The Validity Of Scripture

Drotar · Aug 25, 2003

Hey, what did I say about coherency by the way, LaBonita?

You asked me to ask you a question. I did. For some reason, the thread is on the validity of Scripture, and you are going on about what whether you think the Pharisees were liberal or conservative.

Let me tell you this though. Jesus would NOT take kindly to what many liberals believe nowadays. If you want to use that defintion, I'd say that Christ and the Pharisees were BOTH conservative.

And apparently you don't understand eschatology very well. Jesus had no problem with tradition or orthodoxy. He lived by it. He fulfilled the Law.

Jesus was not some radical teacher, but conservative regarding God's covenant to Abraham and the Law of Moses, as much as the Pharisees were radically errant. I wouldn't say the Pharisees were on track and Jesus created a new system.

I'd say the Pharisees were OFF the proper system, and Jesus was a conservative hero that brought them back to the truth as God intended it. It's not like God suddenly did a 180 at the Resurrection. It's that God ALWAYS had the same plan for how He was to be worshipped and how we should act, but the Pharisees got off track. Jesus corrected them.

What do you mean "warm-hearted" = liberal?

Do you understand that conservatives believe in charity too?

Do you even know the difference between the two? Wilikers! Let me explain more.

Conservatives also believe in charity, BUT NOT through taxes and government distribution. Through the church.

Liberals believe in charity through the government. Oddly enough, those who do not work and depend on our hard-working tax dollars, are liberal.

From the history of the posts just here, I don't think you understand the political differences between the two.

Really quickly, don't look it up. Tell me. What's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat???

TTYL Jesus loves you!

Lotar · Aug 25, 2003

Let's not turn this into a political debate.

Reformationist · Aug 25, 2003

newlamb said:
Who did he not love - ohhh the Pharisee's - right? (told you I was new).

Well, I don't know that it would be an accurate biblical statement to say that the Lord hated the Pharisees as a whole but here are a couple of examples of the Lord's divine, righteous hate:

Psalm 5:5
The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
You hate all workers of iniquity.

Romans 9:13
As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

I did not take you to be argumentative. I'm new at quoting scripture and have the NIV on this computer. I need to take the time to quote properly and not paraphrase! Thanks!

I've had two preachers in as many days speak of incorporating the word into myself! I'm working on that!

Thanks for your requiring me to back myself up!

I think you're doing fine. I'm not actually one of those people that need to have every single point backed up by Scripture. Of course, if dispute on an issue arises then it is always helpful to have the Word of God backing you up.

God bless,
Don

La Bonita Zorilla · Aug 25, 2003

Drotar said:
Do you know what a conservative is?

See above post.

It is COMPLETELY dependent on one's view of interest groups and government programs and aid.

To some extent. These days conservatives favor welfare for the rich and the defense contractors.

A liberal, by definition, believes that the government should protect the nation and help support it. Liberals support a wide range of interest groups and agencies of blind charity. I do not say "blind" derogatorily, but that is the best word to describe it.

Not sure what you mean by 'blind' charity; if you mean charity that is nondiscriminatory, your comment's accurate. That's exactly what is needed.

A conservative, by defintion, means that we believe that the government will oftentimes oppress and slow down the economy.

Okay.

Conservatives place strong emphasis on the working individual, and instead of offering the unemployed money, putting them into jobs.

I'd disagree there. They favor the nonworking rich over workers of any sort. Evidence abounds on this; just look a which party's platform emphasizes creation of jobs-not the Republicans.

A true conservative would beleive that the government should interfere with our basic lives as little as possible.

A true liberal believes exactly the same thing. The difference is in the details. Conservatives are concerned about such things as not forcing employers to be nondiscriminatory. Liberals are concerned about censorship.

The reason why conservatives hold businesses in such high regard is because of the belief that the working people should uphold the economy. For this reason, we believe that taxes should be lowered.

Actually that's false; since the reagan administration taxes have continued to go up and up regardless which party is in power. The scheme has been to switch the burden to states and local government.

Do you understand what the difference is between conservatism and liberalism? You should be more careful how you use that term.

My undergrad minor was political science. I had plenty of excellent teachers who were both. One conservative teacher I had was Marvin Olavsky who is an advisor to Bush and coined the term "compassionate conservatism" though others have claimed it as well.

