One Verse At A Time...

[Guest sub_zer0]

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!!!!

 

God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into this world to die for us. Simple as that! Jesus Christ is a walking physical being who displays God's unconditional love forever, for all ages!

 

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

 

That tree is the offering of free will to man. They took the tree and ate its fruit, exorcising mans will instead of God and ultimately sinning against God. The world will never be the same, see what happened when we followed our will influenced by Satan instead of Gods will.

 

How did Moses write about his own death?

 

What passage does he speak of his death?

[Ouroboros]

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

 

...

 

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.

 

Okay... okay... (catching my breath)... Where in the Bible does it say that the books of Moses were written by Moses?

 

And... Moses death is told in the books of Moses

 

Deu 34:4-12 KJVA And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither. (5) So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. (6) And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. (7) And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. (8) And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended. (9) And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses. (10) And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, (11) In all the signs and the wonders, which the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land, (12) And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel.

Notice that the author even know what God told Moses just before he died, in a place no one know where it is. Isn't that amazing! Moses wrote his own book and even stuff that happened after his death, and then he managed to give the scripture to someone (unknown) and still die in a place no one knew where it was...

 

 

Again, where does it say in the Books of Moses that Moses' wrote them? The stories are told by an unknown author, and some of the stories are about Moses. It's not The Book BY Moses, but the Books ABOUT Moses. That's how the Books of Moses is supposed to be interpreted.

[thunderbolt]

God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into this world to die for us. Simple as that! Jesus Christ is a walking physical being who displays God's unconditional love forever, for all ages!

Which part of "whosoever believes shall be saved" is unconditional?

[crazy-tiger]

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.

Thank you... you've just shown you don't know the history of the NASB.

To quote... "The publication of the New American Standard Bible began with the Gospel of John in 1960, followed by the four Gospels in 1962, the New Testament in 1963, and the entire Bible in 1971. The Greek edition used by the NASB revisers was the 23rd edition of the Nestle text." (linkee...)

 

23rd edition, not the 26th!

 

What's the difference, I hear you ask? Well, the Nestle Text, from 1897, all the way through to 1963, hardly changed at all. (that being the 25th edition, by the way) But, in 1979, the 26th edition came out... "This critical edition, commonly called "Nestle-Aland," purports to be the twenty-sixth in the series of "Nestle" editions (see Nestle 1898 and Nestle 1927); but for this edition the Nestle text was replaced by the text of Aland Black Metzger Wikren Martini 1975, and major changes were also made in the apparatus. The publisher of the Nestle editions, the Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, was also reconstituted as the Deutsche Bibelgesellshaft prior to its appearance. In short, the "26th edition" has almost nothing in common with the editions of Eberhard Nestle."

 

Ooops...

 

 

By the way... who had the time machine?

"The publication of the New American Standard Bible began with the Gospel of John in 1960, followed by the four Gospels in 1962, the New Testament in 1963, and the entire Bible in 1971."

 

Are you sure that they used the 26th edition for that?

 

Even bigger ooops...

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.

So, they're not damn near alike what we already had, are they?

 

Now, go right ahead and tell us that you meant that doctrinally, they are so damn alike... I don't mind if you try that. No, really I don't... in fact, I expect it from you. Nothing makes my day more than the sight of a fundy desperately trying to dig themselves out of the hole they put themselves into...

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.

*knock knock* Anybody there?

 

Once more... the new covenant is simply a new agreement about THE SAME OLD LAWS! It's not a new set of laws, just a new agreement over how people will know about them.

And before you say anything, God stated that he would write them directly onto mens hearts... having someone come down as a saviour isn't doing that at all, so every time you bring that up, you are saying that God lied!

 

 

Honestly... you are. God said that this is how it WILL happen, and you're saying that he decided to do it another way? Does God go back on his word? Are the promises of God not to be trusted? (hey, would you trust someone's promises if they went back on them?)

Every time you go on about this new covenant, which is nothing more than one of God's promises, you show us how we cannot trust God to keep his promises!

 

To make matters worse, Jesus himself said that we STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW! When you say Jesus did away with it, that we don't have to follow it, you are calling JESUS a liar!

 

 

The irony of this leaves me almost speechless... in you attempts to defend the Bible, you've gone so far as to demonstrate that both God and Jesus are liars.

 

I'd stop now, if I were you... the rate you're going, you'll be insisting that the HG cannot be trusted within a week...

[Open_Minded]

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.

 

I'll let the others take you to task about Moses and writing of his own death (finally we get to one of my questions )

 

You and I can stick to this whole "knowing" God line of thought.

 

You are right, you do not know God, because to know God you must know Christ.....

 

The odd thing about that whole concept, Sub, is .... well I'll let the following speak for itself....

 

Then Jesus cried aloud: "Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me.

