Quick! (Take 2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Offdoodykcrn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aemcpa said:
Do you believe that Jesus said, “I have not come to bring peace but the sword”? Love does not tolerate evil, and therefore it is divisive. It separates the sheep from the goats.
Click to expand...
The New Testament is not part of the Old Testament. Taking something out of context is misleading. Christ was talking about shaking up the status quo. Leaders and teachers of the Jewish faith had become lost in the laws - arguing the interpretation and application of the Torah. Jesus came to light the way to peace with his commandments: Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

He knew that change is difficult, and people in power rarely enjoy being told their life’s work is going to be made inconsequential.
 
Offdoodykcrn said:
I don’t believe (most) of the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. I think that the Old Testament is part history, part explanation of mysterious or unexplainable (at that time) events, part fable - as a way to explain why rules governing Hebrew society were put in place. One example of why I believe this: every major society has a ‘great flood’ story - from North and South America, Australia, Asia - parts of the world the Hebrew people probably didn’t visit in ancient history.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that Genesis is written in figurative language. My children were taught in their conservative Catholic high school that Genesis and Revelation are both figurative.

Alan
 
Offdoodykcrn said:
The New Testament is not part of the Old Testament. Taking something out of context is misleading. Christ was talking about shaking up the status quo. Leaders and teachers of the Jewish faith had become lost in the laws - arguing the interpretation and application of the Torah. Jesus came to light the way to peace with his commandments: Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

He knew that change is difficult, and people in power rarely enjoy being told their life’s work is going to be made inconsequential.
Click to expand...
The same God inspired both Testaments.
 
Offdoodykcrn said:
That is a fair critique! Very well done, fbl9 - you are awarded 2 sloppy German Shepherd kisses from Dakota.

My response - and brace yourself because you may not like it…

I don’t believe (most) of the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. I think that the Old Testament is part history, part explanation of mysterious or unexplainable (at that time) events, part fable - as a way to explain why rules governing Hebrew society were put in place. One example of why I believe this: every major society has a ‘great flood’ story - from North and South America, Australia, Asia - parts of the world the Hebrew people probably didn’t visit in ancient history.

I stand by my original statement - I do not believe that God is divisive or destructive. I know that people can be both - a LOT. I believe that God is Love.
Click to expand...
Okay you covered the flood.
 
Offdoodykcrn said:
So, in this very theoretical story - as outside observers, do we think it is possible this society could be right? Why - or why not? Is it because their deity looks like a duck, or is it because their logic is flawed?

I am not saying that the teachings and beliefs of Catholicism are wrong. It is not my intent to challenge anyone’s belief system. I am here to challenge my own beliefs. I’m not saying your statement of, “The Pope isn’t infallible because he’s the Pope. He’s infallible because GOD PROTECTS HIM FROM TEACHING ERROR.” is incorrect - I am simply pointing out an error in logic -aka- ‘logical fallacy’.
Click to expand...
Offdoodykcrn said:
That is a fair critique! Very well done, fbl9 - you are awarded 2 sloppy German Shepherd kisses from Dakota.

My response - and brace yourself because you may not like it…

I don’t believe (most) of the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. I think that the Old Testament is part history, part explanation of mysterious or unexplainable (at that time) events, part fable - as a way to explain why rules governing Hebrew society were put in place. One example of why I believe this: every major society has a ‘great flood’ story - from North and South America, Australia, Asia - parts of the world the Hebrew people probably didn’t visit in ancient history.

I stand by my original statement - I do not believe that God is divisive or destructive. I know that people can be both - a LOT. I believe that God is Love.
Click to expand...
Offdoodykcrn said:
You want a comprehensive list? :eek:

Alphabetized or chronological :o
Click to expand...
Sorry had an interuption while writing.
i am fairly certain of what will be on that list.🙂
What of Ananias and Sapphira?
When Offdoo gets to the great duck pond beyond. Will she wonder why she did not know God is a duck.?
 
aemcpa said:
The same God inspired both Testaments.
Click to expand...
From a standpoint of What Directly Applies to Me, I’m only interested in the New Covenant; the one I’m in right now. Before that is history, and is what we had before Jesus came to seal the New Covenant with His blood.
 
