Bible Defense

[Super 80]

DT 13:6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Super 80: Whether the bible passage is talking about impulsive murder or an execution followed by a trial has little effect on the final result, which is that a person has been killed for his religious beliefs. Doesn't quite jive with American ideals, does it? Whether tihs is suported by the local community or not shouldn't matter either, unless you subscribe to cultural relativism, which I'm sure you don't. An act (especially such a serious one as killing for a specified reason) is either right or wrong, universally, no?0

The fact that the Law was carried out in an orderly fashion makes all the difference in the world if you are trying to use this aspect of the Law to show that the Bible supports evil. It does not.

There is a concept here you are missing. Let's suspend your unbelief for a second and make in your case, the assumption that God is. (This isn't unlike His name either: I AM.) First is that God is the author of life. Isaiah wrote about the potter from God's Word. Jeremiah learned the lesson of the potter. God is not like the clay He shapes. Since God is the author of life, He has title to it. (We think we have title to our lives with our Right to it, but you'll have to show me where God in the Bible has surrendered what is His.)

Under God's Law, there are rewards and punishments. That's called consequence. You make a choice and you will be rewarded or punished. This is also called tough love by some. Some of those punishments result in the forfeiture of life. Since it is a gift from God, He can claim it any time He wants. (For the Christian, read Luke 12:16-21 with Jesus' parable of the rich man and how his life was demanded of him.)

Now for the Jew living under the Law then, this was the standard he was held to uphold. This was not America. You are making a mistake in applying our modern standards to a time in antiquity when God's presence was manifest among His people, but they did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. I am not talking about cultural relativism. I am trying to put into context of the time and place what standards these people are held to. Under God's Law, for these people at that time, living under a strict calling, there was a civil penalty for disobeying God.

If that upsets your sensibilities that someone is executed for their religious beliefs: take it up with God. But right now, this Law is not in effect, (because we are not in a strict covenant relationship with God like the Israelites) and Christians and Jews don't kill for your religious belief, but others do (try worshipping Christ in a Muslim country or sharing the Word and see what happens).

Now today in America, there is still a consequence for worshipping pagan gods; it's just that the death sentence is carried out after you die. This is what John speaks of with the second death. Sorry. Your decision: your consequence.

Of course, if you don't believe, you don't think that will affect you. However, if God is, and I believe He lives, then what you believe will not matter as to whether you suffer this fate or not, but then if you die still rejecting God, you've made your choice.

God makes all kinds of pots. To see a very special pot: check out this little girl. And if you think God made her wrong, I can tell you what kind of changes she has made in the lives of the people around her.

http://ydr.com/photos/ydr-dyn/?c=1&view=1&kwq=Zoe Parr

 

[Timebuilder]

I think a great many pilots here have a sincere desire to have their questions answerd. Well done, Super 80.

Some of you may be wondering about Howard Dean's comments recently regarding scriptural evidence for God's opinion on Gays, saying that "if God made someone Gay I can't imagine him being against them", paraphrasing because I am having trouble finding a website that lists Dean's recent statements.

The answer is a fascinating passage in Romans, in chaper one.

Speaking of people who trust themselves instead of God, making idols instead of worshipping God:

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

The death is the second death, the death of the spirit.

So Howard may know medicine, but he has much to learn about trying to fake some knowlege about God.

 

[Eagleflip]

Moderator Input

Hey gang, I hate to jump into the fray before it gets started, but...

This is a flight related web board. This topic simply doesn't relate to aviation, and it simply doesn't belong here. I'm not making a religious statement, but I am going to defend the purpose of this site.

Thanks for your cooperation. PM me if you have questions.

Eagleflip

 

[Capt. Tex]

Please delete this, Timewaster and his minions can debate religion somewhere else.

 

[Eagleflip]

Moderator Input...again

With the approval of the Webmaster, this thread is hereby re-opened.

Enjoy.

And remember--it you don't want to read a thread about any particular topic, relief is only a mouse click away...

 

[wil]

Thank you Super 80!!! Awesome post!!!!!

 

[VNugget]

I am having a real tough time distinguishing between what you have described and cultural relativism. The same can be said about the actions of any other cultue that does things that we consider evil. If you have to accept anything a culture does because of the "standards they are held to uphold," then you have to accept anything any culture in any historical period wants to define as a crime.

Most everything else you said in that message, outside of what I quoted, presupposes a belief in the Bible so I don't really know how to reply.

 

[blueridge71]

Howard Dean's comments were nonsensical. You could make the same arguement about any sinful behavior. For example, we could say that "if God made child pornographers, then he must not be against them" or "God must support the Nazi Party platform since He created Hitler." Homosexuality is sinful behavior, but God does love homosexuals, just like He loves everyone else. He just hates their sin and hopes that they will renounce it.

