We are told to follow Christ but how?

JAL said:

Yes that's totally absurd. To whom are you responding? What I sought to convey is that the church has a distorted, warped concept of Yahweh, has incorrect assumptions about Him, has created an evil caricature of Him, has refused to praise Him for billions of years of labor (which is probably worse than spitting on the cross). I did NOT argue that Yahweh has failed to secure a following, that the gospel has failed, that there is no body of believers - you are putting words in my mouth. I'm sorry you misunderstood me - partially my fault, perhaps, since I used strong language to make a point.

Click to expand...

Your being very vague here I don’t see what Plato has to do with anything taught in the early church. The early church received their teachings from the apostles. Saying for me to throw out everything I know about God because it came from Plato tells me absolutely nothing. Everything I know about God I learned from the scriptures. I’ve never stepped foot into a Catholic Church my entire life. I accept a 6 days creation because that’s what is written in the Bible and on top of that the genealogy accounts in the Bible puts the earth at just over 6,000 years. So not only would the creation account have to be incorrect but the genealogy accounts as well. I won’t take the word of some scientists over the word of God. If I’m going to be wrong then I’ll be wrong by trusting in the word of God not some atheist scientists looking to debunk God’s word and possibly even His existence.

BNR32FAN said:

Your being very vague here I don’t see what Plato has to do with anything taught in the early church. The early church received their teachings from the apostles. Saying for me to throw out everything I know about God because it came from Plato tells me absolutely nothing. Everything I know about God I learned from the scriptures. I’ve never stepped foot into a Catholic Church my entire life. I accept a 6 days creation because that’s what is written in the Bible and on top of that the genealogy accounts in the Bible puts the earth at just over 6,000 years. So not only would the creation account have to be incorrect but the genealogy accounts as well. I won’t take the word of some scientists over the word of God. If I’m going to be wrong then I’ll be wrong by trusting in the word of God not some atheist scientists looking to debunk God’s word and possibly even His existence.

Click to expand...

No specific rebuttal of the precise charges of contradiction raised, concerning the definition of Merit. As expected.

BNR32FAN said:

The Levites wrote the law to try to encompass anything that could possibly be construed as a sin. So they went above and beyond what God had commanded in an effort to keep people from sinning by mistake.

Click to expand...

No offence, but you have no scriptural support for this teaching. Here is what God said about the Levites.

Mal. 2:4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.

6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.

7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

There is a widespread teaching that the Levites, or Pharisees were following the "letter of the Law" and even overdoing their obedience and that was their problem. This is a cleaver deception. The Bible does not teach this, but religious men do. I would "take heed" of the preacher who teaches the Levites were trying to keep people from sinning. God Himself said they were the Shepherds who led Israel astray.

Like for example forbidding anything that could possibly be considered to be work on the Sabbath. Some people take it to an extreme. I’ve met people who wouldn’t even turn on a light switch on Saturday because it is considered to be work. I mean I seriously doubt that turning on a light switch is an offense against God.

Click to expand...

God is perfectly capable of revealing the intent of His Commandments to those who are seeking "His Righteousness". Religious Men have been polluting HIS Laws and Sabbaths since Eve listened to the "other voice" in the Garden. If a person whats to know how to Honor God in His Commandments, all the information they need is in the Scriptures. I would "take heed" of listening to religious men.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Thanks for the reply

JAL said:

No specific rebuttal of the precise charges of contradiction raised, concerning the definition of Merit. As expected.

Click to expand...

Ok your whole accusation revolves around the church falsely teaching a 6 day creation and a 6,000 year old earth when that’s exactly what the scriptures say. There’s not a single verse in the Bible about 2 billion years of anything because 6,100 years ago there was nothing but God. There was no universe, no earth, no man, nothing but God. Genesis gives a 6 day account, Exodus gives a 6 day account, Leviticus gives a 6 day account for creation. Why should the church question the validity of God’s word? This has absolutely nothing to do with Plato this is merely accepting the word of God as truth.

Studyman said:

No offence, but you have no scriptural support for this teaching. Here is what God said about the Levites.

Mal. 2:4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.

6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.

7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

There is a widespread teaching that the Levites, or Pharisees were following the "letter of the Law" and even overdoing their obedience and that was their problem. This is a cleaver deception. The Bible does not teach this, but religious men do. I would "take heed" of the preacher who teaches the Levites were trying to keep people from sinning. God Himself said they were the Shepherds who led Israel astray.



God is perfectly capable of revealing the intent of His Commandments to those who are seeking "His Righteousness". Religious Men have been polluting HIS Laws and Sabbaths since Eve listened to the "other voice" in the Garden. If a person whats to know how to Honor God in His Commandments, all the information they need is in the Scriptures. I would "take heed" of listening to religious men.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Thanks for the reply

Click to expand...

Can you tell me where I can find these commandments in the scriptures?

Saying the blessings over food (and on various occasions)

Washing one's hands before eating bread

Lighting the Hanukkah-menorah

The Eruv

Saying the Hallel prayer on certain occasions

Lighting the Sabbath candles

Reading the Megillat Esther on Purim.

not handling electric devices on the Sabbath, even if they are not connected to any electric socket

These are just a few examples of the additions that were not commanded by God as I stated in my previous post.

