One Verse At A Time...

[Guest sub_zer0]

Just out of curiosity, how long did it take you to move the punctuation and to restructure the sentence to say what YOU want it to say, instead of allowing it to say what it actually DOES?

 

Please do us a favor and familiarize yourself with Hebrew, or point us to any Hebrew resource that translates the second part to mean that there will be an “every man teaching his brother to know the Lord” interpretation. Not a single Bible translation opts to move the punctuation in the way you have chosen to get around this failed prophecy.

 

It's not what those verses are saying in context, no matter how much you twist it to say that, and what you are doing is simply dishonest. So, listen up:

 

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD

 

Is a unit of words to state that NO MORE TEACHING will be done in the new covenant, and the very fact that there are churches is a violation of this part of the prophecy, why?

 

Because

 

for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD

 

Did you notice? This first part will be done away with, so that the second part can be fulfilled - that’s why there is a “for” in the sentence. The fact that any evangelization takes place shows us that Christ did not fulfill this prophecy.

 

But how will they know Him, how will "from the least of them unto the greatest of them," know God?

 

Through the new covenant, because of the new covenant, they all will know God. The only way the first part will be done away with is when all know God. The way we all know God is made possible through Christ, i.e. the new covenant, who will forgive their iniquity like it states!

 

Likewise the fact that there is evangelization going on means that it is fulfilling the second part, making it able for all to know God.

[thunderbolt]

Exactly a new covenant with Judah and Israel because that new covenant will come from Israel and Judah, i.e. Jesus!

In case you didn't know, there is a humongous difference between WITH and FROM. It's not remotely the same concept, although I know you wish it was so that you could have a legitimate covenant. Until then, you are officially without a covenant.

[Open_Minded]

 

YOOOOOO.... HOOOOOO.... Sub.....

 

Not going away....

 

 

From the website linked to earlier in my post to Serenity: http://www.answers.com/topic/documentary-hypothesis

 

The documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by many historians and academics in the field of linguistics and source criticism that the Five Books of Moses (the Torah) are in fact a combination of documents from different sources rather than authored by one individual. Although the hypothesis is widely accepted (the Vatican itself estimates that 90% of academics in the field of biblical scholarship support it), it has a number of critics.

.......

How about you, Sub? What do you think.... 90% of Biblical scholars... hmmm. Don't you think we should really be teaching public school students how to read the Bible "One verse at a time"?

 

I for one - as a Christian - would support such a curriculum

 

AAAND......

 

You're right there White_Raven, I'm still waiting to learn:

 

1. How Moses could write about his own death?

2. And how Noah was able to round up, load, carry and feed a pair of every single type of animal on the Ark - without the Ark drowning &/or animals dying?

 

 

I'm still here and I'm not going away.....

[crazy-tiger]

Will someone get it through Subs thick head that the new covenent DOES NOT MEAN IT'S A NEW SET OF LAWS!

 

 

It's the same damn laws all the way through.

[thunderbolt]

Will someone get it through Subs thick head that the new covenent DOES NOT MEAN IT'S A NEW SET OF LAWS!

 

 

It's the same damn laws all the way through.

We have been trying, but not much is getting through at the moment.

[crazy-tiger]

Will someone get it through Subs thick head that the new covenent DOES NOT MEAN IT'S A NEW SET OF LAWS!

 

 

It's the same damn laws all the way through.

We have been trying, but not much is getting through at the moment.

Y'know... I think he's put me on ignore...

 

Ever since I showed him that the NASB could not, in any way, have used "the original copies of the manuscripts" in it's attempt to be accurate, there's been no response from him to anything I post.

[Saviourmachine]

Isaiah 53:6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

 

**Obvious reference to the Messiah.**

Disregarding the christianized interpretation of the mentioned verse, let us follow the parallel of Jesus and the suffering Servant of Isaiah completely. Things said about this servant are probably not said in vain. There are rabinnic sources that take the idea that it's about the Messiah serious. The Messiah is a leper! The Curious Idea of the "Leper Messiah".

