Not everyone gets into Heaven

[daydreamergurl15]

We came up with a lot of things, including the gospels. They are techs undeniably written by human hand. Now you can choose to elevate them beyond just that or not, that's your choice, nonetheless as texts they are subject to the same scrutiny any ancient texts are. Again it is found most likely that Mark was the first gospel written about 70 AD with Matthew and Luke being written with Mark as a source (roughly a decade or two later), with John coming in last around 115-130 AD (using the synoptic gospels as a source).

I never said there was anything contradictory in them, since they were written using eachother as a source

Mark -> Matthew-|
-> Luke --> John

then they wouldn't contradict, at least not in a general sense of concepts. They do, however, present Jesus with very different ideals. This makes a lot more sense once you realize that John was written decades later.

In the end you can reject textual criticism against the Bible, you can even reject what you see in front of your face to hold to a certain belief, though that doesn't mean everyone does. In the end this is dragging into something off topic. There are many different views and interpretations of the exact same pieces of literature. Some view them as factual literal, some view them as metaphoric-historical, some view them completely different. Even among the same views in that category people disagree. Not everyone who believes they were factual-literal hold to the trinity as well as various other doctrines (Calvinism vs. Arminiaism, etc.).

In the end not everyone believes the same thing so we all must come to a personal choice whether we will suggest that those who don't believe what you believe will be excluded or not (in life, after life in hell, after life in something else if you don't believe in hell). I personally do not and that is what I rally against. Hold to your own beliefs all you want but don't exclude people just because they don't believe the same doctrine or ideals. Jesus reached out to many, many that were impure or the untouchables of that society. He didn't reach out to damn them or to exclude them, but to show them that they too had good in them, that the current system of requirements that excluded them was wrong, that if we choose to be united and support eachother it doesn't matter if we have specific beliefs that are different.

Your comments are noted but you never showed me evidence of Matthew, Luke and John being post-Christ teachings. Nor did you even show me textual criticism, you stated your opinions, which is fine, but you didn't give me a reference or even scripture that backed it up.

And it's important to note that in the whole scheme of things, our beliefs doesn't change the gospel. What man thinks of scripture or their criticism of scripture doesn't change scripture. We can believe that anyone can go into heaven, but if it is not something that God have said and it is not the truth of God, then that does not mean that our beliefs will come to pass, meaning that all we go to Heaven. It doesn't even mean if we believe that only some people will go to heaven will be true if that is not what scripture says. God's truth is truth regardless if we choose to accept it or not. The most important thing is what God said and what He have asked of us. We will be judged based on His words not ours. And you are right that Jesus reached out to condemn them, He came to save and if you look throughout the Gospels, those whom had faith in Him followed His teachings. I understand that you have that right to believe in whatever you want, but do not deceive yourself into thinking that your beliefs (or anyone's beliefs for that matters) override anything that is written in scripture. In the end, God's word and keeping it, is the only thing that matters. And because He is so good, He made provisions for us to be reconciled to Him, through His Son.

 

[DeanM]

I understand that you have that right to believe in whatever you want, but do not deceive yourself into thinking that your beliefs (or anyone's beliefs for that matters) override anything that is written in scripture.

There's just one problem with this.

Scripture can show that, among other things, our slaves should be taken from other countries.

The fact is that this is clearly shown in scripture, and that Jesus said He did not come to change the law.

So, if one chose not to have slaves, one could make the case that they are not breaking any law of scripture because they are not keeping slaves from their own country, which would be a violation of scripture.

However, if one were to speak out against slavery in general, they would be faced with "As long as the slaves are from another country, scripture says that this is what God wants."

So, if one were to say that slavery is wrong regardless of the origin of the slave, that could be taken as an afront to scripture.

This is just one instance where my beliefs differ from what scripture says, and I'm proud to say that it is not the only one.

Scripture has been used to defend slavery, racism, and torture.

It has also been used to teach us compassion.

I believe that each one of us makes the choice whether we want to live as ogres because we can find support for that lifestyle in the scriptures.

