Results 401 - 420 of 464
|Results from: Notes
Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date
|401||Advise on contradictions found in bible||Ps 25:4||Sir Pent||17663|
I think this was purely accidental. I think what happened was that Benjibabs posted the primary question once, and Charis and I both answered it before realizing that the other had too.
The problem arose because in our seperate answers we chose different scripture passages (Charis chose Ps 25:4, and I chose Bible General). This somehow split the thread in two. I agree that it is a bit confusing, and if the Lockman people could combine the thread again, I think it would be helpful.
|402||Advise on contradictions found in bible||Ps 25:4||Sir Pent||17662|
|I was wrong about one thing in that post about He'-li and Jacob. He'-li was definately NOT Joeseph's mother. He'-li must have been a man, because it says he was the "son" of Matthat (Luke 3:24). I just wanted to clarify my error so that people would not be confused.|
|403||You shall not Murder, then told too??||OT general||Sir Pent||17660|
I also struggled with this "appearant contradiction" for a long time. However, I discovered what I believe is a good explanation for why killing in the Old Testament (especially when directly commanded by God) was OK. At the same time I discovered that killing in the New Testament (after the resurrection) and in the present is NOT OK.
This whole topic has been discussed at length on the forum though. I would suggest typing the words "absurd confusion" into the search box at the top right. It will take you to a post that I made on this subject in the middle of an extensive thread on the matter. That thread will hopefully answer your questions, but if you have more feel free to ask.
|404||Advise on contradictions found in bible||Ps 25:4||Sir Pent||17586|
Thank you for this additional perspecitive. I think that this could quite possibly be correct. I would think that if one geneology is that of Joeseph and the other is of Mary, then it would be the other way around. I would think that Heli would be Joseph's father, and Jacob would be Joseph's father-in-law.
My reasoning is that the geneology in Matthew, which includes Jacob, also includes several women. It mentions the names of Rahab (Salmon's wife), Ruth (Boaz' wife), and Mary (Joeseph's wife). I would assume that having a more feminine leaning, that this would be the geneology of Mary (or Joseph's in-laws).
On the other hand the geneology in Luke (which includes Heli) only mentions Salmon, Boaz, and Joeseph. Therefore, I would think that it would make more sense that this would be Joeseph's direct lineage.
As I said in my first response, I have not studied this in great length. This is just what seems to make the most sense to me based purely on the biblical passages in question.
|405||Advise on contradictions found in bible||Bible general Archive 1||Sir Pent||17585|
|I completely agree with Schwartzkm. This is not a contradiction at all, but instead is just an example of two different writers giving different details about the same event.
It is like the three blind men who encounter different parts of an elephant. The first man finds its leg and says that it is like the trunk of a large tree. The second man encounters the midsection and says that it is like a wall. The third man discovers the trunk and says that it is like a snake.
The three descriptions at first appear to contradict each other. But after thought and further inspection they instead each give a valuable perspective that can be combined to give a complete picture.
|406||Advise on contradictions found in bible||Bible general Archive 1||Sir Pent||17580|
|There is another possibility as well. in 1 Cor 15:5 "the Twelve" is capitalized (at least in the NIV). Thus it seems to be a proper noun refering to a group of people (ie. the British, the Germans, etc.) It is possible that "the Twelve" was another name for the group that today we call "the Apostles".
If this is the case, then the passage in Matthew is refering to the actual number of people there (notice that "eleven" is not capitalized). But Paul is refering to the group as a whole instead.
Once again, the message that God would want us to learn is that Jesus did actually raise from the dead after being crucified for our sins. God wants us to know that this was witnessed by many people, and is something that we can trust to be true.
|407||Advise on contradictions found in bible||Ps 25:4||Sir Pent||17554|
| Dear Charis,
I just want to say that I really appreciate your answer to this question. I answered it from mainly a practical sense, but you went straight to the heart of the matter. I think that your approach is the wiser one, and commend you for it.
|408||No Rules, Just Right!||Ps 34:8||Sir Pent||17473|
I have been away for a while, and just came across this note of yours. The appearant contradiction that you refer to is caused only by your quoting of my previous post out of context.
The first quote is correct. "it is impossible for there to be any laws which God MUST keep." However, the second quote has been lifted out of its paragraph in such a way that the meaning has been changed.
I originally said, "Christians generally assume that God would not do any actions contrary to biblical precedents, based on the fact that God doesn't change. However, if for any reason, God did do something that seemed to go against even the Bible, then we would have to assume that we had misunderstood the Bible, not that God was "bad"."
Read in context, I am clearly saying that God is the absolute authority, not some "law" that binds Him. Many other forum members have done a good job of also answering this question in much the same way.
