Here's how I know the 10 Commandments story is BS

[Fumbleweed 547]

It could be argued that Jesus is the personification of God's judgment as well. But it's all good.

 

It could indeed. Understood.

[Groundhog 24]

An omniscient god would have made every chick grow up to look like Carmen Electra. The fact that he didn't suggests that either he's drunk all the time and the beer goggles make him think every chick is hot, or, alternatively, he doesn't exist and all of this is just a massive experimentation gone horribly awry.

[frank 2,304]

An omniscient god would have made every chick grow up to look like Carmen Electra. The fact that he didn't suggests that either he's drunk all the time and the beer goggles make him think every chick is hot, or, alternatively, he doesn't exist and all of this is just a massive experimentation gone horribly awry.

 

 

Come on dude, you gotta think this out. If they all looked like that, we wouldn't need to drink. This way, we can drink so that they look like that.

[Blitzen 0]

For instance, the Old Testament forbids the wearing of mixed fabrics. Does that mean I can't wear any of the wrinkle-free shirts in my closet to work today? No. Does it mean that a Jew many centuries before Christ couldn't mix fabrics? Yes.

 

Just curious: who told you you could dispense with this Old Testament rule? So you can pretty much pick and choose which rules to follow?

[wiffleball 4,790]

Just curious: who told you you could dispense with this Old Testament rule? So you can pretty much pick and choose which rules to follow?

 

 

Christ was crucified so we could wear wrinkle-free clothes. You'll notice HE didn't even have any wrinkles he was hung up either.

 

Yes, because we don't have any of the original manuscripts, discrepencies are found in both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. They're called textual variants, alternative renderings based on scribal errors. Virtually all are easily explained... none involve major doctrinal issues. (You and I have already been this road together, I'm just posting it for the others, Voltaire.)

 

As for whether it is to be read in context, like with any piece of literature, of course it is. That is not to imply some sort of religious slight-of-hand to cover embarrassing passages. It merely acknowledges the obvious, that authors write literature to target audiences with purpose and style, and that it is the wise reader who takes note of those parameters before attempting to interpret meaning.

 

For instance, the Old Testament forbids the wearing of mixed fabrics. Does that mean I can't wear any of the wrinkle-free shirts in my closet to work today? No. Does it mean that a Jew many centuries before Christ couldn't mix fabrics? Yes.

 

Or maybe more importantly, in the Old Testament the Jews were told to stone adulterers to death. Does that mean the United States needs to impliment this into our consittution? That's absurd. But does it mean that Old Testament Jews were expected to obey it? Yep.

 

Unfortunately, many of us are more comfortable with a shallow caricature of Christianity than we are in taking an honest look. It permits us to stay safely away from anything that would infringe on our pursuit of happiness. JMHO.

 

There's a crapload of Christians who believe in the LITERAL interpretation of the bible. It is not the 'inspired word of God' it is THE Word of God. - Until you nail them with some of the more absurd things in there.

[Blitzen 0]

Christ was crucified so we could wear wrinkle-free clothes. You'll notice HE didn't even have any wrinkles he was hung up either.

There's a crapload of Christians who believe in the LITERAL interpretation of the bible. It is not the 'inspired word of God' it is THE Word of God. - Until you nail them with some of the more absurd things in there.

 

Actually, I think they were told by the early Church it was the litteral word of God. But as science explained more and more of the universe and made some of the claims seem more mythical (and as you couldn't burn people anymore who didn't believe), the Church had to tone it down a bit and then interpret it for us. I'd still like to see the Official God-approved Interpretive Guide to the Bible

 

Am I the only one who thinks that it's rather silly/preposterous/pompous to think that mere humans can interpret the words of an all-knowing God? So did Jesus walk on water or not? How do you know? Was the world created in six days or not? How can you possibly know if this is within the grasp of an all-knowing all-powerful God?

 

How is it even possible to know God-style writing? Have there been many other previous installments so we can carry out a comparative analysis?

[TyCobb 0]

There's a crapload of Christians who believe in the LITERAL interpretation of the bible. It is not the 'inspired word of God' it is THE Word of God. - Until you nail them with some of the more absurd things in there.