 

However, we have to look at the context isn't it? The servant will open blind eyes, take prisoners from prisons (42:6-7), will be blind himself, will be deaf himself (42:18-20), will delight the lord, will judge the non-jews (42:1), will prosper, be high, be exalted, be lifted up, have a "dry" origin, no form or beauty, despised, rejected, have sorrows, experience grief, be smitten and bruised by god, wounded, won't open his mouth, see his offspring, see the fruit of his travail, be satisfied, be knowledgable (53). And does Isaiah speak about a person in a parallel somewhere again? Yes. A person that does not know his master, that is nourished by god, bearing iniquity, provoking anger by god, revolting, having a sick head, a faint heart, not having any soundness, full of wounds, full of bruises, putrifying sores, no ointment at all (1).

 

The righteous is taken away. That also occurs in ch. 57. It is because the evil comes. Consider especially ch. 61. Isaiah seems to be anointed himself. He brings good tidings to the brokenhearted, liberty to captives, opening of prison, comfort them that mourn, giving beauty for ashes, oil/joy for mourning, and especially the label righteous.

 

This is the opposite of Isa. 1. The only confusion is that in Isa. 53 the person is already called righteous in his suffering. But isn't it the Lord that calls someone righteous, no matter what his history is? The story resembles the story of Job, it's definitely inspired by it. I see no reason why Israel can't be this servant.

[Saviourmachine]

Do you know what was humiliating in that time? Consider Isa. 3:12 "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."

 

Filthy women! The pigs of the earth.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Disregarding the christianized interpretation of the mentioned verse, let us follow the parallel of Jesus and the suffering Servant of Isaiah completely. Things said about this servant are probably not said in vain. There are rabinnic sources that take the idea that it's about the Messiah serious. The Messiah is a leper! The Curious Idea of the "Leper Messiah".

 

However, we have to look at the context isn't it? The servant will open blind eyes, take prisoners from prisons (42:6-7), will be blind himself, will be deaf himself (42:18-20), will delight the lord, will judge the non-jews (42:1), will prosper, be high, be exalted, be lifted up, have a "dry" origin, no form or beauty, despised, rejected, have sorrows, experience grief, be smitten and bruised by god, wounded, won't open his mouth, see his offspring, see the fruit of his travail, be satisfied, be knowledgable (53). And does Isaiah speak about a person in a parallel somewhere again? Yes. A person that does not know his master, that is nourished by god, bearing iniquity, provoking anger by god, revolting, having a sick head, a faint heart, not having any soundness, full of wounds, full of bruises, putrifying sores, no ointment at all (1).

 

Notice how the servant is introduced as a person in this chapter (42:1-13), rather than the entire nation of Israel (42:14-25). This is a new and wonderful element of Isaiah's prophecy. Remember that elements of this prophecy baffled men before Jesus and it baffles men today who choose not to see that Jesus is the Servant of the Lord.

 

"In the servant passages we find traits of the King, of the Prophet, and of the High Priest so united that they point only to one who was truly all three." -- H.L Ellison

 

42:14-25 now deals with Israel, as it is the blindness of the people, "Who trust in idols, Who say to molten images, "You are our gods." (verse 17). Verse 19 is directed towards Israel and the people who trust in idols. Israel was supposed to be the "messenger whom..." God sent for the world, but they are blind and deaf to His ways. Of course the Servant of the Lord is to open their eyes and ears!

 

This is the opposite of Isa. 1. The only confusion is that in Isa. 53 the person is already called righteous in his suffering. But isn't it the Lord that calls someone righteous, no matter what his history is? The story resembles the story of Job, it's definitely inspired by it. I see no reason why Israel can't be this servant.

 

You are right that the Lord calls someone righteous which is why He calls His Servant which His (God) "soul delights."

 

But then God is burdened by the blindness of the ones (Israel) "Who trust in idols, Who say to molten images, "You are our gods..."

[Asimov]

sub_zero....care to debate the truthfulness of Christianity and your God?

[Guest sub_zer0]

Y'know... I think he's put me on ignore...

 

Ever since I showed him that the NASB could not, in any way, have used "the original copies of the manuscripts" in it's attempt to be accurate, there's been no response from him to anything I post.

