Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's sort of the question I'm asking. The passages I presented would suggest that it means the son is not loved (and in fact, hated). You're saying otherwise?
Genesis 2:21 MSG
I am not going to go back on that. Is it not clear to you that to go back to that old rule-keeping, peer-pleasing religion would be an abandonment of everything personal and free in my relationship with God? I refuse to do that, to repudiate God's grace. If a living relationship with God could come by rule-keeping, then Christ died unnecessarily.
razeontherock said:I LOVE seeing someone quoting "The Message," in a passage where it helps bring clarity! But this is NOT from Genesis. It's Galatians 2:21, available on biblegateway.com, with the disclaimer that it's not a good translation of the Gospels. (In fact the person who did the translation felt Jesus' words could NOT be done the way he created this.)
You're right, I just skipped over it. It wasn't intentional. I apologize.
I ask that you not only be willing to look at the immediate context surrounding the verses you have highlighted, but to the context in which this book was written. Also look at the dynamic of the relationship between those people and the Christian doctrine, then identify and segregate the differences.Okay so the book says "God hates people who are x and y." It then goes on to say that "Atheists are people who are x and y." Sparsity doesn't seem like it would be an issue.
As a book of hymns for OT Jews.What is the context?
These passages are Hymns and praises for all of those under the Old covenant. Not all of the precepts apply to New testament Christianity.So, these passages are wrong? It seems like you're suggesting that we can basically throw this book away.
Not what, it is to whom these passages speak.Well, if that's not what these passages say, what do they say? That's kind of the meat of the question.
The passage I pointed out that Christ was recorded as saying does indeed indicate otherwise. Again not all praises and Hymns that the OT Jew sang about is consistent with New Covenant Christianity.That's sort of the question I'm asking. The passages I presented would suggest that it means the son is not loved (and in fact, hated). You're saying otherwise?
razeontherock said:Ha! I also own an Amplified, and used that for years after wearing out my KJV, wringing all the meaning I could from it. Then on to The Message, and now I'm considering either Beck, God's Word, or an Orthodox study Bible.
Use them all brother, they all have a piece of the larger puzzle.
I ask that you not only be willing to look at the immediate context surrounding the verses you have highlighted, but to the context in which this book was written. Also look at the dynamic of the relationship between those people and the Christian doctrine, then identify and segregate the differences.
As a book of hymns for OT Jews.
These passages are Hymns and praises for all of those under the Old covenant. Not all of the precepts apply to New testament Christianity.
Not what, it is to whom these passages speak.
The passage I pointed out that Christ was recorded as saying does indeed indicate otherwise. Again not all praises and Hymns that the OT Jew sang about is consistent with New Covenant Christianity.
JGG said:So to summarize, it is simply wrong, and I should ignore this particular biblical passage?
God hates that what hurts ourselves and others. Should read the entirety of the Bible in light of it all.
That's why I'm asking about it. Where did this particular passage come from? What was it's inspiration? Why inculde it if it goes against the message of the Bible?
So to summarize, it is simply wrong, and I should ignore this particular biblical passage?
JGG said:There's no answer to this?
No in short, you should apply this passage to whom it was written.
Understand the Whole bible speaks of two completely different faiths. We need to understand the first to know what the second truly is. The second is a freedom given from the works and activities one had to do to obtain righteousness with God in the first. Without this contrast the second is meaningless.
For example look at what God's view of atheists were before, and look at what it is now. Understand what the blood of Christ has bought you... Opportunity where you would have it before.
Yes, I apologize. I will give you my answer, tho I don't know if all will agree.
Let me rephrase my previous answer keeping the entire Bible in context. The answer was yes.
Instead of focusing on what was, let's look at the reality of scripture now. The new testament says that we were cocrucified with Christ on the cross, it says that our "old man" died with Christ and we also take part in His resurrection. Our carnal nature was circumcised off in our realization of the reality of the cross.
This is one of the mysteries and reasons for the cross. This sinful and carnal man that, as the Bible says, was absolutely against God no matter what, has died. So the answer? It was yes, but the reality of the cross makes the answer no.
What of those who don't believe yet? Well, the Bible says that Christ died for all of mankind. In my mind, all of mankind has been cocrucified with Him. Then why are they still doing evil things? That's where faith comes in.
Although they may not have faith in the reality of the cross that still does not mean grace covers them.
As it stands now. God does not hate atheists or even the most evil man.
razeontherock said:As well as i can trace the context, the original question was "So to summarize, it is simply wrong, and I should ignore this particular biblical passage?"
You give a yes answer to that?
For the benefit of the OP, the reality of the cross taking up residence in our lives changes the proverbial "everything" - but it does not change the word of God from yes to no. (Nor in any other way)
I see a need for further clarification here, but you are doing a good job.
So clarify: unbelievers are all covered by Grace, or not?
Good News!
He context of my yes and no is related to God's anger towards "sinners".
JGG said:I'm sorry, I'm still not getting it. God doesn't hate atheists anymore, or God isn't angry at sinners anymore?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?