 

Yes.

 

Just curious: who told you you could dispense with this Old Testament rule? So you can pretty much pick and choose which rules to follow?

 

Great question. I'd say the shortest answer I could give would be by simply saying that God seems to have worked in distinct dispensations throughout time.

 

For example, the instructions given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden were much different than those given to, say, the Israelites in the desert, or to the early disciples who saw Jesus face-to-face, or even to Christians in local churches a hundred years later.

 

BTW - It is interesting to note that all ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament except #4 - "Honor the Sabbath and keep it holy."

[wiffleball 4,790]

Yes.

Great question. I'd say the shortest answer I could give would be by simply saying that God seems to have worked in distinct dispensations throughout time.

 

For example, the instructions given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden were much different than those given to, say, the Israelites in the desert, or to the early disciples who saw Jesus face-to-face, or even to Christians in local churches a hundred years later.

 

Actually wasn't it Christ himself who pretty much invalidatored the Old Testament stuff when he said "that was the old covenant, I bring you a NEW covenant" (or something like that). ?

[TyCobb 0]

Actually wasn't it Christ himself who pretty much invalidatored the Old Testament stuff when he said "that was the old covenant, I bring you a NEW covenant" (or something like that). ?

 

Christ claimed to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant.

 

Here's a short summary -

 

Old Covenant = good works are the cause of God's favor

 

You and me = not good enough

 

Christ = paid the price

 

New Covenant = good works are result of God's favor, salvation by grace through faith

 

HTH.

[Blitzen 0]

Yes.

Great question. I'd say the shortest answer I could give would be by simply saying that God seems to have worked in distinct dispensations throughout time.

 

For example, the instructions given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden were much different than those given to, say, the Israelites in the desert, or to the early disciples who saw Jesus face-to-face, or even to Christians in local churches a hundred years later.

 

BTW - It is interesting to note that all ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament except #4 - "Honor the Sabbath and keep it holy."

 

You didn't really answer the question Ty. It's fine that God has shown a willingness to work in dispensations before but my question was: how can you possibly know what dispensations you choose to make that he is OK with? For instance, tell me how you know that it is in fact OK for you to wear mixed fabrics. Is it written somewhere in the Bible that you can dispense with that rule? Are God's words to be amended due to modernity? And, if so, under who's authority?

 

You say his instructions have changed in the past on some issues. That's fine. Then when did he change his instructions on wearing mixed fabrics? Who knows...maybe fashion is a big issue for deities for reasons we can't begin to fathom.

 

The broader question I had posed also was how can you, a mere mortal, even begin to pretend to be able to interpret the words of an all-knowing all-powerful God?

[TyCobb 0]

You didn't really answer the question Ty. It's fine that God has shown a willingness to work in dispensations before but my question was: how can you possibly know what dispensations you choose to make that he is OK with? For instance, tell me how you know that it is in fact OK for you to wear mixed fabrics. Is it written somewhere in the Bible that you can dispense with that rule? Are God's words to be amended due to modernity? And, if so, under who's authority?

 

You say his instructions have changed in the past on some issues. That's fine. Then when did he change his instructions on wearing mixed fabrics? Who knows...maybe fashion is a big issue for deities for reasons we can't begin to fathom.

 

The broader question I had posed also was how can you, a mere mortal, even begin to pretend to be able to interpret the words of an all-knowing all-powerful God?

 

I reverse order :

 

Becast they are, in fact, written in words. That's why I can interpret them. If they had simply been kept in the mind of God and not uttered into human language, it'd be hopeless. But God wanted to communicate with us, so He inspired the authorship of His thoughts into the Bible.

 

I can divide the dispensations because the Bible does so. With every new dispensation there was a new set of instructions provided to tell us how to relate to God and show faith in him.

 

To amend something I said earlier, salvation has always been by grace through faith in every dispensation. But the way of demonstrating that faith has changed according to the content of the instructions given.

[Blitzen 0]

I reverse order :

 

Becast they are, in fact, written in words. That's why I can interpret them. If they had simply been kept in the mind of God and not uttered into human language, it'd be hopeless. But God wanted to communicate with us, so He inspired the authorship of His thoughts into the Bible.