Though for different reasons, I agree with Don that you must not know the difference between a liberal and a conservative.

Again see above.

I am conservative in thought, but politically, I am moderate.

What a coincidence, so am I, but also liberal in policymaking. I think sometimes boldness is required when pushing for social change. For instance on the healthcare issue I am strongly in favor of the single payer system.

To call Jesus a liberal and the Pharisees conservatives is not *even* a coherent or logical claim.

I believe that it is.

Where did you get the concept that Jesus existed?

From my Mom.

But on other issues, you flat out deny the Scriptures. I wonder why.

Well, you know, if you read intellectual journal type magazines like The Nation and so forth in the classified ads you will often find little ads from some guys peddling "PROOF THAT JESUS NEVER EXISTED! SEND $3.95 FOR DETAILS!" I suppose I could take them at face value instead, or believe in the historical Jesus as all reputable scholars do. I suppose it is possible some grand conspiracy could have existed to manufacture this 'Jesus' character to advance some political aims, but that'd be rather convenient. Actually there is strong evidence that a similar sort of historical incident actually did happen: in the Mexican legend of the Virgen de Guadalupe it is said an image of Mary appeared to an Indian named Don Diego. Revisionists are now claiming Don Diego never existed but was instead a fictional character created to Christianize the Indians by the Catholic prelates of Mexico. It is indeed possible this was so - but it does not negate Mary and some pamphleteer's claims Jesus never existed does not negate evidence he did.

Tell me- have your feelings ever led you astray?

Maybe the first time I fell in love, LOL, but that's about it.

La Bonita Zorilla · Aug 26, 2003

Drotar said:
Let me tell you this though. Jesus would NOT take kindly to what many liberals believe nowadays.

I disagree, except in the sense he wouldn't think they're liberal enough.

Jesus had no problem with tradition or orthodoxy.

Again I disagree. He was many things but orthodox was not one of them.

Conservatives also believe in charity, BUT NOT through taxes and government distribution. Through the church.

We saw how poorly that worked in the 19th Century.

Liberals believe in charity through the government. Oddly enough, those who do not work and depend on our hard-working tax dollars, are liberal.

Actually most of the needy are not ideological.

What's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat???

Not a whole lot when it gets down to brass tacks. One of my teachers said Republicans are the party of the status quo and Democrats are the party of moderate change. That's about as accurate as you can get.

Lotar · Aug 26, 2003

Okay, let's see if we can get this thread back on track, this sounds too much like "Jesus is a Democrat" "No He's a Republican" debate.

The purpose of this thread is to debate the validity of scripture. So let's start over.

First, before we start assuming, La Bonita Zorilla, what do you believe when it comes to the validity of scripture. How it is applied, ect.
Please be thurough, so that later on we aren't missunderstanding you. Thanks.

Drotar · Aug 27, 2003

OK, I find no need to even ADDRESS the rest of your post unless you feel very strongly about me doing so.

You're wrong. Straight and simple.

Your view of conservatism and liberalism is tainted and defined by your opinions and stereotypes.

I hold in my hands a recent U.S. Government textbook. You have NO CLUE what a Republican or a Democrat is?

You called me ignorant and a sheep in the other thread? The speck and log parable.

This should be common knowledge. A Republican believes that the states should have more power and governing authority than the government. A Democrat believes that the federal should have more power and governing authority, in each state than the states.

Conservatism and Liberalism is a measure of HOW MUCH power the government should have. To be liberal and Democrat, someone would believe that the government should have MUCH power and authority, AND preside over the states in those private matters.

I am Republican in that I believe that each state can MORE efficiently govern its own affairs than several guys in D.C.

The fact that you do not even know this basic information makes me question whether the claims of ignorance that you said to me ought to be reversed.

You are in no condition to discuss such matters of government and politics in a coherent manner. Please learn more from sources other than your opinions. Because your opinions, twice here, have been wrong. I bid you a good day, and I will no longer return here to reply to your messages. You are in no position to be discussing this. Because of this I can logically extrapolate that you are probably in even less a condition and position to debate philosophy and epistemology. TTYL Jesus loves you!

La Bonita Zorilla · Aug 27, 2003

Lotar said:
First, before we start assuming, La Bonita Zorilla, what do you believe when it comes to the validity of scripture. How it is applied, ect.

