Out with the Old, in with the New?

[Canuck]

Hello everybody!

It's been a while since I posted a new question here, but life's been a bit busy lately. Anyways, I am interested if this question could be settled for me because I have heard different answers from different people on this subject.

I am wondering what everybody here thinks about the laws of the Old Testament. Do you believe that they still need to be followed? Why/why not? Also, do the Ten Commandments fall into this category? Again, why/why not?

This issue confuses me because I have heard Christians quoting from the Old Testament to support their views, but I have heard other Christians say that Jesus nullified it. Can anybody offer me any clarification? Why is there such a divide over this issue within Christianity?

Thanks in advance!

 

[HammerStone]

Canuck, the disagreement comes because of Jesus, and I think much of it from the difficulty in understanding the legal lingo used to describe exactly what he did for us.

The New Testament represents a paradox to the Old Testament at first glance. I think many Christians struggle mightily to reconcile a God who not only condones slaughter and the death penalty, but orders it with a Jesus who talks so much about love. The easy thing to do is to simply write off the New Testament and say that Jesus came along and changed all of this. (A statement which is somewhat true in one sense, but not in the other.) It's pretty much hitting the easy button.

Jesus states in Matthew 5 - a chapter which really seeks to address this exact issue - the following:

Matthew 5:17-18 NIV
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Jesus literally is saying that not even the little embellishments placed on the original Hebrew letters (to tell you how to sound the letters so you know that they mean) will change until heaven and earth dissappear. He's basically saying even the periods, commas, and capital letters won't change until that time.

Enter the "confusing" legal part of the whole thing. Yes, in one sense the laws are still in effect. I think most people agree it's wrong to murder, steal, lie, and be rude to parents. However, Jesus's death on the cross meant that any penalty incurred for violation of these laws is paid-in-full. (With no surcharge.)

Jesus goes on to expand from law to thought in Matthew 5. He takes many of the commandments and says that it's not just the act that matters. It's you thinking about the act that matters just as much.

I'd say that this is a pretty interesting glimpse of God's heart. It's not the rules that he wants you to follow outwardly. It's that we, inwardly, are where we need to be.

 

[Prentis]

Here's my answer Canuck

The law is not destroyed, Jesus came to fulfill it.

But here's why it gets people confused.

We don't fulfill the law by going after the law, but by following Jesus. If we surrender to and follow Jesus, we can fulfill the law perfectly. The law cannot be fulfilled by our own strength, only by God's and so by taking on the life of Christ and laying down our own life, we become capable.

The Law actually points to our weakness, and shows us our lack, and it points to God, showing that we were made to love him. If we follow him and love him, he takes on our weakness and gives us strength in exchange that we might fulfill the law, but not for the sake of the Law, but because of love, for our Lord, for our brothers, and for our neighbors.

Blessings to you, Canuck

 

[Canuck]

Canuck, the disagreement comes because of Jesus, and I think much of it from the difficulty in understanding the legal lingo used to describe exactly what he did for us.

The New Testament represents a paradox to the Old Testament at first glance. I think many Christians struggle mightily to reconcile a God who not only condones slaughter and the death penalty, but orders it with a Jesus who talks so much about love. The easy thing to do is to simply write off the New Testament and say that Jesus came along and changed all of this. (A statement which is somewhat true in one sense, but not in the other.) It's pretty much hitting the easy button.

Jesus states in Matthew 5 - a chapter which really seeks to address this exact issue - the following:

Matthew 5:17-18 NIV
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Jesus literally is saying that not even the little embellishments placed on the original Hebrew letters (to tell you how to sound the letters so you know that they mean) will change until heaven and earth dissappear. He's basically saying even the periods, commas, and capital letters won't change until that time.

Enter the "confusing" legal part of the whole thing. Yes, in one sense the laws are still in effect. I think most people agree it's wrong to murder, steal, lie, and be rude to parents. However, Jesus's death on the cross meant that any penalty incurred for violation of these laws is paid-in-full. (With no surcharge.)

Jesus goes on to expand from law to thought in Matthew 5. He takes many of the commandments and says that it's not just the act that matters. It's you thinking about the act that matters just as much.

I'd say that this is a pretty interesting glimpse of God's heart. It's not the rules that he wants you to follow outwardly. It's that we, inwardly, are where we need to be.

Thanks for the reply! I hadn't realised that Jesus' phrase in that quote was referring to the physical Hebrew writing, but that makes a lot of sense. But then, I've been reading from the KJV, which says "jot" and "tittle" (not exactly a crystal clear meaning there ).

So, and please correct me if I've misinterpreted what you've written, you are saying that the OT laws are still in effect, but that if people break them, that's okay because Jesus died on the cross? I'm not sure if I'm following that correctly. Does that mean that Christians should still strive to follow all 613 of the laws that are in the OT (as well as adding Jesus' laws about thoughts)? This is where I get confused, because many Christians just uphold the Ten Commandments, but ignore the rest... But others say that one only has to have faith and one will be saved. From an outside perspective, it seems pretty arbitrary which laws are followed and which ones are ignored :unsure:.

Also, could you please clarify what you mean by your last statement? Are you saying that one doesn't need to follow the laws, but should just try to be a good person? Or am I reading that completely wrong?

Thanks again in advance!

 

[Canuck]

Here's my answer Canuck

The law is not destroyed, Jesus came to fulfill it.

But here's why it gets people confused.

We don't fulfill the law by going after the law, but by following Jesus. If we surrender to and follow Jesus, we can fulfill the law perfectly. The law cannot be fulfilled by our own strength, only by God's and so by taking on the life of Christ and laying down our own life, we become capable.

The Law actually points to our weakness, and shows us our lack, and it points to God, showing that we were made to love him. If we follow him and love him, he takes on our weakness and gives us strength in exchange that we might fulfill the law, but not for the sake of the Law, but because of love, for our Lord, for our brothers, and for our neighbors.

Blessings to you, Canuck

Thanks for the reply! I admit, I'm not sure if I understand your response. What exactly do you mean by "following Jesus"? Does this include attempting to follow the OT laws? Or does it include doing what the followers of Jesus did in the NT? (For example, giving up all of one's possessions and familial ties to follow him.) Or am I missing the mark completely?

Again, I don't think I understand the second half of your reply. How exactly does the Law "point[...] to our weakness"? I don't think I've read that anywhere in the Bible, but I may have missed it. Could you either clarify that for me, or point out the passage(s) where it occurs? Thanks!
I also don't understand why the Christian god wouldn't want us to work on our weaknesses ourselves, or find our own strength for ourselves. Wouldn't that make our achievements that much more rewarding when we do do something good in his eyes?
Nor do I understand what you mean about fulfilling the law, "not for the sake of the Law, but because of love...". I'm not quite sure what sort of point you're making. Again, could you please clarify?

Sorry for basically asking you to re-write your response, but I really just don't understand most of it. I was never raised Christian, so you've got to take baby-steps in explaining things to me lol

Thanks again in advance!

 

[Prentis]

Thanks for the reply! I admit, I'm not sure if I understand your response. What exactly do you mean by "following Jesus"? Does this include attempting to follow the OT laws? Or does it include doing what the followers of Jesus did in the NT? (For example, giving up all of one's possessions and familial ties to follow him.) Or am I missing the mark completely?

Again, I don't think I understand the second half of your reply. How exactly does the Law "point[...] to our weakness"? I don't think I've read that anywhere in the Bible, but I may have missed it. Could you either clarify that for me, or point out the passage(s) where it occurs? Thanks!
I also don't understand why the Christian god wouldn't want us to work on our weaknesses ourselves, or find our own strength for ourselves. Wouldn't that make our achievements that much more rewarding when we do do something good in his eyes?
Nor do I understand what you mean about fulfilling the law, "not for the sake of the Law, but because of love...". I'm not quite sure what sort of point you're making. Again, could you please clarify?

Sorry for basically asking you to re-write your response, but I really just don't understand most of it. I was never raised Christian, so you've got to take baby-steps in explaining things to me lol

Thanks again in advance!

It's my pleasure to clarify... I don't think I'm always the clearest either, so I'll try to explain it so you can understand it where you're coming from

Following Jesus means submitting to God in faith. In other words, you give your life over and accept to submit to him in all things, trust in him in all things, and throw your own desires out the window if necessary.

It can't be about following the Law, here's why:
[sup]Galatians 3:[/sup][sup]10[/sup] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[sup][e][/sup] [sup]11[/sup] But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith
And then....
[sup]21[/sup] Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. [sup]22[/sup] But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [sup]23[/sup] But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
[sup]24[/sup] Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [sup]25[/sup] But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

So the law is there as a tutor. And because NO ONE can claim to follow the law perfectly, it points to everyones imperfection before God. Basically this condemns us to death. The response that pleases God is NOT to run away, but to run to him. That is the first step of faith. We turn to Him, admit our failure, and ask for hi strength.