 

I can divide the dispensations because the Bible does so. With every new dispensation there was a new set of instructions provided to tell us how to relate to God and show faith in him.

 

To amend something I said earlier, salvation has always been by grace through faith in every dispensation. But the way of demonstrating that faith has changed according to the content of the instructions given.

 

Having someone commit thoughts to words doesn't mean you can interpret them flawlessly. Even less so for a God.

 

So where in the Bible does it say that it's OK to wear mixed fabrics?

[TyCobb 0]

Having someone commit thoughts to words doesn't mean you can interpret them flawlessly. Even less so for a God.

 

I don't claim to interpret them flawlessly. I just claim to attempt to interpret them according to the normal, plain, literal, logical way I do any other piece of literature, understanding that genre and context are a huge part of doing so.

 

 

So where in the Bible does it say that it's OK to wear mixed fabrics?

 

Where in the Bible does it say it's OK to post messages on the internet?

 

Are you under the impression that once God says something one time in history, every person from then on who reads that command is compelled to obey it? If so, I guess I should be building a huge boat (Noah), marrying a prostitute (Hosea), traveling to Nineveh (Jonah), paying my taxes by finding coins in the mouths of fish (the disciples), walking on water (Peter), trying to slay that big tall Chinese basketball player with a slingshot (David), confronting the leader of Egypt about the plight of the Jews (Moses), and attemtping to feed the crowd at the Super Bowl this Sunday using only a few fish and small loaf of bread (disciples).

 

Sarcasm aside, you are making a common mistake in biblical interpretation: believing that nothing God says can ever stop or change. Unfortunately, that's just not the case.

 

It's what theologians call "progressive revelation". God unfolds his plan over time and I give him the right to do so.

 

BTW - Here's one of the key verses of the protestant reformation. "But now a righteousness from God, apart from the Law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify." (Romans 3:21)

 

Or consider this : "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Him I have been set free from the law." (Romans 8:1-2)

[VikesFan 1]

Christ claimed to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant.

 

Here's a short summary -

 

Old Covenant = religious law that was impossible to keep

 

You and me = not good enough

 

Christ = paid the price

 

New Covenant = good works are result of God's favor, salvation by grace through faith

 

HTH.

 

Fixed... The point of the old covenant was not good works to earn favor. It was to demonstrate to the people that it was impossible to find favor with God. The OT law was impossible to keep, for even the best Jew. No one was good enough. The law points us to that.

[Blitzen 0]

I don't claim to interpret them flawlessly. I just claim to attempt to interpret them according to the normal, plain, literal, logical way I do any other piece of literature, understanding that genre and context are a huge part of doing so.

Where in the Bible does it say it's OK to post messages on the internet?

 

Are you under the impression that once God says something one time in history, every person from then on who reads that command is compelled to obey it? If so, I guess I should be building a huge boat (Noah), marrying a prostitute (Hosea), traveling to Nineveh (Jonah), paying my taxes by finding coins in the mouths of fish (the disciples), walking on water (Peter), trying to slay that big tall Chinese basketball player with a slingshot (David), confronting the leader of Egypt about the plight of the Jews (Moses), and attemtping to feed the crowd at the Super Bowl this Sunday using only a few fish and small loaf of bread (disciples).

 

Sarcasm aside, you are making a common mistake in biblical interpretation: believing that nothing God says can ever stop or change. Unfortunately, that's just not the case.

 

It's what theologians call "progressive revelation". God unfolds his plan over time and I give him the right to do so.

 

BTW - Here's one of the key verses of the protestant reformation. "But now a righteousness from God, apart from the Law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify." (Romans 3:21)

 

Or consider this : "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Him I have been set free from the law." (Romans 8:1-2)

 

OK so what do you think of what Jesus says in

Matthew 5:17-20

 

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

 

18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

 

19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Is it still OK to wear mixed fabrics? And I guess that you respect the sabbath, each and every week?

 

Also if we can opt to eliminate some past law for the sake of modernity, then I guess that gays and condoms are OK with the Church, right? Because it would be totally stupid and morally indefensible for the Church to be telling people in Africa not to wear condoms.