 

Yes I know that the NASB is not, nor any other Bible is based off of the original copies of the manuscripts.

 

It is based off of the best available manuscripts available (Dead Sea scrolls). You see the beauty of those scrolls is that when they were found they were older than anything we had before but damn near exactly what we had already. Meaning that since the scrolls were older but still had the same written down words like the newer ones we already had, the process of copying those original manuscripts is solid!

 

sub_zero....care to debate the truthfulness of Christianity and your God?

 

That is what we are doing, did you not read? They are attacking the foundation of my faith, which is the Bible trying to make it seem not true...

[Asimov]

That is what we are doing, did you not read? They are attacking the foundation of my faith, which is the Bible trying to make it seem not true...

 

Shouldn't the foundation of your faith be God?

 

I mean in a more 1 on 1 situation.

[thunderbolt]

That is what we are doing, did you not read? They are attacking the foundation of my faith, which is the Bible trying to make it seem not true...

Not true according to YOUR interpretation or not true according to how it's written?

 

We have shown you countless times how you are taking the "new" covenant out of context, and you have not given us a single solid answer on why that is not the case.

 

Still waiting ...

[crazy-tiger]

Y'know... I think he's put me on ignore...

 

Ever since I showed him that the NASB could not, in any way, have used "the original copies of the manuscripts" in it's attempt to be accurate, there's been no response from him to anything I post.

Yes I know that the NASB is not, nor any other Bible is based off of the original copies of the manuscripts.

Wrong fundy... Sometimes I get you lot mixed up, since you all use the exact same debunked arguments...

 

But... mentioning the NASB has produced an interesting problem for you...

It is based off of the best available manuscripts available (Dead Sea scrolls).

Since the NASB is in fact based of the Nestle text, which was first published in 1890something and was hardly changed at all in the following 80 years, it's very hard to believe that it could have been based off of manuscripts that weren't even discovered until after 1940...

 

Think about that, then work out who invented the time machine to make it possible.

You see the beauty of those scrolls is that when they were found they were older than anything we had before but damn near exactly what we had already. Meaning that since the scrolls were older but still had the same written down words like the newer ones we already had, the process of copying those original manuscripts is solid!

Lets just make one thing clear... you are claiming that the newer manuscripts are almost exactly word for word copies of the Dead Sea scrolls?

 

Maybe you would like to explain the thousands of textual contradictions between the previous oldest manuscripts and the Dead Sea scrolls then... since they were so damn alike.

 

 

 

Interesting though this little conundrum is, it still doesn't make any difference to the fact that the New Covenant is NOT a new set of laws, just a new agreement about those laws... You still have to follow the damn things.

[Open_Minded]

That is what we are doing, did you not read? They are attacking the foundation of my faith, which is the Bible trying to make it seem not true...

 

Sub...

 

It may feel as though we are attacking the "foundation" of your faith. What we feel we are doing is asking you to think about the foundation of your faith. There is a difference.

 

Think, Sub,

 

Shouldn't the foundation of your faith be God?

 

I mean in a more 1 on 1 situation.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself. The only thing I would add is another question.

 

Why do you need a literally true Bible to believe in God???????

[Guest sub_zer0]

But... mentioning the NASB has produced an interesting problem for you...

 

"It is based off of the best available manuscripts available (Dead Sea scrolls)."

 

Since the NASB is in fact based of the Nestle text, which was first published in 1890something and was hardly changed at all in the following 80 years, it's very hard to believe that it could have been based off of manuscripts that weren't even discovered until after 1940...

 

You are wrong crazy-tiger, the New Testament is written in the 26th edition of Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece not the Old and certainly not the entire NASB updated edition.

 

The Old Testament was rendered in English from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica.

 

Lets just make one thing clear... you are claiming that the newer manuscripts are almost exactly word for word copies of the Dead Sea scrolls?

 

Maybe you would like to explain the thousands of textual contradictions between the previous oldest manuscripts and the Dead Sea scrolls then... since they were so damn alike.

 

None of those differences fringe on any major doctrine, nor do they affect the internal consistency of the text.

