Biblical Passage Help

This is a long drawn-out debate I had a while back on the Liberal Forum. I have copy and pasted the most informative parts for you to read below. I am the poster named subzer0 and I respond to many people who quoted me and then posted their comments and/or challenge. I reiterate merely their statements for brevity. Enjoy!

Subzer0 Posted 12 September 2010 – 10:16 PM

It is obvious a few here are woefully misinformed about Biblical Scripture. Being the Christian I am, I look to the Bible as my authority on theology.

Is there a particular place in the NT where you are having trouble understanding, please post the quote and reference and I will try to help shed light on the subject.

kking, on 12 September 2010 – 10:53 PM, said:

Actually no, I like the NT. It has a good overall message but, like all art, is stuck in its time.And if you’re going to lean on “faith,” who are you to criticize coretj’s use of criticism found in an email?

subzer0 response:

I didn’t say faith, I said the evidence lead me to faith in it.

kking, on 12 September 2010 – 10:53 PM, said:

Also: are you saying the Bible has NOT been changed in the last two thousand years? Are you saying the authors and/or editors are all known and accounted for? For Christ’s sake, no one knows for sure about the canonical gospels, whether there was a common, earlier source from which the synoptics were drawn, which would necessarily be the more important document (and writer thereof).

subzero response:

There is really no need to specify authors. They attested to being eyewitnesses. The fact you say “no one knows for sure” proves how lacking your statement is.

kking, on 12 September 2010 – 10:53 PM, said:

Are you saying many, many people HAVEN’T interpretted the Bible in different ways?

subzer0 response:

I actually did not say that. Its good you ask questions instead of assuming like most would. It is considered during the Middle Ages (5th century to the 15th century Ad) that the Bible functioned in an ecclesiastical framework, more so as a means of support for particular theological traditions sustained by Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. The institutional Church maintained an intellectual and therefore cultural atmosphere where there was no separation of what the Church prescribed to and what the Bible actually teaches. The Catholic Church determined what was theology not the Bible.

Post-reformation, which essentially gave authority back to the Bible, and when the Bible was sufficiently diffused throughout the world, during the 18, 19, and 20th centuries, and literacy rose up, the Bible began to be interpreted through a scientific methodology. The historical-critical methodology is the most scientific way to interpret scripture. That is how I interpret scripture.

And in that light, yes the Bible has been interpreted differently throughout the ages, however strong central themes emerge that cannot be interpreted differently and have not according to history.

coretj, on 12 September 2010 – 11:00 PM, said:

True.. but I do have a question.. What do you think pope John Paul II meant when he said that the bible is not meant to be taken literally?

subzer0 response

Well I don’t care what Pope John Paul II says about interpretation. I follow a scientific methodology of context analysis, etc to bring full light to what was originally meant in the verse. So there are at times, when the Bible is to be taken literally and figuratively, based on the CONTEXT. If that is what he meant, thats cool, if not he is wrong I would have to say.

coretj, on 12 September 2010 – 11:00 PM, said:

Also there is(Matt. 23:9).. “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven”We call priests Father.

subzer0 response:

right, I don’t agree with particular Catholic theologies read into the Bible through Sacred Tradition and what not. I derive solely a Biblical theology and conduct exegesis not eisegesis.

Thrash-Ra, on 12 September 2010 – 11:09 PM, said:

I believe that. The story of the falcon-god in Egyptian lore, Horus,
is very similar to that of the young Jesus.
Born of a virgin mother, he had disciples who followed him and he taught
in the temples at a young age.

subzer0 response:

Most of the stories about Horus are made up, as well as names attributed to him. The main problems you have are this:
1. There is firstly no consideration of a critical method of exegesis of the intimate relationship between the Old Testament and New Testament.
2. Secondly, the view of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus being a copy from one specific ancient aggregate source, namely Egyptian mythology, rather then an attempt to fulfill Hebrew prophecies as an influence in any way is misleading.
3. Thirdly, in most presentations of this so-called Jesus Myth the argument for both Egyptian mythology and Christianity sharing a common influence, namely the Hebrew culture, and from which both derive their expression is never approached.