I hesitate to respond at all, but I want to caution you to be more careful when quoting others in the future. It is important to accurately represent their meanings when you chose specific parts of a post to quote.
|409||list common traits of Moses,Joshua,Jesus||Ex 32:12||Sir Pent||16781|
You and I have had some strong disagreements in some other threads. I just wanted to say that your last post was terriffic. It was a direct answer to the question, using a great Biblical passage. Keep up the good work :)
|410||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16777|
You said "unilateral disarmament has been tried historically numerous times", however, it has never been accomplished on a global sense. On a smaller scale, Ghandi was able to use passive resistance very effectively to defend freedoms in both South Africa and India. As for whether this is even possible to accomplish on a worldwide scale, you and EdB both bring up an important point. The Bible says that there will be wars all the way to the end of time. Therefore, we know that worldwide peace will not come unitl Jesus comes back. I completely agree with that.
However, the Bible also says that the way to destruction is wide, that there will always be a remnant (implying small minority) of true believers, and that the way to salvation is narrow. This seems to clearly say that there will also never be a worldwide conversion to Christianity. But just because we know that we WILL NOT be completely successful at worldwide fulfillment of the "great commission" does not mean that we shouldn't at least attempt to accomplish it in our own lives.
You also said that there was a difference between choosing "to submit to earthly authority for the sake of the name of Jesus, but quite another to submit to the whims of an immoral society". I would agree with the statement, but I don't think I agree with the intent. In my perspective, when I allow a criminal (or enemy in war) to kill me instead of me killing them, I am doing it for the sake of Jesus. I am laying down my life so that they may live longer and have a chance to repent and develop a relationship with God.
Of course you said that for me to think that this decision on my part or any decision on their part cannot affect their salvation in any way. If you (and many other forum members) are correct, that nothing we do has any affect on our own or anyone else's salvation, then sure kill the people. But at the same time that would mean that there are only selfish reasons to send missionaries anywhere, or to strive for holiness in our own lives.
Finally, you also mentioned that this thread "lapses into tedium". Unfortunately, I would have to agree with you. I think that I have shared all the ideas that I have, and almost everyone else is on the other side of the issue or staying silent. Therefore, perhaps it is time for there to be a wrap-up post to summarize a consensus of what has been discussed. Since you started this thread, I would nominate you for the honor.
P.S. That was a nice touch quoting the verse which my user ID is related to. How can I argue with that :)
|411||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16769|
I have just a couple of comments. The first is in regards to your usage of the word "evil". I will grant you that you probably did not intend to use that word to mean what the dictionary says it means "morally reprehensible".
However, I think that it could be considered a "Freudian slip". Imagine a Christian who had to pull the switch to electrocute someone, pull the trigger to shoot a person in war, or stab a person who breaks into their house to harm their family. I am fairly confident that in all of these instances, that Christian would have a first reaction that it was "evil" and "the wrong thing to do." Only after that, would the person rationalize why "in this case" killing a person was "the right thing to do."
My second comment is on the verses in 2 Corinthians that you commented on. I had just come across those in my personal devotions, and had not thoroughly researched the passage. Therefore, I had only read it in the NIV, where it seems to apply more to literal war. However, upon further reflection and after reading comments on this forum such as yours, I believe that I was wrong. I apologize for my mistake. The passage does seem to be talking about warfare in a spiritual sense as opposed to a literal one.
|412||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16767|
I'm glad you don't think I'm a humanist, nor do I think that you are. I also agree with you that God works in mysterious ways to bring people to Himself. Those are powerful stories that you mentioned about people understanding a salvation prayer in a language that they don't know.
I would disagree with you that we cannot do "anything to mess any of these incidents up". For instance, that woman could have decided to not go to church that night. If she had not been open to God's leading, then she would have missed out on the gift that He wanted her to have.
I agree with you that God calls us first, and with so many other things that you have said in this thread. I just come to some different conclusions, and I appreciate that we can disagree in love.
|413||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16653|
Thanks for pointing out those refs about angels in prison. I would have to agree with you that I suppose there are some there. Overall, it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject of the war and the death penalty. It's too bad though, because if one doesn't see that things have changed from the Old to New Testament in that area, then one has to come up with another explanation for why a loving and just God would command his people to go kill entire cities (including women and children).
I of course have heard many explanations for this, and there's probably another thread on that already. But they all seem either arbitrary (which of course, God is entitled to be if He wants to) or Machievellian (sp?) in that "the ends justified the means" (preserving the purity of Israel justified the extermination of the contaminants in the land). However, that's a little outside the scope of this thread.
When it all comes down to it, we do agree that we need more peace in the world, and the Jesus is the only way to get there completely. Live long and prosper :)
|414||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16645|
You have some good points, and I agree that it is theoretically possible to interpret the passage in 1 Peter 3:18-20 differently than I suggest. However, I still think that the most common interpretation is also by far the most logical.