Additionally, with respect to the Old Testament Law, Christians are released from this law. There are numerous references to this in Paul's letters in the New Testament. Peter's vision in Acts, where God told him that all things are clean, likewise signifies our release from the law of Moses. We do still look to the law for guidance as to what is and isn't moral behavior, however.

 

[Dash8]

Howard Dean's comments were nonsensical. You could make the same arguement about any sinful behavior. For example, we could say that "if God

snipped for bandwidth

clean, likewise signifies our release from the law of Moses. We do still look to the law for guidance as to what is and isn't moral behavior, however.

so therefore.....
the 10 commandments are no longer applicable and that jacka$$ judge down there was guilty

 

[Thomas_n]

God created you and me in his Picture, he is our Father and we are his children...BUT god created us with a FREE mind, he created us to think for our self and do what we want to do.

Does God hate anyone? The answer is yes.

Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"

Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."

Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

Are these verses hard to read? Do they make you feel uncomfortable? They should. God hates sin. But, He does not punish sin. He punishes the sinner. Sin cannot be tied up and thrown into a fire. It cannot be put in a box or glued to a stick. It is rebellion. It is rebellion in the heart. It is breaking God's Law. Sin occurs inside the heart and mind of people. Therefore, God must punish the sinner. Why? Because He is both Holy and Just and the person who sins offends God. God's Holy and Just character will not allow Him to ignore this offense. Why?....

God's Law is Perfect

When God said, "Let there be light," it happened. When He commanded that the oceans be, they came into existence. God's word is powerful. What He says is never futile, empty, or without power.
The Law is a reflection of God's character. It is pure and perfect. It is powerful. The Ten Commandments reflect God's holiness and justice. These commandments are not without punishments. A law without consequences is only an empty slogan.
To sin is to break God's Law and offend His character. To sin means to challenge His character and authority. It means you go against His word. But God is not a liar. His word is true. He has said He will punish the lawbreaker.
But, praise be to God, that while we were yet sinners, Jesus died for us (Rom. 5:6). There is no way we can appease God. That is why God became one of us (John 1:1,14; Heb. 2:17), to take our place and become sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21). Therefore, people have two options:

Trust Jesus, God in flesh, as your savior and put your faith in the sacrifice that He made on the cross and in nothing you do.

Reject the cross and let the penalty of the Law fall upon you.

Either God pays, or you do -- forever. Which will it be?

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," (Heb. 10:26). If there is no sacrifice available for you, then God's wrath abides upon you because He hates sin and your sin is not removed (John 3:36). Trust Jesus alone or the wrath of God will abide upon you forever.

Conclusion

The sobering fact is that God is so holy and righteous that He hates the sinner (Psalm 5:5; Lev. 20:23; Prov. 6:16-19; Hos. 9:15). Some say that we should say that God only hates the sin but loves the sinner. But, the above scriptures speak contrary to that. But it is also true that He is love (1 John 4:8). It is better to accept the love of God found in Jesus than to reject it and suffer His wrath

 

[VNugget]

So are we in preaching mode now, or still talking about Deuteronomy 13?

 

[Super 80]

I am having a real tough time distinguishing between what you have described and cultural relativism. The same can be said about the actions of any other cultue that does things that we consider evil. If you have to accept anything a culture does because of the "standards they are held to uphold," then you have to accept anything any culture in any historical period wants to define as a crime.

The difference between a moral law of God's and cultural relativism is that God does not change. He is immutable. There are standards that God sets and they do not change. Thus it applies to all cultures.

Therefore, while their culture is distinctly different than ours (and I always caution people not to carry their values and assumptions into an examination of the people and events in the Bible) there are certain things in their culture that are always going to be right and wrong because they are established by God. First and foremost, worship is to be directed to Elohim. If you are not worshipping God as presented in His Word, then you are going to face a consequence.

Now while you might argue that this presupposes God, He IS. I have tried to present evidence for the existence of God outside of the Bible. If you are stumbling over Bible difficulties or apparent discrepancies between science and the Bible, I can help reconcile those differences. While I believe God IS, my conviction does not establish the Truth. And while you're free to accept or reject Him, not believing does not change the Truth. Truth will still prevail.

The standard the Jew was to uphold is written in the Old Testament. I accept them because they come from God. Other cultures are not relative to me because God expressly chose the Hebrew people as a vehicle in which to bring forth His Salvation to the World, "...salvation is from the Jews." Jn 4:22.
Now the Law is of three types, Moral, Civil and Ritual. It was given to the Hebrews by God through Moses. God put His stamp of authenticity on Moses and the Law by performing miracles.

With Jesus, God gives His vineyard to another people that He has poured out His Spirit upon: the Christian. (Please remember that the earliest Christians were all Jews and were not even known by that name for over a decade.) With this transfer, God has released us from the Civil and Ritual laws.

