.  It was a prescription to help the man avoid his sins in the first place.

     In the OT they looked for the Messiah that would save them from their sins.

No.  They looked for a messiah who would restore their kingdom.  They were looking for a human leader, not a spiritual savior.
http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought.

If I am not allowed to use the Book and my personal testimony, then what do I have left? 

It depends how you use them.  You may quote the bible when you are answering a question of what the bible said.  For example, if I were to say yhwh was a wrathful god, it would not be preaching to quote bible passages where yhwh shows wrath.  But if you are quoting the bible because you are trying to sermonize, that is not allowed.  Preaching is usually a one way street while conversations are two-way.  We want conversations.

Does that help make the distinction more clear?

[DKEN]

     The nation of Israel left Egypt after the 10 plagues, which were nothing more than Jehovah dissing the fake gods of Pharaoh (Pharaoh included as a god)  proving Himself stronger than them all

If they were "fake" how were they able to replicate the plagues? The only one they couldn't replicate was the reaping of the first born, but unless you know how to kill the first born twice, of course it wouldn't work. 

     They were only able to replicate the first few.  And in the rods turned to serpents "miracle"(?) YHWH ate their rods turned serpents up.  It got to the point were Pharaoh's magicians were telling him to give up.  A careful reading reveals that.  They could not duplicate darkness, fiery hail, etc.   The last "god" in Egypt that was not over powered was Pharaoh himself and his princely heir.  He was the easy god to disprove, yet, he was the one that had the most substance. 
     BTW, how did the Egyptian magicians replicate those plagues?  Are there any supernatural Phenomena happening today?  If there are, and you admit that, then what is the cause or "power" behind it?

[DKEN]

Those animal sacrifices, obviously were not able to do anything to expiate their sins, nor could bulls and goats stand in the place of a man and pay for his sins as a substitute for him. 

? why not that?  That was what yhwh specifically asked for.

     If you read Heb. 7-10 (I know it is a long passage) it goes into that subject of Christ. the "real" sacrifice, vs. bulls and goats.  They were only a picture YHWH was using to reveal the larger reality in Jesus, the real Savior.  The Hebrew nation was given forgiveness, not because they killed animals, but because they believed Elohim when He said the sacrifices were sufficient for them.  Their faith in the coming Messiah, the real sacrifice and the real blood, is what healed their sins.
     The Hebrews had, only, temporary priests and the temporary high priest.  After Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, the reality was instituted.  Israel was saved by their faith, same as modern Christians.

[DKEN]

So, there is no need to cut off my hand.

but the plucking of the eyes and the cutting off of hands was not in payment for sin.  It was a prescription to help the man avoid his sins in the first place.


Sorry, I messed this post up. 
     In response to your question, though, Jesus is not saying to cut off your hand so you don't sin with it any more, He is saying that instead of going into hell, because of your sin, it would be better to cut off your hand.  It's hyperbolic language meant to illustrate how bad hell would be and how much we don't want to go there.

[screwtape]

     They were only able to replicate the first few.  And in the rods turned to serpents "miracle"(?) YHWH ate their rods turned serpents up.  It got to the point were Pharaoh's magicians were telling him to give up.  A careful reading reveals that.

That is not relevant.  The point is, in the story the pharaoh's magicians were actually doing actual magic.  If you take this story literally, how is that explained?  Do you know anyone who can do that today?  Anyone?  Anywhere?  No?  Me neither.  And why is that?  Because there is no magic. 

So why do you not conclude that this story is nothing more than a fable?  It is like the story of Perseus killing the Kracken, or of Theseus killing the minotaur, or of Frodo taking the Ring to Mordor.

     BTW, how did the Egyptian magicians replicate those plagues?  Are there any supernatural Phenomena happening today?  If there are, and you admit that, then what is the cause or "power" behind it?

That is for you to explain. They didn't replicate plagues because the plagues never happened. It is just a story made up by the hebrews to make themselves sound awesome in their past because in their present, they were the third world of their era.

     If you read Heb. 7-10 (I know it is a long passage) it goes into that subject of Christ.

But hebrews is a NT book.  NT writers are notoriously ignorant or dismissive of hebrew tradition and understanding, as are modern xians.  Also remember, the NT is all about justifying jesus H. Please pardon me if I do not trust the Fan Club's newsletter to reflect historical accuracy.