AlanFromWichita said:
From a standpoint of What Directly Applies to Me, I’m only interested in the New Covenant; the one I’m in right now. Before that is history, and is what we had before Jesus came to seal the New Covenant with His blood.
Click to expand...
Who God Is directly applies to you, and to that end, his self-revelation throughout salvation history is invaluable.
 
fbl9 said:
Sorry had an interuption while writing.
i am fairly certain of what will be on that list.🙂
What of Ananias and Sapphira?
When Offdoo gets to the great duck pond beyond. Will she wonder why she did not know God is a duck.?
Click to expand...
That was a theoretical duck deity dynasty… hmmm… dreamy duck deity dynasty? that needs work…

I am crafting my argument on Ananias and Sapphira - but it’s based on the possibility of coincidence. I’m not really happy with it, but I refuse to admit defeat… yet :rolleyes:
 
aemcpa said:
Who God Is directly applies to you, and to that end, his self-revelation throughout salvation history is invaluable.
Click to expand...
OK. You live by the Old Covenant if you want, but wouldn’t that mean you were living as if there were no Jesus? Or you can try to mix and match BC and AD lifestyles. Problem is, if you try to be justified by any part of the law (under the Old Covenant), then you are bound to observe every bit of the law, which is impossible so it’s a formula for failure which is why Jesus came in the first place.

My choice is to live under the New Covenant, and use the Old Covenant as historical context for the New.

Alan
 
AlanFromWichita said:
My choice is to live under the New Covenant, and use the Old Covenant as historical context for the New.

Alan
Click to expand...
It’s not just historical context, but theological context. Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Covenant and of the New.
 
aemcpa said:
It’s not just historical context, but theological context. Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Covenant and of the New.
Click to expand...
You speak in riddles, and avoid my simple question: do you follow the old covenant, or the new one? Seems to me if they were identical than Jesus would have wasted His time by shedding His blood. And Jesus wouldn’t have said He was establishing a New Covenant unless it brought, well, something new. :rolleyes:

Hopefully you hear this fairly often:
Take this all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood,
the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all men
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.

Under the old covenant, sin brought death. Under the new one, they are forgiven. I’ll accept the new one, please. 🙂

Alan
 
AlanFromWichita said:
You speak in riddles, and avoid my simple question: do you follow the old covenant, or the new one? Seems to me if they were identical than Jesus would have wasted His time by shedding His blood. And Jesus wouldn’t have said He was establishing a New Covenant unless it brought, well, something new. :rolleyes:

Hopefully you hear this fairly often:
Take this all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood,
the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all men
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.

Under the old covenant, sin brought death. Under the new one, they are forgiven. I’ll accept the new one, please. 🙂

Alan
Click to expand...
Your question isn’t a question - you’re trying to be clever. But you are avoiding the reality that even under the New Covenant, the God of the Old Covenant is alive and well, and rejection of the mercy that he gave us in Christ will lead to our suffering the wrath of a just God. The Ten Commandments still bind us in the New Covenant.
 
aemcpa said:
Your question isn’t a question - you’re trying to be clever. But you are avoiding the reality that even under the New Covenant, the God of the Old Covenant is alive and well, and rejection of the mercy that he gave us in Christ will lead to our suffering the wrath of a just God. The Ten Commandments still bind us in the New Covenant.
Click to expand...
I give up. 🤷
 
AlanFromWichita said:
I give up. 🤷
Click to expand...
You can’t choose the Old Covenant or the New Covenant, because the New Covenant is the only one on the table. But to dismiss the entire Old Testament as just “historical context” distorts the self-portrait of God that He has drawn for us over all of salvation history.
 