Your questions 1 and 2 indicate that Jesus could have gone to a different prison than the one that the dead from the past were in. Once again, just looking at the verses, it says Jesus preached to "the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago ... while the ark was being built". I think it's safe to say that all the people who were alive when the ark was being built were dead.
Your question 3 indicates that the "spirits" might not be human. I think there is a vast amount of Biblical support that angels and demons are not put into any kind of prison until the end of time. There are also numerous passages which refer to Hades/Sheol, and the people that have died inhabiting them while waiting for the judgement. It definately seems to be most logical that the "spirits" were the people who had died during Old Testament times.
Your question 4 indicates that the message Christ preached is not clearly indicated. However verse 18 starts with "For Christ died for sins once for all", and verse 20 talks about the salvation of Noah and his family on the ark. "In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water." Based on the context that verse 19 is both preceeded and followed by verses about salvation, I would find it to be quite a stretch to assume Jesus message was about anything else.
I guess to sum up, I agree that there could be other ways to look at this, but they just don't make much sense. I also want to say that I understand where you are coming from. If you don't find this passage to be convincing that Christ gave a second chance to the people who died before He came to die for our sins, then you would not see the change that I see between the Old and New Testaments.
I also understand that you do not see any New Testament passage which specifically condemns the death penalty. Let me just share one more passage of scripture, 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 talks about how we should no longer fight wars like the rest of the world, yet in the Old Testament there are many times when God commands the Israelites to fight wars. I think this is another good example of a place that indicates that something big has changed.
"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds." (2 Cor 10:3-4)
|415||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16633|
There were a few comments from your post, which I would like to respond to. The first was that "unilateral disarmament will not bring the world about". My question is how do we know? It's never been tried. On the other hand unilateral armament has been tried throughout history, and all the wars that have resulted definately have not brought the world about.
Another comment was that criminals take away the chance of their victims to come to a relationship with God later in life, so why should we give the criminal that chance. Quite simply because we are Christians. As followers of Christ we are called to not only give mercy to those who deserve it (even the non-Christians do that), but also to those who do not deserve it. If we remove the criminal's chance for salvation then we are lowering ourselves to the level of the criminal.
Another comment was that "Free Will negates the sovereignity of God." Simply put, that satement is not true. This is extensively dealt with in other threads. I'd prefer to limit that dicussion to the threads dedicated to it.
A final comment was that "we have a responsibility to protect ourselves and others from anti-social behavior." If a person looked at the life of Jesus would they see someone who was willing to kill people in order to "protect Himself"? Is the definition of the "others" that we have a responsibility to protect limited to not include sinners who we kill? Does this "protection" require killing people, or is it conceivable that there could be other ways?
|416||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16620|
You bring up several really good points. For instance, why did the disciples have swords to begin with? Oddly enough, it is because Jesus told them to bring them. (Luke 22:36). The obvious question is why would Jesus tell them to bring swords, and then when they were actually in the garden, tell them not to use them.
I do not think that Jesus wanted them to be able to defend Him. Jesus said that 2 swords was enough, (Luke 22:38) although that would obviously NOT BE ENOUGH to stop an entire company of soldiers. It seems that instead Jesus just wanted to make it obvious that He was choosing to allow Himself to be arrested. The fact that they had at least a couple of swords, but still didn't use them showed that Jesus was not taken against His will, but within it. This made His sacrifice for us and our sins even greater.
You also made a couple points about humanists, and imply that possibly I am one. The first was that "humanists believe they are god". That is probably true of extreme humanists, but it is definately not true of me (I do not consider myself a humanist at all). Your also said that "to a humanist life is far more important than salvation". This is also completely not true according to my beliefs. In fact, I think this thread would greatly go against that thought.
My basis for being against killing humans is that it removes the chance for them to come to salvation in the future. In fact, in the case of me allowing a criminal to kill me or my family instead of me killing them shows that I value their chance for salvation more than my own life or even my family's life. In fact, it is the position of my opponents who say that the lives of people on this earth are more important that the eternal life and salvation of the criminal.
You make one more good point that I would like to comment on. You said that I seem to be limiting God by arguing that we as humans can take away a person's chance for redemption. This issue really just comes back to the question of "free will" versus "predestination" that comes up so often on this forum. If you believe in predestination, then my entire argument is useless. If God already has decided who goes to Heaven and Hell before they are born, then it doesn't really matter what we do to a person in this life. This life is so short in comparison to eternity, that it is almost completely insignificant, and so who cares if we kill someone 40 years before they would naturally die.