     In response to your question, though, Jesus is not saying to cut off your hand so you don't sin with it any more, He is saying that instead of going into hell, because of your sin, it would be better to cut off your hand.  It's hyperbolic language meant to illustrate how bad hell would be and how much we don't want to go there.

That is an unusual interpretation.  I ask that you support it.  Why is your interpretation right and this xian wrong? 

I disagree with you.  That passage in Mark begins:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

So jesus H is saying if someone misleads one of his followers, it would be better to drown the person who caused his follower to stumble.  He uses this as the basis of an analogy.  He follows up on it in Mark9:43:

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

The hand is analogous to the person causing the follower to stumble.  It is not about how bad hell is.  It is about doing what you have to to avoid sin.
 

[Ivellios]

     They were only able to replicate the first few.  And in the rods turned to serpents "miracle"(?) YHWH ate their rods turned serpents up.  to the point were Pharaoh's magicians were telling him to give up.

Simply: Might makes Right. ie. I say moon made of swiss cheese. I kill you. I right. Caveman Philosophy. Remember, "And YHWH hardened Pharoh's heart." ie. He had no choice. Pharoh had no "freewill."

They could not duplicate darkness, fiery hail, etc.   The last "god" in Egypt that was not over powered was Pharaoh himself and his princely heir.  He was the easy god to disprove, yet, he was the one that had the most substance. 
     BTW, how did the Egyptian magicians replicate those plagues?  Are there any supernatural Phenomena happening today?  If there are, and you admit that, then what is the cause or "power" behind it?

As far as I'm concerned, it's the same "power" that makes men turn to stone when they look upon Medusa. It's the same "power" that caused Mohammed's pegasus fly through the seven heavens and meet Allah face-to-face. It's the same "power" that allows a sleigh pulled by eight reindeer to fly and circum-navigate the globe all in one night. It's the same "power" that allowed Bilbo and Frodo turn invisible when they wore the One Ring™. It's the same "power" Harry Potter uses that allows him to do his stuff.

It's a work of fiction like all that I mentioned, that's why they can do stuff we cannot do in reality.

[learnin]

So, there is no need to cut off my hand.

but the plucking of the eyes and the cutting off of hands was not in payment for sin.  It was a prescription to help the man avoid his sins in the first place.


Sorry, I messed this post up. 
     In response to your question, though, Jesus is not saying to cut off your hand so you don't sin with it any more, He is saying that instead of going into hell, because of your sin, it would be better to cut off your hand.  It's hyperbolic language meant to illustrate how bad hell would be and how much we don't want to go there.

DKEN,
     You know your reasoning above is horribly flawed.  You have to know this.   Jesus said that a person should pluck their eye out if their eye causes them to sin because sin will send them to hell.   This statement makes absolutely no sense ( and completely contradicts) the belief that Jesus is a savior and salvation is a gift. 
      You cannot get off the hook, and avoid this contradiction, by saying that Jesus was simply saying how bad hell is.  He can do that without contradicting himself.   If I can save myself by plucking my eye out, then, where is the gift?   If I have to maim my body to avoid hell, where is the savior?

[Nam]

DKEN,

Are you still pondering over my initial question? 'Cause it seems you have answers for everyone[1] but me.