Thrash-Ra, on 12 September 2010 – 11:15 PM, said:

Please tell me what this exactly has to do with comparison of two myths.

subzer0 response:

Because in all popular presentations of the myth, there is no attempt to state that Jesus is fulfilling OT prophecies, not JUST copying an ancient egyptian source. Its dishonest to approach this equation with that left out.

Thrash-Ra, on 12 September 2010 – 11:15 PM, said:

The assumption that the Jesus stories somehow preclude established Egyptian lore
is misleading, not the theory that it was copied. Many cultures have creation myths, also.
Nothing in the Bible is new. It’s all been written and followed before

subzer0 response:

Jesus did not predate Egyptian mythology, Hebrew oral tradition did the OT was formed in a way to go against the polytheism of the day, etc, etc.

Thrash-Ra, on 12 September 2010 – 11:15 PM, said:

Posit your argument and then I shall do the same.
I’m Lews’ wife, btw.

subzer0 response:

Even more ancient Hebrew culture influenced both Egyptian mythology although corrupt in its form or approach, also influenced Christ as He was the one spoken of in the OT, etc.

coretj, on 12 September 2010 – 11:22 PM, said:

LOL.. No.. Interesting flick though… Instead how about the Hindu Puranic story of Manu (possibly the oldest flood myth), through Deucalion in Greek mythology or Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. They are all almost Identical to the Flood story in the bible (names were different) and predate the first telling of the Noah’s Ark myth by over 1000 years.

subzer0 response:

Yup. you are correct. Accept it seems to me that the Hebrew oral tradition was corrupted outside of its ancestors who reverred the process of bringing oral tradition through the generations. The corrupted traditions manifested through specific cultural norms of the day that then influenced the writing of their legends. The flood indeed happened, I make a conclusion to accept the Biblical record.

kking, on 12 September 2010 – 11:23 PM, said:

lol…so you gave up your faith just like that? This feels like some sort of trap.Anyway, let’s move on:From what evidence did you conclude that the Bible is inherently the authority on God, humanity, truth, etc.?

subzer0 response:

I see immense consistency, and through conclusions, or faith, whatever you wanna call it, I form my opinion.

Cannonpointer, on 13 September 2010 – 02:22 PM, said:

Okay, so I just checked your text book, and it looks like you are a liar. Your text has BOTH testaments. Please explain why you are lugging around a thousand extra pages. Is that just to puff yourselves up, and make it look like your book is bigger than it really is? Or are you lying to us? Which is it?Here’s a rather elegant idea: If you want to make your bible look bigger (and clearly, you do, since you carry an extra fake bible that you DON’T use along with the real bible that you DO use), WHY NOT JUST MAKE THE REAL ONE GIANT PRINT? It would take more space, making the real one bigger. And it would make it to where the last, dying generation that currently practices your faith can still read it without their glasses. Elegent, no?

subzer0 response:

The historical context the OT represents is vastly important to study of Christ and what He tried to represent/fulfill and the theology presented in the NT. Being fulfilled and manifested in Christ, a Christian follows Christ.

Also, if you truly read the NT, which you didn’t from the ridiculous stance you have, the NT quotes all but five OT books, which are: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon.

Cannonpointer, on 13 September 2010 – 02:54 PM, said:

You have put my ideas in a box with which I am unfamiliar. I merely read the text and drew the logical conclusions. Every single thing that Christ stood for was identical to YHVH’s commands. In UPSIDE DOWN world. Here on earth, Christ was in UTTER OPPOSITION, in every respect, in every jot and tittle, to YHVH.

subzer0 response:

You have not referenced the material of which you derive your interpretation, nor have you explained what methodology you have used to arrive at your interpretation. While I clearly can see that it is black liberation theology in more than one way… Jesus was a revolutionary, etc, etc. Which does not conduct exegesis but essentially a postmodern interpretation that derives a social-religious doctrine through eisegesis or what is reading into it what you want.