BNR32FAN said:

Ok your whole accusation revolves around the church falsely teaching a 6 day creation and a 6,000 year old earth when that’s exactly what the scriptures say. There’s not a single verse in the Bible about 2 billion years of anything because 6,100 years ago there was nothing but God. There was no universe, no earth, no man, nothing but God. Genesis gives a 6 day account, Exodus gives a 6 day account, Leviticus gives a 6 day account for creation. Why should the church question the validity of God’s word? This has absolutely nothing to do with Plato this is merely accepting the word of God as truth.

Click to expand...

Questioning your interpretation is questioning the validity of God's word? Are you the pope?

(1) Daylight - from where? There was no sun in place until the fourth Day.
(2) All printed Bibles, in the margin, refer 2Cor 4:4-6 (a passage on the Light of Christ's face) back to Genesis 1. You'll recall that the preceding chapter (2Cor 3) stressed the Light in Moses' face.
(3) The term Day - neither in English nor in Hebrew - is not limited to 24 hour periods. Even in Gen 2 it is already used to denote a period of time longer than 24 hours.
(4) Let me clarify. I believe in seven literal Days/Daylights - but the Light was by His face and it spanned 4 billion years. In my understanding, seven times God shone His light into the galaxy - and quenched it six times - and He called these effluences "Days" and "Nights" (His prerogative). I call it the seven Galactic Days.

Genesis 1 NEVER defines a day as 24 hours - and CERTAINLY NOT as a sun-restricted phenomenon. Rather it merely defines a "day" as a period of light followed by a period of darkness (night).

"God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light...5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

That's all it said! No clarification of the Light! It was left for Paul (2Cor 4:4-6) to clarify it was the light of Christ's face. I'm sorry you (and the whole church) jumped to conclusions on this - that's why we need Direct Revelation, because human exegesis is fallible.

Now meanwhile - until the fourth Galactic Day when the sun was set in place - the divine Light presumably provided local 24 hour daylights to the earth. So for example, if the sun was set in place 3 billion years into the 4 billion, that means Christ's Light provided any needed photosynthesis to the plants for 3 billion years. And why wouldn't He? Given that His light illuminates the entirely heavenly city (Rev 21:23), why not the earth? "His face shone like the sun in all its brilliance" (Rev 1).

(5) Let's be honest. There's a plethora of scientific evidence favoring an old earth. If it weren't for your ASSUMPTION that you've understood Genesis dating correctly, you'd accept the science, right? I mean, in all OTHER areas where science doesn't seem to contradict the Bible, you generally accept science, right?

(6) There is NOTHING in science that limits a day to 24 hours. For example in a different solar system, a day won't likely be equivalent to our 24 hours.

To summarize, you've got multiple unresolved issues.
(A). Science contradicts your position. And the YEC attempts to refute the science are forced and weak, because they are born out of DOGMA, not out of real science.
(B) You'll have to fallback on some kind of forced interpretation to explain where the light came from, until the fourth day. Whereas I can show you numerous passages on the divine Light.
(C) My argument based on merit is logically solid and irrefutable.

Genesis gives a 6 day account

Click to expand...

.
Correct. See above.

JAL said:

Questioning your interpretation is questioning the validity of God's word? Are you the pope?

(1) Daylight - from where? There was no sun in place until the fourth Day.
(2) All printed Bibles, in the margin, refer 2Cor 4:4-6 (a passage on the Light of Christ's face) back to Genesis 1. You'll recall that the preceding chapter (2Cor 3) stressed the Light in Moses' face.
(3) The term Day - neither in English nor in Hebrew - is not limited to 24 hour periods. Even in Gen 2 it is already used to denote a period of time longer than 24 hours.
(4) Let me clarify. I believe in seven literal Days/Daylights - but the Light was by His face and it spanned 4 billion years. In my understanding, seven times God shone His light into the galaxy - and quenched it six times - and He called these effluences "Days" and "Nights" (His prerogative). I call it the seven Galactic Days.

Genesis 1 NEVER defines a day as 24 hours - and CERTAINLY NOT as a sun-restricted phenomenon. Rather it merely defines a "day" as a period of light followed by a period of darkness (night).

"God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light...5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

That's all it said! No clarification of the Light! It was left for Paul (2Cor 4:4-6) to clarify it was the light of Christ's face. I'm sorry you (and the whole church) jumped to conclusions on this - that's why we need Direct Revelation, because human exegesis is fallible.

Now meanwhile - until the fourth Galactic Day when the sun was set in place - the divine Light presumably provided local 24 hour daylights to the earth. So for example, if the sun was set in place 3 billion years into the 4 billion, that means Christ's Light provided any needed photosynthesis to the plants for 3 billion years. And why wouldn't He? Give that His light illuminates the entirely heavenly city (Rev 21:23), why not the earth? "His face shone like the sun in all its brilliance" (Rev 1).