I'm really not sure what you want.

Do you know who Angloisraelis are? They are far out cults who believe white Americans (Anglo-Saxons) are the real chosen people of God. Some follow OT dietary laws and do such things as separate husbands and wives during the woman's period (the white supremacists randy and Vicky Weaver did this). Now most Christians, liberal, Catholic, or fundamentalist, say such things do not apply to modern Christians. But yet some Christians believe maxims from the same areas of scripture addressing family organization, sexual practice etc., are set in stone. To say one applies but the other does not is inconsistent picking and choosing to justify one's prejudices.

There is significant evidence the early Genesis stories are simply folk tales whose truth is as valid as that of an Aesop's fable or a Grimm Brothers anthology. There are valuable spiritual lessons there and we shouldn't belittle them as such but no one really believes there really was a Cain and Abel, for instance. There are such things as Joshua making the sun stand still which would have been impossible so of course they did not really happen. There is evidence the books of Ruth and Jonah were works of fiction. Certainly in the Gospel traditions the Gospel of St. Matthew was not written by the disciple Matthew (Levi) the Tax Collector but like the other synoptic gospels is a refinement of folkways. The things in the Johnanine Gospel not in the synoptic Gospels may be embellishments of sorts. Some Pauline epistles are attributed to Paul but his authorship is far from certain and as always lacking authority. The Revelation to St. John the Revelator is either a coded criticism of Roman authorities or ravings of a lunatic and specific events described therein will never come to pass, Jenkins and LaHaye notwithstanding. (No doubt in 1000 years some will believe that Buck Cameron and Rayford Steele were real people too.)

Like most Christians I believe critics of orthodox interpretations can go too far, as in Spong's assertion the ascent of Christ into Heaven did not occur due to the fact that our cosmology no longer accepts the concept of the three-tiered universe as they did then. More likely Christ transported to Heaven in a manner similar to Kirk and Spock in the transporter room.

That's a start. Ask specific ?s if you want more.

La Bonita Zorilla · Aug 27, 2003

Drotar said:
A Republican believes that the states should have more power and governing authority than the government. A Democrat believes that the federal should have more power and governing authority, in each state than the states.

Not necessarily. In the federal court case which decided the 2000 election, the conservatives or Republicans sought to and won the overturning of the state court ruling in Florida. In the end it is all about raw naked power as that case showed.

Conservatism and Liberalism is a measure of HOW MUCH power the government should have. To be liberal and Democrat, someone would believe that the government should have MUCH power and authority, AND preside over the states in those private matters.

To some extent. But it depends on the type of power and specific application. Your concept is simplistic. Some conservatives and liberals support such things as the Patriot Act due to concern about fighting terrorism and others of both camps oppose it due to concerns about civil liberties.

I am Republican in that I believe that each state can MORE efficiently govern its own affairs than several guys in D.C.

Really? Then why not accept at face value that New Jersey may approve same gender marriage and just let it go?

[/QUOTE]

Lotar · Aug 27, 2003

Do you believe that all the miracles in the bible are made up, or just the OT?

La Bonita Zorilla · Aug 27, 2003

Lotar said:
Do you believe that all the miracles in the bible are made up, or just the OT?

Depends. Which ones?

The business about Christ casting demons out of the mentally ill is obviously told in the frame of superstitious primitive people so what actually happened and what they thought happened are most likely two different things.

BAChristian · Aug 27, 2003

I disagree. I was going to try to write something in my own words, but hey I'm lazy...

And besides, I think the following would convey my message exactly. This is cited from http://www.cornerstonechurchonline.com/biblestudies/romans_913.htm.

--snip--

This is called an "idiom of preference," meaning one person or thing is preferred over another person or thing. It doesn't mean God literally hated Esau.

Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other" (Matt. 6:24). Jesus didn't mean for the servant to murder his former master, but to prefer the new master over the old one.

Another time Jesus said, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). This doesn't mean we should curse and hate our family members, but we should love Jesus more than ourselves and family.

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" simply means God favored Jacob rather than Esau to fulfill His plan.

Reformationist said:
Romans 9:13
Well, I don't know that it would be an accurate biblical statement to say that the Lord hated the Pharisees as a whole but here are a couple of examples of the Lord's divine, righteous hate:

Psalm 5:5
The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
You hate all workers of iniquity.