 

See I think that what you're doing is applying your value filter to laws that the Bible explicitely states should be followed to the letter. That's fine but then you are not respecting the word of God. Unless of course you tell me the Bible is not the word of God.

[VikesFan 1]

You didn't really answer the question Ty. It's fine that God has shown a willingness to work in dispensations before but my question was: how can you possibly know what dispensations you choose to make that he is OK with? For instance, tell me how you know that it is in fact OK for you to wear mixed fabrics. Is it written somewhere in the Bible that you can dispense with that rule? Are God's words to be amended due to modernity? And, if so, under who's authority?

 

You say his instructions have changed in the past on some issues. That's fine. Then when did he change his instructions on wearing mixed fabrics? Who knows...maybe fashion is a big issue for deities for reasons we can't begin to fathom.

 

The broader question I had posed also was how can you, a mere mortal, even begin to pretend to be able to interpret the words of an all-knowing all-powerful God?

 

Blitzen,

 

I'll bite on this one, fumbleweed and tycobb can't have all the fun. You ask a two pronged question here that is not easy to answer. I'm going to attempt to split this up for you.

 

1) Your first question is one that has been an issue since the birth of Christianity. What you may not realize is that Paul, in particular dealt with that question over and over and over again. If you don't believe me, take a long read of Galatians, Hebrews, and Romans. All three of those books dedicate large portions of passage to why we no longer need to keep that Old Testament law. The purpose of the Old Covenant was two fold: to show us our need for a savior, and provide the means for that savior to come. Paul (and Jesus for that matter) answered that question quite susinctly. The Old Covenant was impossible to keep, and it condemned all of us to death. Paul repeatedly pointed out to the churches that he formed that it was no longer necessary to keep the law because it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Galations and Romans go into that in a lot of detail. Hebrews (whose author is unknown) is written to early Christians who were strongly considering returning to the law, and points out the futility of that life. As for whose authority was it? It was none other than the authority of Jesus Christ Himself who came to fulfill the law. It was not the authority of someone such as you or me (mere mortals), but the Son of God Himself. This, by the way, was not an attempt to amend the word for modernity. It was to fulfill the word. Take a good, long look at the Old Testament. The entire thing points to the Savior. Where the Jews got it wrong is that they expected a savior to come and conquer the world for them. They failed to see that their savior's purpose was to do something far greater: He conquered sin.

 

2) I'm going to turn the second, broader question back on you for a second, because I think you miss a greater context. If God exists, I think it is safe to assume that God has a definitive opinion on what is right and what is wrong. Likewise, if God exists, it becomes His responsibility to communicate those moral absolutes to us, His creation. Do you agree with this thus far?

 

You asked how a mere mortal can pretend to interpret the words of God. That sounds to be both a genuine question, but also a very dangerously loaded question. I cannot pretend to know where you are coming from, but you haven't stated your conclusions to this very question either. Your question presupposes that mere mortals cannot interpret the words of God. I'm not so certain that this is true. While I do believe that mortals are not perfect and will make mistakes in their interpretation of God's words, I don't think it is fair to conclude that we may as well not even try, especially given that God chose to communicate to us, not vice-versa. A God who created us understands how to communicate to us and can do so in an effective manner. We will certainly make mistakes in interpreting that communication, but I fail to see the logical conclusion that we have no reason to even pretend to try to interpret His words. I think a more appropriate question, and far broader in scope, is this: How can a mere mortal even pretend to understand everything about the God who created the Universe? That, I think is a better way to state your question, as I don't think it is possible for us to even fathom the motives of a God who holds the entire universe in his hands. But scaling that down to the level of God's communications to us is a very dangerous proposition to make. That God who created the universe understands us at a level that not even we understand. He knows our thoughts before we make them, how are brains are wired, and how are experiences have affected our ability to interpret his communications. Likewise, HE INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION, so obviously He thinks we can understand. We may never understand his motives for communication, but when He gives us His word, I fail to see how it is that you and I can assume that we won't ever get it right. He did provide us with wisdom and a logical way of thinking that allows us to interpret his word. He did provide us with experiences that will also influence that interpretation. I won't pretend that each and every one of us will "get it right," but to assume we will get it all wrong is rather foolish, as it would say that God has no means of communicating with us. I'm not sure that is a fair assumption to make either. I do, however, believe that some are far better at interpreting God's word than others (who those people are is certainly up for debate). Let me use an example:

 

All of us are here b/c this is a fantasy football site. We share one thing, we love football. That being said, I'm pretty certain that not one of us have played in the NFL or even have a chance at playing in the NFL for a number of reasons: not in shape, don't practice, don't have natural talent, don't have desire, etc. All of these reasons can easily be put in a spiritual context as well. Some are more talented at interpreting scripture than others. Some practice more. Some have a huge desire, and all of us need to be in "spiritual shape." That being said, there are a few wrinkles here. God provides us with the Holy Spirit to guide us. This guidence includes interpreting God's word and allowing us to understand it, as on our own, without God's intervention, none of us would figure it out. The Holy Spirit, however, has a way of giving talent to those who have none, providing experiences and trials for us to grow from, giving us a desire, etc. God not only communicates to us through His Word and His creation, He provides us with a mechanism to better understand what it is that He is saying. The Holy Spirit is the one that convicts you when you do something you know is wrong. He's the one that gnaws at you when you ask the questions you are currently asking, and the one telling you right now that you desparately need God to save you, as you (and I) have broken every one of God's laws in one way or another and will be judged and convicted of this at the judgement.

 

As a mere mortal, I will never understand God fully. He's infinite, I am not, but I can understand his Words, because He has given them to me and provided me with His Spirit to guide me.

 

I hope that helps.

[VikesFan 1]

OK so what do you think of what Jesus says in

Matthew 5:17-20

 

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

 

18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

 

19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Is it still OK to wear mixed fabrics? And I guess that you respect the sabbath, each and every week?

 

Also if we can opt to eliminate some past law for the sake of modernity, then I guess that gays and condoms are OK with the Church, right? Because it would be totally stupid and morally indefensible for the Church to be telling people in Africa not to wear condoms.

 

See I think that what you're doing is applying your value filter to laws that the Bible explicitely states should be followed to the letter. That's fine but then you are not respecting the word of God. Unless of course you tell me the Bible is not the word of God.

 

Let's go back to context. What exactly is Jesus talking about? You cannot read verse 17 without starting at the beginning of the chapter. This is the sermon on the mount, in which he teaches about His kingdom and His laws. Never once did he discuss wearing clothes of different fabrics. He talked of meakness, peacefullness, being salt and light to the earth, etc. Verse 17 says it all. He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Verse 18 says basically the same thing. Verse 19 doesnt' mention the law or the prophets, but his commands. I realize that's a technicality of sorts, but not accidental. He goes on then to state his commands, and goes much farther than verse 20. Verses 21 and 22 state that hatred is equivalent to breaking the commandment "thou shalt not kill." 27 and 28 point out that lust is equivalent to adultry. 31 nullfies divorce except in the case of adultry. 33-37 declare we should not "swear on a Bible" (to paraphrase) but let your yes be yes and your no be no. 38-42 turns an eye for an eye into "turn the other cheek." 43-44 "love your enemies." Each one states, "You have heard it said, but I say to you"... HE IS REWRITING THE LAW WITH HIS OWN COMMANDMENTS. 19 was a statement to keep his commandments. The rest of that chapter, and the next two chapters summarize his commandments.

[UncleHulka 0]

I'm not about to read three pages of this crap, but just think it's amusing that someone believes that by debunking Old Testament fables he is flaunting a superior intellect.

[TyCobb 0]

OK so what do you think of what Jesus says in

Matthew 5:17-20

 

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

 

18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

 

19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Is it still OK to wear mixed fabrics? And I guess that you respect the sabbath, each and every week?

 

Yes, I think it's okay to wear mixed fabrics BECAUSE of the verses you quote ... namely, because Jesus fulfilled the Law. He was sinless, he obeyed God to perfection, He fulfilled every aspect of the Law on my behalf. That's the very point I'm making and it's exactly why we can say with confidence that Old Testament commands are not binding on you and me. I'm not sure I see your point of contention by quoting these verses.

