How do you address opposing Scripture verses?

[Waiting on him]

Well, I know that in the US particularly there is very much a "rights culture".

That’s right.

 

[farouk]

That’s right.

The extent to which a "rights culture" blends with following the Humble Servant Who was obedient unto death (Philippians 2), is something which has doubtless exercised a lot of Christians down the years.

 

[Waiting on him]

The extent to which a "rights culture" blends with following the Humble Servant Who was obedient unto death (Philippians 2), is something which has doubtless exercised a lot of Christians down the years.

Guess the question should be do you want to be right or happy?

 

[farouk]

Guess the question should be do you want to be right or happy?

...and another aspect is, Is our conduct God honoring if we are always asserting our theoretical rights?

 

[Waiting on him]

...and another aspect is, Is our conduct God honoring if we are always asserting our theoretical rights?

I believe the only thing we’re authorized to do is love, despite the cost.

 

[farouk]

I believe the only thing we’re authorized to do is love, despite the cost.

Certainly the love and purposes of God should inform all we do, among the complexities we often face.

 

[GodsGrace]

We had to deal with someone acting in an official capacity do something wrong. I wasn't sure whether to "turn the other cheek" or "have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness but rather expose them." There seem to be dueling Scripture verses. Another example is when Scripture commands us to love our enemies, yet David prayed for harm to befall his enemies in the imprecatory psalms. Another example is when Scripture states that "no one has ever seen God" and yet Moses is said to have seen God face to face.

How do you handle dueling Scripture verses? What do you do if you have a decision to make about a course of action and yet Scripture seems to oppose itself?

Well, SG, here are two comments:

1. We have a some problems with the O.T. because we refuse to believe that it is INSPIRED by God and NOT WRITTEN by God. It's important to understand the difference.
The O.T. was written FOUR THOUSAND years ago. Different times, different culture.
The men of that time had the wonderful experience of having the creator of the universe reveal Himself to them. They felt the knew the monotheistic God,,, the One True God.
As it happened, they began to attribute everything that happened to them as coming from God. Try keeping this in mind the next time you read through the O.T. and see what happens. The trick is knowing when it's God speaking and when it's a man putting words in His mouth.

2. Turning the other cheek does not mean what we've come to understand.
In those times being slapped on the cheek was an insult. IN CASE there were others around,,,Jesus said to turn the other cheek NOT so the person could slap that side to,
but to show that the slapped person gave no important to the person slapping him because he gave importance to God and what God believed instead. It was a way of telling the slapper that he had no importance.

As to seeing someone doing something illegal or immoral...
It would depend what. If it affects other persons and will not ruin a happy relationship, maybe it should be uncovered --- or maybe not. Sometimes it's better to mind our own business, and sometimes it's better to speak up. Think of the effect and the ramifications. What will please God more?

 

[ScottA]

We had to deal with someone acting in an official capacity do something wrong. I wasn't sure whether to "turn the other cheek" or "have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness but rather expose them." There seem to be dueling Scripture verses. Another example is when Scripture commands us to love our enemies, yet David prayed for harm to befall his enemies in the imprecatory psalms. Another example is when Scripture states that "no one has ever seen God" and yet Moses is said to have seen God face to face.

How do you handle dueling Scripture verses? What do you do if you have a decision to make about a course of action and yet Scripture seems to oppose itself?

All scripture can be and must be reconciled with all scripture.

Any one-sided use of scripture for correction is not correction, but evidence of a complete misunderstanding. But the one-sided use of scripture to show error, is true correction and is evidence of understanding. And one who meets correction with no attempt to reconcile both passages, but gives rebuke, rebukes God.

For example, "when Scripture states that "no one has ever seen God" and yet Moses is said to have seen God face to face." "No one has ever seen God" refers to no one begotten, which statement is not of natural sight, but of spiritual sight. But "Moses is said to have seen God face to face" refers to God giving vision to those not begotten of the spirit of God...which is a "vision" and a revelation between God and those born of water, but not born of the Spirit: the one face being natural, the other spiritual. It is only "in Christ" that we can see spirit to spirit, reconciling Christ's statement with those of other scripture.