And whoever sees me sees him who sent me

. - John 12:44-45

 

Whoever sees me [Muhammad] has seen God

. - Islam. Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim

 

_____________________

 

Jesus said to him, "

I am the way

, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - John 14:6

 

I [Krishna] am the goal of the wise man, and

I am the way

. I am his prosperity. I am his heaven. There is nothing dearer to him than I. - Hinduism. Srimad Bhagavatam 11.12

 

Now ... here's the problem, Sub. Each of these verses come from literature in which their followers hold to be "the word of God, Allah, etc..." And extremists from each of these religions would fight you to the death insisting that their book was the ONE TRUE WORD OF GOD.

 

Some extremists believe this to the degree that they would highjack planes and run them into buildings to prove the point.

 

Are you getting this, Sub. Why is the Bible any more sacred, or right, than the rest of these books?

 

Don't tell me that Muslims copied Christian sacred texts... because the Hindu religion is the oldest religion in the world and there are those who feel that Hinduism had a bit of influence on early Christianity.

 

So ... Sub.... you have a problem. Prove to us ... hell prove to yourself ... that Christian sacred literature is TRULY right and everything else is wrong. And don't go pulling out a Bible verse to prove it, because for every Bible verse you get to "prove" that the Bible is the only TRUE word of God ... I can go get Hindu, Muslim, whatever verses to "prove" that their literature is the only TRUE word of God.

[thunderbolt]

I'd stop now, if I were you... the rate you're going, you'll be insisting that the HG cannot be trusted within a week...

You'd think - what blissful ignorance. But subby is buried up to his neck in sheit ...

[Guest sub_zer0]

 

Okay... okay... (catching my breath)... Where in the Bible does it say that the books of Moses were written by Moses?

 

And... Moses death is told in the books of Moses

 

Here let me repeat myself again...

 

"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.)."

 

Deu 34:4-12 KJVA And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither. (5) So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. (6) And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. (7) And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. (8) And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended. (9) And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses. (10) And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, (11) In all the signs and the wonders, which the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land, (12) And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel.

 

Notice that the author even know what God told Moses just before he died, in a place no one know where it is. Isn't that amazing! Moses wrote his own book and even stuff that happened after his death, and then he managed to give the scripture to someone (unknown) and still die in a place no one knew where it was...

 

The "He" spoken about in the passage in question is God Himself! Moses was given also given a vision (verse 4). Also to note Deuteronomy is primarily sermonic and it drives home what the Jews should have learned from the first four books. Deut. is a recorded message; this accounts for the differences in style and method of expression found in the book.

 

Moses had a vision of his death and recorded it.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Thank you... you've just shown you don't know the history of the NASB.

To quote... "The publication of the New American Standard Bible began with the Gospel of John in 1960, followed by the four Gospels in 1962, the New Testament in 1963, and the entire Bible in 1971. The Greek edition used by the NASB revisers was the 23rd edition of the Nestle text." (linkee...)

 

23rd edition, not the 26th!

 

That probably isn't the updated edition like mine is and the one which I was referring to. The point is you were wrong in saying that the whole NASB Bible is based off of the Nestle, it isn't only the Greek, or the NT, is based off of Nestle.

 

What's the difference, I hear you ask? Well, the Nestle Text, from 1897, all the way through to 1963, hardly changed at all. (that being the 25th edition, by the way) But, in 1979, the 26th edition came out... "This critical edition, commonly called "Nestle-Aland," purports to be the twenty-sixth in the series of "Nestle" editions (see Nestle 1898 and Nestle 1927); but for this edition the Nestle text was replaced by the text of Aland Black Metzger Wikren Martini 1975, and major changes were also made in the apparatus. The publisher of the Nestle editions, the Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, was also reconstituted as the Deutsche Bibelgesellshaft prior to its appearance. In short, the "26th edition" has almost nothing in common with the editions of Eberhard Nestle."

 

Ooops...

 

 

By the way... who had the time machine?

"The publication of the New American Standard Bible began with the Gospel of John in 1960, followed by the four Gospels in 1962, the New Testament in 1963, and the entire Bible in 1971."

 

Are you sure that they used the 26th edition for that?

 

No, I claim the NASB updated edition is based on the 26th for the NT, not the OT which is the Dead Sea scrolls like I stated and which you tryed claiming that Nestle was for that and it wasn't.

 

So, they're not damn near alike what we already had, are they?

 

Now, go right ahead and tell us that you meant that doctrinally, they are so damn alike... I don't mind if you try that. No, really I don't... in fact, I expect it from you. Nothing makes my day more than the sight of a fundy desperately trying to dig themselves out of the hole they put themselves into...

 

Good because that is exactly what I meant.

 

*knock knock* Anybody there?

 

Once more... the new covenant is simply a new agreement about THE SAME OLD LAWS! It's not a new set of laws, just a new agreement over how people will know about them.