 

Interesting though this little conundrum is, it still doesn't make any difference to the fact that the New Covenant is NOT a new set of laws, just a new agreement about those laws... You still have to follow the damn things.

 

The new covenant is Christ. Christ fulfilled the law of Old so that we may be set free from it and be under the new covenant based on better promises, i.e. Christ.

 

Sub...

 

It may feel as though we are attacking the "foundation" of your faith. What we feel we are doing is asking you to think about the foundation of your faith. There is a difference.

 

Think, Sub,

 

"Shouldn't the foundation of your faith be God?

 

I mean in a more 1 on 1 situation."

 

I couldn't have said it better myself. The only thing I would add is another question.

 

Why do you need a literally true Bible to believe in God???????

 

God means nothing if you cannot know Him. Through the Bible you read His word to us thus knowing Him on a level far greater than you would have without His word. You see what is concealed in the Old is revealed in the New Testament.

[Amanda]

Hi Sub Zero! I would like to summarize what you’ve said so that I can know what you believe. Please correct me where I'm wrong. I’m not challenging anything you’ve written, I just want to make sure I understand it.

 

Satan, a fallen angel/cherub, came and possessed a snake, that spoke to Eve and convinced her to eat a fruit forbidden by God. The snake was punished for this, to be a symbol to mankind.

 

These laws of the OT were fulfilled by Christ, and now we need to be fulfilled with Christ. This way we will fulfill these laws by the spiritual intention through Christ in our hearts and minds, if we believe. These OT laws were the way to salvation, by being perfect and righteous. This standard showed man he needed a savior. The God of the OT penalized anyone who sinned, to die, and everyone had sinned. God could not intervene constantly, however, unless we had called for him and were to abide in him… I guess to have been perfect by our awareness of him? Even so, our free will can still be effected by evil, and we would then be identified by our transgression. Christ died for ALL these sins, so all we have to do when we sin, is to ask for forgiveness… and hopefully repent/change our mind. We must have painstaking efforts of diligence! Additionally, homosexuality is always bad.

 

Jesus was God! God gave Jesus ownership of all the people. Jesus is coming to judge us. He will come back to reign with his saints of his church for a thousand years. There will be sacrifices again. Then after all that, there will be a new heaven and earth. Israel will be the newly restored beacon. The extensive evangelizing today is fulfilling this prophecy now.

 

Do I have it right?

[Open_Minded]

Sub...

 

It may feel as though we are attacking the "foundation" of your faith. What we feel we are doing is asking you to think about the foundation of your faith. There is a difference.

<Snip>

Why do you need a literally true Bible to believe in God???????

 

God means nothing if you cannot know Him. Through the Bible you read His word to us thus knowing Him on a level far greater than you would have without His word. You see what is concealed in the Old is revealed in the New Testament.

 

.......

 

 

From the website linked to earlier in my post to Serenity:

http://www.answers.com/topic/documentary-hypothesis

 

The documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by many historians and academics in the field of linguistics and source criticism that the Five Books of Moses (the Torah) are in fact a combination of documents from different sources rather than authored by one individual. Although the hypothesis is widely accepted (the

Vatican itself estimates that 90% of academics in the field of biblical scholarship support it

), it has a number of critics.

 

Are you saying that 90% of the academics in the field of biblical scholarship, who support the documentary hypothesis, do not "know" God?

 

Are you saying because I am not a literalist, but still call myself Christian, that I don't "know" God?

[Guest sub_zer0]

Hi Sub Zero! I would like to summarize what you’ve said so that I can know what you believe. Please correct me where I'm wrong. I’m not challenging anything you’ve written, I just want to make sure I understand it.

 

Right on, sounds good... I hope I can be of some help to you.

 

Satan, a fallen angel/cherub, came and possessed a snake, that spoke to Eve and convinced her to eat a fruit forbidden by God. The snake was punished for this, to be a symbol to mankind.

 

So far so good...

