Inconsistencies in the Bible?

[Sketcher]

Is this in response to "Why is it okay for Jews 3,000+ years ago to stone adulterers, but a sin if we do?"?

Yes.

I like your answer here, it explains the scenario well, and I can see how I wasn't completely right. But if Jesus did not abrogate the death penalty, then is it still applicable today?

It would still be just according to my understanding of Scripture. But the New Testament doesn't have a criminal code, and we are not obligated to follow the criminal code of the Old Testament. The church in the New Testament didn't even do that, they preached to and exorcised diviners (Acts 8:9-25, Acts 16:16-28, Acts 19:18-20) instead of killing them (Exodus 22:18). This is because the church's job is to make converts and disciples, you can't do that with a dead person.

Even if you don't have to be concerned for it, others still do. It doesn't answer how it's good of God to let Gentiles off the hook for things Jews had to die for doing.

Jews have more laws to follow, as they are a chosen people for a special purpose. Religious Jews see having more laws as a positive for them rather than a negative. As to how they deal with the question of whether or not to execute a Sabbath-breaker or not, they have their own literature on that which I cannot speak to one way or the other. This I will say: God is good, and he gave Jews extra laws that Gentiles don't have to be concerned with following.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

If one is not committed to God, and looks at the Bible and discerns it with basic logic, they would have plenty of reasons to doubt that the Biblical God exists, and I mentioned some of them. Do you think the things I mentioned are logically valid reasons to doubt the Bible? If you don't, why don't you think they're logically valid?

If I don't have initial faith, at that point there is no "we should never doubt His character just because we lack understanding, because that would be a lack of faith in Him.", because since there is no initial faith, you can't just stop doubting everything, and if there is no initial faith, you're not going to say that those doubts are because of a lack of understanding. Saying that one shouldn't question God is only a good answer to give to someone who already believes the Bible and has faith in Jesus, which I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with using that as an answer to my question, because the answer is only helpful from a Christian's perspective, and it doesn't answer anything for me. Do you agree with that?

Yes, I do agree with that. As I had said in my post, "to you it makes no difference, because you have not committed yourself to Him in any way."

I do not recall you giving any logical reasons to doubt the Bible. Were your issues not with God's perceived justice?

 

[Eatay]

Yes, I do agree with that. As I had said in my post, "to you it makes no difference, because you have not committed yourself to Him in any way."

I do not recall you giving any logical reasons to doubt the Bible. Were your issues not with God's perceived justice?

If you agree with what I said, that the answer isn't helpful for me, then I don't see the point of giving me that answer?

And, for the second thing, the issue with God's justice is the reason.

Yes.

It would still be just according to my understanding of Scripture. But the New Testament doesn't have a criminal code, and we are not obligated to follow the criminal code of the Old Testament. The church in the New Testament didn't even do that, they preached to and exorcised diviners (Acts 8:9-25, Acts 16:16-28, Acts 19:18-20) instead of killing them (Exodus 22:18). This is because the church's job is to make converts and disciples, you can't do that with a dead person.


Jews have more laws to follow, as they are a chosen people for a special purpose. Religious Jews see having more laws as a positive for them rather than a negative. As to how they deal with the question of whether or not to execute a Sabbath-breaker or not, they have their own literature on that which I cannot speak to one way or the other. This I will say: God is good, and he gave Jews extra laws that Gentiles don't have to be concerned with following.

My main point is that I think giving Jews and Gentiles different laws is unfair, especially because Jews had to die for doing things Gentiles are allowed to do, which I don't think would be consistent/fair of a God. Do you think it is consistent and fair. If you do, why do you?

 

[Sketcher]

My main point is that I think giving Jews and Gentiles different laws is unfair, especially because Jews had to die for doing things Gentiles are allowed to do, which I don't think would be consistent/fair of a God. Do you think it is consistent and fair. If you do, why do you?

If anyone has a right to complain, it's the Jews themselves, yet they don't. They have their reasons for not doing so - I'd recommend learning the Jewish view on this. I'm not sure exactly why they embrace that specifically, but I have enjoyed reading such opinions on certain subsets of such laws, and I appreciated doing so.

 

[Eatay]

If anyone has a right to complain, it's the Jews themselves, yet they don't. They have their reasons for not doing so - I'd recommend learning the Jewish view on this. I'm not sure exactly why they embrace that specifically, but I have enjoyed reading such opinions on certain subsets of such laws, and I appreciated doing so.

Where could I hear their perspective/s?

 

[Sketcher]

Where could I hear their perspective/s?

Here's one: http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm
I also browse http://www.askmoses.com from time to time.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I know the Bible says those things. I don't have a problem with life being unfair, but it should just be because of people being unfair, and not include the way God decided to complete his plan, which was the unfairness I was referring to.

And I don't have a problem with sin leading to death, just what is considered sinful. Which goes back to the point that the Biblical God was unfair to punish some people for one thing in ancient Israel, while later it isn't bad at all.

You know what I saw the most fabulous video today. Usually I never link to video's at all. And usually I never view posted video's, but I want you to watch this because this one is an 11 on a 1-10 scale. I think it may help you.

The Irrefutable Proof of God

 

[ToBeLoved]

My main point is that I think giving Jews and Gentiles different laws is unfair, especially because Jews had to die for doing things Gentiles are allowed to do, which I don't think would be consistent/fair of a God. Do you think it is consistent and fair. If you do, why do you?

Ok. So this is the reason.

In the first half of the Bible is the Old Testament, this is the time before Jesus. After Jesus is the New Testament, the other half.

This is kind of the short story. The Hebrew people, also called the Israelite's are God's chosen people. The Hebrew lineage starts with Adam and goes all the way up to Jesus Christ, so this is the Old Testament. During this time came Moses, rescuing the Israelite's from Egypt and getting the 10 Commandments. These people that held the lineage up to Jesus Christ were the people that God held to obey the 10 Commandments. That is called the Law or the Law of Moses. So those special people had one set of Laws, very strict.

After Jesus came and died, then the Good News of Jesus Christ went out to all people, both the Jew (Hebrew/Israel) and the gentile (non-Hebrews). So Jesus changed everything. So since we are not Hebrews we were never under the 10 Commandments, literally because we came to know Jesus only in the New Testament.

Does that make sense?