-Nam

1.	though indecisive ones

     I'm sorry Nam, but I have only a few hours in the day that I can devote to this and I have already got my wife concerned.  Getting into this site is a little like stepping into a wolf pack.  I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.  You can see my meaning, though, if you see the posts coming hot and heavy with no time to answer one without 5 to 10 more next time I log on. 
     I have thought about this idea of poetry in the Bible as to be taken literally.  It is really the same as any other poetical literature.  You have to get the context right, firstly, then see who is talking to whom.  You have to study at least a little Jewish and Semetic poetry to understand how they do opposing ideas in the same thought, as in Proverbs.  Song of Solomon is poetry with two applications if you are a Christian.  Solomon was writing those verses as a love story about, and I believe, for one of his many wives.  It's about man and woman love primarily.  Now I don't expect many that read this (wow, I am sounding somewhat defensive, hey?) to agree on this point, but Christians over the years have taken a secondary application to the churches' relationship with Jesus as the picture of Husband and Wife.  The allusion to the husband and wife picture is referenced in the book of Ephesians, chapter 5 :25-33.  This love relationship, when practiced without reservation and with no bitterness (of which men seem the most prone to), with a caring toward the wife with selfless love, seeking her interests and desires as more important than mine most resembles how Christ loves the church and the individual church members. 
     This is why there is such security in Jesus for those that walk with Him moment by moment.  He loves perfectly.  I understand the animosity that many in the formerly religious community have for God.   To try to understand Him from the outside looking in has to be most frustrating because all you can see is an iron sky when you look up toward Him.  Until a person submits (there's a word not well liked in today's society) to Jesus and accepts His gift of forgiveness for all of his sins, and the gift of eternal life,  He is a God of wrath. 
     Sorry, I got off track for a moment.  Do you see the reason Christians over the years have really loved this obscure book in the OT so much that they have hymns with some of the lyric taken from this book.   That would be an example of Bible poetry and how it has been seen by believers in the past. 
     Much of the Psalms was written by King David, who the Bible says was a man after God's own heart.  When you read many of them, they all are written for different times and circumstances.  There were quite a few writers of the Psalms and some are to be taken literally and some are written as examples (Ps. 73, written by a choir member of how he viewed ungodly people who seem to be doing pretty well even though they don't love God or follow Him and how it almost shook him and stumbled him until he turned his gaze upward again toward God and not to men.) of how we can think when things don't go right.  The imprecatory Psalms are hard to read without getting the thought like some on this site (all?) that God is a hateful God with hateful followers.  King David, mostly, wrote them to curse his enemies and asking God to do some really horrendous things to David's enemies, like knock their teeth out and such.  Pretty strong stuff.  Most of the poetry in the Bible is to glorify God and tell of His greatness. 
     I'm not sure if this even answers your question well or not.  There are whole Bible college majors based on all of this.  I can only know so much.  If you read the Bible in the same way you might read Shakespeare,  it would make sense, but to get the meaning God wants His children to receive is where the love of the Bible and the deeper meaning in passages as Ps. 23, the Lord is my Shepherd........etc.  It becomes deeply personal.  That is where the real beauty of it shines.
     Has this helped or am I being too simplistic for you on this subject?  I had trouble with this question because poetry is a personal thing.  Some people get more out of it than others.  There is just so much material to talk about and it all has different meaning.  There is a lot of poetry in the Bible.

I write poetry. Have been for 20+ years. I read it every single day. I've written over 15,000 poems. Have over 7,000 of those floating around the internet. I have about over 300 of those published in books, magazines, journals, and the like[nb]though I last got published in 2009 but have a couple recent ones that have gotten some attention from past publishers but I have other things I'm dealing with at the moment to not really pay much mind to that.

My point: if there is anything in this life I know anything about: it's poetry. And in saying that: you're wrong. The poetry in the Bible, especially those in Psalms, are meant to be more like analogies, in a metaphorical, and perhaps an alliterated way. They are notto be taken literally. They are telling morals. And how does one usually convey a moral? By telling a story. How do people usually tell stories? By using non-literal devices.

Also, poetry in the past was usually set to music so they could be sung. Most songs, especially back then: were not literal.

Some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, while others figuratively and/or metaphorically.

Those who have a strong literacy, are the ones who truly see what is written. Not everyone can interpret non-literal works, so, they just assume it's to be taken literally unless otherwise corrected but even then, those with a lesser understanding tend to only accept things at face value. Not stating you're one of those people but...

-Nam

[DKEN]

The hand is analogous to the person causing the follower to stumble.  It is not about how bad hell is.  It is about doing what you have to to avoid sin.
[/quote]

If Jesus is telling His followers that this is what they must do to avoid sin, why did He not have a bunch of crippled followers?

[DKEN]

That is not relevant.  The point is, in the story the pharaoh's magicians were actually doing actual magic.  If you take this story literally, how is that explained?  Do you know anyone who can do that today?  Anyone?  Anywhere?  No?  Me neither.  And why is that?  Because there is no magic. 