 

These laws of the OT were fulfilled by Christ, and now we need to be fulfilled with Christ. This way we will fulfill these laws by the spiritual intention through Christ in our hearts and minds, if we believe. These OT laws were the way to salvation, by being perfect and righteous. This standard showed man he needed a savior. The God of the OT penalized anyone who sinned, to die, and everyone had sinned. God could not intervene constantly, however, unless we had called for him and were to abide in him… I guess to have been perfect by our awareness of him?

 

One thing is that God is intervening constantly with the law of Old during those times and the new covenant with Christ. Remember the only time there was no word from God literally, was during the time between the Old and New Testaments, 400 years.

 

Even so, our free will can still be effected by evil, and we would then be identified by our transgression. Christ died for ALL these sins, so all we have to do when we sin, is to ask for forgiveness… and hopefully repent/change our mind. We must have painstaking efforts of diligence! Additionally, homosexuality is always bad.

 

Indeed...

 

Jesus was God! God gave Jesus ownership of all the people. Jesus is coming to judge us. He will come back to reign with his saints of his church for a thousand years. There will be sacrifices again. Then after all that, there will be a new heaven and earth. Israel will be the newly restored beacon. The extensive evangelizing today is fulfilling this prophecy now.

 

Do I have it right?

 

Indeed, perfect . Meanwhile all backed up by Scripture and keep in mind the focal point or center of the Bible is Christ.

 

 

"The documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by many historians and academics in the field of linguistics and source criticism that the Five Books of Moses (the Torah) are in fact a combination of documents from different sources rather than authored by one individual. Although the hypothesis is widely accepted (the Vatican itself estimates that 90% of academics in the field of biblical scholarship support it), it has a number of critics."

 

Are you saying that 90% of the academics in the field of biblical scholarship, who support the documentary hypothesis, do not "know" God?

 

Are you saying because I am not a literalist, but still call myself Christian, that I don't "know" God?

 

You are ignoring that that 90% is liberal scholars. Responsible for more than a few of gross misrepresentations of Scripture, this being one of them.

 

For one there is no valid reason to suggest that Moses didn't write the first 5 books of the Bible. It attests to the author (Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1-2; Deuteronomy 31:9) not to mention outside of the Pentateuch (Joshua 1:7-8; 8:31-32; I Kings 2:3; II Kings 14:6; 21:8, etc, etc.).

 

There may be similarities between the first five books and Near Eastern origins, but the differences abound and cannot be disregarded.

[white_raven23]

God means nothing if you cannot know Him. Through the Bible you read His word to us thus knowing Him on a level far greater than you would have without His word. You see what is concealed in the Old is revealed in the New Testament.

 

 

I'm sad for you Sub Zero. Being a Deist, I know how untrue these words really are. The bible is not god Sub. Even if you believe the book is "inspired by" ....the book is NOT god.

 

If I read the autobiography of.....say Joe Redington Sr., does that mean I "know" or in this case, "knew" him? I might know things about him, maybe his preferences, things he did..... but I didn't know him.

 

In case you don't know who I'm talking about:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Redington

http://www.geocities.com/joeredington/

 

Look at the depiction of god in the bible. He is jealous, he gets angry, he is vindictive, he makes mistakes, he changes his mind........... To me, that doesn't sound like a GOD at all.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Look at the depiction of god in the bible. He is jealous, he gets angry, he is vindictive, he makes mistakes, he changes his mind........... To me, that doesn't sound like a GOD at all.

 

Indeed, I love how I can relate to Him. Since we are talking about how the Bible view God, what about how He is totally righteous, and has perfect justice for all? Or how about His loving kindness and His mercy?

[Open_Minded]

"The documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by many historians and academics in the field of linguistics and source criticism that the Five Books of Moses (the Torah) are in fact a combination of documents from different sources rather than authored by one individual. Although the hypothesis is widely accepted (the Vatican itself estimates that 90% of academics in the field of biblical scholarship support it), it has a number of critics."

 

Are you saying that 90% of the academics in the field of biblical scholarship, who support the documentary hypothesis, do not "know" God?

 

Are you saying because I am not a literalist, but still call myself Christian, that I don't "know" God?

 

You are ignoring that that 90% is liberal scholars. Responsible for more than a few of gross misrepresentations of Scripture, this being one of them.