(5) Let's be honest. There's a plethora of scientific evidence favoring an old earth. If it weren't for your ASSUMPTION that you've understood Genesis dating correctly, you'd accept the science, right? I mean, in all OTHER areas where science doesn't seem to contradict the Bible, you generally accept science, right?

(6) There is NOTHING in science that limits a day to 24 hours. For example in a different solar system, a day won't likely be equivalent to our 24 hours.

To summarize, you've got multiple unresolved issues.
(A). Science contradicts your position. And the YEC attempts to refute the science are forced and weak, because they are born out of DOGMA, not out of real science.
(B) You'll have to fallback on some kind of forced interpretation to explain where the light came from, until the fourth day. Whereas I can show you numerous passages on the divine Light.
(C) My argument based on merit is logically solid and irrefutable.

.
Correct. See above.

Click to expand...

Theres multiple problems with this way of thinking. First of all your ignoring the genealogy accounts dating the earth to just over 6,000 years. The Bible give a genealogy count from Adam to Christ which was almost 4,000 years until Christ was incarnated. So obviously there’s a big discrepancy between the biblical accounts and science. Second if you can’t believe the scriptures because science refutes them then how can you believe in Christ’s resurrection? Obviously science teaches that it is impossible for a man to be dead for three days then be brought back to life. If you need the scriptures to be able to coincide with science then your not going to be able to accept at least 25% of what the scriptures teach. There’s definitely no shortage of unexplainable phenomenons taking place in the scriptures. The only way a person can really accept the word of God is by understanding that He is not bound by our limited knowledge of what is possible and impossible.

BNR32FAN said:

Theres multiple problems with this way of thinking. First of all your ignoring the genealogy accounts dating the earth to just over 6,000 years. The Bible give a genealogy count from Adam to Christ which was almost 4,000 years until Christ was incarnated. So obviously there’s a big discrepancy between the biblical accounts and science.

Click to expand...

How am I ignoring that. God created Adam approximately 6,000 years ago. And?

You're right - there ARE multiple problems here - but with YOUR position. For example your position leads to incest on the part of Adam's descendants. Disgusting!

Second if you can’t believe the scriptures because science refutes them then how can you believe in Christ’s resurrection?
Obviously science teaches that it is impossible for a man to be dead for three days then be brought back to life.

Click to expand...

Bogus. Science doesn't repudiate the possibility of supernatural resurrection. Many scientists are Christians. Science takes an agnostic, no-comment position on most supernatural concepts.

Yes, science would object to naturalistic resurrection. And?

If you need the scriptures to be able to coincide with science...

Click to expand...

This is too non-specific to count for anything. Ignored.

Going back to your preface...

Theres multiple problems with this way of thinking.

Click to expand...

...still waiting for you to name one.

BNR32FAN said:

Can you tell me where I can find these commandments in the scriptures?

Saying the blessings over food (and on various occasions)

Washing one's hands before eating bread

Lighting the Hanukkah-menorah

The Eruv

Saying the Hallel prayer on certain occasions

Lighting the Sabbath candles

Reading the Megillat Esther on Purim.

not handling electric devices on the Sabbath, even if they are not connected to any electric socket

These are just a few examples of the additions that were not commanded by God as I stated in my previous post.

Click to expand...

Here is what you said.

"The Levites wrote the law to try to encompass anything that could possibly be construed as a sin. So they went above and beyond what God had commanded in an effort to keep people from sinning by mistake."

I posted God's Word which contradicts what you said. Also, God had already given them HIS instructions, and told them not to add or take away from it.

Zacharias and Simeon are examples of men who submitted to God's Righteousness as instructed. The Pharisees are examples of men who went about establishing their own righteousness.

The Levites were not so involved and dedicated to God that they created Laws to ensure people wouldn't sin.

They Despised God's Sabbaths and refused to walk in His Commandments, and they cherry picked which commandments they decided was worthy of their respect and "Omitted" the rest.

The reason why this Biblical Fact is so important is because there is a religious philosophy taught as doctrine for years which implies the Levites/Pharisees were trying to "earn" Salvation by keeping God's Law to the Letter.

This is a subtle and cleaver deception which is designed to pollute the truth about these Shepherds God placed over His People. The Shepherds Jesus Himself called Children of the devil.

The notion or implication that children of the devil, Vipers, Hypocrites, murderers "wrote the law to try to encompass anything that could possibly be construed as a sin. So they went above and beyond what God had commanded in an effort to keep people from sinning by mistake" does not represent God's description of them. Killing the Prophets wasn't an attempt to keep people from sinning.

Since Jesus warned so many times about doctrines and religious philosophies of men, it is important not to allow them to influence our thinking where the Holy Scriptures are concerned.

The Pharisees were teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men. They omitted much of God's Law, they polluted and despised His Commandments and Sabbaths for centuries, and convinced others to do the same, just as Eve convinced Adam..

If we are going to talk about the Levites, we should at least further God's Description of them, and not religious philosophies of man.

that is the point I am hoping to make here. I mean no malice, I just want to stand firm of what the Scriptures say about the Levites.

JAL said:

That was a debating tactic. I was starting off with the assumptions of a Sabbatarian as to show where they extrapolate unfeasibly. I agree with your point.