 

Paul addresses the Sabbath in the New Testament and tells us there is no need to regard one day over another, but to respect those who do so.

 

Also if we can opt to eliminate some past law for the sake of modernity, then I guess that gays and condoms are OK with the Church, right?

 

Condems are okay in most Protestant churches. Be aware that I am not at all talking about Roman Catholocism. As for homosexuality, those issues are addressed in the New Testament, and therefore directly applicable in this dispensation.

 

Because it would be totally stupid and morally indefensible for the Church to be telling people in Africa not to wear condoms.

 

I don't believe the church is telling anyone in Africa not to wear condoms. As for whether distributing them is the best cure for the AIDS virus, that's debatable.

 

See I think that what you're doing is applying your value filter to laws that the Bible explicitely states should be followed to the letter. That's fine but then you are not respecting the word of God. Unless of course you tell me the Bible is not the word of God.

 

I do believe the Bible is the Word of God. I do believe each and every book (or letter, or Psalm, or Prophecy) was written by an author to a particular audience with a particular message to convey using a particular style and genre for doing so. And I do believe it is important to take that into consideration when attempting to interpret or apply the principles of each piece of biblical literature.

[birdbrain3X 0]

I'm not about to read three pages of this crap, but just think it's amusing that someone believes that by debunking Old Testament fables he is flaunting a superior intellect.

 

I didn't get the impression that anyone here was trying to flaunt a superior intellect. Some folks asked questions and other folks answered them to the best of their ability. Some people just brought more to the table here. IMO.

[Blitzen 0]

Yes, I think it's okay to wear mixed fabrics BECAUSE of the verses you quote ... namely, because Jesus fulfilled the Law. He was sinless, he obeyed God to perfection, He fulfilled every aspect of the Law on my behalf. That's the very point I'm making and it's exactly why we can say with confidence that Old Testament commands are not binding on you and me. I'm not sure I see your point of contention by quoting these verses.

 

Paul addresses the Sabbath in the New Testament and tells us there is no need to regard one day over another, but to respect those who do so.

 

Condems are okay in most Protestant churches. Be aware that I am not at all talking about Roman Catholocism. As for homosexuality, those issues are addressed in the New Testament, and therefore directly applicable in this dispensation.

 

I don't believe the church is telling anyone in Africa not to wear condoms. As for whether distributing them is the best cure for the AIDS virus, that's debatable.

 

I do believe the Bible is the Word of God. I do believe each and every book (or letter, or Psalm, or Prophecy) was written by an author to a particular audience with a particular message to convey using a particular style and genre for doing so. And I do believe it is important to take that into consideration when attempting to interpret or apply the principles of each piece of biblical literature.

 

But that is YOUR interpretation of what fulfilled means. I could just as easily say that my interpretation, especially based on the fact that he states that the laws shall last til the end of time and earth, is that fulfillment will only come during the End Times. Being an all-knowing manGod, why would he bother talking about "til the end of earth" when he already knows that he will be crucified very shortly to atone. If he likely is a clear communicator, like VikesFan says, then why not just say "wait a bit and all will be atoned for". Others have yet other interpretations, as I have no doubt you already know. Now the fact that you think all other interpretations are incorrect is simply your point of view. That is why I state that you (and anybody else interpreting this passage) are applying a value filter. Paul, despite his lofty position in the Church, was also still interpreting the words of a God.

 

As far as the Church not telling Africans not to wear condoms, I suggest you read up a little. That position has sparked outrage in many parts of the world.

 

Blitzen,

 

I'll bite on this one, fumbleweed and tycobb can't have all the fun. You ask a two pronged question here that is not easy to answer. I'm going to attempt to split this up for you.