God then gives us new life, and we can follow the Spirit (which is following Jesus). Here's the tricky part; the law isn't abolished, but fulfilled. How? By following Jesus, we can receive the strength of God, and once God shapes our character and trains us, we can walk like Jesus. Yet not us, but Christ in us. We get no glory, because it is not our strength but our power.

Let's debunk one thing: following Jesus cannot be about leaving everything behind physically. God might call some people to do that, in which case they must obey, but leaving everything behind actually represents something else: the part we must all do, whether it is physical or not. To be disciples of Christ, we must forsake all others, in other words we only put him first in our lives, we obey him above all, and we do not compromise for another. Thus we must leave all others. It's like a man forsaking all others to marry a woman. Can that man never talk to another woman again? Well, he can. But he must stay faithfull in every way to his wife.

Here's the thing. God is pleased when out of an honest and good heart we do what we can to do good, in our own strength, as you say. That is the righteousness of men, to do good as much as we can. What we come to see when we measure up to the standard that Jesus gives us (never hate, never lust, etc) is that we fall very short. So we can be righteous on the first level, which pleases God, but there is more. Christ came to give us HIS power by which we can fulfill ALL the law perfectly.

We don't do it by looking at the law and trying to follow it best we can! Because we can't! After a few tries, you figure out pretty quickly it's impossible... Believe me :lol:

But when we follow Christ, he gives us HIS life and HIS power so that we can be just like him. The tricky part in this is that God doesn't just want to make you walk on the clouds (ie in his power) and support you that way forever without you ever doing anything. You are right on that point; what credit would that give a disciple? Rather, he wants to give us some of his power, show us through that his perfect character, and then if we allow him and submit to EVERYTHING he puts us through, knowing it's for our best, he transforms our character into his.

So in the first righteousness, which is good, it is all about building our own strength. Only that strength is limited. But if we wish to be perfect like the Lord, it becomes the opposite; it becomes about dying. We have to let go of our life, and take up his.

I hope I was able to make it understandable... Know that it is my pleasure to attempt to answer whatever questions you might throw at me

I would leave you with this. Here is a man who is righteous according to man, but looks for more. Jesus makes him an offer, which requires total surrender.
[sup]16[/sup] Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good[sup][e][/sup] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
[sup]17[/sup] So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[sup][f][/sup] No one is good but One, that is, God.[sup][g][/sup] But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
[sup]18[/sup] He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ [sup]19[/sup] ‘Honor your father and your mother,’[sup][h][/sup] and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”[sup][i][/sup]
[sup]20[/sup] The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth.[sup][j][/sup] What do I still lack?”
[sup]21[/sup] Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

 

[Prentis]

God then gives us new life, and we can follow the Spirit (which is following Jesus). Here's the tricky part; the law isn't abolished, but fulfilled. How? By following Jesus, we can receive the strength of God, and once God shapes our character and trains us, we can walk like Jesus. Yet not us, but Christ in us. We get no glory, because it is not our strength but our power.

OOPS! If I meant to confuse you more, I just scored a 3 pointer... Or made the highlight reels :lol:

It should read: We get no glory, because it is not our strength but His power.

Sorry about that... And since I just came back to read it later, I couldnt edit it :blink:

:lol:

Blessings

 

[Canuck]

It's my pleasure to clarify... I don't think I'm always the clearest either, so I'll try to explain it so you can understand it where you're coming from

Following Jesus means submitting to God in faith. In other words, you give your life over and accept to submit to him in all things, trust in him in all things, and throw your own desires out the window if necessary.

It can't be about following the Law, here's why:
[sup]Galatians 3:[/sup][sup]10[/sup] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[sup][e][/sup] [sup]11[/sup] But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith
And then....
[sup]21[/sup] Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. [sup]22[/sup] But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [sup]23[/sup] But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
[sup]24[/sup] Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [sup]25[/sup] But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Thanks for clarifying that for me ^.^

I do have some questions about this though. Isn't Galatians just a letter written by Paul to the Galatians? Therefore, it doesn't record what Jesus said, but is just what Paul has written, right? So how do you know that that is what Jesus taught and isn't just what Paul has decreed? Sorry for being sceptical, but I am just wondering what thought process has led you to your conclusion (I don't accept anything at face value ).

So the law is there as a tutor. And because NO ONE can claim to follow the law perfectly, it points to everyones imperfection before God. Basically this condemns us to death. The response that pleases God is NOT to run away, but to run to him. That is the first step of faith. We turn to Him, admit our failure, and ask for hi strength.

Okay, now I am even more confused. I thought that, according to Christian theology, we were condemned to death for the incident in the Garden of Eden. But you're saying it's because we can't follow the law, which wasn't given to the Hebrews until much later. o.0 Could you please explain why we're condemned to death for not being able to follow an impossible law? That doesn't make much sense to me.

God then gives us new life, and we can follow the Spirit (which is following Jesus). Here's the tricky part; the law isn't abolished, but fulfilled. How? By following Jesus, we can receive the strength of God, and once God shapes our character and trains us, we can walk like Jesus. Yet not us, but Christ in us. We get no glory, because it is not our strength but our power.

Okay, I just have one question. Why? Why does the Christian god need people to follow Jesus in order for him to help us complete an impossible law that he gave to us?

Let's debunk one thing: following Jesus cannot be about leaving everything behind physically. God might call some people to do that, in which case they must obey, but leaving everything behind actually represents something else: the part we must all do, whether it is physical or not. To be disciples of Christ, we must forsake all others, in other words we only put him first in our lives, we obey him above all, and we do not compromise for another. Thus we must leave all others. It's like a man forsaking all others to marry a woman. Can that man never talk to another woman again? Well, he can. But he must stay faithfull in every way to his wife.

So Jesus needs to be more important to Christians than their families? I'm sorry, but that is a teaching that I can't agree with. I cannot see how anybody could put someone else before their partner or their children.

Here's the thing. God is pleased when out of an honest and good heart we do what we can to do good, in our own strength, as you say. That is the righteousness of men, to do good as much as we can. What we come to see when we measure up to the standard that Jesus gives us (never hate, never lust, etc) is that we fall very short. So we can be righteous on the first level, which pleases God, but there is more. Christ came to give us HIS power by which we can fulfill ALL the law perfectly.

We don't do it by looking at the law and trying to follow it best we can! Because we can't! After a few tries, you figure out pretty quickly it's impossible... Believe me :lol:

But when we follow Christ, he gives us HIS life and HIS power so that we can be just like him. The tricky part in this is that God doesn't just want to make you walk on the clouds (ie in his power) and support you that way forever without you ever doing anything. You are right on that point; what credit would that give a disciple? Rather, he wants to give us some of his power, show us through that his perfect character, and then if we allow him and submit to EVERYTHING he puts us through, knowing it's for our best, he transforms our character into his.

So what you are saying is that now that you are a Christian, you can follow the law perfectly? I am not trying to be a smart-ass (I know that that's what I sound like at times ), but I am genuinely curious if what you are telling me has worked for you. How does it work, exactly?

So in the first righteousness, which is good, it is all about building our own strength. Only that strength is limited. But if we wish to be perfect like the Lord, it becomes the opposite; it becomes about dying. We have to let go of our life, and take up his.

I don't know if I'm reading this correctly, but are you saying we can't be perfect unless/until we die? Or am I reading that too literally?

I hope I was able to make it understandable... Know that it is my pleasure to attempt to answer whatever questions you might throw at me

Thanks, I appreciate it . Sometimes when I ask questions about religion, the person I am asking just assumes that I'm attacking their belief system, which I'm not. I'm genuinely interested in learning about what others believe ^_^.

I would leave you with this. Here is a man who is righteous according to man, but looks for more. Jesus makes him an offer, which requires total surrender.
[sup]16[/sup] Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good[sup][e][/sup] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
[sup]17[/sup] So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[sup][f][/sup] No one is good but One, that is, God.[sup][g][/sup] But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
[sup]18[/sup] He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ [sup]19[/sup] ‘Honor your father and your mother,’[sup][h][/sup] and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”[sup][i][/sup]
[sup]20[/sup] The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth.[sup][j][/sup] What do I still lack?”
[sup]21[/sup] Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

If I can use an analogy, is this kind of like: do these things if you want to pass the class, but do these things plus these other things if you want to get an "A"? But in either case, both students still get a degree in the end?

Thanks again for taking baby-steps with me! I really do appreciate it ^.^


Edit: I just noticed that your avatar says you're from Montreal. Nice to meet a fellow Canuck I'm from the other side of the country (B.C.)