Or we can use the brains God gave us to decide whether we are treating others as we would like to be treated.

And if that compassion goes against scripture, I would venture a guess that God's love supercedes man's ink.

The bible is a good tool in that it makes us think.

It is not an excuse for horror.

 

[QuakerOats]

Your comments are noted but you never showed me evidence of Matthew, Luke and John being post-Christ teachings. Nor did you even show me textual criticism, you stated your opinions, which is fine, but you didn't give me a reference or even scripture that backed it up.

And it's important to note that in the whole scheme of things, our beliefs doesn't change the gospel. What man thinks of scripture or their criticism of scripture doesn't change scripture. We can believe that anyone can go into heaven, but if it is not something that God have said and it is not the truth of God, then that does not mean that our beliefs will come to pass, meaning that all we go to Heaven. It doesn't even mean if we believe that only some people will go to heaven will be true if that is not what scripture says. God's truth is truth regardless if we choose to accept it or not. The most important thing is what God said and what He have asked of us. We will be judged based on His words not ours. And you are right that Jesus reached out to condemn them, He came to save and if you look throughout the Gospels, those whom had faith in Him followed His teachings. I understand that you have that right to believe in whatever you want, but do not deceive yourself into thinking that your beliefs (or anyone's beliefs for that matters) override anything that is written in scripture. In the end, God's word and keeping it, is the only thing that matters. And because He is so good, He made provisions for us to be reconciled to Him, through His Son.

The thing is, a good chunk of the bible is, if not wholly interpretive. If it weren't, denominations simply would not exist, or at least not like we have today. Therefore, when one says 'but scripture says this,' or 'scripture says that,' it's only one interpretation; one opinion. There really is no demonstrable way to know with absolute certainty which is correct, as even when reading the bible in its original languages we're still often left with questions.

 

[MattLangley]

Others have already expressed it. There are many different ways to interpret the exact same verses, otherwise denominations wouldn't exist. To claim that you know the one absolutely true interpretation is extremely arrogant.

EDIT: and it's not my place to prove anything to you about the sources of the gospel texts. Research it yourself, I have. The consensus of Modern Bible Scholars is more than obvious, ones willing to look beyond a personal bias and look at the evidence. I'm a game/game tech programmer/manager, I'm not a Bible scholar, it simply is a hobby. Do your own research I am simply stating what I have heard from those that are in the know. If you want some good books I'd suggest reading either or both of these:

Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time
Reading the Bible Again for the First time
both by Marcus Borg

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Others have already expressed it. There are many different ways to interpret the exact same verses, otherwise denominations wouldn't exist. To claim that you know the one absolutely true interpretation is extremely arrogant.

EDIT: and it's not my place to prove anything to you about the sources of the gospel texts. Research it yourself, I have. The consensus of Modern Bible Scholars is more than obvious, ones willing to look beyond a personal bias and look at the evidence. I'm a game/game tech programmer/manager, I'm not a Bible scholar, it simply is a hobby. Do your own research I am simply stating what I have heard from those that are in the know. If you want some good books I'd suggest reading either or both of these:

Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time
Reading the Bible Again for the First time
both by Marcus Borg

See, that's a problem, scripture says that there is no such thing as private interpretation, for it came from God not from man (2 Peter 1:20). But to sit there and think your opinions override scripture and what you think will be what comes true comes judgment day is arrogant. Because the opinions, beliefs and truth that matters is what God said. Paul dealt a lot with those whom wrote taught false doctrine, he corrected those whom was spreading doctrine that was contrary to scripture, showing that there is a specific way to interpret it, if it was true than that false doctrine was taught it is certainly still true now. God's word is what we need to take time out to study.