Cannonpointer, on 13 September 2010 – 03:04 PM, said:

That’s the fanciest way I ever heard anyone say “Eye for an eye = Turn the other cheek.”But those notions are still in utter opposition, even when you use such pretty words.

subzer0 response:

Please point to the specific reference within the Biblical NT that states exactly what you are talking about.

Cannonpointer, on 13 September 2010 – 03:15 PM, said:

I just did. I gave a perfect example. Your response was to ask me to do so.I’ll give you another example: “Kill em all, and let ME sort em out” is in utter opposition to “Pray for your enemies.”Christ ministered to the afflicted. YHVH propped up the big wigs.

In every respect, in both word and deed, Christ stood in utter opposition to YHVH. Christ came as YHVH’s kid because that’s the only way he could speak to the rightly terrified Israelites: from within the tautology.

The Israelites had had first hand experience with the deranged murderer YHVH. They were terrified as a result. They could not know that YHVH was long gone, undergound, because of the flood that his kind had caused when their battles broke the belt of water that formery circled the earth, reducing life spans by 90% and sending them hiding from the new toxic atmosphere.

By the way, I intend to google black liberation theology. I very seriously doubt that I will find anything near what you claim I will find.

subzer0 response:

Again as mankind matured through history, so did Gods interaction with them.

Cannonpointer, on 13 September 2010 – 03:57 PM, said:

Man, how laughable is this sophist claptrap? You leap on “Christ-as-revolutionry” to declare I am preaching BLT, and then when I refute you, you accuse me of “reframing me argument?” My argument was and remains that Christ opposed YHVH, and that YHVH was an imposter. That’s just a tad meatier than “Jesus was a revolutionary,” doncha think? So stop nibbling the veggies and bite into the steak, son.Let’s be very clear: You just implicitly claimed that BLT, and BLT alone, views Jesus Christ as a revolutionary. You finally, after lo these many repartees, articulated what it WAS about my assertions that was reminiscent of BLT. And it was a paltry side issue of me referring to Christ as revolutionary. So I guess if I find ONE other doctrine that views Christ as a revolutionary, you’ll have to find some other label under which to marginalize and dismiss my ideas, since you still cannot refute them head-on.

subzer0 response:

LOL… OK. It is not Biblical in any way is the point. Where in the NT does it say Christ was a revolutionary?

Cannonpointer, on 13 September 2010 – 03:57 PM, said:

So here it is again, head-on: YHVH commanded genocide. Jesus Christ commanded love thy enemy. YHVH propped up the mighty. Jesus ministered unto the meek. YHVH commanded an eye for an eye. Jesus Christ commanded turn the other cheek.The ideas of Jesus Christ do not FULFULL the idead of YHVH. They UTTERLY OPPOSE them.Now, if we are going to be using other than Aristotelian logic, please notify me at this point.

subzer0 response:

You are not consistent in your reliance upon Christ.

The way in which Israel manifested what God commanded was legalistic traditions, not what was intended, i.e. spiritual enlightenment, or liberation in your words. Because Christ, an individual fulfilled the commands of God, the Jews (God’s people) rejected him, they were relying on tradition, rather then being spiritually liberated. Christ is interpreting the law of God in a spiritual light which what was originally intended, not literal application.

Now you say God commanded genocide, I ask you, what were these other civilizations doing during the time of and within the ANE?

Cannonpointer, on 13 September 2010 – 04:10 PM, said:

Bingo. You claim to follow Christ, and here you are justifying that which Christ opposed. You DO follow the OT, contrary to previous claims. That is what makes modern christians so schitzoid. You follow two masters. One of those masters would abhor what the other commanded and what you now defend.The minute I attack YHVH, you drop your followership of Christ’s doctrines, and begin a defense of opposing doctrines. Until you make the critical distinction that YHVH was not god but rather a malevolent alien who enslaved humanity to get his own needs met, you have no access to the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

subzer0 response:

What are you talking about?