 

[Prentis]

Thanks for clarifying that for me ^.^

I do have some questions about this though. Isn't Galatians just a letter written by Paul to the Galatians? Therefore, it doesn't record what Jesus said, but is just what Paul has written, right? So how do you know that that is what Jesus taught and isn't just what Paul has decreed? Sorry for being sceptical, but I am just wondering what thought process has led you to your conclusion (I don't accept anything at face value ).

Yes. It is a letter of Paul, and I think its wise to question. It is by my studying and my seeking the Lord that I have found what Paul says to further explain what Jesus taught, and what his revelation is. Only indoctrination teaches you to accept everything and just say it must be so. Christianity teaches us to seek the revelation that we might understand the message of Christ.

Okay, now I am even more confused. I thought that, according to Christian theology, we were condemned to death for the incident in the Garden of Eden. But you're saying it's because we can't follow the law, which wasn't given to the Hebrews until much later. o.0 Could you please explain why we're condemned to death for not being able to follow an impossible law? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Yes. We are condemned for the incident of the Garden. But the incident in the garden is simple; disobedience. Adam and Eve chose their own judgment (good and evil) over the tree of Life. Life is to have fellowship with God. I don't mean that the law is the authority that condemns us, but God is. The law is God giving us orders, and our weakness failing to follow perfectly. Now if one is humble, God can justify him by the law, but no man can justify himself by the Law. So what I mean (sorry if I didn't explain it the best) is that the law shows us that God has reason to condemn us. God is just, so that doesn't mean he will condemn us. He doesn't condemn us solely on the fact we didn't do the impossible. But if, after failing to do what he has asked, we are proud and elevate ourselves, then yes, he condemns us.

Here's a better explanation. After giving the Israelites some laws, telling them that they must love the Lord their God, etc, God says 'I have set before you life and death, choose life'. It's THE SAME as the tree of knowledge (our own judgement of right and wrong, therefore no fellowship with God, therefore death) and the tree of life.

So yes, we are condemned because of Adam and Eve's choice, only our condemnation comes because the same choice is set before us today and we choose death.

Okay, I just have one question. Why? Why does the Christian god need people to follow Jesus in order for him to help us complete an impossible law that he gave to us?

It's simple. The 'good' is not what we decide is good. It's what God says is God. And God is living, so in one situation he says 'do this', in another he says 'do that'. If we wish to always follow what God judges to be good, we must follow his instructions. To choose life is to choose fellowship with him, and to do so is to submit to him.

So Jesus needs to be more important to Christians than their families? I'm sorry, but that is a teaching that I can't agree with. I cannot see how anybody could put someone else before their partner or their children.

Yes. Think of it this way. Jesus, God, is the one who made you and the one who made your family. He's the one who provides for you and he is the one who put them under your care. He is the ONLY provider. You provide for your family? Okay. Who provides you with what you need to provide your family. You have to love your family, but God has to be first. You don't compromise a relationship with God for the sake of a relationship with your family.

God is the father of all, thus you should trust HIM with your family, not yourself.

That is the Christian teaching as I understand it. Love for God is above love for the family

So what you are saying is that now that you are a Christian, you can follow the law perfectly? I am not trying to be a smart-ass (I know that that's what I sound like at times ), but I am genuinely curious if what you are telling me has worked for you. How does it work, exactly?

Hahaha :lol: You're a smart guy. Is it possible for me? Yes. Do I always walk in it? No. Here's how it goes... God empowers you and puts His Spirit in you. If you always walk by that power, therefore denying your own, you can be perfect. Now the issue is this; though God gives you a new nature, you already have patterns set in your mind. Like they say, 'it's easier to take the people out of Egypt than it is to take Egypt out of the people.' We are born and raised in human ways. These aren't even necessarily evil, but they are human. We think like humans who have never seen God. Now God wants to renew our mind, so that we don't walk by what we see, hear, smell taste, feel, like natural humans, but we walk by living faith that calls things that are not into being.

How do we get there? By the painfull process of the work of the cross. It requires that we submit ourselves to God and allow Him to change our way of thinking, giving it up. It requires that when we see our old nature, we don't try to hide it from him, but rather we come to him and ask him to help us, and then he crucifies it! Ouch!

I don't know if I'm reading this correctly, but are you saying we can't be perfect unless/until we die? Or am I reading that Hoo literally?

Though the literal death of a man that was faithfull to Christ will bring the death of his old nature, as Christians our wish is for our old nature to die while we still are alive on this earth, so that nothing would block his glory and Life from shining through us.

1Peter 4:[sup]1[/sup] Therefore, since Christ suffered for us[sup][[/sup][sup]a[/sup][sup]][/sup] in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, [sup]2[/sup] that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God.

Thanks, I appreciate it . Sometimes when I ask questions about religion, the person I am asking just assumes that I'm attacking their belief system, which I'm not. I'm genuinely interested in learning about what others believe ^_^.


If I can use an analogy, is this kind of like: do these things if you want to pass the class, but do these things plus these other things if you want to get an "A"? But in either case, both students still get a degree in the end?

Yes. If you are righteous according to men, in other words you follow the law as much as you can (which all resumes to loving God and loving your neighbor) then you get life. Only if you do that, and then you allow God to crucify you and live through you, and do his will and whatever HE wants to, you also get to share in his glory, because in this life you gave him glory.

The glory of a teacher is the 'A' student, who honors him and gives himself to the material. The glory of God is the disciple, who honors him and gives himself to his work. Through him, his glory shines.

Thanks again for taking baby-steps with me! I really do appreciate it ^.^


Edit: I just noticed that your avatar says you're from Montreal. Nice to meet a fellow Canuck I'm from the other side of the country (B.C.)

Thanks for asking all the questions! It's fun discussing with you
Yeah, I'm a fellow canuck lol
God bless you, Canuck!

 

[Canuck]

Yes. It is a letter of Paul, and I think its wise to question. It is by my studying and my seeking the Lord that I have found what Paul says to further explain what Jesus taught, and what his revelation is. Only indoctrination teaches you to accept everything and just say it must be so. Christianity teaches us to seek the revelation that we might understand the message of Christ.

If it's not too much of a hassle, would you be able to link me some references or suggest some reading that demonstrates that what Paul wrote is in accord with what Jesus taught? I have read some things to the contrary, but it'd be great to explore all sides of the argument. Thanks!

Yes. We are condemned for the incident of the Garden. But the incident in the garden is simple; disobedience. Adam and Eve chose their own judgment (good and evil) over the tree of Life. Life is to have fellowship with God. I don't mean that the law is the authority that condemns us, but God is. The law is God giving us orders, and our weakness failing to follow perfectly. Now if one is humble, God can justify him by the law, but no man can justify himself by the Law. So what I mean (sorry if I didn't explain it the best) is that the law shows us that God has reason to condemn us. God is just, so that doesn't mean he will condemn us. He doesn't condemn us solely on the fact we didn't do the impossible. But if, after failing to do what he has asked, we are proud and elevate ourselves, then yes, he condemns us.

But if the law didn't exist, then the Christian god would have no reason to condemn us... So why would he choose to make us follow a law that he knows is impossible, just so that he has an excuse to condemn us? That doesn't seem very benevolent... or just. He sets us up to fail, then asks us to be humble in our failure? What is the purpose of doing that?

Here's a better explanation. After giving the Israelites some laws, telling them that they must love the Lord their God, etc, God says 'I have set before you life and death, choose life'. It's THE SAME as the tree of knowledge (our own judgement of right and wrong, therefore no fellowship with God, therefore death) and the tree of life.

So yes, we are condemned because of Adam and Eve's choice, only our condemnation comes because the same choice is set before us today and we choose death.

So we're given a choice that isn't really a choice because on the one hand, we get to live and on the other we get to die. That hardly seems fair :huh:. I'm sorry, but it sounds like a dictator telling his subjects to follow his laws or the subject will be put to death... Can you see why that might not be appealing to some people (myself included)?

It's simple. The 'good' is not what we decide is good. It's what God says is God. And God is living, so in one situation he says 'do this', in another he says 'do that'. If we wish to always follow what God judges to be good, we must follow his instructions. To choose life is to choose fellowship with him, and to do so is to submit to him.

So anything that the Christian god commands is good? Anything? What about genocide? Slavery? Infanticide? Rape? etc. All these things were commanded by Yahweh in the OT. Are you saying that just because he commanded them, they are intrinsically good?

If you answer "no" to any of the above, then morality exists outside of god(s), and therefore, whatever the Christian god commands is not "good".

I have just one more question in regards to this idea: If your god commanded you to murder somebody, would you?

Yes. Think of it this way. Jesus, God, is the one who made you and the one who made your family. He's the one who provides for you and he is the one who put them under your care. He is the ONLY provider. You provide for your family? Okay. Who provides you with what you need to provide your family. You have to love your family, but God has to be first. You don't compromise a relationship with God for the sake of a relationship with your family.