Thought I was clear. God's law spells love (the spirit of the law). Whenever the letter of the law (e.g. sacrifice these animals) is not God's current will for your life - spirit (love) and letter have diverged - following the letter is obviously a divergence from love, by definition. Logically there's no escaping this conclusion. Right?

Click to expand...

Animal Sacrifices were implemented by God for Atonement of transgressions of HIS Law. He put these in place "Till the SEED should come". He Prophesied of HIS Return, and of the end of these sacrifices "in the letter" of the Law and Prophets.

He forgives sins because HE Loves those forgiven. To say the "Letter of the Law" doesn't reflect HIS Love for His people doesn't Glorify Him as God, in my view.

The manner in which He grants atonement has changed as prophesied, but the atonement was always out of Love for His People.

Zacharias and Simeon followed the Letter of the Law, as it is written. As a result they were given the Holy Spirit as Peter teaches.

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

We no longer shed animal blood for atonement because the God of the Bible promised in the Law and Prophets to atone for our sins HIMSELF, "After those days".

If the Levites and Pharisees were following the Letter of the Law like Zacharias and Caleb, they would have known the Lamb of God when HE Came, in my view.

The Letter of the Law also kills us. But even this is out of Love for us.

Rom. 7:
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

The penalty for transgression of God's Commandments is steep, it is death. But God placed this harsh penalty on us so we might understand how exceedingly wicked, and Evil it is to Judge or reject God's Commandment. Even this is out of Love for His People.

God cannot do what is logically impossible. Written words can only express micro-snapshots of His will. There's a million decisions in your life that the Scriptures do not give unambiguously clear instructions on. That's why we need the Voice - the primacy of Direct Revelation as opposed to the Sola Scriptura theory. I have threads defending this so I'll provide some links later. Also my initial post on this thread laid some of that foundation.

See above.


Exactly. Any HUMAN intepretation/exegesis of the laws is fallible. That's why we need the Voice - the Authority on Love.

Not obsolete - in fact the main purpose is to point us to the need for Direct Revelation - the Voice - see 1Cor 14:1 That's the main purpose of both 1Corinthians and Galatians by the way.

Click to expand...

Paul, Peter, James and Jesus Himself sent everyone, including Gentiles, to Moses to learn the Love of God.

They were supposed to go to the Levites as the Covenant God gave them on Mt. Sinai instructs. But Levi, the shepherd God placed over them, departed out of the way, and began to preach doctrines from the imaginations of their own mind, and not from the Holy Scriptures. God sent prophets to correct them, but they killed these prophets.

Spiritual gifts are given to men who have already followed the instructions God gave us.

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Acts 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

God doesn't reveal Himself to those who try to bypass this "way of the Lord" and follow another path, no matter how "many" have been convinced HE has.

I am told to "beware" religious philosophies of men and that the Holy Scriptures are sufficient for instruction in righteousness.

2 Tim. 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You seem to be teaching that I can not trust these Words.

Am I understanding you wrong here?

_______________

Studyman said:

Animal Sacrifices were implemented by God for Atonement of transgressions of HIS Law.

Click to expand...

I don't know Chinese, so I purchase English Bibles only. Meaning, the Bible is useless if it has no language in common with me. If virtue-related words such as love, justice, merit, honesty, guilt, sin, kindness, mercy (etc) mean something different to God than to me, I have no hope.

So I have to be consistent. I must hold God to MY definition of justice, for example. In MY definition, true justice can (and often does) allow for voluntary atonement. Animal sacrifice is not a valid example of atonement since they did not volunteer.

Furthermore if animal sacrifice counted as valid atonement in God's eyes, the cross was a wasted effort - I mean, we're eating hamburgers regardless, so why not count all animal bloodshed as atonement? That's why I hold to a version of Covenant Theology - there is ONE and ONLY one reconciliation to God, namely the cross understood to be retroactive to OT saints. Hence there is ultimately ONE covenant of redemption in Scripture even though it manifests itself in innumerable promises and covenants (such as Israel's Old Covenant and Israel's New Covenant) - that's the whole point of Galat 3 - and that one Promise/Covenant is in fact THE covenant between Father and Son, if Gal 3:16 has anything to say about it. Accordingly I accept no distinctions between OT and NT saints. It was a Voice-based covenant (Galatians twice calls it the "hearing of faith" at 3:2-5) because it was grounded in spoken promises and spoken commands as exemplified in the life of the prophet Abraham. In a word, "My sheep hear my voice" (John 10:27).

Zacharias and Simeon followed the Letter of the Law, as it is written. As a result they were given the Holy Spirit as Peter teaches.

Click to expand...

Baloney. You mean to tell me they went out and tried to slaughter 7 nations like Moses and Joshua did? Again, God's specific will varies for EACH INDIVIDUAL. Hence the letter of the law will not suffice, we need the Voice.

I am told to "beware" religious philosophies of men and that the Holy Scriptures are sufficient for instruction in righteousness.

2 Tim. 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You seem to be teaching that I can not trust these Words.

Click to expand...