Romans 9:13
As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

Serapha · Aug 27, 2003

La Bonita Zorilla said:
Ask me whatever. As you know I am not a fundamentalist. We worship Christ, not the Bible. The bible cannot be interpreted the same way by every person. That is okay. We all do the best with what we've got and that's good enough.

Well, you can't know Christ if you don't know the good news of the Gospels.

It isn't necessary to sling mud to make your point..... fundamentals don't "worship" the Bible, but they do reverence it.

~malaka~

Serapha · Aug 27, 2003

Lotar said:
The discussion in another thread gave me the idea to start this thread.

I would like to discuss the validity of scripture, and who it is important to believers. How secular philosophy and morals cannot take pressident.

Validity: Webster's defined: the state, quality, or fact of being valid in law or in argument, proof, authority, etc...

Valid: Webster's defined: using definition 2, well-grounded on principles or evidence; able to withstand criticism or objection, as an argument;...

Well, of course, the Scriptures are "well-grounded" on principles and evidence. There are hundreds of archaeological and scientific supports for the Bible. The locations are identifiable, the customs can be traced through Judaism and history, even some of the people in the Bible can be verified to have existed.

Philosophy is just discussion.... morals is the action of conscience.... but the Word of God is proved through history, archaeology, prophecy, and interpretation... i.e. there are no contradictions in the Bible.

~malaka~

Reformationist · Aug 28, 2003

BAchristian said:
This is called an "idiom of preference," meaning one person or thing is preferred over another person or thing. It doesn't mean God literally hated Esau.

This is called a misinterpretation. "Hated," or "hate," is used in two different ways in the Bible. One, as is the case of Romans 9:13, a contrast is being made between the love shown to Jacob and the lack of love shown to Esau. What you seem to be failing to understand is the biblical meaning of "love," which directly affects our understanding of the biblical definition of "hate" in this context. Biblical "love" is giving the recipient of your actions that which they most need with no regard for yourself, as the Lord did with Jacob. Biblical "love" is active. You see, though Jacob was a fallen, sinful being and, thus, the enemy of God, God gave him [Jacob] that which he most needed, i.e., mercy, with no regard for His [God's] own abhorrance for sinfulness. The opposite of that love is hate. However, unlike our own human, fallen version of hate which normally involves something active, God's hate is passive. That is, He withholds that which the person most needs, i.e., mercy, and instead gives them justice.

"Idiom of preference" is the correct interpretation of "hate" in Luke 14:26:

Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

In this context "hate" does not mean what it does in Romans 9:13. It means "love less." So in this passage, Christ is saying that if we do not put the Lord first in our lives, which requires that we put the needs of our "father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, our own life" second then we don't love Him and cannot be His disciple.

Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other" (Matt. 6:24). Jesus didn't mean for the servant to murder his former master, but to prefer the new master over the old one.

That's true. This is given in the same context as the passage in Luke, which I just noticed you have quoted as well:

Another time Jesus said, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). This doesn't mean we should curse and hate our family members, but we should love Jesus more than ourselves and family.

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" simply means God favored Jacob rather than Esau to fulfill His plan.

Unfortunately, in this case, you have incorrectly interpreted the meaning of this passage because you fail to see the purpose of that whole section of Scripture:

Romans 9:10-13
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

The purpose of this section of Scripture is to make clear that divine predestination is based on "God's purpose according to election." You see, it was normal Jewish custom that the oldest son would basically inherit everything and the younger son would serve the older. God, to prove that His divine election was according to His purpose, not only selected the younger to be the one to inherit all things, to include everlasting life, but that it was NOT according to either of their works but rather according to the purpose of Him who calls.

God bless

BAChristian · Aug 28, 2003

I don't know why we Christians even respond to each other, it's futile...

Believe what you wanna believe...or rather, believe whatever the Lord is telling you to believe...if that "interpretation" is what you feel is right, then hey, whatever.

You don't answer to me, that's for sure.