And before you say anything, God stated that he would write them directly onto mens hearts... having someone come down as a saviour isn't doing that at all, so every time you bring that up, you are saying that God lied!

 

It is a new agreement on the same old laws because Jesus fulfilled them. The new covenant, Jesus, is based on the fulfillment of those same old laws.

 

Do you have any clue how Christians accept Jesus? They do it by accepting Him into their hearts! That same Savior you speak of that came down, is the same one who said:

 

Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;"

 

Honestly... you are. God said that this is how it WILL happen, and you're saying that he decided to do it another way? Does God go back on his word? Are the promises of God not to be trusted? (hey, would you trust someone's promises if they went back on them?)

Every time you go on about this new covenant, which is nothing more than one of God's promises, you show us how we cannot trust God to keep his promises!

 

You are trying to make me seem like I am lying, when I am not, obviously. God's promises about the new covenant is fulfilled in Christ, who demands that you believe in Him with all your heart!

 

To make matters worse, Jesus himself said that we STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW! When you say Jesus did away with it, that we don't have to follow it, you are calling JESUS a liar!

 

The irony of this leaves me almost speechless... in you attempts to defend the Bible, you've gone so far as to demonstrate that both God and Jesus are liars.

 

I'd stop now, if I were you... the rate you're going, you'll be insisting that the HG cannot be trusted within a week...

 

Where does it say that we have to still follow the law in the NT? Where does Jesus say this about believers in Him?

 

I'll let the others take you to task about Moses and writing of his own death (finally we get to one of my questions )

 

You and I can stick to this whole "knowing" God line of thought.

 

You are right, you do not know God, because to know God you must know Christ.....

 

The odd thing about that whole concept, Sub, is .... well I'll let the following speak for itself....

 

Then Jesus cried aloud: "Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me.

And whoever sees me sees him who sent me

. - John 12:44-45

 

Whoever sees me [Muhammad] has seen God

. - Islam. Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim

 

Jesus said to him, "

I am the way

, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - John 14:6

 

I [Krishna] am the goal of the wise man, and

I am the way

. I am his prosperity. I am his heaven. There is nothing dearer to him than I. - Hinduism. Srimad Bhagavatam 11.12

 

Now ... here's the problem, Sub. Each of these verses come from literature in which their followers hold to be "the word of God, Allah, etc..." And extremists from each of these religions would fight you to the death insisting that their book was the ONE TRUE WORD OF GOD.

 

Some extremists believe this to the degree that they would highjack planes and run them into buildings to prove the point.

 

Are you getting this, Sub. Why is the Bible any more sacred, or right, than the rest of these books?

 

Don't tell me that Muslims copied Christian sacred texts... because the Hindu religion is the oldest religion in the world and there are those who feel that Hinduism had a bit of influence on early Christianity.

 

So ... Sub.... you have a problem. Prove to us ... hell prove to yourself ... that Christian sacred literature is TRULY right and everything else is wrong. And don't go pulling out a Bible verse to prove it, because for every Bible verse you get to "prove" that the Bible is the only TRUE word of God ... I can go get Hindu, Muslim, whatever verses to "prove" that their literature is the only TRUE word of God.

 

Here is what I do to solve my little problem that you think I face. You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. Than anything that contradicts that on major doctrinal issues isn't the truth. Simple as that!

 

Check this article about how the Qu'ran and the Bible do not match up!

 

http://www.todayshistory.info/articles_ref...oran/index.html

[Eponymic]

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?

 

Brilliant job there. One cannot be "totally righteous" when one is vindictive, jealous & breaks his own commandments on a consistent basis. Also, one cannot have "perfect justice" when he preaches one thing and does another. It's no surprise that Christians are hypocritical, as Biblical God is the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

What good is loving kindness & mercy when it's held at the edge of a fiery sword? What kind of love is that? It's not only conditional, it's also a form of fascist dictatorship, "Obey me, or else!" That's not love, that's slavery.

[SkepticOfBible]

34"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his

brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the

least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will

forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

 

Let's go over this verse one step at a time. Firstly let me mention the main points of Jeremiah.

 

1) Israel broke the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 7:21-26; 11:1-13) and God will establish, one day, a new covenant with His people.

 

Which obviously has not happened.

 

2) It also states that this will happen in "those days" (31, 33), the parties of the covenant will be both Israel and Judah (31);

 

And has the House of Judah and Isreal accepted this covenant?

 

the terms of the covenant are knowledge of God and forgiveness of sin (34).

 

They also include the imprinting of God's law on people minds.

 

3) And, the most important, is the guarantee of the covenant is the rebuilt city of Jerusalem (38-40).

 

Jeruselem has been broken down and rebuilt over the years.

"They will not teach again"... The "they" being "each man his neighbor and each man his brother."

 

It goes on to say how they teach, by saying "Know the Lord."

