True belief in god (or Christ)

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]deceit (or plain old lying) is a good thing sometimes - enables me to hide my intentions/true thoughts when the only disadvantages (and no advantages) for not doing this would fall upon myself. We have discussed this one in the past.
disobedience to parents can sometimes be a good thing if that which you are meant to obey is just wrong - especially if you have crap parents (I didn't but some do).[/b]

these are exceptions rather than the norm, in the case of disobedience to parents, if they are abusive then clearly you have an obligation to defend yourself, as for deceit i cannot condone it, unless you are in some kind of personal danger, and even then, simply withholding information to those who are not entitled to it, could be better.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]
I looked for the quotation [b]"worthy of execution" and could not find that I wrote that. The Romans passage says "worthy of death".

Please cut and paste my quotation of "worthy of execution" if I wrote that. [/b]

you wrote:

...The New Testament says that the following things make a person worthy of death:

" they did n been made in the Old Testament for our education...

Notice the bit I bolded.[/b]

================================
We are worthy of execution. Some examples must have been made in the Old Testament for our education...[.quote]

Notice the bit I bolded.
================================

Ah. Thanks. It appears that I did write that "WE are worthy of execution"(my emphasis) .

Okay. I should have kept more strictly to what Paul wrote. I should have simply quoted We are "worthy of death".

The point is received that I did write "we are worthy of execution".

Now, who is the EXECUTIONER ? In terms of the Gospel message there certainly is no ground or instruction for one sinner to be the executioner of another sinner.

This should be ascertained by the word of Christ to His disciples: "Do not judge, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you." (Matt. 7:1,2)

The principle of the kingdom of the heavens is that the disciple of Jesus should be strict towards himself and merciful towards others.

Towards myself I am to be strict. Towards others I am to be accomodating and merciful.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy" (Matt. 5:7)

So then, we are all sinners fallen short of the glory of God. And the Bible says the wages of sin is death. And it enumerated a representative number of iniquities saying such made us worthy of death.

Please do not waste any further time trying to maneuver me into some kind of sense of personal responsibility to put you to death - regardless if I wrote "execution" or "death". There simply is no obligation upon the Christian disciples to execute stoning.

What we emphasize is that because Christ died, all died in Him - "For the love of Christ constrains us because we have judged this, that One died for all, therefore all died; And He died for all that those who live may no longer live to themselves but to Him who died for them and has been raised." (2 Cor. 5:14,15)

What we teach is that by faith we should thoroughly identify ourselves with Christ's death and resurrection. He was executed for us. When we embrace this truth, God causes substitution to take place. Christ's life and death become our history before God.


Regardless of my less then perfect phraseology in this discussion, there is no responsibility on the follower of Jesus to perform stonings even though God pronounces us worthy of death because of our sins.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
We are worthy of execution. Some examples must have been made in the Old Testament for our education...[.quote]

Notice the bit I bolded.
================================

Ah. Thanks. It appears that I did write that "WE are worthy of execution"(my emphasis) .

Okay. I should have kept more s rm stonings even though God pronounces us worthy of death because of our sins.[/b]

here simply is no obligation upon the Christian disciples to execute stoning.

contradicted by:


"If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods', you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God."

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

On the off chance you retort that was an Old Testament ruling that applies not to Christians of this day and age, then you should aslo reject other Old Testament teachings like the fall of man in the Garden of Eden etc...

[b]here simply is no obligation upon the Christian disciples to execute stoning.

contradicted by:


"If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods', you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye aslo reject other Old Testament teachings like the fall of man in the Garden of Eden etc...[/b]

Agers we are no longer under any obligation to practice the ordinances of the Mosaic law, they are now obsolete in practice. Christ was the laws fulfilment. Why should we reject other scriptural references, for clearly there are many references in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, on the basis that the law has been fulfilled, hardly, it only makes up a very small portion of the entire Biblical cannon.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]here simply is no obligation upon the Christian disciples to execute stoning.

contradicted by:

[i]
"If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods', you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye aslo reject other Old Testament teachings like the fall of man in the Garden of Eden etc...[/b]

===============================
contradicted by:


"If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods', you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God."

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
============================================ [/i]

It is interesting that you wish to deny that there is a new covenant but nullify it and demand all Christians to be Old Testament law keepers under Moses.

Should we also prepare to invade Canaan also after we rally around Mt. Sinai ?

Did you ever read of God's promise of a new covenant ?

"Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by t heir hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt ...." (Jer. 31:3132)

You may read more about the details of the new covenant which is NOT like the through Moses given at Mt Sinai.

There are 27 books in the Bible called "The New Testament" where you can read more about this new covenant.

=======================================
On the off chance you retort that was an Old Testament ruling that applies not to Christians of this day and age, then you should aslo reject other Old Testament teachings like the fall of man in the Garden of Eden etc...
=================================

The fall of man in the Garden of Eden is not part of the covenant of law given by Moses at Mt. Sinai. There is no reason for me to revert back to the Judiasm of Mt. Sinai nor is there reason for me to decide the history told in Genesis should be rejected.

Furthermore there is no need for me to feel that God feels differently about such moral issues as coveting, killing, stealing, having other gods before Him. His way of justifying the sinner has had a change but the divine attitude towards sin is the same.

And Christ, while nullifying the rituals of the old covenant, hightened and made more penetrating the moral sense.

"You have heard in time past ... BUT I SAY TO YOU ...."

So your whiole critques is superfiscial, juvenile, and displays not only ignorance of Christian theology but really an unwillingness to know, I think.

In short you have a cherished beloved straw man argument that was dealt with about 2,000 years ago. See Galatians, Colossians, Hebrews, Gospel of John, Acts. Then the writings of Luther would shed some light too.

This answer has to be short. I am being called away.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Agers we are no longer under any obligation to practice the ordinances of the Mosaic law, they are now obsolete in practice. Christ was the laws fulfilment. Why should we reject other scriptural references, for clearly there are many references in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, on the basis that the law has been fulfilled, hardly, it only makes up a very small portion of the entire Biblical cannon.

The Mosaic law no longer applies/God changed; contradicted by:

Ecclesiastes 3:14 (NAS)
14 I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him.

Psalm 119:89 (NAS)
89 Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven.

Revelation 22:18–19 (NAS)
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part ...




There are other such passages too.

Originally posted by Agerg
The Mosaic law no longer applies/God changed; contradicted by:

Ecclesiastes 3:14 (NAS)
14 I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him.

Psalm 119:89 (NAS)
89 Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven.

Revelation 22:18–1 it be according to their faith" (2 Nephi 27:23).


There are other such passages too.

Agers you are now bordering on even less than straws, you are entering the realm of fantasy, as if God cannot exercise his will to effect upon his purposes, thus, none of these references has even a semblance of credibility, God has provided the Christ, the Law is nullified, or have you never read,

(Hebrews 7:12) . . .For since the priesthood is being changed, there comes to be of necessity a change also of the law. (Christ and other Christians would now serve as a Holy nation, and loyal priesthood)

that it was intended to be temporary is easy to establish,

(Hebrews 10:1) . . .For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, men can never with the same sacrifices from year to year which they offer continually make those who approach perfect. . .

(Jeremiah 31:31-32)  “Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant;  not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt,. . .

etc etc

Originally posted by jaywill
===============================
contradicted by:


"If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods', you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or con would shed some light too.

This answer has to be short. I am being called away.

Then if this is true; and your god's immutibility is false then this either contradicts your god's omniscience (since it didn't know it would change it's mind) or it's pants are on fire -contradicting it cannot lie. :]

Originally posted by Agerg
Then if this is true; and your god's immutibility is false then this contradicts either your god's omniscience (since it didn't know it would change it's mind) or it's pants are on fire (it lied) :]

please see the above post and give it up, our God is awesome!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please see the above post and give it up, our God is awesome!

That post does not reconcile my last.

Originally posted by Agerg
That post does not reconcile my last.

Agers i am not here to reconcile your posts my friend, the fact of the matter is, God has consistently made alterations to effect his purposes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Agers i am not here to reconcile your posts my friend, the fact of the matter is, God has consistently made alterations to effect his purposes.

If "everything God does will remain forever" is not true then either your god who (supposedly) inspired the Bible was telling porkies, or it demonstrates the Bible is a human contrivance. Or if it wasn't lying then it made a mistake since it didn't know it would change it's mind - contradicts and omniscient (and perfect perhaps - since he had to improve his silly little laws of the OT)

Originally posted by Agerg
If "everything God does will remain forever" is not true then either your god who (supposedly) inspired the Bible was telling porkies, or it demonstrates the Bible is a human contrivance. Or if it wasn't lying then it made a mistake since it didn't know it would change it's mind - contradicts and omniscient (and perfect perhaps - since he had to improve his silly little laws of the OT)

Aggy, the explanation has been given, if you wish to interpret the scripture at a purely face value then who am I to tell you differently, it is absurd to state that because your interpretation of a particular passage is such that it negates the inspiration of Scripture, or that God is a liar, indeed, you were clearly shown that Gods acts depending upon his will and purpose, and may indeed effect a change at any point in time he wishes, that these are somehow separate instances is also a nonsense, for it was shown to you in prophecy that Jeremiah, who lived several hundred years prior to the Christ, clearly stated that the covenant (agreement) between God and the Israelites (the Mosiac Law) would end, that a new agreement would be made, one based on conscience, how you can deny the inspiration is quite simply inexcusable.

These petty arguments over semantics and fights about words are futile, indeed, we as Christians are warned against them,

(2 Timothy 2:23-25)  Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights.  But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed. . .

and this one,

(1 Timothy 4:7) . . .But turn down the false stories which violate what is holy and which old women tell. . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Aggy, the explanation has been given, if you wish to interpret the scripture at a purely face value then who am I to tell you differently, it is absurd to state that because your interpretation of a particular passage is such that it negates the inspiration of Scripture, or that God is a liar, indeed, you were clearly shown that Gods acts depending u ...[text shortened]... eping himself restrained under evil, instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed. . .

This does not resolve the contradictions I've highlighted. The argument is simple:

Any statement god doesn't change implies changes applied after this statement are invalid or contradicts the veracity of the text. The untruthfulness arises because of either:

1) human error in their authorship
2) a lying god
3) a mistake prone god. (it was premature to assert he does not change)

I suspect (1)

Originally posted by Agerg
This does not resolve the contradictions I've highlighted. The argument is simple:

Any statement god doesn't change implies changes applied after this statement are invalid or contradicts the veracity of the text. The untruthfulness arises because of either:

1) human error in their authorship
2) a lying god
3) a mistake prone god.

I suspect (1)

there is no error nor any contradiction, for they are part of the same whole, the same purpose, simply different episodes at different epochs of time, different constituent parts of the same whole. you argument is hyper balderdash!