I said YOU said it. And I am asking YOU, what were other civilizations doing during the time.

Your assumption that I am inconsistent is really me trying to follow your logic. I am trying to see how YOU view other civilizations during the time.

jerra-, on 13 September 2010 – 05:47 PM, said:

Matthew 546If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.so God thinks that we should love those who do not love us- this is a far cry from the ot God that was continually commanding the israelites to kill everyone else-

but according to Christ we should love our enemies- who should we believe? the ot or Christ?

we can’t believe both.

subzer0 response:

There needs to be a grasp of foundations for revelation from God to humanity, dependent upon mankind maturity. During vastly more primitive times of humanity God revealed Himself through prophets of Israel. This was to set these people aside from other nations, to be unique. Israel did not manifest this properly, Christ did.

Israel manifested it through legalistic traditions and application, Christ interpreted Gods commands from a spiritual context, one that is to change the heart not societal institutions.

jerra-, on 13 September 2010 – 05:47 PM, said:

also it can be construed from what Chist said that God loves everyone, not just a chosen few and that is big difference from the ot.

subzer0 response:

It is a difference, but not contradictory, it is complimentary. As God uses first Israel to set aside uniqueness for nations to emulate God fearing people. Then as humanity matured, Christ through that nations people, an individual for all nations (essentially people) to emulate.

Cannonpointer, on 13 September 2010 – 06:32 PM, said:

Except that the guy YOU are calling “God the Father” was an imposter, and an enslaver and a murderer.YHVH enslaved mankind through fear. Jesus Christ set mankind free through love.

subzer0 response:

You fail to attach justice, righteousness and slow to anger properties of God through your theology. You are conducting a type of non-context theology, which is interesting.

For instance, God is VERY slow to anger and ultimately judgment. Read Gen. 15:13-14: “13God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. 14″But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions.”

It takes God 400 hundred years for this righteous punishment to commence upon the Canaanite descendants, ethnically Amorites. How long does it take you to exorcise discipline on your kid, or pet or whatever when it acts up? And did you even create that to begin with so you may have creative control over it?

You theology is inconsistent, you cannot use the Bible to prove one point, and leave out other important qualifiers that show your point lacking.

Cannonpointer, on 13 September 2010 – 06:32 PM, said:

You keep putting the cart before the horse, pretending that mankind “matured,” and that’s why Jesus came. The fact is, mankind KILLED Jesus. It was the doctrines of Jesus THROUGH WHICH manking “matured.” It was not until AFTER Jesus’ coming and going that the maturation process you point to occured, and only then because YHVH was finally overthrown.

subzer0 response:

No mankind did not kill Jesus, Jesus laid His own life down by His own accord. You are not reading Biblical text for what it is, you are reading into it your own thoughts to prove your point.

prosecular, on 13 September 2010 – 11:00 PM, said:

Not really interested in debating what I consider to be a story book. There are countless dispcrepancies, one being how Jesus didn’t really have an understanding of his death (god why ahve you forsaken me) and in another he seems to understand the grand scheme of things and knows why his death is happening.

subzer0 response:

So you have your son kidnapped for instance.

After being debriefed by the police, can I say you are both distressed, and yet fully aware of what is going on? Of course I can. Your point on discrepancy or contradiction is actually non-existent.

Or you are being tortured for instance.