Reformationist said:
This is called a misinterpretation. "Hated," or "hate," is used in two different ways in the Bible. One, as is the case of Romans 9:13, a contrast is being made between the love shown to Jacob and the lack of love shown to Esau. What you seem to be failing to understand is the biblical meaning of "love," which directly affects our understanding of the biblical definition of "hate" in this context. Biblical "love" is giving the recipient of your actions that which they most need with no regard for yourself, as the Lord did with Jacob. Biblical "love" is active. You see, though Jacob was a fallen, sinful being and, thus, the enemy of God, God gave him [Jacob] that which he most needed, i.e., mercy, with no regard for His [God's] own abhorrance for sinfulness. The opposite of that love is hate. However, unlike our own human, fallen version of hate which normally involves something active, God's hate is passive. That is, He withholds that which the person most needs, i.e., mercy, and instead gives them justice.

"Idiom of preference" is the correct interpretation of "hate" in Luke 14:26:

Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

In this context "hate" does not mean what it does in Romans 9:13. It means "love less." So in this passage, Christ is saying that if we do not put the Lord first in our lives, which requires that we put the needs of our "father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, our own life" second then we don't love Him and cannot be His disciple.

That's true. This is given in the same context as the passage in Luke, which I just noticed you have quoted as well:

Unfortunately, in this case, you have incorrectly interpreted the meaning of this passage because you fail to see the purpose of that whole section of Scripture:

Romans 9:10-13
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

The purpose of this section of Scripture is to make clear that divine predestination is based on "God's purpose according to election." You see, it was normal Jewish custom that the oldest son would basically inherit everything and the younger son would serve the older. God, to prove that His divine election was according to His purpose, not only selected the younger to be the one to inherit all things, to include everlasting life, but that it was NOT according to either of their works but rather according to the purpose of Him who calls.

God bless

La Bonita Zorilla · Aug 28, 2003

Malaka said:
Well, you can't know Christ if you don't know the good news of the Gospels.

I agree, and certainly believe non-fundamentalist christians do that.

It isn't necessary to sling mud to make your point..... fundamentals don't "worship" the Bible, but they do reverence it.

That term "Biblicism" for "worship of the Bible" I got from a book called Ten Wrong Things I Learned From A Conservative Church by Rev. Dr. John Killinger. When I was moving to my new office two students were helping me carry stuff and one had a box with that book on top so he said "Only ten?"

Reformationist · Aug 28, 2003

BAchristian said:
I don't know why we Christians even respond to each other, it's futile...

Well, it certainly can be futile but I guess that would depend on how willing we all are to consider the possibility that we are ever wrong about anything. Christianity as a whole seems, in my opinion, to be a community of people who, after a very short period of instruction and study, believe themselves to be subject matter experts in an area of discussion that takes years of comprehensive study to proficiently address.

Believe what you wanna believe...or rather, believe whatever the Lord is telling you to believe...if that "interpretation" is what you feel is right, then hey, whatever.

Um...okay. You sound aggravated which is certainly not an emotion I was seeking to provoke so I apologize if I've said anything to offend you.

You don't answer to me, that's for sure.

Have a good day.

God bless,
Don

Lotar · Aug 30, 2003

La Bonita Zorilla said:
Depends. Which ones?

The business about Christ casting demons out of the mentally ill is obviously told in the frame of superstitious primitive people so what actually happened and what they thought happened are most likely two different things.

What are your beliefs on salvation? How does one obtain it? How do you know that you are saved?

Serapha · Aug 30, 2003

La Bonita Zorilla said:
I agree, and certainly believe non-fundamentalist christians do that.

That term "Biblicism" for "worship of the Bible" I got from a book called Ten Wrong Things I Learned From A Conservative Church by Rev. Dr. John Killinger. When I was moving to my new office two students were helping me carry stuff and one had a box with that book on top so he said "Only ten?"

Hi there!

and your point? That you encourage your students to sling mud at fundamentals?

just curious...

~malaka~

The Validity Of Scripture

Drotar

Guest

Swift Eagle Justice

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Diana's Quiver Bearer

Diana's Quiver Bearer

Swift Eagle Justice

Drotar

Guest

Diana's Quiver Bearer

Diana's Quiver Bearer

Swift Eagle Justice

Diana's Quiver Bearer

Discerning the Diaconate. Please pray for me.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Discerning the Diaconate. Please pray for me.

Diana's Quiver Bearer

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Swift Eagle Justice

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency