12 Jan 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLike I said, it's been discussed here many times, so you know what the 'lack of credibility' view is, even if you don't subscribe to it. I'm not really interested in going through it all again at the moment. Maybe some other time. 🙂
So exactly what was it about Revelations that soured you on faith?
Originally posted by SuzianneMy belief used to be strong, so you are mistaken about that. What I no longer believe in is the Christian version of God or the validity of all the religionist dogma that goes with it. As I said before, I do not believe that God has revealed Himself to you. Nothing you have ever said to me has made me think otherwise. Furthermore, while I have no desire to divest you of your beliefs, your perception of God has no influence on mine other than that I have ruled yours out as being spiritually irrelevant to me. I do this, not through ignorance of Christianity, but through having experienced it and subscribed to it in the past.
If you do not believe God, then you never really believed in God in the first place.
13 Jan 13
Originally posted by hakimaI have read the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon several times also. Your Prophet encountered, what I consider, a spiritual epiphany which thousands of many beliefs have experienced and he promptly flavored and colored the opaque visions to suit his belief system. We humans do a lot of this, it seems.
That the Book of Mormon contains scriptures that are in the King James Bible is not, imo immediate cause for discrediting it. First of all, the New Testament contains a great deal of exact verbiage from the Old Testament, much of which was Jesus quoting scripture. Second, the BOM's exact wording from the New Testament are from Jesus himself, while he was pu ...[text shortened]... libility and divine validity of any of the sacred texts as they are utilized to control humans.
13 Jan 13
Originally posted by caissad4Interesting the term, "your prophet." While I was born into the Mormon religion, it is more of a cultural term for me any more. I have not thought of the founder of Mormonism as "my prophet" for years...
I have read the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon several times also. Your Prophet encountered, what I consider, a spiritual epiphany which thousands of many beliefs have experienced and he promptly flavored and colored the opaque visions to suit his belief system. We humans do a lot of this, it seems.
14 Jan 13
The Book of Mormon can't stand from an archaeological stand point. The Golden Plates also where did they go? But the cities and peoples and languages that were supposed to be these tribes here in the America's don't exist. Joseph Smith may have been visited by an angel but the angel was a fallen angel in my mind.
Manny
14 Jan 13
Originally posted by menace71In my opinion this is a better argument that calls the Book of Mormon's credibility into question...except for the fallen angel part...I can't say I believe the angel part; fallen or otherwise.
The Book of Mormon can't stand from an archaeological stand point. The Golden Plates also where did they go? But the cities and peoples and languages that were supposed to be these tribes here in the America's don't exist. Joseph Smith may have been visited by an angel but the angel was a fallen angel in my mind.
Manny
Originally posted by galveston75Did God's "ways" or "laws" or "principles" change with regard to slavery, owning slaves and how to treat slaves? You stated that "[God's] ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change." Does this assertion of yours hold true for God's attitude towards slavery and His explicit instructions? There is still slavery today in 2013. Does God endorse it as long as it complies with OT "principles"? Or have God's "laws" and "principles" - indeed His "ways" - changed in this regard?
[God's] ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Jan 13
4 edits
Originally posted by FMF
Does the Mosaic Law still apply?
Does the Mosaic Law still apply?
It depends upon what you mean by "apply".
As for a principle of justification before God, Christ being the atoning sacrifice to fulfill the demand of the law, has accomplished this act forever.
"For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to everyone who believes." (Romans 10:4)
Since all under the demand to be justified by keeping the law were under the futility of failure, to us sinners the law in that regard was called a curse. And "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law having become a curse on our behalf ..." (Gal. 3:13a)
As a way of justification, Christ completed the law's demand that all who believe into Him may be justified by faith forever before God.
The morality of the law is still important as to what a righteous life upon earth should look like.
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by FMFGalatians 5:13-14
Did God's "ways" or "laws" or "principles" change with regard to slavery, owning slaves and how to treat slaves? You stated that "[God's] ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change." Does this assertion of yours hold true for God's attitude towards slavery and His explicit instructions? There is still slavery today in 2013. Does God endorse ...[text shortened]... God's "laws" and "principles" - indeed His "ways" - changed in this regard?
New Living Translation (NLT)
13 For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don’t use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love. 14 For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[a]
If you even slightly understood what Jesus did, you would understand this scripture and how it fulfilled those Mosaic laws. Nothing has changed with God ever but the process on how those early laws were applied to his people became fulfilled with Jesus. The "Love your neighbor" took all of them over inclusively.
Also if you had the right understanding of the slavery or indebtatude this was speaking of, you just might get it.
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by galveston75You are saying two things that contradict each other. You are describing how it changed in a fundamental way and you are claiming that "nothing has changed with God ever" at the same time. I will ask again because your 'if you understood me, perhaps you'd understand me' thing just sounds like a dodge: if you were to engage in slavery today in 2013, would God endorse it as long as it complies with OT "principles" or have God's "laws" and "principles" changed with regard to slavery? In other words, according to God's law, is slavery still permissible, or has His law changed?
If you even slightly understood what Jesus did, you would understand this scripture and how it fulfilled those Mosaic laws. Nothing has changed with God ever but the process on how those early laws were applied to his people became fulfilled with Jesus. The "Love your neighbor" took all of them over inclusively. Also if you had the right understanding of the slavery or indebtatude this was speaking of, you just might get it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Jan 13
3 edits
Originally posted by FMF
Does "still important" mean Mosaic Law has not changed in so far as His followers must still obey it now in 2013?
Does "still important" mean Mosaic Law has not changed in so far as His followers must still obey it now in 2013?
I think we could say that the emphasis has changed in this regard - many ritual ordinances have become far less relevant. But the moral core has been made more poignant.
To clarify - the law of Moses contained some matters which were more ritualistic. Jesus (and His apostles) downplayed much of the ritual ordinances of the law - ie. diet, Sabbath Day keeping, circumcision, etc.
The law of Moses also contained charges concerning morality, IE. You shall not commit adultery. The moral aspect of the law Jesus actually made more penetrating. He hightened its significance even. His expounding on the moral aspect of the law went piercing deeper beyond the outward action to the inward motive.
Ie. "You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:27,28)
You see, whereas the law of Moses (what they HAD heard) touched only an outward action, what Jesus now teaches reaches further into the innermost motive of the heart.
The ritual aspects of certain ordinances Christ downplayed.
The moral aspect He heightened, made more penetrating.
His goal was that those saved and become His disciples would live the highest level of morality on the earth through His empowering grace.
Do you understand?
That you do not eat shell fish or shrimp is not important to God now.
That had its use in making the theocratic nation of Israel stand out and be different.
But to love God with the whole being, to not covet, to not kill, to not commit adultery, etc. these moral aspects are vital to the expression of a righteous man.
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by sonshipThe issue being discussed here is the claim that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change." You say "the emphasis has changed". So that is "change" right? You say the rituals "have become far less relevant". That is "change", is it not? A whole range of stipulations no longer have to be obeyed. So that is "change" yes? You say aspects were "downplayed" and aspects were "heightened". These are "changes" surely. You say that rules to distinguish His followers from others was "not important to God now" involves "change", clearly. So where does that leave the claim that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change"?
I think we could say that the emphasis has changed in this regard - many ritual ordinances have become far less relevant. But the moral core has been made more poignant.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Jan 13
2 edits
Originally posted by FMF
The issue being discussed here is the claim that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change." You say "the emphasis has changed". So that is "change" right? You say the rituals "have become far less relevant". That is "change", is it not? A whole range of stipulations no longer have to be obeyed. So that is "change" yes? You say aspe d's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change"?
The issue being discussed here is the claim that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change."
I think as I read the Bible I can obviously see God changing something in His way or changing His mind yet keeping His will the same.
Before the disobedience of Adam the way to the tree of life was fully opened to Adam. After the disobedience of Adam a barrier was set up to guard the way to the tree of life.
If this change in God's way represents to some a "Gotcha! See? God CHANGED!" moment they may have a some ground. God changed His way. But then His overall will really didn't change.
Many similar instances occur. Something in His way or procedure He changed. But as far as His nature, it didn't change what He is.
You say "the emphasis has changed".
That's right. However, some suggestion as to His priorities along this line were already sometimes seen in the OT. The coming of Jesus really brought them out.
Ie. In Numbers a man was made an example of by being stoned because of not resting on the Sabbath. But in the New Testament the Son of God seemed to go out of His way to heal on the Sabbath.
A stronger emphasis was being taught by Jesus which downplayed the ritual.
So that is "change" right? You say the rituals "have become far less relevant".
The written law is still the same.
Is it of some particular use to you that you be able to say God changes or the law changes ? Does a "changed God" somehow further your philosophy?
What does the concept of "God changed" do for you which you need?
That is "change", is it not? A whole range of stipulations no longer have to be obeyed. So that is "change" yes? You say aspects were "downplayed" and aspects were "heightened". These are "changes" surely.
It has nothing to do with God changing in His nature.
In the first chapter of Genesis verse 3 has God saying "Let there be light". That is on the first day. In verse 14 God says "And let there be light-bearers in the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth ..."
Is that a "Gotcha!" moment? God changed. He commanded light to appear then afterwards commanded light-bearers to give light.
Does that accomplish something for you that you can point out this "change" in emphasis ? What?
I don't think there is any need to go so far as pointing out Jesus saying "You have heard ... BUT I say to you ..." to hunt down some change.
Life is dynamic and calls for some change of some sort. Growth is change.
You say that rules to distinguish His followers from others was "not important to God now" involves "change", clearly.
According to my study of the Old Testament, I think some of the dietary regulations were aimed at making the theocratic nation of Israel different. That is for God to make them stand out as distinct among the other nations.
The New Testament is not a book to build up the theocratic nation of Israel. It is a book to build up the "one new man" in the church as Jew and Gentile both reconciled to God in one body.
In this new covenant circumcision, dietary regulations, and many other ritualistic ordinances are taught as no longer necessary. There is no "Thou Shalt Nots" concerning these. And in fact the early Christians did continue some of the practices because the first Christians were JEWS who still had one foot in the old way.
But the emphasis upon these ritualistic ordinances was downplayed for walking in the Spirit of Christ the indwelling Lord.
So where does that leave the claim that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change"?
Maybe you should ask the person who wrote that.
I didn't write that. And that person may not agree with my explanations above to begin with.
I think we can see additions to the law. Ie. The five daughters of Zelaphehad in Numbers 27 got Moses to add some important women's rights changes to the law of Moses.
I think we can see God changing His mind yet not changing His will in the Bible.
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by sonshipI am asking that person. I don't really know why you've jumped in. Did you write your long posts without reading the discussion between me and galveston75 that you are interjecting in?So where does that leave the claim that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change"?
Maybe you should ask the person who wrote that.