Question: Have you ever read any of those books? Have you ever took time out to study the bible? You said "I am simply stating what I have heard from those that are in the know" have you ever done research to see if they are corrected in what they say? For you to say " and it's not my place to prove anything to you about the sources of the gospel texts. Research it yourself, I have. The consensus of Modern Bible Scholars is more than obvious, ones willing to look beyond a personal bias and look at the evidence." you assumed that I would simply agree with what you said. Trust me when I tell you, if you would have given me the articles and books in your previous post, I would have researched it for myself. I don't depend on what people tell me nor do I believe them simply because they are considered "bible scholars" for they are still human, capable of error.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

There's just one problem with this.

Scripture can show that, among other things, our slaves should be taken from other countries.

The first person whom we see sold into slavery was Joseph by his brothers in Genesis 37. Following that in the beginning of Exodus we see that Israel was captured by Egypt and were slaves for over 400 years (Exodus 1:13-14; Exodus 12:40-41) because of the way that they were treated as slaves God made provisions that if they had slaves, they were to treat them better and that the slavers were to be with them for 6 years and released on the 7th year (Exodus 21). In fact in Exodus 21:2-following it starts off with "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing....." And so this will not be a very long conversation about slavery, let's fast forward to the New Testament (for we are not under the Old law that was given to the children of Israel), in the New Testament, we are not told that we must have slaves. So, if we do not have slavers, we are not sinning...and if someone does have a slave then they were to follow the command set in Ephesians 6:5-9 says
5 Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.
9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him..
And in Philemon, Paul urged Onesimus, a runaway slave, to go back to his master and the master is told to accept him back as a no longer as a slave but as a beloved brother (Philemon). But again under the New Covenant, we are not told that we are to have slaves.

The fact is that this is clearly shown in scripture, and that Jesus said He did not come to change the law.

I believe that Christ said He has not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18) and he fulfilled it.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 speaks of a new covenant
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Romans speaks of the old law being done away with, but going into that detail will be a lot longer than I have time to write.

So, if one chose not to have slaves, one could make the case that they are not breaking any law of scripture because they are not keeping slaves from their own country, which would be a violation of scripture.

Do you mean to say "so if one chooses to have slaves...."
The new testament does not say that we are to have slaves, so if we don't have slaves we are not sinning and if we do have slaves, we are not sinning (as long as we follow Ephesians 5) but if the law of the land expressly forbid it (and it is not something that goes against God's law) than we should follow that law. For one cannot have slaves in America, if they choose to have domestics then they must compensate them.

However, if one were to speak out against slavery in general, they would be faced with "As long as the slaves are from another country, scripture says that this is what God wants."

I don't know what scripture you are getting this from. Where does it say that you can have slaves as long as it's from another country? We know that the Israelites had both Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves, but I don't know scripture that says that they can have foreign slaves only.

So, if one were to say that slavery is wrong regardless of the origin of the slave, that could be taken as an afront to scripture.

Not according to the New Testament. We are not told that we are to have slaves during Christ's teachings. We don't see examples of Christ and the Apostles having slaves. We see that if one have a slaves they are to treat them right, but we are not told that we must have slaves. Even in the Old Testament they were not to that they must have slaves, but only that if one did have slaves they were to teach them right, not cruelly but guess what, man failed.

This is just one instance where my beliefs differ from what scripture says, and I'm proud to say that it is not the only one.

You're proud that you beliefs different from scripture but you rejected something that's not even in scripture. But again, simply being proud that you differ from scripture doesn't make you beliefs somehow true. If God gave provisions to Israel to have slaves, then they were allowed to have slaves and not sin before God. If Israel did something that was contrary to what God have asked them to do then Israel have sinned before God. Same as today, if God says something is a sin then it is a sin, but if not, then it is not a sin.

Scripture has been used to defend slavery, racism, and torture.

While I don't know what scriptures they used to defend slavery, racism and torture if someone wants to truly know scripture and see if the way these people use the scriptures is correct, it will require people to go into scripture and read it in the context that it is stated. People can twist scripture, we are very good at that, but if you read scripture in it's context, and continue reading, you will see what is the correct interpretation.

It has also been used to teach us compassion.

True

I believe that each one of us makes the choice whether we want to live as ogres because we can find support for that lifestyle in the scriptures.