The Moral law though is repeated in the New Testament, and one of the most moral of laws is the very first commandment given, EX 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me." Jesus clearly establishes His title to worship also.

Now as to the penalty established in the Old Testament, it is a fine point of theological debate whether that is carried forth because it is not repeated. One side of the argument would say Capital punishment in the case of murder is required because only the injured party is able to forgive the offense, and in this case, they can't; so you take a life out of respect for the life that was taken. But in the case of Deuteronomy 13:6-11, like with most of the death penalties proscribed by God for the Israelites, forgiveness is the standard that Jesus establishes for the Christian. While those acts punishable by death are still sin, the punishment is not to be strictly enforced. The exception to blanket forgiveness is expressed in the first argument. The punishment for sin still remains, but it is not for us in this world to enact as established in the New Testament.

But in that culture at that time, that was the law the Israelites were to live by.

 

[CitationLover]

super 80,

i agree with a lot you're syaing but a key question has to be answered. why was the bible published?

the answer: to combat heresy in both cases - Jewish leaders during the intertestamental period and the Roman government produced the modern bible.

were these councils divinely inspired to choose what went into what? why is God's word stopped since the Council of Carthage when the modern new testament was formed? nowhere in the new testament does it call itself scripture (all reference's to scripture in the new testament reflect on the old). is it possible we could have screwed this up?

 

[Timebuilder]

so therefore.....
the 10 commandments are no longer applicable and that jacka$$ judge down there was guilty

You are addressing two different points.

Point one is that the ten commandments were brought forward as a part of the New Covenant by Christ.

Point two is that the Alabama state Constitution requires an "acknowlegement of "Almighty God" as the basis of modern law.

So that justice, however you might choose to characterize him, was not only not guilty of any crime under the US Constitution (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Emphasis added, Ammendment One.) by was following the Constitutional edict of the State of Alabama.

According to the amendement reproduced above, the US Courts have no standing in the resolution of ANY dispute arising from the free exercise of religion, save one item and one item alone: the making of a law by Congress that establishes an "official religion" of the United States.

 

[Super 80]

i agree with a lot you're syaing but a key question has to be answered. why was the bible published?

the answer: to combat heresy in both cases - Jewish leaders during the intertestamental period and the Roman government produced the modern bible.

The Bible is published so people will know about God and the Good News of His Son Jesus. Reading the Gospel, and I suggest starting with John, leads to understanding and a change of heart. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." (2Ti 3:16) The early Gospel was published so people could read the "Good News" (which is what 'Gospel' means). The books were replicated and passed to various congregations. Some Churches only had one or two, but all were interested in making sure they had a verifiable account. Later, the letters or Epistles of the Apostles were sent to various Churches for instruction.

The Roman government did not produce the Bible. Constantine was instrumental in forming the Council of Nicea and making Christianity a state religion, but the books of the Bible and several others that are not included were already in circulation. The oldest manuscripts we have are over 160 years before Constantine made his conversion.

Heresy is a problem and that was one of the first things addressed at the Council of Nicea. Arius preached a theology that Jesus was not always in existence which goes against what Jesus said of Himself. This was repudiated but still exists in a fashion today with the Jehovah Witnesses.

were these councils divinely inspired to choose what went into what? why is God's word stopped since the Council of Carthage when the modern new testament was formed?

Yes, the rule or canon of the Bible has been fixed for 1600 years. However, the earlier canons or collections of books are remarkable the same in the whole. From the Muratorian Canon of A.D. 200, to the NT used by Origen around A.D. 250 or Eusebius in A.D. 300 all include the Gospel accounts, Acts, Paul's letters, and some of John's letters. Other books were used and some disputed but the books that are excluded have passed the test of time among theological scholars. Now I'm sure these Councils ask for wisdom and discernment just as the Elders of my Church do in deciding a matter.

nowhere in the new testament does it call itself scripture (all reference's to scripture in the new testament reflect on the old). is it possible we could have screwed this up?

Now we know the Bible as presented in the New Testament is to be treated as Scripture. JN 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. By this, Jesus says the Holy Spirit will aid the Apostles in recording the Gospel. This is why Paul talks about Scripture as being God-breathed. Spirit in the Hebrew is derived from breath. This is also why John describes Jesus as the Word too.

Now Peter, writing by the Spirit, writes in 2Pe 3:15 "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

This establishes the Apostles and Paul as recipients of the Word through the Holy Spirit. That is the basis for saying the New Testament is Scripture, just as Jesus said of the Old Testament.

 

[CitationLover]

The Roman government did not produce the Bible. Constantine was instrumental in forming the Council of Nicea and making Christianity a state religion, but the books of the Bible and several others that are not included were already in circulation. The oldest manuscripts we have are over 160 years before Constantine made his conversion.

Well technically the govt did not produce it, however the govt did endorse and call the conferences that canonized scripture.