So why do you not conclude that this story is nothing more than a fable?  It is like the story of Perseus killing the Kracken, or of Theseus killing the minotaur, or of Frodo taking the Ring to Mordor.

If you look into the subject of miracles and when and where they happened in the Bible, there are many periods of time where there were no "right out in the open" miracles.  In fact, the men of the OT that had supernatural events in their lives that you could not explain away as coincidence, on a regular basis, amounted to just a handful.  Noah, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha.  Are there more?  Have I missed any?  Even if I missed one or two, there are huge time periods where there are no "miracles" and men may have been able to say, "See, there is no God, or why doesn't He show us a sign?"


   

[screwtape]

If Jesus is telling His followers that this is what they must do to avoid sin, why did He not have a bunch of crippled followers?

Because they never listened to anything he said.  They were like the chubby fans of Richard Simmons, who adored him, but never followed his advice.

[DKEN]

Christian: Jesus is a man of peace!
Jesus speaks (Matthew 10:34)
Jesus: I come not to bring peace but a sword.
Christian: D'oh!

Jesus makes peace between God and man.  When, as a new convert to Christianity, that new convert tells his family and friends, a "sword" comes between him and his family.  If you are baptized in Mooslim countries, you are summarily executed, and, usually by your own family.  That is what is meant by His bringing a sword.  He does go on to explain it, if taken in context.  It does make Jesus sound contradictory and kind of stupid when quoted in the short version you prefer, though.  Here is the complete quote from Matt.

10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

 So, it is peace between man and God that Jesus brings.  Full atonement.  Complete payment for the sin debt a man owes before God.  And now, are you willing to confess that you are quoting Jesus out of context, or are you reverse-SPAGing all who might read your tag?

[screwtape]

That is not relevant.  The point is, in the story the pharaoh's magicians were actually doing actual magic.  If you take this story literally, how is that explained?  Do you know anyone who can do that today?  Anyone?  Anywhere?  No?  Me neither.  And why is that?  Because there is no magic. 

So why do you not conclude that this story is nothing more than a fable?  It is like the story of Perseus killing the Kracken, or of Theseus killing the minotaur, or of Frodo taking the Ring to Mordor.

If you look into the subject of miracles and when and where they happened in the Bible, there are many periods of time where there were no "right out in the open" miracles.  In fact, the men of the OT that had supernatural events in their lives that you could not explain away as coincidence, on a regular basis, amounted to just a handful.  Noah, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha.  Are there more?  Have I missed any?  Even if I missed one or two, there are huge time periods where there are no "miracles" and men may have been able to say, "See, there is no God, or why doesn't He show us a sign?"

I am not sure how this answers my point.  You are saying we do not now live in a time of miracles and that is why there are no actual sorcerers? 

My question was, how did the magicians do magic?  They clearly did magic, real magic (if you believe the story). So how did they do it?  Was it because other gods empowered them?  If so, why have those gods not empowered sorcerers to do such magic throughout history since then?  Why do they not empowered sorcerers to do such magic now?

Was it satan that empowered them?  If so, why has satan not empowered sorcerers to do such magic throughout history since then?  Why does he not empower sorcerers to do such magic now?

Was it yhwh that gave them power just so his guy could beat them?  If so, that is not scriptural and would indicate we are just a puppet show for the amusement of yhwh.

[gonegolfing]

Christian: Jesus is a man of peace!
Jesus speaks (Matthew 10:34)
Jesus: I come not to bring peace but a sword.
Christian: D'oh!

Jesus makes peace between God and man.  When, as a new convert to Christianity, that new convert tells his family and friends, a "sword" comes between him and his family.  If you are baptized in Mooslim countries, you are summarily executed, and, usually by your own family.  That is what is meant by His bringing a sword.  He does go on to explain it, if taken in context.  It does make Jesus sound contradictory and kind of stupid when quoted in the short version you prefer, though.  Here is the complete quote from Matt.

10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

 So, it is peace between man and God that Jesus brings.  Full atonement.  Complete payment for the sin debt a man owes before God.  And now, are you willing to confess that you are quoting Jesus out of context, or are you reverse-SPAGing all who might read your tag?

Excellent choice of passage....

I love being reminded of the narcissistic lunacy of the jesus character every now and then.