We can use scripture to justify the way we want to live our lives, but it doesn't mean that scripture supports it, it means that we have done a great job at twisting it into something it is not, if indeed what we are trying to justify is a lifestyle of sin.

Or we can use the brains God gave us to decide whether we are treating others as we would like to be treated.

And if that compassion goes against scripture, I would venture a guess that God's love supercedes man's ink.

We know of God's love through men ink which were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The bible is a good tool in that it makes us think.

It is not an excuse for horror.

"A good tool" hmm....
But you know what, if you take the time out and really study that good tool, you'll be surprised that some of what we consider horror, is also considered horror in scripture, especially if it's done in a way that God have forbid. But we have to realize that in the end, God's word (that good tool) is what matters most.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The thing is, a good chunk of the bible is, if not wholly interpretive. If it weren't, denominations simply would not exist, or at least not like we have today. Therefore, when one says 'but scripture says this,' or 'scripture says that,' it's only one interpretation; one opinion. There really is no demonstrable way to know with absolute certainty which is correct, as even when reading the bible in its original languages we're still often left with questions.

But you have to realize that denominations exist because people choose follow the words of man and not scripture. But at all times, they are encouraged to continue in studying God's word and the apostles corrected them in their errors or turning away from doctrine.

In Galatians 1:6-10 Paul said this:
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

Also in Acts 15:22-31
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this, letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.
Continuing Ministry in Syria

30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement.

Now, I can't imagine how we can interpret these verses differently, for we see that there was an error and they were corrected. But there is a way of knowing if the interpretation is true and that is to simply study it, over and over and over again and allowing the words to dwell in our hearts, sometimes even reading a different translation (not paraphrase). And pray for wisdom, God grants that. We will still be left with questions, I have TONS of questions I want to ask God, but there are some questions that He does answer that's written in the bible, we just need to continue studying and striving to be like Christ.

 

[DeanM]

I don't know what scripture you are getting this from. Where does it say that you can have slaves as long as it's from another country? We know that the Israelites had both Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves, but I don't know scripture that says that they can have foreign slaves only.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

 

[DeanM]

While I don't know what scriptures they used to defend slavery, racism and torture if someone wants to truly know scripture and see if the way these people use the scriptures is correct, it will require people to go into scripture and read it in the context that it is stated. People can twist scripture, we are very good at that, but if you read scripture in it's context, and continue reading, you will see what is the correct interpretation.

The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly. Proverbs 20:30

And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten. Deuteronomy 25:2

A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes. Proverbs 18:6

Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the back of fools. Proverbs 19:29

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. Proverbs 26:3

But you're saying that: "but if you read scripture in it's context, and continue reading, you will see what is the correct interpretation."

To me, your interpretation of scripture in many cases is to completely ignore them as if they were untruths.

Here's the thing. I applaud you for using your brain. I do too.

But here's the difference: You say ". . . But do not deceive yourself into thinking that your beliefs (or anyone's beliefs for that matters) override anything that is written in scripture."

Yet, you are doing exactly that.

The scriptures I have listed above show that one is supposed to torture others who deserve it.

There is no "twist" to it.

Either the scriptures are wrong, or your interpretation is wrong.

Now, I understand the whole idea that Jesus (who did not come to change the law) was somehow here to change the law regardless of what He said. I've heard the arguments before.

The point is, either Jesus did come to change the law, in which case we can throw out the old law but would make Jesus a liar or at very least the scriptures inaccurate; or Jesus didn't come to change the law and we should torture fools.

Or, the bible was written by men, contains errors, and can be best seen as a guide book where God's love rises above the static of man's agendas.

I choose the latter.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God. 44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

And I said, I don't know of any scripture that says that they should have foreign slaves ONLY. I've also said in that post that they had both Hebrew and foreign slaves. I asked that question because you said

Scripture can show that, among other things, our slaves should be taken from other countries.

That's why I showed you where it was that they they could have Hebrew slaves. But following this law matter much because we are under the New Covenant and are not required to follow it.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Are you telling me that the verses that you quoted are somehow contrary to each other? I don't get it. Deut. is part of the Old law, we are under a new covenant that occurred when Christ shed His blood for the sins of the world.

Deuteronomy 25:1-3 says this
1 “If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, 2 then it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence, according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. 3 Forty blows he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight."
The Israelites were not told to beat these people for any reason; they were to follow this law, as is. And as for the verses in Proverbs, it did not in anyway contradict Deut. And the Israelites are not told that to torture fools but that when “fools” do something contrary go God’s law, and it is deserving of a beating, then they will be beaten.

To me, your interpretation of scripture in many cases is to completely ignore them as if they were untruths.

Now, I understand the whole idea that Jesus (who did not come to change the law) was somehow here to change the law regardless of what He said. I've heard the arguments before.

Or, the bible was written by men, contains errors, and can be best seen as a guide book where God's love rises above the static of man's agendas.

I choose the latter.

Ironic isn't it. You said that I interpret scripture in many cases to completely ignore them as if they were untruths, but yet you tell me that you believe it to contains errors and it is best seen as a guide book, and that you would ignore those scriptures that tell you to torture fools (which by the way it does not) and show them compassion (which by the way is what we are asked to do under the New Covenant).

I do not ignore scripture...we are told that the Old law was a tutor for a new and better covenant.

Galatians 3:19-25
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Hebrews 8:5-13
5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

But then again, if you know that Christ didn't change the old law, then show it to me through scripture and tell me what scripture says and explain to me where your thinking is coming from otherwise, it's another man's opinions.

But here's the difference: You say ". . . But do not deceive yourself into thinking that your beliefs (or anyone's beliefs for that matters) override anything that is written in scripture."
Yet, you are doing exactly that.

The scriptures I have listed above show that one is supposed to torture others who deserve it.

There is no "twist" to it.

Either the scriptures are wrong, or your interpretation is wrong.

The cool thing about scripture is that if you study it, you know what is says. Have you noticed that I try to always quote scripture when I say something that is written in scripture (though sometimes I forget too). If I give my opinion I will say so, and if it is scriptural, I will try and give the verses.

Again, if you don't understand that we are not under the Old law and therefore "torturing fools" (which is incorrect by the way) is not something we are to follow, than you won't understand what I'm saying. Here is the thing, because I am human and know that I am prone to errors, I am always open to being corrected in what scripture says. If someone is going to tell me something about scripture, then you have to provide those scriptures and show me that I am not interpreting scripture correctly. Scripture is great at explaining itself. But you can’t give me your opinions and not back it up with scripture, that doesn’t help anyone. Like I said, God’s word is what matters and that is what I try to stick by. If am wrong, then correct me, showing me scripture that says that, and show it in a way that is in its correct form not being twisted (because it’s possible to twist the verses into anyway you want it to say, that is one of the reasons why I try to quote a whole section instead of one particular verse—but again, I am not always successful at that).

Now, I understand the whole idea that Jesus (who did not come to change the law) was somehow here to change the law regardless of what He said. I've heard the arguments before.

The verse says He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-18). But He did change the law that was once physical and into something spiritual. He dying on that Cross, changed the way we worship God now (Romans and Hebrews explains it a lot better than I can). Read Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7 and see how Christ focuses more on the heart and the intents of a person whereas most (not all) of the Old law focused more outwardly. Christ instituted Baptism of repentance and with Holy Spirit (John the Baptist prepared the way by first baptizing people), it was not part of the old law, He speak of the Godhead dwelling in those whom keep His commandments (John 14), that was not part of the old law, He institutes the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26), again not part of the old law (but it does resemble what they ate on the Feast of Pentecost), there are a lot of things that He changed and it was shown by His actions and words.

 

[MattLangley]

You can ignore the old law only if you ignore Jesus, these verses are very clear:

Matthew 5:17-19

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law...Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

That seems very clear that it isn't changing, the commandments he talked about are the same in the Old Testament, he was a Jew. I mean he was specific enough to say "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law." So none of the old laws were removed, not even the smallest letter or stroke.