Now I'm sure these Councils ask for wisdom and discernment just as the Elders of my Church do in deciding a matter.

I agree, however is it infallible and inerrant what the council does/says? This is what the Catholic Church teaches with regards to its synods, councils, etc. They argue that these are on par with scripture. I don't agree with the Catholic Church's position on a lot of items of theology, but protestants vehemently disagree except when it comes to the bible councils.

Now we know the Bible as presented in the New Testament is to be treated as Scripture. JN 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. By this, Jesus says the Holy Spirit will aid the Apostles in recording the Gospel. This is why Paul talks about Scripture as being God-breathed. Spirit in the Hebrew is derived from breath. This is also why John describes Jesus as the Word too.

Here's where we differ. I think Jesus in this passage is speaking directly to the apostles who will witness the spirit directly on pentecost. By word of mouth the gospel was passed here, not a written word. Where was the apostles scribe? Why doesn't Jesus say, "you know you should right this down"?

And again paul's letters were basically corrections to combat heresy in the early churches. Notice Peter mentions nothing of the gospels (cause they hadn't been written yet). I think Peter is expressing an opinion here in his salutations section of the book.

The bible is a fascinating book with many secrets in it. To me the trust regarding christianity lays in its "test of time".

 

[Timebuilder]

According to what I have read (and heard as doctrine in my bible church), 2Tim 3:16-17 refers not only to the Old Testatment but the New Testament scripture which at that point Man saw as being "in the future". It wasn't "in the future" for God. He already knew the inspirations and guidance He provided to bring our Bible into being, perfectly and without error or incorrect doctrine.

Praise Him!

 

[Super 80]

Notice Peter mentions nothing of the gospels (cause they hadn't been written yet).

You bring up a lot of good points to talk about but I'd like to address just this one for now. These notes come from the Zondervan Study Bible.

==============================================

Assumption A

Mark was written first which was used by Matthew and Luke.

1st view: Mark written in the 50's or early 60's.
Matthew writen in late 50's or 60's.
Luke written between 59-63

2nd view: Mark written 65-70
Matthew written in the 70's
Luke written in the 70's

=============================================

Assumption B

Matthew and Luke did not use Mark as a source.

1st view: Mark written anytime between 50-70

2nd view: Mark written 65-70
Matthew written in the 50's.
Luke written 59-63

=============================================

Now Peter's letters were probably written in the early 60's and the conditions he describes was developing in Nero's time of A.D. 54-68. He mentions Paul's prison letters so it cannot be placed early than 60, or later than 67-68 because of Paul's martydom.

=============================================

First, there is no definitive dating system. Even lifelong scholars can disagree on which method is right, but so far, we can't say any of them is wrong, although the date for Luke between 59-63 is pretty strong. However, 3 out of 4 views support a view that a Gospel account at least could have been written before Peter. The fact that he doesn't mention the Gospels does not mean they weren't written. Here is where we take our post-Renaissance Western mindset and apply our values to an ancient culture that would not understand why we are so picky about unimportant details. It would have nice if they had dated their work, but then at that time they did not even use our Gregorian Calendar system.

Furthermore, an omission of a fact is not a commission of an error to these people. Peter may have not felt the need to mention a book, like when I said, he was a walking Bible himself. Peter being the recognized authority, and longtime disciple did not need a Gospel account to preach from, he lived it. Mark was a close associate of Peter. It is likely that John Mark was the scribe you said that was not mentioned in the passage I quoted from John's account of Jesus' words.

 

[Super 80]

I agree, however is it infallible and inerrant what the council does/says? This is what the Catholic Church teaches with regards to its synods, councils, etc. They argue that these are on par with scripture. I don't agree with the Catholic Church's position on a lot of items of theology, but protestants vehemently disagree except when it comes to the bible councils.

I think as far as the canon, or rule, of the books in the Bible, this council remains supported by theology over the centuries. Now as far as the councils that were formed in the first four centuries, I am going to have to draw a distinction between them and what councils you are referencing in regards to one doctrine of faith in the Roman Catholic Church.

I have not studied all their history, but what little I know leads me to question why their theology has diverged from Biblical teaching in several key areas. Arguing that their dictates are on par with Scripture is like extending the Law and the Prophets to all the rules contained in the Talmud. I think this kind of piling on to what God does say is the same thing Jesus talks about to the Pharisees in Mt 23:4; "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." Because the Talmud adds on appreciably to the Civil and Ritual Laws of the Old Testament. This is why I think Jesus makes it a point to heal on the Sabbath day, thus challenging their doctrine and yet be able to say that He is without sin.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I see reason has marched backward several steps in my absence. Ah well...such is life.

I'll be off-line for a couple weeks while we make the move to east Tennessee. I'll probably be back just in time for you guys to change the name to BibleInfo.com.

Peace, happiness, and wisdom to all, in whatever form you find it!