God is the father of all, thus you should trust HIM with your family, not yourself.

That is the Christian teaching as I understand it. Love for God is above love for the family

Actually, my parents were the ones who made me . But that's the smart-ass emerging again haha. The problem with this is that in order for me to accept the fact that I have a creator, that must first be demonstrated. As there is yet no evidence to prove this, your argument has no bearing on my perception.

That aside, however, even if the Christian god is my creator, why do I have to automatically submit to him? For example, suppose that my parents completely ignored me as a child (they didn't, but let's pretend they did). Why would I grow up to have any respect for or deference towards them? They haven't earned it. Likewise, why should I love someone who has never made himself known to me? I am obviously open to accepting him if there is evidence, but he hasn't bothered to provide me with any. So why should I put him before my family?

Even with that aside, my partner and I provide for ourselves. The Canadian military and government provide my partner and I with the money needed to purchase the food grown by farmers to sustain ourselves. Same with clothing, housing, etc. My employers provide me with money to go to university, and my parents help out when needed. Nowhere have I needed to turn to god to provide me with what I need to survive. And if god is somehow responsible for any of it, why doesn't he let me know so I can thank him?

Hahaha :lol: You're a smart guy. Is it possible for me? Yes. Do I always walk in it? No. Here's how it goes... God empowers you and puts His Spirit in you. If you always walk by that power, therefore denying your own, you can be perfect. Now the issue is this; though God gives you a new nature, you already have patterns set in your mind. Like they say, 'it's easier to take the people out of Egypt than it is to take Egypt out of the people.' We are born and raised in human ways. These aren't even necessarily evil, but they are human. We think like humans who have never seen God. Now God wants to renew our mind, so that we don't walk by what we see, hear, smell taste, feel, like natural humans, but we walk by living faith that calls things that are not into being.

How do we get there? By the painfull process of the work of the cross. It requires that we submit ourselves to God and allow Him to change our way of thinking, giving it up. It requires that when we see our old nature, we don't try to hide it from him, but rather we come to him and ask him to help us, and then he crucifies it! Ouch!

Thanks for the compliment, though I'm not a guy .

So what you're getting at is that I have to stop being myself and try not to be human in order to follow Christ? What is the point of that? Why make us human if Jesus doesn't want us to be human? What is wrong with being human?

Why do we need to be changed in the first place? What is so intrinsically wrong with us that we need to seek out a deity and submit to him for change?

- Just a note: when you say that it is possible for you to follow the law, but that you don't always walk in it, which law(s) are you talking about? Because I am starting to get confused again as to which laws we're talking about. Thanks! -

Though the literal death of a man that was faithfull to Christ will bring the death of his old nature, as Christians our wish is for our old nature to die while we still are alive on this earth, so that nothing would block his glory and Life from shining through us.

1Peter 4:[sup]1[/sup] Therefore, since Christ suffered for us[sup][[/sup][sup]a[/sup][sup]][/sup] in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, [sup]2[/sup] that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God.

What is so wrong with "our old nature" that we should wish for it to die? Why would god create people with an undesirable nature in the first place if he wants people to get rid of it? Isn't that a little counter-productive?

Yes. If you are righteous according to men, in other words you follow the law as much as you can (which all resumes to loving God and loving your neighbor) then you get life. Only if you do that, and then you allow God to crucify you and live through you, and do his will and whatever HE wants to, you also get to share in his glory, because in this life you gave him glory.

The glory of a teacher is the 'A' student, who honors him and gives himself to the material. The glory of God is the disciple, who honors him and gives himself to his work. Through him, his glory shines.

So if somebody is righteous, but doesn't believe in a god (a pre-requisite for loving him), then we don't get life? ... Perhaps I am confused by your phraseology, but I am quite alive and well... I haven't been struck down yet Or are you referring to getting a second life or afterlife? Does this mean that those who don't follow the law don't get an afterlife (as opposed to going to hell)?

I also have a problem with the idea that one should be obliged to do whatever god asks one to do, because that would mean somebody is capable of doing terrible things if they believe (the key here being "believe") that their god has commanded them to do so. Even if their god hasn't done this, the belief that their god has spoken to them and commanded something terrible of them would be enough to convince them to do this. Doesn't this seem like a dangerous doctrine to you?

Thanks for asking all the questions! It's fun discussing with you
Yeah, I'm a fellow canuck lol
God bless you, Canuck!

Thank you for taking the time to answer them ^.^ It's easy to look up Christian doctrine and history, but it's a little harder to get to the core of Christian belief without actually discussing it with someone who is a Christian. Again, thanks for taking the time to discuss this stuff with me .

 

[Duckybill]

There are moral parts of THE LAW of Moses and there are 'the works of THE LAW'. Of course it's sin to steal, lie, commit adultery, etc. But Christians are not under 'the works of THE LAW'. I.E dietary, clothing, Sabbath, etc.

Galatians 3:10 (NKJV)
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

Colossians 2:16-17 (NKJV)
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Galatians 3:24-25 (NKJV)
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Christians are not under the works of THE LAW.

 

[Prentis]

If it's not too much of a hassle, would you be able to link me some references or suggest some reading that demonstrates that what Paul wrote is in accord with what Jesus taught? I have read some things to the contrary, but it'd be great to explore all sides of the argument. Thanks!.

I wont do that. Endless arguments really wont get anywhere, besides I dont have such material. When men try and explain what the Bible says, they all end up disagreeing and saying the opposite of each other anyways. :lol:

Man explaining things will only mix you up. If you really want to understand it, pray to God. You can try it even if you don't believe in him, and see what happens... If you want to

But if the law didn't exist, then the Christian god would have no reason to condemn us... So why would he choose to make us follow a law that he knows is impossible, just so that he has an excuse to condemn us? That doesn't seem very benevolent... or just. He sets us up to fail, then asks us to be humble in our failure? What is the purpose of doing that?

The reason for God condemning us is not because of some obsolete law, it is because we made ourselves God of our lives. Here's how: God gives you one choice; either take the tree of life, or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before asking me a question, let me explain. To take of the tree of life requires that we admit the everything we have is from God, and everything actually belongs to him. It requires that we submit to that and follow him, not because of a law, but because we see that he loves and gives us life, and we have no life without him. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil requires that we say 'no God, I want a life of my own where I decide what I want. Your God of my life? No, I am.' Why is that so evil? Think of it this way, a loving parent gives his 5 year old kid food, clothing, and all that he needs. Let's say that kid says, 'Dad, I don't need you, and I want to fend for myself'. That's actually funny, not so evil. The kid is simply innocent, he doesn't know anything and has a bad attitude, as a loving parent, we can let him learn. Now imagine that we are to grow up, but unlike humans, we never become like our Father, because EVERYTHING comes from him, and we cant do anything on our own. Imagine an adult having a hissy fit and saying 'NO! I dont wanna let you take care of me and I want to do things MY way!' Ok, once is still pretty funny :lol: Imagine he never learns though...

So we're given a choice that isn't really a choice because on the one hand, we get to live and on the other we get to die. That hardly seems fair :huh:. I'm sorry, but it sounds like a dictator telling his subjects to follow his laws or the subject will be put to death... Can you see why that might not be appealing to some people (myself included)?

See, only if we had but the smallest amount of faith in God, we would trust him, since he gives both life AND death, that if we obey his command for us to die, he will give us new life again. It IS a choice. We can choose to submit to God and receive life, or rebel and die.

So anything that the Christian god commands is good? Anything? What about genocide? Slavery? Infanticide? Rape? etc. All these things were commanded by Yahweh in the OT. Are you saying that just because he commanded them, they are intrinsically good?

If you answer "no" to any of the above, then morality exists outside of god(s), and therefore, whatever the Christian god commands is not "good".

I have just one more question in regards to this idea: If your god commanded you to murder somebody, would you?

Yes. That's the part people hate. If God says something is good, it is. I dont know about all this genocide stuff and would love if you could explain it all to me...

Here's the thing. God gives life and death, and in the end he rewards all evenly, so whatever he judges good is indeed GOOD, because he sees everything. We see only with our human eyes, but God understands beyond that. We see a cross that is gonna hurt alot. God sees something that will take out our pride and selfishness, make us able to receive new life, and to really love, like he does.

He sees beyond what we do. We can try to search his judgments, but we wont get it unless he shows us what it looks like with HIS eyes.

Actually, my parents were the ones who made me . But that's the smart-ass emerging again haha. The problem with this is that in order for me to accept the fact that I have a creator, that must first be demonstrated. As there is yet no evidence to prove this, your argument has no bearing on my perception.