 

[DeanM]

But following this law matter much because we are under the New Covenant and are not required to follow it.

So basically, you're saying we're not under the law of the old covenant.

And I'm curious if you see the old testament as "scripture" at all.

The way you endorse "scripture" in general, I'd never have known that you are summarily dimissing half of them based on a view that Jesus' new laws somehow replace laws that He did not come to alter.

I don't fault you for this. I even agree with you.

I question whether you are aware that citing the perfection of "scripture" really means that you, like me, toss out when it suits your interpretations.

We're not all that different.

I admit to following the scriptures that make sense to me, yet you will not readily admit that you do the same.

Curious, the dichotomy.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

So basically, you're saying we're not under the law of the old covenant.

And I'm curious if you see the old testament as "scripture" at all.

The way you endorse "scripture" in general, I'd never have known that you are summarily dimissing half of them based on a view that Jesus' new laws somehow replace laws that He did not come to alter.

I don't fault you for this. I even agree with you.

I question whether you are aware that citing the perfection of "scripture" really means that you, like me, toss out when it suits your interpretations.

We're not all that different.

I admit to following the scriptures that make sense to me, yet you will not readily admit that you do the same.

Curious, the dichotomy.

There is a difference between the Old Testament and the Old Law. The Old Testament is what we call the first half of the bible that showed us how the Israelites lived under the Old law. We are not under the Old law, because the Old law has been done away with, it was a tutor for us whom are now under the New covenant (Galatians 3). Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy sums up the Old law, all the others books in the Old Testament shows us how the Israelites struggled and lived under those old laws. There are things that are eternal and still true even when you look under the Old Testament.

These are the words of Christ:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My blood." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying "Drink from it, all of you. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

And I don't think you still find the irony. You tell me that don't regard scripture (which I assure you I do) and yet you keep saying that you don't agree with it. Rest assure when it comes to the regarding of scriptures, we are on oppositr view.

I don't agree with interpretation that contracts the bible. And you want to know something, I am willing to bet that you too don't believe that we are under the old law--you don't believe it all the way. I am willing to bet that you do not do animal sacrifices or give burnt offerings or grain, sin or peace offerings. Because truly if we were under the old law, that is what we were supposed to do.

"Follow scripture that make sense to me" that's an interesting phrase. It's true that you have to understand what scripture says to be able to follow it, but to say "follow something that make sense to me" puts me in the position of judging God's word. For example, if I refuse to be sexually pure and commit sexual immorality, I am saying that following the commandments of being sexual pure doesn't make sense to me and so therefore I am going to follow what make sense to me. The one thing I want you to realize is that you don't know me, and you don't know what I struggle with. Sure there are some things I wish weren't sin

It is my job to follow scripture. When I gave my life to Him, that was the commitment I've made. You don't know what I struggle. If I ended up doing them a lot it goes against what the scripture has asked me to do, so please don't make the assumption that I'm only following what "make sense to me". I might not understand the whys of sin but I love God and if He ask me to stay away from them then I will try because I turst in Him. And I might not understand everythings spiritually but I put my faith and trust in His words.

 

[Rajni]

Do you guys ever do this?

Sometimes I think of the fact that God is choosey of who gets into heaven..... and I kinda like that.

There are times where, after the weight of the world i coming down on me, that I feel comfortable some people are going to hell.

Hopefully the hypocrites first!

I can totally relate to what you're saying! Of course, that was back when I still believed that there were some who wouldn't be saved in the end. My soteriological stance has since changed.

But still, I can relate. There were days where I've felt like that! If not Hell itself, I would sometimes feel that those who annoyed me should at least have to endure the Tribulation after I've been raptured outta here.

I feel bad about that now. :o

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You can ignore the old law only if you ignore Jesus, these verses are very clear:

Matthew 5:17-19
not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law...Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

That seems very clear that it isn't changing, the commandments he talked about are the same in the Old Testament, he was a Jew. I mean he was specific enough to say "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law." So none of the old laws were removed, not even the smallest letter or stroke.