 

For one there is no valid reason to suggest that Moses didn't write the first 5 books of the Bible. It attests to the author (Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1-2; Deuteronomy 31:9) not to mention outside of the Pentateuch (Joshua 1:7-8; 8:31-32; I Kings 2:3; II Kings 14:6; 21:8, etc, etc.).

 

1. Your reasoning is circular here, Sub. Using the Bible to prove something Bible says means nothing - it's circular and others have already taken you to task about this.

 

2. I don't get into dueling Bible verses. You and I both know that any two people in a room can find different meanings in the same verse. Hell ... humanity has a history of wars over such differences. So, don't go there with me.

 

3. You didn't answer my questions... to repeat....

 

Are you saying that 90% of the academics in the field of biblical scholarship, who support the documentary hypothesis, do not "know" God?

 

Are you saying because I am not a literalist, but still call myself Christian, that I don't "know" God?

 

Sub... just answer the questions .... from your heart.

[white_raven23]

Look at the depiction of god in the bible. He is jealous, he gets angry, he is vindictive, he makes mistakes, he changes his mind........... To me, that doesn't sound like a GOD at all.

 

Indeed, I love how I can relate to Him. Since we are talking about how the Bible view God, what about how He is totally righteous, and has perfect justice for all? Or how about His loving kindness and His mercy?

 

 

Where are verses showing clear example of this? How is drowning children and babies "perfect justice"? When has the god of the bible been as good as you describe, without turning right around and taking away his good "grace"? in the very next breath. How is the natural instinct to look behind you when running from a conflagration deserving of a salty death sentence?

 

Heck, how just is Jesus for cursing a fig tree for not having fruit on it....out of season?

 

Where in the bible in an example of god's UNCONDITIONAL love?

[Guest sub_zer0]

Where are verses showing clear example of this? How is drowning children and babies "perfect justice"? When has the god of the bible been as good as you describe, without turning right around and taking away his good "grace"? in the very next breath. How is the natural instinct to look behind you when running from a conflagration deserving of a salty death sentence?

 

Heck, how just is Jesus for cursing a fig tree for not having fruit on it....out of season?

 

Where in the bible in an example of god's UNCONDITIONAL love?

 

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "

 

Ephesians 2:4-7 "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. "

 

Jesus Christ, the Son of God is the ultimate showing of His love. It is not God who is responsible for our sinful ways thus inviting judgement on ourselves for our blatent disregard of God.

 

1. Your reasoning is circular here, Sub. Using the Bible to prove something Bible says means nothing - it's circular and others have already taken you to task about this.

 

You don't recognize the facts staring at you in the face. The book that Moses wrote attests to him writing it!

 

Are you saying that 90% of the academics in the field of biblical scholarship, who support the documentary hypothesis, do not "know" God?

 

Are you saying because I am not a literalist, but still call myself Christian, that I don't "know" God?

 

Sub... just answer the questions .... from your heart.

 

You are right, you do not know God, because to know God you must know Christ. To know Christ you must understand the Old Testament. To understand the Old Testament you must know that Moses wrote the first 5 books.

 

It isn't about literal vs. non-literal. It is about liberal or conservative views of Scripture, the Documentary Theory is liberal. The fact that Moses wrote all 5 books of the Pentatech is conservative.

[white_raven23]

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "

 

Ephesians 2:4-7 "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. "

 

 

These are praises Sub!!!! This is brownnosing!!!! I asked for examples of gods unconditional love from the bible. I want an example of something god DID. Not what's he's going to do, not a flowery description of how he seems to the writer, not a description of god according to Garp....... Give me a story depicting the unconditional love!!!!

 

Jesus Christ, the Son of God is the ultimate showing of His love. It is not God who is responsible for our sinful ways thus inviting judgement on ourselves for our blatent disregard of God.

 

God didn't stick that tree in the garden? God IS responsible according to your book.

 

You are right, you do not know God, because to know God you must know Christ. To know Christ you must understand the Old Testament. To understand the Old Testament you must know that Moses wrote the first 5 books.

 

How did Moses write about his own death?