aemcpa said:
You can’t choose the Old Covenant or the New Covenant, because the New Covenant is the only one on the table. But to dismiss the entire Old Testament as just “historical context” distorts the self-portrait of God that He has drawn for us over all of salvation history.
Click to expand...
The bolded part is a synonym for “historical contexts” for purposes of the first time I mentioned it. You make a big deal out of “over all salvation history” as if I intend to leave some out, but you say it’s not about history. I’m glad you’re not my composition teacher, or I’d need an interpreter. I mean, you say my term “historical” is dismissive and you’ve used it yourself. :whacky:

And when you say I can’t choose the Old Testament, I’m puzzled. I thought it was within my power to reject what Jesus did for me, thus putting me in the sorry state that existed before Jesus. When I wrote that I choose the New Covenant I thought it was painfully obvious to anybody who wasn’t trying to troll me (but I know you weren’t trolling me so consequently I was wrong that it was obvious) that what I meant was I accept the authority of Jesus and are happy to live under the New Covenant. It was basically a remark of thanks and praise to our Creator and His Son.

I don’t know what you are trying to accomplish by niggling me with your terminology traps, but if you want to prove you are superior to me I’ll make it easy for you so that you can quit doing what you’re doing, whatever that is…

Let it be Known to All that:
  • aemcpa is smarter and more clever than AlanFromWichita.
  • aemcpa understands God better than AlanFromWichita.
  • aemcpa is better at explaining things than AlanFromWichita.
Just let me know what you need. I’m here for you. :yup:

Peace, love, joy,
Alan
 
Offdoodykcrn said:
That was a theoretical duck deity dynasty… hmmm… dreamy duck deity dynasty? that needs work…

I am crafting my argument on Ananias and Sapphira - but it’s based on the possibility of coincidence. I’m not really happy with it, but I refuse to admit defeat… yet :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
patiently waiting to pounce:D
 
Offdoodykcrn said:
You want a comprehensive list? :eek:

Alphabetized or chronological :o
Click to expand...
Sorry i should have checked to make sure.

Is Sodom and Gomrah on this list?

If so, Jesus said in the Gospel written by St.Matthew11:20-24…“For if the miricles had been worked in Sodom that have been worked in thee, it would have remained to this day…” Surely God would not tell us a mythical place would still exist if it didn’t really exist.
 
fbl9 said:
patiently waiting to pounce:D
Click to expand...
I have worked through a number of arguments regarding Ananias and Sapphira. My first reaction to the scripture (as I mentioned earlier) was based on the possibility of coincidence: the passage in Acts 4:32 does not say that God (or Peter) killed Ananias, or his wife, Sapphira. It simply reports they were caught in a lie and dropped dead. If it were indeed possible to die of embarrassment, I don’t know how any of us lived past the age of 20. I should have died many times over since turning 13 - thanks to parents and siblings.

It is noted by theologian, James Dunn, that the story is ‘one of the most unnerving episodes in the whole of the New Testament,’ and the fourth century archbishop John Chrysostom had hinted, but then dismissed Peter as responsible for their deaths.

The bigger question is, “How much of the bible do I believe to be the literal truth?” There are some (and you know who you are) that say to not believe everything that is in the bible is to doubt the word of God. People who have studied the bible are usually quick to point out the many discrepancies and contradictions in the bible, and then there are the subtle changes to the tone of the message during translation from one language to another, which doesn’t happen once, but several times before I pick up my copy of the augmented 3rd edition of The New Oxford Annotated Bible - New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, an ecumenical study bible, complete with maps and historical references (it’s a big book).

It is not the word of God that I doubt, but of man. Many believe the books of the bible are divinely inspired, and that may very well be - but they were written by human beings. As far as I know - the only thing the Bible says that God wrote was the 10 commandments given to Moses. I base my faith on God with what I believe to be consistent with the nature of Love. I don’t believe in the ‘perfect love = perfect wrath’ idea. Maybe I’m wrong - in fact, I would say that of all the people I doubt, the first would be myself. I embrace the teachings of Chist because he spoke a difficult truth without thought to personal gain - and in fact, at great personal cost. He said God is Love. That is what I believe. Everything that pits one group against another, that seeks to divide and destroy - I look closely at the source, weigh the motives and the results of what they said before deciding if it is divinely inspired.

Peace to all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top