After you are fully aware and see what is going on, etc, etc. Can I say you are distressed yet fully aware of the plan? Of course I can.

prosecular, on 13 September 2010 – 11:00 PM, said:

Since you seem to have a much higher level of biblical knowledge than I, I’m sure you know what I’m referring to and which book tells which version of the story of his death.

subzer0 response:

Well actually, being that you first said you have no interest, then all of a sudden you do in the same paragraph… You post the references and determine what it says and why. Then we can debate from there.

jerra-, on 14 September 2010 – 12:44 AM, said:

it doesn’t just say that He wants people come to repentance, it says He is patient and keeps the world in existance- and that He doesn’t want one person to perish-

subzer0 response:

8But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Says it right there in context. Wanting ALL to come to repentance (through faith in Christ). Repntance is how you live your life as a Christian, you may sin, but you maintain faith and put that sin behind you, and proceed in Gods will. God isn’t slow in keeping His promise as some count slowness. He is allowing ALL to come to repentance who willfully choose to.

jerra-, on 14 September 2010 – 12:44 AM, said:

but by the traditinal view, this would cause more people to perish by keeping the world in existance and having millions of people born and die and end up in hell each century. so by keeping the world going so no one persishes would be a very bad plan on the behalf of God… now would you say that God’s plan would not be carefully thought out- ie the longer the world is in existance, the more people would end up in hell and defeat the plan that no one should perish.

subzer0 response:

Absolutely not. He is giving all of mankind from its creation (who knows when) to its death (who knows when) time to come to repentance through His revelation. Christ, is God the Father’s ultimate personal sacrifice for and intimate revelation to mankind.

Cannonpointer, on 14 September 2010 – 01:42 AM, said:

Actually, it would seem that you should be thanking abortion doctors.

subzer0 response:

No, because they are sinning in their acts.

Cannonpointer, on 14 September 2010 – 01:42 AM, said:

How vacuous is a theology that allows abortion doctors to outswing the best of God’s annointed?Is your sleeping self not uneasy in its slumber at this awkward moment, foolish one?

subzer0 response:

Not at all as God demonstrates the foolishness of the abortion doctors acts by sending innocent/unaccountable souls to heaven.

Cannonpointer, on 14 September 2010 – 01:42 AM, said:

You have declared to the world that an abortion doctor is better at getting sould into heaven than a preacher. That is the bankruptcy of your understanding. Whom would you teach? Whom would you counsel? And to whose profit?

subzer0 response:

Again, for the third time, abortion is a sin, I have demonstrated through Biblical context of Psalms that we are to think babies are special.

Cannonpointer, on 14 September 2010 – 02:03 AM, said:

Yes, and abortion doctors are, according to you, thwarting God’s will, and getting sould into heaven through the back door. Never must aborted feti risk eternal damnation as the rest of us do. Never must they be twempted, and CHOOSE.

subzer0 response:

Abortion doctors are not going into heaven through the backdoor… what are you talking about? lol

Cannonpointer, on 14 September 2010 – 02:03 AM, said:

What are you, six years old, that you are this credulous? Is that REALLY how you think it works? Because if you do, you should, in Christian charity, start killing infants and thereby saving souls. You would lose your own, but save so, so many!

subzer0 response:

No that is not what I think, lol… Now instead of conducting eisegesis on the Biblical text you are doing it to me… this is hilarious.

Cannonpointer, on 14 September 2010 – 02:03 AM, said:

You are selfish and cowardly for not doing so. You could blow up day cares, and save how many – how many – from the fires of hell?

subzer0 response:

Abortion is not right, neither is blowing kids up…. Now instead of conducting eisegesis on the Biblical text you are doing it to me… this is hilarious.

Cannonpointer, on 14 September 2010 – 02:03 AM, said:

Wronmg about what? What declaration have I made that is wrong? You have admitted that according to your doctrines, abortion doctors outperform the annointed of God. So what am I wrong about – specifically?

subzer0 response:

Again you are wrong according to the Biblical text.

Portlander, on 15 September 2010 – 04:47 PM, said:

What exactly is relevant about the other Gospels that is not relevant about the Gospel of Thomas? Surely you’re not arguing that any one Apostle’s testimony should be held as more relevant to understanding Jesus’s teachings than that of any other… right? Are you claiming that Matthew’s testimony is more worthy or relevant than that of Thomas? Yes, his Gospel is mostly a collection of things Jesus said, but how is that not relevant to understanding his teachings?

subzer0 response:

Gospel of Thomas is not about Jesus’ life but rather just His sayings. The Biblical NT canon is about Christs life, death and resurrection not just sayings. The narrative tone of Thomas does not fit. And also when dealing with the history of Biblical canon it is the utmost in importance to see what the early church had to say. The early church, before the middle ages. Eusebius of Caesarea (b. 263 to d.339 AD) from the early church did NOT consider it to be canonical.