 

1) Your first question is one that has been an issue since the birth of Christianity. What you may not realize is that Paul, in particular dealt with that question over and over and over again. If you don't believe me, take a long read of Galatians, Hebrews, and Romans. All three of those books dedicate large portions of passage to why we no longer need to keep that Old Testament law. The purpose of the Old Covenant was two fold: to show us our need for a savior, and provide the means for that savior to come. Paul (and Jesus for that matter) answered that question quite susinctly. The Old Covenant was impossible to keep, and it condemned all of us to death. Paul repeatedly pointed out to the churches that he formed that it was no longer necessary to keep the law because it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Galations and Romans go into that in a lot of detail. Hebrews (whose author is unknown) is written to early Christians who were strongly considering returning to the law, and points out the futility of that life. As for whose authority was it? It was none other than the authority of Jesus Christ Himself who came to fulfill the law. It was not the authority of someone such as you or me (mere mortals), but the Son of God Himself. This, by the way, was not an attempt to amend the word for modernity. It was to fulfill the word. Take a good, long look at the Old Testament. The entire thing points to the Savior. Where the Jews got it wrong is that they expected a savior to come and conquer the world for them. They failed to see that their savior's purpose was to do something far greater: He conquered sin.

 

2) I'm going to turn the second, broader question back on you for a second, because I think you miss a greater context. If God exists, I think it is safe to assume that God has a definitive opinion on what is right and what is wrong. Likewise, if God exists, it becomes His responsibility to communicate those moral absolutes to us, His creation. Do you agree with this thus far?

 

You asked how a mere mortal can pretend to interpret the words of God. That sounds to be both a genuine question, but also a very dangerously loaded question. I cannot pretend to know where you are coming from, but you haven't stated your conclusions to this very question either. Your question presupposes that mere mortals cannot interpret the words of God. I'm not so certain that this is true. While I do believe that mortals are not perfect and will make mistakes in their interpretation of God's words, I don't think it is fair to conclude that we may as well not even try, especially given that God chose to communicate to us, not vice-versa. A God who created us understands how to communicate to us and can do so in an effective manner. We will certainly make mistakes in interpreting that communication, but I fail to see the logical conclusion that we have no reason to even pretend to try to interpret His words. I think a more appropriate question, and far broader in scope, is this: How can a mere mortal even pretend to understand everything about the God who created the Universe? That, I think is a better way to state your question, as I don't think it is possible for us to even fathom the motives of a God who holds the entire universe in his hands. But scaling that down to the level of God's communications to us is a very dangerous proposition to make. That God who created the universe understands us at a level that not even we understand. He knows our thoughts before we make them, how are brains are wired, and how are experiences have affected our ability to interpret his communications. Likewise, HE INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION, so obviously He thinks we can understand. We may never understand his motives for communication, but when He gives us His word, I fail to see how it is that you and I can assume that we won't ever get it right. He did provide us with wisdom and a logical way of thinking that allows us to interpret his word. He did provide us with experiences that will also influence that interpretation. I won't pretend that each and every one of us will "get it right," but to assume we will get it all wrong is rather foolish, as it would say that God has no means of communicating with us. I'm not sure that is a fair assumption to make either. I do, however, believe that some are far better at interpreting God's word than others (who those people are is certainly up for debate). Let me use an example:

 

All of us are here b/c this is a fantasy football site. We share one thing, we love football. That being said, I'm pretty certain that not one of us have played in the NFL or even have a chance at playing in the NFL for a number of reasons: not in shape, don't practice, don't have natural talent, don't have desire, etc. All of these reasons can easily be put in a spiritual context as well. Some are more talented at interpreting scripture than others. Some practice more. Some have a huge desire, and all of us need to be in "spiritual shape." That being said, there are a few wrinkles here. God provides us with the Holy Spirit to guide us. This guidence includes interpreting God's word and allowing us to understand it, as on our own, without God's intervention, none of us would figure it out. The Holy Spirit, however, has a way of giving talent to those who have none, providing experiences and trials for us to grow from, giving us a desire, etc. God not only communicates to us through His Word and His creation, He provides us with a mechanism to better understand what it is that He is saying. The Holy Spirit is the one that convicts you when you do something you know is wrong. He's the one that gnaws at you when you ask the questions you are currently asking, and the one telling you right now that you desparately need God to save you, as you (and I) have broken every one of God's laws in one way or another and will be judged and convicted of this at the judgement.

 

As a mere mortal, I will never understand God fully. He's infinite, I am not, but I can understand his Words, because He has given them to me and provided me with His Spirit to guide me.