That aside, however, even if the Christian god is my creator, why do I have to automatically submit to him? For example, suppose that my parents completely ignored me as a child (they didn't, but let's pretend they did). Why would I grow up to have any respect for or deference towards them? They haven't earned it. Likewise, why should I love someone who has never made himself known to me? I am obviously open to accepting him if there is evidence, but he hasn't bothered to provide me with any. So why should I put him before my family?

Even with that aside, my partner and I provide for ourselves. The Canadian military and government provide my partner and I with the money needed to purchase the food grown by farmers to sustain ourselves. Same with clothing, housing, etc. My employers provide me with money to go to university, and my parents help out when needed. Nowhere have I needed to turn to god to provide me with what I need to survive. And if god is somehow responsible for any of it, why doesn't he let me know so I can thank him?

I'll take it one paragraph at a time.

Firstly, might I say that I agree . How are we to know God if he is not revealed to us? We can't. If God gave you no revelation of himself, then you are not accountable for it. Here's the thing, you've been asking me things about Christianity, so I've been giving you the answer that is true for the Christian. A Christian must die to himself. Someone without the revelation is not held to the same standard. That includes you. You, until or unless you receive the revelation of Christ, are not required to live by faith. You are simply required to love your neighbor, and you don't even have to know you're doing it! And not to think of yourself as great for it, you're simply doing what is right.

You don't Same thing as paragraph above. Christ didn't reveal himself to you? Then you are not accountable for something you don't have. Just do what's right, love your neighbor. If you want something more, then ask Christ to reveal himself to you. See what happens.

You provide for yourself, yes. But who provides the earth with rain, who gives life to everything? You might not see that it's God, and that's fine. All creation shouts of his greatness. A rule of science (ironically) says that no life can come from an inanimate object. So what was the first being with life? It has to start somewhere, no matter what you believe. Throw some pieces of metal into a room, let them sit for a few years, say million years, do you get a car? And yet we, humans, who are far more complicated than cars, came out of nothing. I know this is commonly believed, I just pointing out that simple sense tells you there has to be someone somewhere somehow providing for us. That though, is the side that is aside from revelation.

Thanks for the compliment, though I'm not a guy .

So what you're getting at is that I have to stop being myself and try not to be human in order to follow Christ? What is the point of that? Why make us human if Jesus doesn't want us to be human? What is wrong with being human?

Why do we need to be changed in the first place? What is so intrinsically wrong with us that we need to seek out a deity and submit to him for change?

- Just a note: when you say that it is possible for you to follow the law, but that you don't always walk in it, which law(s) are you talking about? Because I am starting to get confused again as to which laws we're talking about. Thanks! -

First of all, sorry for the confusion, Mrs!

Again, only if you want to follow Christ do you need to put off your old life. What is intrisincally wrong with it? Well, it doesn't respond to God. God works by the Spirit, and our nature works by the senses and what logic can be deduced from your senses. Becoming Christian is not about getting 'saved' or just 'making it to heaven'. That's so basic! Being Christian is about becoming like Christ, and becoming like God. Not that we are him, but we reflect him, and are his servants, he is seen in us, and it makes people glorify HIM! Being a Christian is about the glory of God, not making it sage! We can't do that naturally, hence why we need to be changed.

I'm talking about following the Spirit. Whatever God tells me to do is what I must obey. It is available and possible for me to walk in this. But my old nature interferes with it so that I mess up, therefore not following the Spirit, and not fulfilling the law of Christ. That's why I need to get rid of my old nature in the first place, it doesn't allow me to be like God and follow him.

What is so wrong with "our old nature" that we should wish for it to die? Why would god create people with an undesirable nature in the first place if he wants people to get rid of it? Isn't that a little counter-productive?

God didn't create us with a messed up nature. God created us with a free nature, a nature that allows us to choose between Him, and what we want. We corrupt that nature by choosing to live for ourselves. And here's the thing, it's only counter-productive if you want everything to be fine and dandy now. If God has all power, and everything is not fine and dandy, that must not be his wish. The messed up nature is to test us. This whole temporal life that tends to end after 80 or so years is all just a test. For those who do not know him, and to who God doesn't reveal himself, will you love those around you without counting, unselfishly (as he loves you, though you do not know)? And for those who have the revelation of Christ, will you cling to him only, letting the cross kill you because you love him and want to be like him, seeing it's the only way? Then comes judgment, and we all get our grades, if you get what I mean ^_^

So if somebody is righteous, but doesn't believe in a god (a pre-requisite for loving him), then we don't get life? ... Perhaps I am confused by your phraseology, but I am quite alive and well... I haven't been struck down yet Or are you referring to getting a second life or afterlife? Does this mean that those who don't follow the law don't get an afterlife (as opposed to going to hell)?

I also have a problem with the idea that one should be obliged to do whatever god asks one to do, because that would mean somebody is capable of doing terrible things if they believe (the key here being "believe") that their god has commanded them to do so. Even if their god hasn't done this, the belief that their god has spoken to them and commanded something terrible of them would be enough to convince them to do this. Doesn't this seem like a dangerous doctrine to you?

Not necessarily. As long as one is righteous. Only careful! It's not about being righteous in our own eyes, but in God's. We can't use what we do to justify ourselves, he justifies us if he pleases. On the other hand, you must also understand that this is a test, so God gives life and rain and food to both the good and the evil in this life, so that they have the choice, and can do right or wrong, and be judged upon that.

Yes. It is dangerous. Think about this though, if this is a test, and let's say an innocent righteous person who dies will have life again, then God can take risks! God is not a safe scaredy cat. He does take risks. He puts all at risk by giving US the choice. And its all well in the end because he makes all things fair (in the end).

Thank you for taking the time to answer them ^.^ It's easy to look up Christian doctrine and history, but it's a little harder to get to the core of Christian belief without actually discussing it with someone who is a Christian. Again, thanks for taking the time to discuss this stuff with me .

My pleasure to discuss this.

Finding Christian doctrine is indeed difficult. Not only because it might be unclear to read one thing, but if you read many things they downright contradict each other. Such is what happens when men take the revelation of Christ into their own hands and do what they want with it.

 

[Canuck]

Thanks for joining in!

There are moral parts of THE LAW of Moses and there are 'the works of THE LAW'. Of course it's sin to steal, lie, commit adultery, etc. But Christians are not under 'the works of THE LAW'. I.E dietary, clothing, Sabbath, etc.

So which commandments are the moral parts and which are the works? For example, making images: does that belong to the moral category or the works?

Galatians 3:10 (NKJV)
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

Colossians 2:16-17 (NKJV)
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Galatians 3:24-25 (NKJV)
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Christians are not under the works of THE LAW.

I'll ask the same question that I asked Prentis: How do you know that Paul's writings are in accordance with what Jesus taught?

Thanks!

 

[Prentis]

A brother said this to me, and I thought it was quite appropriate.

"The Bible does not give answer to the seeker of facts, but to the seeker of truth." The Bible doesn't roll by facts, but by truth.

 

[Canuck]

I wont do that. Endless arguments really wont get anywhere, besides I dont have such material. When men try and explain what the Bible says, they all end up disagreeing and saying the opposite of each other anyways. :lol:

Man explaining things will only mix you up. If you really want to understand it, pray to God. You can try it even if you don't believe in him, and see what happens... If you want to

Okay, well I'm a little disappointed, but it was quite a bit to ask I guess. That's the nature of a book written by many different authors: you'll get different opinions on its interpretation .

The reason for God condemning us is not because of some obsolete law, it is because we made ourselves God of our lives. Here's how: God gives you one choice; either take the tree of life, or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before asking me a question, let me explain. To take of the tree of life requires that we admit the everything we have is from God, and everything actually belongs to him. It requires that we submit to that and follow him, not because of a law, but because we see that he loves and gives us life, and we have no life without him. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil requires that we say 'no God, I want a life of my own where I decide what I want. Your God of my life? No, I am.' Why is that so evil? Think of it this way, a loving parent gives his 5 year old kid food, clothing, and all that he needs. Let's say that kid says, 'Dad, I don't need you, and I want to fend for myself'. That's actually funny, not so evil. The kid is simply innocent, he doesn't know anything and has a bad attitude, as a loving parent, we can let him learn. Now imagine that we are to grow up, but unlike humans, we never become like our Father, because EVERYTHING comes from him, and we cant do anything on our own. Imagine an adult having a hissy fit and saying 'NO! I dont wanna let you take care of me and I want to do things MY way!' Ok, once is still pretty funny :lol: Imagine he never learns though...

So you are saying that the law is obsolete? Thanks for clarifying that ^.^

Just another question: If we don't have knowledge of good and evil in the first place, then how are we to judge which tree to take from? Like your child analogy, wouldn't that make us all like children if we didn't have knowledge? Don't we have to take from the tree of knowledge in order to learn about the two trees in the first place (i.e. in order to learn that the tree of life is "good")? To me, this seems to be a paradox.