He saids
...For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law TIL ALL IS FULFILLED. (Matthew 5:18) but remember in Matthew 5:17 He says "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy BUT TO FULFILL."

Same as I said to DeanM, I bet you anything that you do not follow the Old law to the letter and you do not give offerings for the forgiveness of your sins because that was what was required under the Old law.

Galatians 4:21--5:6

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:


“ Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

Galatians 5

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

 

[MattLangley]

He saids
...For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law TIL ALL IS FULFILLED. (Matthew 5:18) but remember in Matthew 5:17 He says "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy BUT TO FULFILL."

Same as I said to DeanM, I bet you anything that you do not follow the Old law to the letter and you do not give offerings for the forgiveness of your sins because that was what was required under the Old law.

Galatians 4:21--5:6

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:


“ Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

Galatians 5

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

I'm sorry you cannot ignore a part of what Jesus said, you quoted it yourself:

"till heaven and earth pass away"

Have heaven and earth passed away? If your answer is no then the law stands exactly as it was by your own quote.

No I don't follow all the old laws lol, I'm not one professing everything in the Bible is factual-literal though. I don't believe they were laws given by God, but by the people of the time, they simply put them up to that importance, but again you are the one arguing this, not me. I round the edges of my bear so I violate old laws *shrug*.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I'm sorry you cannot ignore a part of what Jesus said, you quoted it yourself:

"till heaven and earth pass away"

Have heaven and earth passed away? If your answer is no then the law stands exactly as it was by your own quote.

No I don't follow all the old laws lol, I'm not one professing everything in the Bible is factual-literal though. I don't believe they were laws given by God, but by the people of the time, they simply put them up to that importance, but again you are the one arguing this, not me. I round the edges of my bear so I violate old laws *shrug*.

:
Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, TILL heaven and earth pass away, ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE WILL BY NO MEANS PASS from the law TILL all is fulfilled.

Um....it says that heaven and earth will not pass away until the law is fulfilled but it does not say it will pass away immediately.

Christ fulfilled the law, for that's what HE said He came here to do, but He did not say that heaven and earth will pass away IMMEDIATELY after the law is fulfilled. In fact, Christ tells us the signs that the end of the times are coming...
Matthew 24:3-(until the end of the chapter)
Now as he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and the end of the ages?"...

I stop there because I want to encourage you to read the chapter, even if you feel that it's not inspired by God, I just would really encourage you to read it with an open heart and see that Christ is telling us when the end of the times are coming.

 

[twmws]

Personally there are a few people I don't wanna see in Heaven, but I'm not God and don't get to make that decision. Like child molestors and rapists, I mean they can repent and all, but I don't really wanna be up there with them. But then again thats not my decision to make and thats ok cause I don't think I want to be in charge of everything in teh world, I would prolly screw it up.

 

[MattLangley]

:
Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, TILL heaven and earth pass away, ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE WILL BY NO MEANS PASS from the law TILL all is fulfilled.

Um....it says that heaven and earth will not pass away until the law is fulfilled but it does not say it will pass away immediately.

Christ fulfilled the law, for that's what HE said He came here to do, but He did not say that heaven and earth will pass away IMMEDIATELY after the law is fulfilled. In fact, Christ tells us the signs that the end of the times are coming...
Matthew 24:3-(until the end of the chapter)
Now as he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and the end of the ages?"...

I stop there because I want to encourage you to read the chapter, even if you feel that it's not inspired by God, I just would really encourage you to read it with an open heart and see that Christ is telling us when the end of the times are coming.

"Christ fulfilled the law, for that's what HE said He came here to do, but He did not say that heaven and earth will pass away IMMEDIATELY after the law is fulfilled."

Your right, he didn't... he said the exactly opposite... TILL heaven and earth pass away, TILL all is fulfilled... hence both of those must happen before the old law can pass away at all, in any way. It's quite clear.