No it isn't talking about methodlogy of the teaching, it is saying that People won't have the teach "Know the lord" to their brother and neighbour. That should be obvious from the phrase "they will not teach again"

 

That will not be needed because during the new covenant ages, of which Jeremiah is speaking of, "they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." Who might that be? It means all people, all nations will know of God! Notice how it doesn't say that just Israel will be Gods people, but all people.

 

And notice it doesn't say if the Judah and Isreal doesn't take the covenant, the gentiles are free to accept it.

 

 

How will they know God? Through the forgiveness of "their iniquity", likewise "their sin", in which God "will remember no more." How will they achieve forgiveness of their sins?

 

They don't have to do anything. It is god who says that he will wipe the slate clean. It is also declared that "each man would die for his sins". There wouldn't be any injustice.

 

The establishment of the covenant is by Jesus' atonement (Heb. 7:22; 8:7-13; 10:15-22).

Which is not supported by OT scripture.

 

You choose to describe a covenant of God as "borg like"? Anyway...

 

I didn't mean any disrespect. It was just a illustration.

 

The fact that Jeremiah says a new covenant will be established totally negates the eternality of the covenant you are thinking of.

 

Just because it says New Contract, it doesn't mean the laws will not be followed

 

The only way it is eternal is through Christ as He is the only one who could fulfill it.

 

Completely unsupported by the OT scripture.

 

Jeremiah is speaking of a "new covenant" that new covenant is Christ, so when it speaks of this new law, which is the new covenant that will be established with Israel and Judah through Christ, yes it points to Christ.

 

Please stop lying.

 

Jeremiah says nothing about "new" laws or a human sacrifice introducing new laws.

 

Yes, God will be in direct contact with all, through the spreading of His word, Christ, all over the earth.

 

The Covenant makes no mentioning about people spreading the message of the messiah. That is your insertion.

 

It is important to note that the point of the Sabbath was for Israel and the Jews to remember the Egyptian slavery

As Serenity pointed out, they had the passover for that. God mentions

 

and the Lord's deliverance from that. But remember, as Christians we are under a new covenant (New Testament) of God, Jeremiah 31. The Sabbath is never mentioned in light that we need to keep it and abide by it at all costs.

 

Not abide by all cost!!!!Jee, the breaking of the sabbath attracted the death penalty. What more higher cost can there be?A man was killed for picking up freaking sticks.

 

Your assetions Contradicts the OT. The Sabbath is binding throughout the generations and the law is eternal.

 

There is no scripture in the OT that says the Sabbath would be replaced by a messiah. None.

 

The point of Jesus not breaking the Sabbath is irregardless to how we should live our lives. He abided by it to fulfill it not for us to keep it!

 

Jesus kept to law for you, so therefore it's ok for you disobey it.

 

Well I guess Jesus also fulfilled the homosexual and incest law, since he abided by that too. So therefore christian are now free to be homosexuals and have incesterious relationship.

 

I don't want to prove the assertion that God's Laws aren't in binding on the followers.

 

You already doing exactly that by giving excuses as to why the God's 613 moral law don't apply to you.

 

I want to prove that we should be under a new covenant. And the mere fact that the OT mentions a new covenant negates the fact that the Old is eternal in the sense you think.

 

No it doesn't.

 

I assume by God, you mean Jesus?

 

No. I don't think Jesus was the same god of the OT. that is your assertion.

 

After all Paul spoke of Jesus as God and you say to listen to Jesus. So I will assume that.

 

I don't of any verse where he directly says that Jesus is god himself. That is a doctrine that is made up by christian 3 centuaries later.

 

Paul said Jesus wasn't God.

 

1 Cor 11:3

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

 

Where in the OT does it say that the NC laws will be followed completely?

 

What's point of infusing OT law in people heart, if they are not gonna follow it?

 

The messiah was supposed to bring a great compliance to the law.

 

Ezek 37:24

And David(messiah) my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

I need not prove anything to you. God is my witness, not you!

 

You pretend god agrees with you and your theological speculation. But he doesn't.

 

You claim to have to holy Spirit, but you don't follow the law.

 

All you have made are assertions, but provided zero proof for it. I am interested in meeting Real Christians, not pretenders.

 

 

Declaring Christ's name is brownie points?

 

Well you only said that your "works" is to bring people to christ. So I assumed that's the basis how you will be rewarded, since it says "each man would rewarded according to the works"

 

I am binded under a new covenant. And no I do not have a liscense to sin, I have the gift of forgiveness for those sins.

 

But you are not repentet of your sins. Those who repent do not go out and keep doing it.

 

By that reasoning it's ok for christians homosexual to keep their homosexuality, since they have the gift of forgiveness.

 

The fact that the Israelites didn't keep the laws meanas that God needed to have them fulfilled by one who can take its place, and be established on better promises.

 

You are yet to show me single verse from the Ot for the above assertion

 

The reason why God will imprint the law in their heart, will be because that will help them keep the law, not ignore it or making excuse for not following it.