Where does it say 'sufficient'? It says PROFITABLE - it says profitable in the hands of a 'man of God' which is an OT rubric for a PROPHET (such as Timothy). In the hands of a prophet equipped with Direct Revelation, Scripture is indeed profitable. In the hands of a fallible Bible scholar, exegesis is potentially a recipe for disaster.

Look, population studies indicate 100 billion people living and dying historically. With so many souls at stake, there is zero margin for doctrinal error in issues such as evangelism, sanctification, and church government. Hence fallible exegesis is a ludicrously unsatisfactory epistemology - we NEED to prioritize the pursuit of Direct Revelation (see 1 Cor 14:1). 100 billion souls at stake means that even if I'm wrong about all this, I'm still right. How so? Suppose God does NOT want us to seek Direct Revalation. With 100 billion souls at stake, I still need to seek infallible assurance that we do NOT need Direct Revelation - which means I need to seek it regardless! Hence the primacy of Direct Revelation is a no-brainer, even though the church has been in denial of this obvious fact for 2,000 years.

Click here for a post that is a 10-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura and defense of Direct Revelation. It also links to another post (a 16-point rebuttal) which, in my opinion, is also worth reading.

One more note on animal sacrifices. They often did take away sin - but not in the way you think. As noted earlier, I have a thread that further rebuts Plato by showing the biblical evidence for a physical God.
God Is a Physical Being
Naturally, then, I'm a sacramentalist. Physically, the divine Presence often descended to permeate and saturate those sacrificial rituals. And thus, for example, when the High Priest sprinkled the animal blood on the people, he was literally sprinkling Christ's Blood upon them, which both atoned for their sin (justification) and cleansed them of sin (sanctification). Such gracious outpourings are by divine fiat - we cannot compel God, by present-day sacrifices, to outpour His grace, all we can do is wait on the Lord in prayer and praise for such revivals. Example:

"When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple" (2 Chron 7:1).

Pentecost was another great example.

JAL said:

How am I ignoring that. God created Adam approximately 6,000 years ago. And?

You're right - there ARE multiple problems here - but with YOUR position. For example your position leads to incest on the part of Adam's descendants. Disgusting!


Bogus. Science doesn't repudiate the possibility of supernatural resurrection. Many scientists are Christians. Science takes an agnostic, no-comment position on most supernatural concepts.

Yes, science would object to naturalistic resurrection. And?


This is too non-specific to count for anything. Ignored.

Going back to your preface...

...still waiting for you to name one.

Click to expand...

Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:12-17
12 Then the Lord said to Moses, 13 "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy.14 "'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'"

In Genesis 1 the word for day which is qualified by a number and the phrase “evening and morning” and for Day 1 the words light and darkness it means an ordinary day (a 24 hour period of time). It’s the same meaning today for a 24 hour period of time. Every time we read in Scripture the word day followed by a number, day and night or evening and morning in means a literal 24 hour period.

Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days?

A careful examination of the Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time. The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather's day...”). It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4. So, what does it mean in Genesis 1:5-2:2 when it's used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24-hour periods or something else? Could yom as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?

We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 simply by examining the context in which we find the word and then comparing its context with how we see its usage elsewhere in Scripture. By doing this we let Scripture interpret itself. The Hebrew word yom is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words “evening” and “morning” together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + “evening” or “morning” (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + “night” (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day.

The context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5-2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” makes it quite clear that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. The references to “evening” and “morning” make no sense unless they refer to a literal 24-hour day. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5-2:2 until the 1800s when a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community, and the earth's sedimentary strata layers were reinterpreted. Whereas previously the rock layers were interpreted as evidence of Noah's flood, the flood was thrown out by the scientific community and the rock layers were reinterpreted as evidence for an excessively old earth. Some well-meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-flood, anti-biblical interpretation with the Genesis account by reinterpreting yom to mean vast, unspecified periods of time.

The truth is that many of the old-earth interpretations are known to rely upon faulty assumptions. But we must not let the stubborn close-mindedness of scientists influence how we read the Bible. According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's workweek: work six days, rest one. Certainly God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow.got?

hope this helps!!!

JAL said:

I don't know Chinese, so I purchase English Bibles only. Meaning, the Bible is useless if it has no language in common with me. If virtue-related words such as love, justice, merit, honesty, guilt, sin, kindness, mercy (etc) mean something different to God than to me, I have no hope.

So I have to be consistent. I must hold God to MY definition of justice, for example. In MY definition, true justice can (and often does) allow for voluntary atonement. Animal sacrifice is not a valid example of atonement since they did not volunteer.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you have a great deal of faith in your religious philosophy, and therefore you "hold God", and everyone else it seems, "to your definitions". Please forgive me if I don't place my Faith in the "voice" in your mind, rather, I place my Faith in the Word's of the Christ of the English Bible I am speaking to.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And who is this man?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And what were some of HIS Words?

Is. 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Regardless of your religious philosophy, the English Bible speaks of a time when men who transgressed God's Laws, who voluntarily desired for their sin to be atoned for, were required to go find a Levite Priest and give him a "Sin offering". It's in your own Bible should you become interested in the examples God had written for our admonition.