 

I hope that helps.

 

My main point is that mere humans maybe shouldn't interpret the words at all and take them at face value, especially if God is really trying to communicate with us as you say. As I mentioned to TyCobb, even believers disagree on what some of the passages mean. I'm thinking that can't be good for a message to be transmitted clearly. If a communications specialist can understand that then surely a God can as well, right?

[TyCobb 0]

As far as the Church not telling Africans not to wear condoms, I suggest you read up a little. That position has sparked outrage in many parts of the world.

 

There are many things the Roman Catholic church does with which I disagree. But I'm an evangelical Christian who takes the Bible seriously, not someone who is more enamored with the traditions of men.

 

BTW - Your point about interpretation is a good one, no doubt. Just be aware that many are confused about the Bible because they either don't know how to study or choose not to do so. Not all, but many.

 

The word for "fulfill" means to bring to completion, bring to an end, or finish. The way to understand the word is to look at it's range of usage in Greek texts of the day, and to view it in context with how it was used within the book of Matthew and the rest of the NT.

 

You are right, there are differing views. I generally accept the one that best fits the plain, historical-grammatical method of interpretation.

 

Whatever your method, though, I don't know of anyone who refuses to wear mixed fabrics or promotes the execution of adulterers because OT Jews were commanded to do so.

 

Good dialogue, though. Thanks.

[Blitzen 0]

Whatever your method, though, I don't know of anyone who refuses to wear mixed fabrics or promotes the execution of adulterers because OT Jews were commanded to do so.

 

Good dialogue, though. Thanks.

 

Well maybe God will come back and smithe the whole lot of us for wearing mixed fabrics. Maybe God spends his time watching "What Not To Wear" on TLC.

 

Vikes asked where I come from and I have stated many many times in the past that I think Jesus Christ existed but was a man, albeit a very charismatic one, who came at a time when his people desperately needed a charismatic leader. I think the OT is based on old tales, some of which may be true (or be a distorted/amplified view of real events) while others probably are not. Some of these tales are actually repeated in other races/populations. I think tales like these were once spoken to help people make sense of a world they had very little understanding about. But oral tradition tends to be distorted as time goes by so I doubt they can be taken verbatim. For instance, it's actually quite possible that there was a worldwide flood caused by a cometary/meteoric impact around 9,000 to 10,000 years ago. I think this could easily have spawned the many flood stories found around the world. These people could not have been equipped to understand what was going on so thinking that some superior being was responsible for it would be expected. Maybe a few people managed to get their animals on a boat before the big surf hit but I doubt they managed to get a pair of every animal/insect/lifeform on earth on said boat.

 

And no I have no idea how the universe was created but then you have no idea how God was created and that poses no problem for you. So my lack of understanding of the universe poses no problem to me. And I don't need the ten commandments to tell me how to behave because common sense does the same thing.

 

But I have often discussed religion with religious people simply because it is a worldwide phenomenon and I am interested in it from that point of view so thanks. Paradoxically, the only guy I have rarely discussed it with is one of the most spiritual people I know - it's just that his faith is "pure" (prolly not the right word - unencumbered? ), i.e. he isn't aligned with a religion but simply believes that there is a higher being with a plan. He has no idea what that plan is, but he isn't bothered by it and just has faith. The discussion therefore begins and ends with "well I believe and you don't" - not too many grey areas there.

[Super Cubs 154]

I only read the origional post and hears my answer.

 

to protect the catholic priest

[TyCobb 0]

For instance, it's actually quite possible that there was a worldwide flood caused by a cometary/meteoric impact around 9,000 to 10,000 years ago. I think this could easily have spawned the many flood stories found around the world.

 

Great point. I had an anthropoloy prof in college who thought he had discounted the flood "myth" of Genesis because he found a similar story from an earlier culture, Mesopotamia I think. Anyway, I asked, "Isn't it possible that these cultures have flood stories because there was a flood?"

 

Crickets chirping.

[Voltaire 5,315]

I would think that every early civilization living near the sea or on the banks of powerful rivers had flood experience and some floods of course were more serious than others.