But further down your analogy, shouldn't we be encouraging adults to fend for themselves? Shouldn't we be encouraging them to explore their options to learn what the best way to live is for themselves and those around them? If an adult wants to do things his/her way (provided it's not infringing on others' rights), shouldn't we let him/her do so? Or perhaps I'm just not understanding your analogy.

See, only if we had but the smallest amount of faith in God, we would trust him, since he gives both life AND death, that if we obey his command for us to die, he will give us new life again. It IS a choice. We can choose to submit to God and receive life, or rebel and die.

This isn't making much sense to me. Could you please clarify? Thanks!

Yes. That's the part people hate. If God says something is good, it is.

Is the "Yes" answer answering all my questions, or just one? If just one, could you please say which one. Thanks.

That aside, I completely disagree that whatever a god says is good is automatically good. That means that morality is meaningless because it is completely arbitrary. Have you heard of Plato's "Euthyphro dilemma"? If not, you should look it up.

I dont know about all this genocide stuff and would love if you could explain it all to me...

Have you read the Old Testament? The Israelites were commanded by Yahweh to wipe out entire cities of people... In other words, to commit genocide.

Here's the thing. God gives life and death, and in the end he rewards all evenly, so whatever he judges good is indeed GOOD, because he sees everything. We see only with our human eyes, but God understands beyond that. We see a cross that is gonna hurt alot. God sees something that will take out our pride and selfishness, make us able to receive new life, and to really love, like he does.

He sees beyond what we do. We can try to search his judgments, but we wont get it unless he shows us what it looks like with HIS eyes.

So just because god is powerful, that makes him right? That doesn't make much sense to me :wacko:.

Firstly, might I say that I agree . How are we to know God if he is not revealed to us? We can't. If God gave you no revelation of himself, then you are not accountable for it. Here's the thing, you've been asking me things about Christianity, so I've been giving you the answer that is true for the Christian. A Christian must die to himself. Someone without the revelation is not held to the same standard. That includes you. You, until or unless you receive the revelation of Christ, are not required to live by faith. You are simply required to love your neighbor, and you don't even have to know you're doing it! And not to think of yourself as great for it, you're simply doing what is right.

You don't Same thing as paragraph above. Christ didn't reveal himself to you? Then you are not accountable for something you don't have. Just do what's right, love your neighbor. If you want something more, then ask Christ to reveal himself to you. See what happens.

Except that what you are saying isn't what is said in the Bible.
Matthew 10:14-15 and Mark 6:11, Jesus says to his disciples:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." (KJV)
- So basically anybody in a city who doesn't get to hear the word is punished. It doesn't matter if only a few people kicked out Jesus' disciples, those who didn't get to hear it are still damned along with them.
Also, Mark 16:16:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (KJV)

So, according to Jesus, I am accountable even if I have never heard of god or if he's never chosen to make himself known to me. So I'm kind of confused as to why you are saying that it doesn't matter that I don't believe and haven't received any verification of god's existence. Could you please explain to me why you don't think it matters? Thanks, that'd be great!

You provide for yourself, yes. But who provides the earth with rain, who gives life to everything? You might not see that it's God, and that's fine. All creation shouts of his greatness. A rule of science (ironically) says that no life can come from an inanimate object. So what was the first being with life? It has to start somewhere, no matter what you believe. Throw some pieces of metal into a room, let them sit for a few years, say million years, do you get a car? And yet we, humans, who are far more complicated than cars, came out of nothing. I know this is commonly believed, I just pointing out that simple sense tells you there has to be someone somewhere somehow providing for us. That though, is the side that is aside from revelation.

Well, the clouds provide the earth with rain, which is then recycled into the atmosphere through evaporation. I don't see how a god is required to make it rain o.0

As to "who gives life to everything?", have you considered that it might not be a "who"? What makes you assume that a "who" "gives life to everything"? Why does life need to be "given" in the first place?

Yes, life coming from an inanimate object doesn't make much sense Fortunately, that's not the case. Everything in our universe is made up of chemicals, which, when are formed into certain molecules, are organic. Life can emerge from organic materials, but not from inorganic materials. Scientists aren't sure what the first "being" with life was, but they suspect that it's precursors were RNA and then later, DNA. RNA and DNA can self-replicate, which is a major pre-requisite to life.

I don't know where you got the notion that humans came from nothing. We evolved from our hominid ancestors, who evolved from their ancestors, etc., going as far back as single-celled organisms. To say that humans evolved from "nothing" is a misrepresentation of the facts.

First of all, sorry for the confusion, Mrs!

No problem ^.^ (And it's "Miss"; I'm not married.)

Again, only if you want to follow Christ do you need to put off your old life. What is intrisincally wrong with it? Well, it doesn't respond to God. God works by the Spirit, and our nature works by the senses and what logic can be deduced from your senses. Becoming Christian is not about getting 'saved' or just 'making it to heaven'. That's so basic! Being Christian is about becoming like Christ, and becoming like God. Not that we are him, but we reflect him, and are his servants, he is seen in us, and it makes people glorify HIM! Being a Christian is about the glory of God, not making it sage! We can't do that naturally, hence why we need to be changed.

Okay, then honestly, I don't think I ever want to be a Christian (no offense ). I don't think I want to be like Jesus or like a god. I just want to be me haha.

I'm talking about following the Spirit. Whatever God tells me to do is what I must obey. It is available and possible for me to walk in this. But my old nature interferes with it so that I mess up, therefore not following the Spirit, and not fulfilling the law of Christ. That's why I need to get rid of my old nature in the first place, it doesn't allow me to be like God and follow him.

I feel like we're starting to go in circles here. What exactly is "following the Spirit"? Sorry for the questions, but to someone who wasn't raised as a Christian, these concepts aren't obvious to me. Also, when you say "the law of Christ", what law is that? I think that maybe a different word would be helpful because when I think of law, I think of the legal documents in the O.T. laws.

God didn't create us with a messed up nature. God created us with a free nature, a nature that allows us to choose between Him, and what we want. We corrupt that nature by choosing to live for ourselves. And here's the thing, it's only counter-productive if you want everything to be fine and dandy now. If God has all power, and everything is not fine and dandy, that must not be his wish. The messed up nature is to test us. This whole temporal life that tends to end after 80 or so years is all just a test. For those who do not know him, and to who God doesn't reveal himself, will you love those around you without counting, unselfishly (as he loves you, though you do not know)? And for those who have the revelation of Christ, will you cling to him only, letting the cross kill you because you love him and want to be like him, seeing it's the only way? Then comes judgment, and we all get our grades, if you get what I mean ^_^

Not necessarily. As long as one is righteous. Only careful! It's not about being righteous in our own eyes, but in God's. We can't use what we do to justify ourselves, he justifies us if he pleases. On the other hand, you must also understand that this is a test, so God gives life and rain and food to both the good and the evil in this life, so that they have the choice, and can do right or wrong, and be judged upon that.

But if he already knows what we're going to choose (being omniscient), then what's the point of giving people a choice? And why would he want to test us? Doesn't he already know the answer(s) to the test? Why bother with the charade then?

Yes. It is dangerous. Think about this though, if this is a test, and let's say an innocent righteous person who dies will have life again, then God can take risks! God is not a safe scaredy cat. He does take risks. He puts all at risk by giving US the choice. And its all well in the end because he makes all things fair (in the end).

Right, but if there is no afterlife, then people may die or suffer for nothing. And why would he risk the lives and well-being of the people he's supposed to love and care for? Does he not care if something terrible happens to one of his subjects because somebody else thought that he/she was doing the deed in the name of his/her god? Is he that callous?

My pleasure to discuss this.

Finding Christian doctrine is indeed difficult. Not only because it might be unclear to read one thing, but if you read many things they downright contradict each other. Such is what happens when men take the revelation of Christ into their own hands and do what they want with it.

Finding the official doctrines is actually fairly easy. Finding out what people actually believe is a lot harder . And I completely get where you're coming from about the contradictions. That's why I ask for other people's opinions, because it's easier to clear up contradictions if the facts can be sorted out from the fictions.

Thanks again!

A brother said this to me, and I thought it was quite appropriate.

"The Bible does not give answer to the seeker of facts, but to the seeker of truth." The Bible doesn't roll by facts, but by truth.

What is the difference between facts and truth then? To me, they're one and the same. What definition would you give them?

 

[Prentis]

Okay, well I'm a little disappointed, but it was quite a bit to ask I guess. That's the nature of a book written by many different authors: you'll get different opinions on its interpretation .

