I appreciate the consideration. Yet, I would rather Mark disagree with me than present myself on false pretense to be "allied" with him. I believe what I say. If there is any alliance between us it is based on our core beliefs.
Well, if you throw out everything that follows from your interpretation of a single verse, then I can't imagine there being much of anything left of the Bible for you
I am not saying there were no floods, or even catastrophic tectonic events (such as the Atlas mountains spanning Africa and Spain breaking and flooding the Mediterranean region, or the range spanning Asian Minor and Europe at Bosporus breaking and creating the Black Sea.
These cataclysmic events were huge and could have been described for all practical purposes as involving the whole world of the ancient peoples of the region.
I was saying that it never happened because God regretted having made man. That is contrary to an omniscient God.
How did you determine that your interpretation of Gen. 6:6 is the correct one?
Being omniscient and perfect means never having to say He is sorry.
Does everything just collapse into the red letters in the Gospels, for example?
Jesus is how God wants us to know Him. The ineffable and incomprehensible God became one of us, so that we can see Him, relate to Him and imitate Him. Yes, Christ is the very standard of what God is, within our perception and understanding. So, yes, everything that's in red letters is our guide against which we interpret the rest of the scriptures. Unless we find the same Christ in them, it is not from God.
Luke 17:26-27...Jesus Himself says that the flood, obviously from God since Jesus did not say anything against what scripture taught, came and destroyed them all. Jesus agrees that God kills, yet you do not
Jesus doesn't mention God in Luke 17, or in Mar 24, for that matter. But, on this account, let me ask you: do you believe slavery is morally justified? The Bible does. How can it be immoral to buy another human being if the Bible considers it morally just?
There is no doubt that the OT and Paul approve of slavery. But if you can find Jesus teaching that slavery is God ordained, and morally right, I will no longer call myself a Christian.
The only way Jesus could teach meaningfully to the Jews was through the OT, and what they believe, and that included the Flood, Jonah, Exodus, and other myths the Jews believed in. If He had told them otherwise they would have walked away from Him.
These myths became part of the Christian beliefs by extension, since Christianity could not divorce itself from the OT, these myths became part of the religion of the Gentiles. But they teach nothing Jesus taught.
If you deny all these things for lack of physical evidence to your satisfaction, then what is your physical evidence for Jesus and what He did? You're a Christian so you believe it, but where is your physical evidence
I believe in what Jesus is said to have taught; the idea. Fact is, there is no direct physical or historical evidence of Jesus or His birth or His resurrection whatsoever. For someone who got the attention of the highest authorities of Israel and Romans, there is not a word written about Him, save for forged Josephus' "testimony" years later.
That's why we call it faith, FK. We believe in it without physical or historical evidence and for all we know it could be a delusion, but I can tell you that if we all became Christ-like in this life we would have an earth that resembled heaven, a true paradise, where no one would be afraid, or killed or tortured, where everyone would help another, and where happiness would make sorrow obsolete. We have that CAPACITY, FK. And I believe in that.
And that could not have come from the nature (the world), because there is no love or mercy or compassion in the ways of the nature. They are something not of this world, but we are capable of if not by nature then by grace.
***I know, I just didn’t want to appear to be pitting two current allied posters against each other. I mean, I would never do that.
I appreciate the consideration. Yet, I would rather Mark disagree with me than present myself on false pretense to be “allied” with him. I believe what I say. If there is any alliance between us it is based on our core beliefs.***
Exactly so. Something very fortunate is that the faith is presented to us, we don’t have to make it up as we go along; we either agree with the Faith or we don’t. It’s much more objective that way.
***There is no doubt that the OT and Paul approve of slavery. But if you can find Jesus teaching that slavery is God ordained, and morally right, I will no longer call myself a Christian.***
I cannot find anything from Jesus; but we have plenty from Paul. Eph 6:
5
Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ,
6
not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,
7
willingly serving the Lord and not human beings,
8
knowing that each will be requited from the Lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9
Masters, act in the same way toward them, and stop bullying, knowing that both they and you have a Master in heaven and that with him there is no partiality.
Paul’s fine with having slaves as long as they act properly and you treat them reasonably well.
Yet, I would rather Mark disagree with me than present myself on false pretense to be "allied" with him. I believe what I say. If there is any alliance between us it is based on our core beliefs.
Yes, I was just being light-hearted. I know you won't agree with anyone just because of who he or she is, versus what is being said. I like that! :)
I am not saying there were no floods, or even catastrophic tectonic events (such as the Atlas mountains spanning Africa and Spain breaking and flooding the Mediterranean region, or the range spanning Asian Minor and Europe at Bosporus breaking and creating the Black Sea.
These cataclysmic events were huge and could have been described for all practical purposes as involving the whole world of the ancient peoples of the region.
I was saying that it never happened because God regretted having made man. That is contrary to an omniscient God. (emphasis added)
Yeah, but that's deciding to have a near entire worldview of world history based on one interpretation of ONE WORD!! :) Surely you are well aware that there are many on your side who see Gen. 6:6 basically as we do and have no problem with the factual history of the flood. I have no problem in saying that the verse needs to be looked at, but think about what we have to give up in order to see it in only one way (the way that discredits the factual truth of the Bible).