 

[ScottA]

Here’s the one I’m wrestling with currently

Psalm 146:3 KJV
[3] Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

John 3:14 KJV
[14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:


Tecarta Bible
Tecarta Bible
Tecarta Bible

The two do not contradict.

In Psalm 146:3 there is a qualifying point "in whom there is no help." Thus, the statement indicates that there is a son of man in whom there is no help, but also that there is a son of man in whom there is help.

As for John 3:14, this is Moses in prophetic utterance indicated that 1) salvation is of God (and not of men), and 2) it is only through the Son.

 

[ScottA]

I like it, but then there’s the conflict with

Genesis 5:2 KJV
[2] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


Tecarta Bible

No conflict.

The mystery is revealed in marriage: "The two become one flesh", just as it was in the beginning.

But you also referred to:

The thing I’m struggling with is numerous times He refers to himself as the son of man, but that makes no sense, because mans not involved in his conception?
When Peter is asked, he says Son of God, Jesus responds(blessed) this can only be given of His Father

Again, this is revealed in marriage, wherein it is explained that Christ is the Bridegroom, making a union between God and mankind, a union that was broken but now made One again in Christ.

Which is what makes salvation redemption, in that a son of man has prevailed.

But also, in which another mystery is revealed: That by spiritual discernment, the word "man" in much of scripture...refers to God (the Father, the Son, or the Bridegroom) and "women" refers to mankind (that is the Church, the Bride of Christ).

 

[Episkopos]

We had to deal with someone acting in an official capacity do something wrong. I wasn't sure whether to "turn the other cheek" or "have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness but rather expose them." There seem to be dueling Scripture verses. Another example is when Scripture commands us to love our enemies, yet David prayed for harm to befall his enemies in the imprecatory psalms. Another example is when Scripture states that "no one has ever seen God" and yet Moses is said to have seen God face to face.

How do you handle dueling Scripture verses? What do you do if you have a decision to make about a course of action and yet Scripture seems to oppose itself?

There are the dueling verses everywhere if one reads honestly. The truth is held up as a dialectic...whereby there is a polarity to the truth. That is so because as human beings we must deal with both the temporal AND the eternal. The good AND the evil. The blessings AND the cursings.

So the bible is written on 2 levels...like a double edged sword. There is the righteousness level and the holiness level. There is what we can do...and what God can do through us.

Few seem to grasp this. Why people don't understand such a basic understanding of the bible is beyond me...

 

[marks]

Few seem to grasp this. Why people don't understand such a basic understanding of the bible is beyond me...

I think many people simply read the Bible in a different way than you do.

The more one holds to the straightforward meaning, being in subjection to God's Word, the Bible, the more likely they will find themselves in agreement with others.

Arriving at "spiritual meanings" of otherwise plainly stated passages, lacking specific Scriptural authority to do so, one will most likely find themself out of step with others, since there is no end of symbolic meanings that can be applied to any given passage. Each believes their own, and each comes to different meanings.

Much love!

 

[GodsGrace]

We had to deal with someone acting in an official capacity do something wrong. I wasn't sure whether to "turn the other cheek" or "have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness but rather expose them." There seem to be dueling Scripture verses. Another example is when Scripture commands us to love our enemies, yet David prayed for harm to befall his enemies in the imprecatory psalms. Another example is when Scripture states that "no one has ever seen God" and yet Moses is said to have seen God face to face.

How do you handle dueling Scripture verses? What do you do if you have a decision to make about a course of action and yet Scripture seems to oppose itself?

When did Moses see God face to face?

 

[Windmillcharge]

We had to deal with someone acting in an official capacity do something wrong. I wasn't sure whether to "turn the other cheek" or "have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness but rather expose them." There seem to be dueling Scripture verses. Another example is when Scripture commands us to love our enemies, yet David prayed for harm to befall his enemies in the imprecatory psalms. Another example is when Scripture states that "no one has ever seen God" and yet Moses is said to have seen God face to face.