Here is one quote from the English Bible which confirms the statement I made that you are mocking.

Lev. 4:34 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar:

35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

There is surely a symbolic meaning for this Temporary Priesthood, that is, a Priesthood which was in place "Till the SEED should come". Nevertheless, these sacrificial "works of the law" were required for a time by the same God that provides atonement for all humans. You might do well to remember that this God forgives sin "voluntarily". Mocking HIM or HIS Word, didn't work out too well for those mainstream preachers of Biblical times. As Paul said; "For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee."

Furthermore if animal sacrifice counted as valid atonement in God's eyes, the cross was a wasted effort - I mean, we're eating hamburgers regardless, so why not count all animal bloodshed as atonement?

Click to expand...

As I said, Mocking God is a popular pass time for "many" in the world today, just as it was in Jesus time, but I will not engage in it. If you would spend more time reading the Holy scriptures which were actually written for you, and less time promoting your own religious philosophies, you would understand that those atonement Laws pointed to a future time when the God you are now mocking would come to earth as a man and shed His Own Blood for us.

The mainstream preachers of Jesus time didn't believe HE was the "Lamb of God", that unblemished sacrifice these animal sacrifices foreshadowed. So they continued to promote this Levitical Priesthood sacrificial "works of the Law" for atonement. They rejected the Prophesy of the Christ in Jer. 31, in which HE said "After those days" HE would take over the duties of the Priesthood, that is, how God's Law is administered, and how sins are forgiven. A New Covenant in which the Christ Himself is High Priest. Not a Levite Priest, or another man with long flowing robe.

That's why I hold to a version of Covenant Theology - there is ONE and ONLY one reconciliation to God, namely the cross understood to be retroactive to OT saints. Hence there is ultimately ONE covenant of redemption in Scripture even though it manifests itself in innumerable promises and covenants (such as Israel's Old Covenant and Israel's New Covenant) - that's the whole point of Galat 3 - and that one Promise/Covenant is in fact THE covenant between Father and Son, if Gal 3:16 has anything to say about it. Accordingly I accept no distinctions between OT and NT saints. It was a Voice-based covenant (Galatians twice calls it the "hearing of faith" at 3:2-5) because it was grounded in spoken promises and spoken commands as exemplified in the life of the prophet Abraham. In a word, "My sheep hear my voice" (John 10:27).

Click to expand...

Faith or Belief in the Gospel has always been the key.

Gen. 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

And again;

Gen. 18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

And again;

Ex. 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

And again;

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

And again;

Rom. 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

In Gal. 3, the mainstream preachers of Paul's time were still promoting the sacrificial "works of the Law" of atonement/forgiveness. They refused to believe what was written in the Law and Prophets regarding this Priesthood Law, a Law Abraham didn't have. A LAW added 430 years after Abraham obeys God's Commandments, Statutes and Laws. A Priesthood LAW "ADDED" because of Transgressions of God's definition of Good, Holy and Justice. A Law "ADDED" until the true Lamb of God should come.

Your private interpretation of Gal. 3 doesn't wipe out God's written Covenant with all men.

As for the Holy Scriptures.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

And again;

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

I'll finish my reply in another post.

JAL said:

Baloney. You mean to tell me they went out and tried to slaughter 7 nations like Moses and Joshua did? Again, God's specific will varies for EACH INDIVIDUAL. Hence the letter of the law will not suffice, we need the Voice.

Click to expand...

I don't know what voice you are listening to, but there is no "letter of the law" which commands Zacharias and Simeon to go slaughter 7 nations.

But it is written;

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Your disbelief in the Holy Scriptures is nothing new. And there is always another "voice" contradicting what God declares in the Holy scriptures HE had written for our admonition. Eve was also convinced that God's Word can not be trusted.

But Paul believed all that was written in the Law and Prophets. And Paul also promoted these Holy Scriptures as the sole authority regarding doctrines, and instruction in Righteousness.


2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I know who inspired the Holy Scriptures. I don't know who inspired the voice in your mind.

Where does it say 'sufficient'? It says PROFITABLE - it says profitable in the hands of a 'man of God' which is an OT rubric for a PROPHET (such as Timothy). In the hands of a prophet equipped with Direct Revelation, Scripture is indeed profitable. In the hands of a fallible Bible scholar, exegesis is potentially a recipe for disaster.

Click to expand...

WHAT are you saying? That I can't believe the Word's Inspired by God unless I become a Prophet First? What good is being a Prophet of God, if you are preaching not to listen to them? Is the "voice" in your mind really telling you that Paul's Word's here is only relevant to men who are already Prophet's of God?

Who is teaching you this stuff?

Look, population studies indicate 100 billion people living and dying historically. With so many souls at stake, there is zero margin for doctrinal error in issues such as evangelism, sanctification, and church government. Hence fallible exegesis is a ludicrously unsatisfactory epistemology - we NEED to prioritize the pursuit of Direct Revelation (see 1 Cor 14:1). 100 billion souls at stake means that even if I'm wrong about all this, I'm still right. How so? Suppose God does NOT want us to seek Direct Revalation. With 100 billion souls at stake, I still need to seek infallible assurance that we do NOT need Direct Revelation - which means I need to seek it regardless! Hence the primacy of Direct Revelation is a no-brainer, even though the church has been in denial of this obvious fact for 2,000 years.