Also, people say things different way. Christ and Paul can express the same truth in different words, to a different audience. Thus is one doesn't understand the original statements meaning, he doesn't see how it's the same as the first. Thus confusion arises. Even Peter, the apostle, warns us in one of his epistles that the things that Paul writes are difficult to understand and many twist what he says to their own loss. The Bible itself tells us people are going to misinterpret it, so no surprise we don't agree amongst ourselves (christians)! :lol:

So you are saying that the law is obsolete? Thanks for clarifying that ^.^

Just another question: If we don't have knowledge of good and evil in the first place, then how are we to judge which tree to take from? Like your child analogy, wouldn't that make us all like children if we didn't have knowledge? Don't we have to take from the tree of knowledge in order to learn about the two trees in the first place (i.e. in order to learn that the tree of life is "good")? To me, this seems to be a paradox.

But further down your analogy, shouldn't we be encouraging adults to fend for themselves? Shouldn't we be encouraging them to explore their options to learn what the best way to live is for themselves and those around them? If an adult wants to do things his/her way (provided it's not infringing on others' rights), shouldn't we let him/her do so? Or perhaps I'm just not understanding your analogy.

We are to let God judge. The tree of Good and Evil means that YOU choose good and evil. But if you take the tree of life, God will indeed teach you to discern between good and evil and what pleases him. The difference is that one is according to our frail and wrong judgement, the other is from God's all seeing and all understanding judgment. Thus it requires faith, that we trust in him.

This isn't making much sense to me. Could you please clarify? Thanks!

God is the one who gives life. If he tells us to die, and we trust him, we can trust that he will raise us again.

Is the "Yes" answer answering all my questions, or just one? If just one, could you please say which one. Thanks.

That aside, I completely disagree that whatever a god says is good is automatically good. That means that morality is meaningless because it is completely arbitrary. Have you heard of Plato's "Euthyphro dilemma"? If not, you should look it up.

Yes is answering the first question. I thought you'd disagree

God has not created us for morality. The Bible says the law was added because of transgressions. In other words, the law is to wake us up to the fact we are not in line with God. It says the law is a tutor to get us to Christ.

This life is not ABOUT morality, it is about God. When one loves God and gives himself entirely to God, he will be blameless according to what is moral. But that is because he loves God. Morals all are based on love. You said it yourself somehwere else, someone should have freedom as far as they don't infringe on someone else's freedom. It's true in the sense that we are to do is love. If you love your neighbor, will you steal from him? If you love your neighbor, will you cheat on him with his spouse? Well, not if you love perfectly.

There is no 'law' above God. God creates law because we are out of whack! If we loved, and gave honor where honor is due, there would be no need of morality. The perfect law of love would be fulfilled, leaving no bit of the law or morality broken.

This life is not about law, but about love, and relationship with God. If One created ALL things in love, and does all things with perfect view, and perfect love, considering everything, then everything he decides is good, whether we understand it or not.

Have you read the Old Testament? The Israelites were commanded by Yahweh to wipe out entire cities of people... In other words, to commit genocide.

Yes, I have read it, and now I know what you are talking about.

Here's the thing. All things must be taken with the understanding that God will set all things right in the end. The loving and righteous among the killed (if there were) will be among the righteous in the end. God will set all things right. Losing life in this temporal reality means very little. Who cares about losing 30, 50, 80 years of life, if God restores fairly the same life, but for eternity? If you look at temporal, of course it's unjust. But God will make things right at the judgment. Judge means to 'set right', and that is what he does at the end.

Okay, I can guess one of the questions that arise from this. Why then would God ask the children of Israel to commit genocide if all things would be right in the end? God made Israel an image for the whole world. In the New Testament it says that the old covenant was a shadow of things to come. In other words, it represents it, but is not the real thing. It says they were an example for us to learn from them. God will set all things right in the end, but that doesn't make him uninterested in what happens in the temporal. He wants to work in it and see what we will do when he touches us. This is what separates some men from others (thus making them holy); he takes them, and gives them more (not temporal, but spiritual) and watches to see what they do with it.

So God does all that, knowing it will be set right in the end, and looking to come into our life and history.

So just because god is powerful, that makes him right? That doesn't make much sense to me :wacko:.

No. It's not BECAUSE he is powerfull. What makes him right is that he (1) sees everything, thus judes with all things into account, and because (2) he is love, and does things in love. He is the master, if he gives life, and we are unthankful and hating for it, then we can't have life. We would ruin it for all others, and hate the very one that gives all good things. Thus his judgment is for the greater good.

Except that what you are saying isn't what is said in the Bible.
Matthew 10:14-15 and Mark 6:11, Jesus says to his disciples:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." (KJV)
- So basically anybody in a city who doesn't get to hear the word is punished. It doesn't matter if only a few people kicked out Jesus' disciples, those who didn't get to hear it are still damned along with them.
Also, Mark 16:16:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (KJV)

So, according to Jesus, I am accountable even if I have never heard of god or if he's never chosen to make himself known to me. So I'm kind of confused as to why you are saying that it doesn't matter that I don't believe and haven't received any verification of god's existence. Could you please explain to me why you don't think it matters? Thanks, that'd be great!

No. God jusges a city as a whole, in the sense that the city rejected him, but if some in that city were not corrupted and hatefull as the rest, he spares them. He is just. The thing also is that when Jesus came, he was sent to do a work. He manifested who he was with great power and life, and the Spirit was working. If one rejected him, he was rejecting a clear revelation. This is not the same as a man rejecting someone who teaches lifeless words. Christ came with power, and to reject him meant clear rejection. Also, Jesus went to the people who were given the works of the prophets, who had already been touched by God, and should of been taught.

Here I want to be very clear. I am saying that if one doesn't receive revelation and faith from God, he isn't accountable for it. It's a too edged sword. On the other hand, we can choose faith. BUT if a man does not know God, and yet he loves his neighbor and walks in the love given him, then he is righteous. BUT a man can NEVER use what he does to justify himself and say he is right before God. He is not perfect, only faithfull. That man usually doesn't even know he is righteous.

It's not that what he does doesn't matter. It's that he's not accountable to obeying a revelation he hasn't received. He is still accountable to the law as everyone else; to love his neighbor, be honest, etc. As always, it is a two-edged sword, though! If we have faith, and we want to know the truth, we find it. (*I am adding this after re-reading before posting, this two-edged sword I'm telling you about is truth. After you read the last part, about truth and fact, you might get what I'm saying. There are two things, seemingly opposite, both going on at the same time, and both true, forming truth.)

Well, the clouds provide the earth with rain, which is then recycled into the atmosphere through evaporation. I don't see how a god is required to make it rain o.0

As to "who gives life to everything?", have you considered that it might not be a "who"? What makes you assume that a "who" "gives life to everything"? Why does life need to be "given" in the first place?

Yes, life coming from an inanimate object doesn't make much sense Fortunately, that's not the case. Everything in our universe is made up of chemicals, which, when are formed into certain molecules, are organic. Life can emerge from organic materials, but not from inorganic materials. Scientists aren't sure what the first "being" with life was, but they suspect that it's precursors were RNA and then later, DNA. RNA and DNA can self-replicate, which is a major pre-requisite to life.

I don't know where you got the notion that humans came from nothing. We evolved from our hominid ancestors, who evolved from their ancestors, etc., going as far back as single-celled organisms. To say that humans evolved from "nothing" is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Where do these celled organisms come from? Science is great at looking into the detail, but terrible at looking at the big picture. Where do the single-celled organisms come from? Everything came from where? Again, put all that is necessary to make a car, but in raw materials, and leave it sitting for millions of years, do you get a car or a pile of rocks? Yet creation which is far more complex just 'happened'?

I don't aruge very much on the scientific side, and have very little interest in it. So I might not be very good at it :lol:

But I'm not aiming to be good at that. God reveals himself to who will seek him. It is our choice to do that.

No problem ^.^ (And it's "Miss"; I'm not married.)

Ok! Gotcha!

Okay, then honestly, I don't think I ever want to be a Christian (no offense ). I don't think I want to be like Jesus or like a god. I just want to be me haha.

:lol: Don't worry, most 'Christians' don't want to be like Christ! It's human and natural, we want to be us, and have our life. And that's okay (as long as we don't claim to be Christian without doing what it implies!).

I don't think anyone really wants to be like Christ unless they have a revelation of what that means practically. Even the closest followers of Jesus left him when he went to the cross. We do indeed fall short. It starts with the desire, the will, and then moves to the actual being if we really seek it out.

I feel like we're starting to go in circles here. What exactly is "following the Spirit"? Sorry for the questions, but to someone who wasn't raised as a Christian, these concepts aren't obvious to me. Also, when you say "the law of Christ", what law is that? I think that maybe a different word would be helpful because when I think of law, I think of the legal documents in the O.T. laws.