Conceeding this point, I would have to say that on the other hand, if a person believes in "free will", then they believe that God has limited His own abilities enough to give people a choice. God could have created people so that they would have to follow Him and love Him or so that they would have to not do those things. However, if they didn't have a choice then it would have been empty and meaningless. But this has been thoroughly covered in other threads. I would suggest that instead of rehashing all that, we just focus on whether the death penalty is appropriate from a "free will" perspective.
|417||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16613|
You said at the end of your post that you were sure that I would find it absurd to tear out the Old Testament and just put criminals on "time out" for a while. You are completely correct, I do think that's absurd.
You also referred to the ineptness of our justice system, as compared to ones in other countries. I would have to completely agree with you again. I do not think that our justice system is as good as it could be. I also think that there should be tougher punishments for crimes. Although specifics would have to be worked out, I think that having criminals work to repay for damages or theft, could be a great idea.
In fact, although it seems barbaric, I also see some logic behind other countries laws requiring castration for sex offenders. That would be both a deterrant to first crimes as well as making repeat offenses impossible.
Going into more detail as to how the justice system should punish specific crimes should probably be a seperate thread. But I just wanted to let you know that just because I am against killing fellow human beings, doesn't mean that I am against there being serious consequences of crime.
|418||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16612|
In your post you admit that you do not think war is good. In fact you go further by saying it is evil, when you say, "It (war) is the lesser of two evils." If you truly believe what you say, then why would you ever choose to support something that you knew was evil? As believers, if we are presented with a choice, and we believe all options are evil, then I would say that we should refuse all given options and seek out an alternative until we can find the choice that God would want us to make. God doesn't give us more than we can handle (1 Cor 10:13), and He doesn't want us doing evil things.
You also asked a valid question, "What does the Bible say?" I came across this passage in my own Bible reading just over a week ago. "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds." (2 Cor 10:3-4)
The last point that you made that I would like to respond to was that those of us who are contientous objectors should "stop saying that we should be also". I hope that you are not referring to me, but just in case, I would like to just quote the very first statement that I made in my very first posting in this thread. "It seems that most of my distinguished forum colleagues are in support of the death penalty. Let me begin by saying that I respect your opinions, and believe that it is possible for Christians to be on both sides of this issue."
|419||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16353|
I would like to take this opportunity to agree with almost your entire last post.
You said that God established life and death.
I say that I totally agree.
You said that God said not to murder, but supported (in the OT) execution sometimes.
I say that I totally agree (with parenthesis added).
You said that Jesus died to cleanse us of the eternal consequences of sin.
I say that I totally agree.
You said that Jesus forgiveness does not cancel out earthly consequences of sin.
I say that I totally agree.
You said that the Matthew 26:52 (below) is only saying that if you kill you will be killed, not that it is wrong.
I say that on this one point I would have to disagree with you. If we look at the context of the verses around it, Jesus does say that if the disciple lives by the sword he will die by the sword. However, He also says to put the sword away, and that using the sword indicates a lack of faith in God the Father's ability to protect. Also if you read the parallel passage in Luke (also below), Jesus tells the disciples to not use their swords anymore, and heals the damage done by the first strike. This also indicates that He did not approve of that action.
Matthew chapter 26
51: And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
52: Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
53: Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?
Luke chapter 22
49: And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?"
50: And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
51: But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him.
|420||'Conscientious Objection' Biblical?||Ex 20:13||Sir Pent||16347|
After looking up "dogmatic" in the dictionary I found that it meant "dictorial". After looking up "dictorial" in the dictionary, I found that it meant a "total or absolute ruler". At that point I decided for sure that I did not find you last point to be dogmatic at all :)
As for your comments on the passage in 1 Peter, I think that it's really not that complicated. I think that if a person just reads the verses below, it God?s message would be pretty obvious. However, I will try to respond to your points.
You mentioned that there are three different views of these verses.
1. Christ went up or down. (I say it doesn't matter what direction He went)
2. Christ preached to Old Testament people. (I say that is correct)
3. Christ preached through Noah. (I say this goes against the passage clearly saying that Christ preached Himself, and if through anybody, it would be the Holy Spirit).
You also mentioned that there are four different questions on these verses.
1. When did Christ go, before or after resurrection? (I say it doesn't matter, the point remains that he preached to the people who had died in the past)
2. Where did Christ go? (I say it doesn't matter, the point remains that he preached to the people who had died in the past)
3. Did Christ preach to people who died in the past or to demons? (I say that it is obvious in the passage that He preached to humans)
4. What message did Christ preach? (Although it is not difinatively stated, I think it is obvious from the context of verse 18 that this passage is talking about salvation, and would therefore have to assume that it is most likely that salvation was Christ's message)
My overall point is that these "views" and "questions" are actually not a big deal at all. Let's just look at what the verses say, and add as little of our own interpretation as possible. I am not saying that you are doing that, just that the commentators that you quoted seem to be doing that.
1 Peter chapter 3 (I used NRSV last time, so this time I?ll quote NIV)
18. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
19. through whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison
20. who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
|Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last  >>|