Click to expand...

Every self proclaimed prophet since Constantine, has professed to have been given "Direct Revelation" from God.The Pope, Billy Graham, Pink, Ellen White, Charles Russell, Spurgeon, Calvin, Smith, the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on.

Even the serpent claimed to have "Direct Revelation" from God.

"5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Your post is all over the place. You claim you are "seeking" direct revelation from God, but not from HIS Written Word. You claim to be seeking "Direct Revelation" from God, but you begin your post by "Holding God to your Definitions". Where does your definition come from? An internet video? Some preacher that tickles your fancy? It doesn't come from the Scriptures, you claim Luke is full of "baloney".

"there is zero margin for doctrinal error in issues such as evangelism, sanctification, and church government. Hence fallible exegesis is a ludicrously unsatisfactory epistemology"

Is this what the voice in your head is telling you? Or did you get this from some man or web site who claimed to have "direct Revelation" from God? From the latter I think.

How about this for Direct Revelation from God.

Ex. 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

or this.

Matt. 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Click here for a post that is a 10-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura and defense of Direct Revelation. It also links to another post (a 16-point rebuttal) which, in my opinion, is also worth reading.

Click to expand...

You are simply promoting an Ancient Catholic tradition to justify your own religious philosophy. The internet is full of resources to promote your reason for "holding GOD to your own definitions".

10 Arguments Against Sola Scriptura – St Michael Catholic Radio

10 Arguments Against Sola Scriptura – St Michael Catholic Radio

The Catholic Case Against Sola Scriptura

Now to be clear, Protestants claim to "Sola Scriptura" is just as righteous, in my view, as "many" who come in Christ's Name, that claim "Direct Revelation" from God.

Your promotion of Catholic Doctrine is no different that the Pharisees promotion of the Talmud or the Protestants promotion of their religious traditions . Just more religious philosophies of men.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

According to the Scriptures, "any" men who come to the Christ of the Bible, are to "deny themselves" and submit to the Righteousness of God, which HE "before ordained that we should walk in them." A man who voluntarily humbles Himself to God's Word, is blessed by this same God.

Shall I not listen to and believe the inspired Word's of God?

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Shall I not trust the Word's of the rock Jesus chose to build HIS Church on?

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Was this a Direct Revelation of God to Peter?

No Jal, you can follow the advice of websites and philosophies of religious men if you want. I'm sticking to the instructions of the Christ of the Bible.

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by Every Word which Proceeds from the mouth of God"

Unpopular as this belief may be in the religions of the land I was born in.

JAL said:

One more note on animal sacrifices. They often did take away sin - but not in the way you think. As noted earlier, I have a thread that further rebuts Plato by showing the biblical evidence for a physical God.
God Is a Physical Being
Naturally, then, I'm a sacramentalist. Physically, the divine Presence often descended to permeate and saturate those sacrificial rituals. And thus, for example, when the High Priest sprinkled the animal blood on the people, he was literally sprinkling Christ's Blood upon them, which both atoned for their sin (justification) and cleansed them of sin (sanctification). Such gracious outpourings are by divine fiat - we cannot compel God, by present-day sacrifices, to outpour His grace, all we can do is wait on the Lord in prayer and praise for such revivals. Example:

"When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple" (2 Chron 7:1).

Pentecost was another great example.

Click to expand...

The point I was making is God gave these rituals to His People out of Love for them. I was responding to your statement.

"Legalism is prioritizing the letter of the law (the face-value meaning of the words) over the spirit of the law (the underlying meaning and real purpose of the law) - which is love. Whenever those two meanings diverge in real life scenarios, adherence to the letter is actually disobedience to the law, because it culminates in unloving behavior."

In the case of the "works of the law" for atonement, this is simply untrue. Following the Laws of God might go against some religious men's definition of Love, but not God's definition.

In my understanding of the Law and Prophets, we are all held captive by the sin and deception Egypt represents. The Lamb of God's Blood, was shed for us while we were yet in Egypt, or symbolically Sin and Deception. God made this atoning Blood available to all who were in Egypt (Sin) as it is written. But there was instruction regarding it. They were to take this Blood (Life of the Lamb) and place it on the two door posts (hands, arms, legs symbolizing our walk or actions) and Lintel, (Symbolizing our mind and thoughts).

This is the beginning of our "Race" or journey into the Promised Land (Righteousness) that God is leading us to. We have what the Israelite's or Abel didn't have. The perfect example of Faith, and the perfect example of a righteous "man of God".

Heb. 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

But God wants a "voluntary" submission to Him and HIS ways. In order for this to happen, there must be another choice, another "voice" in the garden to choose from.

This other voice works to convince us that God's Words are not true "You shall surely not die", and that God's Commandments make those who partake of them Blind.