How do you handle dueling Scripture verses? What do you do if you have a decision to make about a course of action and yet Scripture seems to oppose itself?

If an offical made a mistake, point it out to him and ask him to correct it.
Turning the other check has nothing to do with mistakes or errors, but everything to do with deliberate exploitation.

luke17:"If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. 4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them."

are the verse you should follow.

 

[Enoch111]

How do you handle dueling Scripture verses? What do you do if you have a decision to make about a course of action and yet Scripture seems to oppose itself?

That is exactly why context is critical.

1. There are NO opposing Scriptures in the Bible. This is the fundamental premise in applying Bible truth.

2. There were certain commandments and certain teachings for certain times. For example, the ceremonial observances in the Old Covenant are null and void.

3. A serious effort must be made to harmonize what is in the Bible and understand that there is such a thing as progressive revelation. For example the Church was a mystery hidden from the OT prophets but revealed to Paul. And you won't find the Church mentioned after Revelation 3.

 

[Waiting on him]

The two do not contradict.

In Psalm 146:3 there is a qualifying point "in whom there is no help." Thus, the statement indicates that there is a son of man in whom there is no help, but also that there is a son of man in whom there is help.

As for John 3:14, this is Moses in prophetic utterance indicated that 1) salvation is of God (and not of men), and 2) it is only through the Son.

How do you know this is a qualifying point, and not just a statement?

 

[Enoch111]

When did Moses see God face to face?

Several times. But it was really the pre-incarnate Christ who was seen face to face (by Moses and others). No man has seen God the Father, who is Spirit. Yet He is shown as the Ancient of Days in Daniel, and resembles the appearance of Christ in Revelation 1.

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days [God the Father] did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire...
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of Heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days [God the Father], and they brought Him [God the Son] near before Him [God the Father]. (Dan 7:9,13)

If we keep in mind that this is a VISION to show Daniel how God the Father hands over His Kingdom to God the Son, then there is no conflict. In reality, Daniel only saw the Son, as noted below.

Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain Man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: His body also was like the beryl, and His face as the appearance of lightning, and His eyes as lamps of fire, and His arms and His feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of His words like the voice of a multitude... (Dan 10:5,6)

This corresponds to Christ's appearance when He appeared to John in Revelation 1.

 

[GodsGrace]

Several times. But it was really the pre-incarnate Christ who was seen face to face (by Moses and others). No man has seen God the Father, who is Spirit. Yet He is shown as the Ancient of Days in Daniel, and resembles the appearance of Christ in Revelation 1.

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days [God the Father] did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire...
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of Heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days [God the Father], and they brought Him [God the Son] near before Him [God the Father]. (Dan 7:9,13)

If we keep in mind that this is a VISION to show Daniel how God the Father hands over His Kingdom to God the Son, then there is no conflict. In reality, Daniel only saw the Son, as noted below.

Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain Man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: His body also was like the beryl, and His face as the appearance of lightning, and His eyes as lamps of fire, and His arms and His feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of His words like the voice of a multitude... (Dan 10:5,6)

This corresponds to Christ's appearance when He appeared to John in Revelation 1.

I've always known that God Father does not have a body...He is spirit.
The above makes sense...
and yes, what was seen was the Son, or the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Even when God appeared to Moses, He was seen only from behind.

When God walked thru the carcasses of the animals cut in half for the Abrahamic Covenant, He did this when A. was sleeping.

Otherwise, it was visions.
Thanks.

 

[ScottA]

How do you know this is a qualifying point, and not just a statement?

I simply used the term "qualifying point" to explain that it is part of the "statement" being made, and must be included and understood: "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

 

[Waiting on him]

I simply used the term "qualifying point" to explain that it is part of the "statement" being made, and must be included and understood: "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

I do appreciate your insight, the question I have now is the phrase son of man a reference to the flesh?