FK: How did you determine that your interpretation of Gen. 6:6 is the correct one?
Being omniscient and perfect means never having to say He is sorry.
Yes, but what is the root word you are relying on? Strong's has "nacham", which in no way necessarily means "sorry" in the way you mean it. Neither does "atsab" depending on where you are focusing. IOW, in neither of Strong's definitions is your interpretation required.
Jesus is how God wants us to know Him.
But don't you say in the same breath that the OT righteous didn't "really" know Jesus? It doesn't compute to me that according to the OT God had one on one communication with the prophets, while "hiding" the Jesus you seem to say is only knowable in the NT. My side says that God's ENTIRE HOLY WORD is true in how He wants us to know Him.
The ineffable and incomprehensible God became one of us, so that we can see Him, relate to Him and imitate Him.
That is part of it, but He also came to SAVE His people. IOW, we SHOULD agree that Christ is multi-faceted, but it doesn't "appear" that we do.
Yes, Christ is the very standard of what God is, within our perception and understanding. So, yes, everything that's in red letters is our guide against which we interpret the rest of the scriptures. Unless we find the same Christ in them, it is not from God.
Is the Christ who overturned the money-changers' tables the same Christ who did not condemn the adulteress EVEN THOUGH He knew that she was guilty (by the text)? Is the Christ who proclaimed the Law the same Christ who said that it is good to do good work on the Sabbath? The point is that while Christ's message is on one level very simple, He nonetheless was a very complex man with a world of teachings that confound billions to this day. Those teachings INCLUDED those of the OT God, the same God. God is NOT mono-faceted. :)
Jesus doesn't mention God in Luke 17 [26-27], or in Mar 24, for that matter.
The Jews accepted the Flood as historical fact, an act by God, just as they accepted the first Passover (as Jesus did). Here is another example where you appear to have Jesus purposely misleading His own people, in red letters no less!! Remember how Jesus at the end is supposed to be the lawyer that is going to make the other 99.99% of us look bad? You have Him pulling our worst tricks. :)
But, on this account, let me ask you: do you believe slavery is morally justified? The Bible does. How can it be immoral to buy another human being if the Bible considers it morally just? [e.g. Gen. 17:12]
YES! BIBLICAL slavery was justified in SOME cases. A distinction was clearly made. Many people in those days voluntarily CHOSE to enter slavery to pay off debts, or win a woman, or whatever, etc. There was nothing immoral about it, and it worked well economically (or toward all interests fairly by bargain) for all parties concerned, hence we have God's teachings to treat the slaves well so as not to abuse the relationship. Obviously in Egypt that did not happen and the Lord heard their cries, etc. Egypt slavery was not voluntary or punitive by crime. When Americans think of "slavery" we only think of one thing, a very important thing because it is so woven into our history, but nonetheless there is more to the concept, especially in those days.
There is no doubt that the OT and Paul approve of slavery. But if you can find Jesus teaching that slavery is God ordained, and morally right, I will no longer call myself a Christian.
The KJV says "servant" but here is NIV:
Matt 20:25-28 : 25 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave — 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Now, I do not claim that this is enough to compel you to your pledge. LOL!! :) However, I note it to show that Jesus saw Himself as a suffering servant, indeed a slave to His Father's will, and that if anyone wanted to be like Him that he should adopt the same mindset. In John 8:34, Jesus specifically talks about being a slave to sin. Paul follows up on that in talking about being a slave to righteousness. Those fit so well together as opposites. Again, (and you never said this), but in Biblical terms the word "slave" does not ONLY mean what we know from "Roots".
The only way Jesus could teach meaningfully to the Jews was through the OT, and what they believe, and that included the Flood, Jonah, Exodus, and other myths the Jews believed in. If He had told them otherwise they would have walked away from Him.
But that would make Jesus a salesman instead of our omnipotent LORD GOD.
I believe in what Jesus is said to have taught; the idea. Fact is, there is no direct physical or historical evidence of Jesus or His birth or His resurrection whatsoever. For someone who got the attention of the highest authorities of Israel and Romans, there is not a word written about Him, save for forged Josephus' "testimony" years later.
That's why we call it faith, FK. We believe in it without physical or historical evidence and for all we know it could be a delusion, but I can tell you that if we all became Christ-like in this life we would have an earth that resembled heaven, a true paradise, where no one would be afraid, or killed or tortured, where everyone would help another, and where happiness would make sorrow obsolete. We have that CAPACITY, FK. And I believe in that.
And that could not have come from the nature (the world), because there is no love or mercy or compassion in the ways of the nature. They are something not of this world, but we are capable of if not by nature then by grace.
OK, I re-quoted all of the above both for the time reasons in my absence and so as not to leave anyone with the wrong impression with the following. Please do not take offense at this, and if it seems so then please chalk it up to my not really understanding what I am asking. How would you describe what you have said here as faith as distinguished from a philosophy?