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, (reject the Commandment) then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

This voice uses some of God's word to accomplish this, even coming in Christ's Name as Jesus warns in Matt. 24. Then, after we are convinced that God's Word is not enough, as Eve was, we work to convince others of the same thing. "and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

This is the purpose of religions in my view. And also the reason why I place my Faith in the Word of God which became Flesh and stay as far away from the many religious franchises of this world as I can.

This is why I asked you to show me any Scriptures in the NT where God's Church was told to lay aside monies for the construction of temples made of wood and stone, which is one tradition every religion of this land have in common with the Levitical Priesthood.

Of course you can't find one, because there isn't one.

I can show scripture after scripture where God, His Prophets, His Son and His Disciples warn over and over about the religious philosophies of men claiming the God of Abraham as their God. But to no avail with "many" because they have already been convinced that #1. they shall surely not die, regardless of the choices they make, and #2. Much of God's Word is unworthy of our respect because it can not be trusted for "Instruction in Righteousness" in these times.

Nevertheless, as it is written;

Josh. 24:14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

@Studyman,

I'm not going to engage with you further. Your posts to me have deteriorated to unfair, inaccurate assessments of what I said, gratuitous stigmatizing, and an unwillingness to address the cogency of my position. Example:

If you would spend more time reading the Holy scriptures which were actually written for you, and less time promoting your own religious philosophies

Click to expand...

My arguments seek to identify logical inconsistencies in conclusions drawn by Bible scholars. What this means is that I'm engaging mostly with the Bible, not extra-biblical philosophical issues. And you make a whole series of unfair, inaccurate statements like that. Another example:

You are simply promoting an Ancient Catholic tradition to justify your own religious philosophy. The internet is full of resources to promote your reason for "holding GOD to your own definitions"

Click to expand...

Why this remark? Here too, as always, all I was doing was advocating logical consistency. I argued that if, for example:
- A biblical word such as 'love' means one thing to me (to me it means kindness)
- But suppose it means something different to God (i.e. cruelty)
Then I have no hope. Therefore I must assume that God holds to MY definition of love. That's a perfectly sensible position. How can you possibly have hope if you believe that God plans to be cruel to you for all eternity? What sort of ridiculous position are you advocating here?

I don't have time for games. If you're not going to make an effort to engage in sensible, reasonable, biblical, fair debate, I've got better things to do. Enjoy.

.
Re: We are told to follow Christ but how?

Well; you could start by clicking on the link below.

Christ's Ways
_

JAL said:

@Studyman,

I'm not going to engage with you further. Your posts to me have deteriorated to unfair, inaccurate assessments of what I said, gratuitous stigmatizing, and an unwillingness to address the cogency of my position. Example:


My arguments seek to identify logical inconsistencies in conclusions drawn by Bible scholars. What this means is that I'm engaging mostly with the Bible, not extra-biblical philosophical issues. And you make a whole series of unfair, inaccurate statements like that. Another example:
Why this remark? Here too, as always, all I was doing was advocating logical consistency. I argued that if, for example:
- A biblical word such as 'love' means one thing to me (to me it means kindness)
- But suppose it means something different to God (i.e. cruelty)
Then I have no hope. Therefore I must assume that God holds to MY definition of love. That's a perfectly sensible position. How can you possibly have hope if you believe that God plans to be cruel to you for all eternity? What sort of ridiculous position are you advocating here?

I don't have time for games. If you're not going to make an effort to engage in sensible, reasonable, biblical, fair debate, I've got better things to do. Enjoy.

Click to expand...

I responded to your replies directly and honestly as they spoke to me. Just as you did when you replied to my statements.

"Animal Sacrifices were implemented by God for Atonement of transgressions of HIS Law."

To which you replied;

"I don't know Chinese, so I purchase English Bibles only. Meaning, the Bible is useless if it has no language in common with me. If virtue-related words such as love, justice, merit, honesty, guilt, sin, kindness, mercy (etc) mean something different to God than to me, I have no hope."

So I have to be consistent. I must hold God to MY definition of justice, for example. In MY definition, true justice can (and often does) allow for voluntary atonement. Animal sacrifice is not a valid example of atonement since they did not volunteer.

Which to me, in my definitions, shows a religious philosophy which reduces God down to the level equal with you. A common but fatal exercise first shown in the story of Eve.

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat"


And again;

I posted a Biblical Reference to Zacharias.

"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

to which you replied;

"Baloney. You mean to tell me they went out and tried to slaughter 7 nations like Moses and Joshua did? Again, God's specific will varies for EACH INDIVIDUAL. Hence the letter of the law will not suffice, we need the Voice."

In both cases you are projecting disbelief, not in my definition, but in the Written Word itself.

Now you are free to take your toys and go home if you want. But in my definition of "Fair, reasonable Biblical Debate" my responses were perfectly acceptable.

How is it you have come to the place where only your "definitions" count? Where only your ridicule and frankness is acceptable. Definitions that you not only hold me to, but God Himself?

You are free to believe as you wish, but me challenging your religious philosophy based on what the Word's of the Holy Scriptures say, is not cruel, or unfair, or lacking in love.

If challenging the religious philosophies of man is cruel, then Jesus Himself is a Cruel man.