The law of Christ is 'be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect' and 'abide in me and I in you', 'love each other (the disciples) as I have loved you'. The law of Christ is that, now that the empowerement and revelation is there, we must become like him and follow him.

Walking in the Spirit is to walk in that power of Christ and be directed of him, therefore fulfilling the law of Christ.

But if he already knows what we're going to choose (being omniscient), then what's the point of giving people a choice? And why would he want to test us? Doesn't he already know the answer(s) to the test? Why bother with the charade then?

I actually don't really believe this whole omniscient thing, atleast not in that sense.

God knows everything in the sense that he sees everything, and he sets everything up. But he gives us free will and what we do is NOT decided in advance. We really do choose! Yes, because God knows a person and sees how they are, they are pretty predictable to him, and he knows the human nature. But someone can decide to go out of the ordinary. That's why faith is so special to God; it goes out of everything that human nature dictates and goes to touch his heart. God is testing to see if there is faith, and if there is, we really have a choice then too. We still have our human senses, our sight, so will we walk by faith OR by sight? They cannot be combined. So God wants to see what we will do, and then reward us accordingly.

Right, but if there is no afterlife, then people may die or suffer for nothing. And why would he risk the lives and well-being of the people he's supposed to love and care for? Does he not care if something terrible happens to one of his subjects because somebody else thought that he/she was doing the deed in the name of his/her god? Is he that callous?

I don't get your point about 'if there is no afterlife'. Of course, I know some believe that. But if we are arguing on the grounds of Christianity, that there is a God and he works with people, then there is, therefore... I dont get it

God does care. And sometimes he will protect his people, through miracles, he intervenes (note that miracles are simply any intervention of God in this context). You are right though, often he lets his people die.

But see, it's the very fact that he loves ALL that moves him to do that. Let's take Stephen's example. He is the first Christian to be martyred, just so you know. So these, let's say, for the sake of argument, 15 Pharisees want to kill him because he's exposing them. Now think about it this way, God could kill those 15 Pharisees instead, and keep Stephen alive. Only here's the thing, if Stephen dies, he is going to be with God because he was a faithfull servant. Good! And the 15 Pharisees get more time to maybe one day repent. Good! The other way around, Stephen stays on earth, which is good, but the Pharisees have no more chance to repent. And God does love them. God wishes for ALL to repent and turn to him, which is why his judgment is slow to come. Thus he lets his prophets die and go to him, leaving more time for others to maybe one day repent and turn to him.

Also, if a servant is faithfull to death, it gives God glory! That servant has a mighty God who kept him strong through all trials, and that servant had faith, this is a God worth trusting! (That is what it would echo, if you get what I mean)

Also, if this life is just temporal, and all tears and pains will be wiped away in the next for those who are faithfull, then as long as they arent tested beyond what they can bear, beyond what their faith can remain alive in, what is the trouble? It will be wiped away, and for all their sufferings, they will be rewarded.

Finding the official doctrines is actually fairly easy. Finding out what people actually believe is a lot harder . And I completely get where you're coming from about the contradictions. That's why I ask for other people's opinions, because it's easier to clear up contradictions if the facts can be sorted out from the fictions.

Thanks again!

My pleasure... Always fun to dig these things up!

What is the difference between facts and truth then? To me, they're one and the same. What definition would you give them?

This is very important to understand if you want to understand Christian life.

Facts, on the one hand, tell you one thing. Physically, that means the apple tree needs water, soil, and minerals in that soil, to grow and produce. That's a fact. It could also be 'a truth'. The difference I'm making is between 'a truth' (a fact) and 'the truth'. The truth is made of seeming-contradictions (To all who have seen me say contradictions, forgive me, it is not a wise way to say it, they are seeming contradictions that together make the truth). Seeming contradictions go like this: the apple tree needs all these elements to have life, yet the very branches that carry the life have to be pruned (ie cutting the extra) so that he would produce more fruit (life). So you have to take away life, the extra branches, to make more life, the fruit.

Here's the christian one:
A disciple of Christ must walk both in death (dying to self) and in newness of life (the life from Christ). Thus Christ invites all who are thirsty, and says they will never thirst again. On the other hand, he tells all that follow him that they must bear their cross. Men who follow him go through trials, pains, hunger, all kinds of things, and yet they will never lack. How can this be? On the one hand, in the life they die, on the other, spiritually, they have rivers of living water flowing from them.

The Christian walk is one of seeming contradictions. He walks in death, yet newness of life. He learns to live with nothing, and everything, and in both to be humble and content and praising God.

For the Christian: does God take care of him and protect him, or does God bring him to where he must die?

Both. That is truth. One or the other on it's own is true, and is a fact. But if one uses it to deny the other, it is then a lie, a mixture of a truth with a lie is not the truth, but a lie. A plus and a minus equals a negative. Only two positives give a positive result (in addition and substraction) and it is the same with truth. If we puts the two seeming contradictions together, it forms the truth.

God bless you, Miss!

 

[brionne]

Hello everybody!

It's been a while since I posted a new question here, but life's been a bit busy lately. Anyways, I am interested if this question could be settled for me because I have heard different answers from different people on this subject.

I am wondering what everybody here thinks about the laws of the Old Testament. Do you believe that they still need to be followed? Why/why not? Also, do the Ten Commandments fall into this category? Again, why/why not?

This issue confuses me because I have heard Christians quoting from the Old Testament to support their views, but I have heard other Christians say that Jesus nullified it. Can anybody offer me any clarification? Why is there such a divide over this issue within Christianity?

Thanks in advance!

Jesus did not nullify the laws of the Hebrew scriptures...he lived by them. His life course was a living example to show that mankind can live by Gods laws...even when faced with death.

The mosaic law was specifically for the jewish people. It was a covenant between God and them that would ensure they stood out as Gods nation. All the nations around them served other gods and practiced vile things....Gods people were given the mosaic law so that they could worship him acceptably and be an example to the world of mankind of what the Creators standards were until the promised Messiah arrived....then the Messiah would lead people in the way of God.

So this is why Jesus followers did not see the mosaic law as the means to worship God. Once the messiah arrived, we could approach God through faith in Christ Jesus. And as followers of Christ, we would learn to imitate his righteous example and live according to Gods laws from the heart... not from a long list of rules that we would likely break anyway because we are imperfect and tend to make mistakes.


If we listen to Jesus and apply his commandment to 'love your neighbor as yourself' then we will be fullfilling all the righteous requirements of the mosaic law anyway.... because all those laws have the principle of love as their motivation.

 

[Prentis]

Hey Canuck! I thought I would add this... It's not from me, but rather it's something that Jake posted on another forum (forgive me Jake :lol: ) and he explains it better than I do! Might help you understand some of the things I was saying.

"God has no beginning and no end, He is limitless, if it were not the case, then He would not be God. He measures us, not the other way around, it would be like a 3 year old telling their parents they are wrong, it would be out of order. He is God, we are not. We do not apply anything to Him, He applies it to us. We are told He is good, we see that He is good, in our trials, in nature, all around us, it is good. Even if He allows something that "looks" bad to us, He turns it around for good. What Satan intends for bad, God uses it for good.

Our morality is nothing but a set of rules set up by man, our rules can not measure God, that, too, is out of order. There is an order God first, then us, we do not have all knowledge, He does. Who are we that we can tell God something is good or bad? Based upon what? There is nothing, except for the all knowing God of absolute truth, all is measured by Him."

 

[aspen]

Hello everybody!

It's been a while since I posted a new question here, but life's been a bit busy lately. Anyways, I am interested if this question could be settled for me because I have heard different answers from different people on this subject.

I am wondering what everybody here thinks about the laws of the Old Testament. Do you believe that they still need to be followed? Why/why not? Also, do the Ten Commandments fall into this category? Again, why/why not?

This issue confuses me because I have heard Christians quoting from the Old Testament to support their views, but I have heard other Christians say that Jesus nullified it. Can anybody offer me any clarification? Why is there such a divide over this issue within Christianity?

Thanks in advance!

Well, here is my opinion; part of the OT is a collection of moral, cultural, dietary, and hygiene related laws. The purpose of these laws were to keep Israel a healthy and cohesive nation of people. Most of the laws are no longer relevant because 2,000 - 5,000 year old cultural, dietary, and hygiene laws have no place in our world, today. The moral laws are extremely relevant and were summed up by Jesus as 'love God, self, and neighbor' - the 10 commandments are part of the moral law.

 

[Canuck]

Thanks everybody for your replies; they're much appreciated ^.^


@Prentis:

Thanks for being so patient with me I would love to keep up the conversation, but my fall semester has just started, so I am going to be very busy with classes for the next few months. Thus, I won't have time to keep up with posts. Again, thanks; I've learned a lot from talking with you ^.^

Hope everybody has a good weekend!

Canuck