 

Nobody can tempt Jesus, Satan tempted Him to sin against God, but Jesus never did.

 

Did you just notice the contradiction?No one includes Satan too.

 

How can Satan tempt god to sin against himself?

 

There was no iniquity found within Him.

 

That is yet to be proven true. You haven't addressed my point about Baptism

 

Verse from the OT please. Or did God forgot to mention this detail too?

 

What God/Jesus did is call Himself the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29; John 1:36), that is in reference to Jesus being the perfect and ultimate sacrifice. In fact the whole sacrificial system established by God in the Old Testament set the stage for the coming Jesus Christ, who is the perfect sacrifice that God would provide as atonement for the sins of His people (Romans 8:3; Hebrews 10).

 

I specifically asked for OT verses.

 

What you have provided is self-serving circular logic that uses the NT to prove itself. It completely ignores the OT and it contradicts God's law concerning sin sacrifices as well.

 

Isaiah 53 speaks of Christ!

 

Too bad Isaiah identified the servant as being Israel.

 

The physical wounds, or the lack thereof needed for sacrifice, is a symbol of sin in the persons nature, not the animals.

 

Once again you are lying.

 

Blemish was physical. Animals were to be withoutdefect(Lev 4).

 

Yahweh wants unblemished animals.

Mal 1:7-8(NIV)

You place defiled food on my altar."

But you ask, 'How have we defiled you?'

By saying that the LORD's table is contemptible.

When you bring blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you

sacrifice crippled or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them

to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?" says

the LORD Almighty.

 

 

I don't work backwards, I start with Christ.

 

The OT doesn't mention christ. nor does the OT God ever say that a messiah would replace the need for the law.

 

No, the NT and Christ in particular are right on with their interpretation of it.

 

Oh really, the NT continuesly takes things out of context and uses it promote it's agenda.

 

Here is an good example.

 

One glaring example is the description of the convenant of Jeremiah

 

Hebrews 8:8

, Behold, ..... [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 continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [10] For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;........ [13] In that He saith,! A new [covenant], He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. (KJV)

 

vs

 

Jeremiah 31:31

Behold, .........[32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, ........ (KJV)

 

As the highlighted words the Book of Hebews tries to shows that Isreal broke the convenant of the OT, and because of this God was pissed at them and left them

 

Whereas the Book of Jer shows that even though Isreal broke the convenant of the God, God was still faithful to the nation of Isreal

 

This is an fine example of where the words were changed to alter the meaning of the chapter. This was clearly done with premeditated intent.

 

And right after that the Book of Hebrews make the following claims

 

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear

 

You still haven't told told me how do God's everlasting and perfect laws becomes obsolete?

 

The book of hebrew was allegedly written by Paul. This is same Paul who said that it doesn't matter that if you lie or sin, if you doing so to bring people to christ. I don't think I can trust liars, specially those who are proud of it.

 

Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, nothing more.

 

So he claimed, what was his proof for that. His claims was just like modern day swindlers such as Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn do.

 

But once again the OT is pretty clear what Holy Spirit Filled people would do. Paul did the very opposite of that, and teached others to do the same. OT calls such people wicked.

 

Christianity, or really a relationship with Christ is the true way to go.

 

So I guess if I join the catholic church, that would give me a relationship with christ? Right. or do you recommend the Mormon church for me?All of them offer the same - relationship with christ.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Which part of "whosoever believes shall be saved" is unconditional?

 

You know the word "unconditional" can mean "absolute" in place or along with something "without condition."

 

What good is loving kindness & mercy when it's held at the edge of a fiery sword? What kind of love is that? It's not only conditional, it's also a form of fascist dictatorship, "Obey me, or else!" That's not love, that's slavery.

 

It isn't "Obey me, or else" it is choose to obey Me or not. Everybody has free will to choose to worship God or not. I choose to you do not. But the choice we make in regards to God relates directly to what happens to us after our life on earth. I will be with God, you will not be with God as that was your choice to begin with.

 

Whether you like it or not what happened because we first sinned, doesn't matter, what matters is when we sin or choose to do our will in place of Gods we invite evil and judgment into the world and into our lives.

[thunderbolt]

You know the word "unconditional" can mean "absolute" in place or along with something "without condition."

Come again!

 

Everybody has free will to choose to worship God or not. I choose to you do not. But the choice we make in regards to God relates directly to what happens to us after our life on earth.condition."

 

That's not a choice, its force, and even if the whole story was true, who in their right mind would not save their butts from hell? So you see, it only ends up being a choice made out of self preservation. Now I can just imagine a God who is thrilled with a bunch of believers who only loves him because they feared the consequence of not loving him more – BibleGod.

 

You confuse love with fear.

[Guest sub_zer0]

That's not a choice, its force, and even if the whole story was true, who in their right mind would not save their butts from hell? So you see, it ends up being a choice made out of self preservation. Now I can just imagine a God who is thrilled with a bunch of believers who only loves him because they feared the consequence of not loving him more – BibleGod.

 

You confuse love with fear.

 

OK, good it is still a choice then as you say!

 

You confuse fear with love. Do you not see a perfect oppurtunity to worship Him, to accept Him into your heart? It is to perserve yourself as you say! Take the oppurtunity. The whole point of believing in Christ is so that we may not perish but have everlasting life! The fact that you do not choose Him and go to hell is your spiritual death, one that God/Christ is trying to save you from.

 

You are a walking testimony to the fact that you can either CHOOSE to believe and obey or not! The point is, it is true and apparently you are not in your right mind until you choose Jesus!

[Asimov]

That's not a choice, its force, and even if the whole story was true, who in their right mind would not save their butts from hell? So you see, it ends up being a choice made out of self preservation. Now I can just imagine a God who is thrilled with a bunch of believers who only loves him because they feared the consequence of not loving him more – BibleGod.

 

You confuse love with fear.

 

OK, good it is still a choice then as you say!

 

You confuse fear with love. Do you not see a perfect oppurtunity to worship Him, to accept Him into your heart? It is to perserve yourself as you say! Take the oppurtunity. The whole point of believing in Christ is so that we may not perish but have everlasting life! The fact that you do not choose Him and go to hell is your spiritual death, one that God/Christ is trying to save you from.

 

You are a walking testimony to the fact that you can either CHOOSE to believe and obey or not! The point is, it is true and apparently you are not in your right mind until you choose Jesus!

 

Hey, preacher, what about that debate?

[thunderbolt]

OK, good it is still a choice then as you say!

My point exactly - whether I choose to “believe” or not should make no difference to your God even if he existed. If it does AND there is a consequence, then your God has needs that must be fulfilled, and therefore cannot be all sufficient. Can’t have it both ways.

 

Do you not see a perfect oppurtunity to worship Him, to accept Him into your heart?

Nope, I don't worship any pagan myths. And stop proselytizing!

 

It is to perserve yourself as you say! Take the oppurtunity.

I don't need to be preserved from anything, much less your hell which doesn’t exist. Read Paul – and even if I did believe your myth then Paul stated that everyone is already saved. (Romans 5)

 

You are a walking testimony to the fact that you can either CHOOSE to believe and obey or not! The point is, it is true and apparently you are not in your right mind until you choose Jesus! See where I am coming from?

I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE in a God as morally reprehensible as the one your Bible describes. Your God cannot pass even his own standards, so why should I (being in my right mind as you say) believe a word he says? And besides, obey him to do what?

[Guest sub_zer0]

My point exactly - whether I choose to “believe” or not should make no difference to your God even if he existed. If it does AND there is a consequence, then your God has needs that must be fulfilled, and therefore cannot be all sufficient. Can’t have it both ways.

 

You are thinking of it wrong. God does not need us. We need God.

 

I don't need to be preserved from anything, much less your hell which doesn’t exist. Read Paul – and even if I did believe your myth then Paul stated that everyone is already saved. (Romans 5)

 

Where specifically does it say that everone is already saved?

 

I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE in a God as morally reprehensible as the one your Bible describes. Your God cannot pass even his own standards, so why should I (being in my right mind as you say) believe a word he says? And besides, obey him to do what?

 

OK, you choose not to. It's funny how hard you argue against something that you don't even think exists.

[Asimov]

OK, you choose not to. It's funny how hard you argue against something that you don't even think exists.

 

Because of people like you who continue to spread lies as truth.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Because of people like you who continue to spread lies as truth.

 

Why does it matter to you in the first place if it doesn't even exist to you. Because it is truth is the answer.

[Asimov]

Because of people like you who continue to spread lies as truth.

 

Why does it matter to you in the first place if it doesn't even exist to you.

 

Because of people like you spreading lies as truth.

 

Because it is truth is the answer.

 

Care to debate that?

[thunderbolt]

You are thinking of it wrong. God does not need us. We need God.

You might, I don't, and you cannot come up with a good reason why I "need" God.

 

Where specifically does it say that everone is already saved?

Chapter 5

 

OK, you choose not to. It's funny how hard you argue against something that you don't even think exists.

Wrong, I argue against something YOU are trying to convince ME I need to believe in that I don't believe exist. I.E. I am talking to you, not to "God."

[SkepticOfBible]

To understand the Old Testament you must know that Moses wrote the first 5 books.

 

And when that same Moses says that you have to follow these laws forever, you ignore him.

 

The fact that Moses wrote all 5 books of the Pentatech is conservative.

 

The so called "fact" you are promoting is nothing more than a man-made doctrine. You have no biblical proof for your claims

 

You are right, you do not know God

 

And you know God. Yeah, sure. So much so for "christian love". Just as predicted, because OM idealogy doesn't match up with you man-made doctrines, hence you declare him to be a heretic.

 

You contradict the very god of the bible, and ignore God's word in the Old Testament as you weave your new improved theology around the pagan custom of a human sacrifice.

 

You tried asserted that Jer 31 points to Christ, and you failed to provide any OT proof for that

You tried to assert that you don't have to obey Sabbath (or the law), and you failed to provide any OT proof for that

You tried to prove that God's "eternal" law are fulfilled in christ and that you don't fillow the laws, and you failed to provide any OT proof for that.

You tried to assert that Jesus was some sort of valid sin sacrifice, and fulfilled the OT sacrificial law, and once again failed to provide proof tfor that.

 

The OT clearly said that said those who have the "holy spirit", will follow God's law. Yet you don't do such thing

The OT also clearly said to those who love god will folllow his law diligently. Yet you don't do such thing

 

The OT also clearly says that you shouldn't add any qualifiers nor should you rewrite the bible. Yet you have done the same

 

You cherry picked the "moral" laws of the OT, and then claimed that these laws will be binding for all time. You engage in just as much as selective and relative morality, just like any other skeptic on this site. However you on the other hand, use the bible to validate your selective moral.

 

You have proved the Bible can mean virtually anything believers want it to mean.

 

The only you know "God" is nothing more than cardboard cutout, a manifestation of personal theological whims, preferences, and speculations.

[crazy-tiger]

That probably isn't the updated edition like mine is and the one which I was referring to. The point is you were wrong in saying that the whole NASB Bible is based off of the Nestle, it isn't only the Greek, or the NT, is based off of Nestle.

Hmm...

"In 1992 the Lockman Foundation commissioned a limited revision of the NASB which was intended to improve its English style by allowing a somewhat less literal approach. The revision was published as the "NASB Updated Edition" in 1995."

"Less literal"... and according to their ideas, less accurate. No longer a translation, but an interpretation... (and it's still based on the 23rd edition...)

 

But, what is the NASB based on? Well... "As its name implies, the New American Standard Bible is a revision of the American Standard Version (1901). It was produced by a company of conservative scholars who wished to provide a literal and conservative revision of the ASV, as an alternative to the Revised Standard Version (1952), which had proven to be unacceptable to conservative churches. Although the NASB revisers were influenced by the RSV's interpretation in many places, overall the NASB is a good deal more literal than the RSV, and thus it preserves the highly literal character that had made the American Standard Version so useful as a translation for close study. Also unlike the RSV, the NASB deliberately interprets the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New Testament."

 

There you go... it's based on the ASV, influenced by the RSV, used 23rd Nestle to sort out the Greek and interprets the OT from a Christian standpoint... For something that makes a lot of noise about being a literal translation, it sure does like to be an interpretive translation.

 

And again, no possibility of it using ancient manuscripts...

By the way... who had the time machine?

"The publication of the New American Standard Bible began with the Gospel of John in 1960, followed by the four Gospels in 1962, the New Testament in 1963, and the entire Bible in 1971."

 

Are you sure that they used the 26th edition for that?

 

No, I claim the NASB updated edition is based on the 26th for the NT, not the OT which is the Dead Sea scrolls like I stated and which you tryed claiming that Nestle was for that and it wasn't.

Considering the 26th edition was a completely different work, I guess the NT part of the NASB UE is also completely different to the original? After all, it's gonna be hard to get an identical literal translation from vastly different sources without a lot of interpretation. So much for the NASB being the most literal translation around...

 

Secondly, like I said, NASB isn't based off the Dead Sea scrolls in any way... just off another bible. Or are you now going to claim that change to the NA text included the Dead Sea scrolls...?

Good because that is exactly what I meant.

I can see I need to throw a ladder down now... you need help to get out of this one.

*knock knock* Anybody there?

 

Once more... the new covenant is simply a new agreement about THE SAME OLD LAWS! It's not a new set of laws, just a new agreement over how people will know about them.

And before you say anything, God stated that he would write them directly onto mens hearts... having someone come down as a saviour isn't doing that at all, so every time you bring that up, you are saying that God lied!

It is a new agreement on the same old laws because Jesus fulfilled them. The new covenant, Jesus, is based on the fulfillment of those same old laws.

 

Do you have any clue how Christians accept Jesus? They do it by accepting Him into their hearts! That same Savior you speak of that came down, is the same one who said:

 

Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;"

You appear to be under the impression that I was never a Christian... allow me to just correct your error.

 

But now you seem to be accepting the fact that the old laws are still there... you just think that fullfilment means we don't need to follow them.

You do remember the little fact that God declared his laws were eternal, and that man will follow them for all time?

 

Ooops...

Honestly... you are. God said that this is how it WILL happen, and you're saying that he decided to do it another way? Does God go back on his word? Are the promises of God not to be trusted? (hey, would you trust someone's promises if they went back on them?)

Every time you go on about this new covenant, which is nothing more than one of God's promises, you show us how we cannot trust God to keep his promises!

 

You are trying to make me seem like I am lying, when I am not, obviously. God's promises about the new covenant is fulfilled in Christ, who demands that you believe in Him with all your heart!

Hasn't been fulfilled though, has it? Not every man has Gods Law written on his heart... We still have people teaching others about Gods Law... His promises have not been fulfilled, have they?

 

You're still trying to say that God, despite saying how something WILL happen, has gone and used a different way to bring about a new covenant... a way that matches what he said about false prophets.

See, he warned about people who did EXACTLY what Jesus did, who said EXACTLY what Jesus said, who re-wrote Gods Law EXACTLY like Jesus did... he warned about that, and you want us to believe that he used that method to bring about a new covenant??

 

If God did indeed do that, then he's got a sick and twisted sense of humour... since it resulted in his chosen people, the very people who the covenant was for, rejecting it! And God, being all-knowing, knew this would be the result...

 

Ooops...

To make matters worse, Jesus himself said that we STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW! When you say Jesus did away with it, that we don't have to follow it, you are calling JESUS a liar!

 

The irony of this leaves me almost speechless... in you attempts to defend the Bible, you've gone so far as to demonstrate that both God and Jesus are liars.

 

I'd stop now, if I were you... the rate you're going, you'll be insisting that the HG cannot be trusted within a week...

Where does it say that we have to still follow the law in the NT? Where does Jesus say this about believers in Him?

You have got to be kidding me...

 

Someone else want to provide this... again?

[SkepticOfBible]

To make matters worse, Jesus himself said that we STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW! When you say Jesus did away with it, that we don't have to follow it, you are calling JESUS a liar!

 

The irony of this leaves me almost speechless... in you attempts to defend the Bible, you've gone so far as to demonstrate that both God and Jesus are liars.

 

I'd stop now, if I were you... the rate you're going, you'll be insisting that the HG cannot be trusted within a week...

Where does it say that we have to still follow the law in the NT? Where does Jesus say this about believers in Him?

You have got to be kidding me...

 

Someone else want to provide this... again?

 

Allow me

 

Matt 5:18-20

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

He regarded the pharisees as righteous, and told everyone else to use them as a role model of righteousness*which came for the law".

 

matt 15:3-6

15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

"He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

 

Jesus here is condemning the pharisees for not following God's OT law about disobedient childrem

 

 

John 15:10

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have

kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

 

Matt 19:17

if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

 

Rev 12:17

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the

remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the

testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

Rev 14:12

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the

commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

 

Rev 22:14

4 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the

tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

It is pretty clear what commandments Jesus is talking about. Since Jesus did exist in the OT right?

 

 

Matt 7:21(Jesus speaking)

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

Jesus claimed that doing the will of the Father is a key element to enter heaven.

According to the Bible, what is the will of the Father?

 

Deut 10:12-13

And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,

To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

 

Ezek 18:20-21,27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

 

The instruction is quite clear, unambiguous, and leaves no doubt as to what is required.

 

Walk in all God's ways, which means keeping all of God's laws.

 

If Jesus walked in all of God's law, then so should christians if they consider him to be a ultimate role model.

 

However what they worship is Paul opinions about Jesus.

[Open_Minded]

So ... Sub.... you have a problem. Prove to us ... hell prove to yourself ... that Christian sacred literature is TRULY right and everything else is wrong. And don't go pulling out a Bible verse to prove it, because for every Bible verse you get to "prove" that the Bible is the only TRUE word of God ... I can go get Hindu, Muslim, whatever verses to "prove" that their literature is the only TRUE word of God.

 

Here is what I do to solve my little problem that you think I face. You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. Than anything that contradicts that on major doctrinal issues isn't the truth. Simple as that!

 

"You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth."

 

PROVE IT ... Prove to us that the Bible is the only truth!!!!! Don't just say it, PROVE IT.

[white_raven23]

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!!!!

 

God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into this world to die for us. Simple as that! Jesus Christ is a walking physical being who displays God's unconditional love forever, for all ages!

 

 

Uh huh.

 

Interesting "sacrifice". In order for these words to really mean what they say, God had to suffer greater than anyone else ever could over what happens to his son.

 

What kind of massive bull ego is this? God suffered more than every mother on the planet who has borne her child from her body, raised him with her soul, and wached him be slowly tortured (over weeks and months.....not days) and killed for a crime he did not commit?

 

How was god's suffering greater......when HE got his son back?

 

So this really doesn't work as an example of what I asked for. There is no "sacrifice" when that which you are giving up comes right back to you whole.

 

Oh....and based on what you just wrote, you seem to think Jesus is still walking around here on earth as a physical being. What?

 

According to my bible he got sucked into the sky.