Portlander, on 15 September 2010 – 04:47 PM, said:

Really? Because I happen to be a Christian who believes in free will… If free will exists, then God is NOT in control of all things, but rather allows things to happen as we choose, and simply guides and encourages us to choose rightly. The decision regarding which Gospels to include in the Bible was made by men, men are fallible, and it is entirely possible that God allowed that mistake to be made, because it was their choice to make, and entirely possible that the discovery of the other Gospels was meant entirely to help shine a light on the life and teachings of Jesus now that mankind has again progressed to the point of desiring to understand him better.But then, who am I to guess at divine will? I’m just offering one plausible explanation.

subzer0 response:

Merely what was meant is that like an author overseeing the collection of his canon so did God. No delusion made by man about canonical process, but historically significant.

lucifershammer, on 28 October 2010 – 08:50 PM, said:

The bible cannot even get Jesus’s last words correct. MATTHEW 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.” LUKE 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.” JOHN 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

subzer0 response:
Matthew 27:46 says Jesus cried “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”, then in verse 50 he yells again and yields the ghost. The yelling again was, “‘Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:'” described in Luke 23:46 and then giving up the ghost. In John 19:30, after the vinegar, he said “it is finished” and bowed his head and gave up the ghost. John is focusing on what Jesus said that was not a literal public outcry as Matthew, Mark and Luke document. Namely the words, “‘It is finished:'”. John most likely reported these sayings, the ones not publicly cried out, because he was in fact nearest to the cross as can be deduced from reading John 19:24-26.

jerra-, on 28 October 2010 – 10:14 PM, said:

that would be a total different thread..I am tired being told that unless I accept the ot- with God telling moses and joshua to kill every person in jericho- man woman and child- also sheep and donkey by the edge of the sword and other supposedly other masacres that God ordered that I am doomed to go to hell.

subzer0 response:

Look at the totality of the ANE during the time. The ANE in the total view were practicing the same things and even far more hideous things, in a fundamentally more unrestrained fashion. As mankind matured, so did God and His revelation. He went from Father to sacrificial Son and Holy Spirit as history progressed. Now fully revealed to man.

jerra-, on 28 October 2010 – 10:14 PM, said:

I simply don’t believe in the ot and it has no place in christianity and Christ said so from the beginning.

subzer0 response:
If you are a Christian you are to follow Christ. Jesus Himself quoted and taught from 24 out of 39 Old Testament books while the NT writers in total quoted from 34 books. The OT is extremely valuable in determining proper exegesis of the NT and vice-versa.

vincubuswon, on 28 October 2010 – 10:56 PM, said:

back on point. the NT is NOT clear aboiut homosexuality. There is, however, the OT injunction about practicing same sex relationships as the pagans do, that is, in ritual and to pagan gods. to violate that injunction was as sinful as eating shellfish.

subzer0 response:
Be specific as to what word, phrase, sentence, whatever in the Bible you are referring to.

You have also failed to come through with my repeated questioning of what word you referred to in post 70 with this statement: “Actually, the NT position on Homosexuality is less clear than you think. Paul used an obscure word the meaning of which is questionable. ”

vincubuswon, on 28 October 2010 – 10:56 PM, said:

i woiuld enjoy you explaining something to me. how is it just that the acts of one human-or two ( some feel that adam was right there with eve when she was initially tempted , depending on some translations)will condemn an entire race?

subzer0 response:
Depending on some translations? What translations would or would not place Adam there? And what specific portion leads you to believe this is race oriented?

vincubuswon, on 28 October 2010 – 10:56 PM, said:

that hardly seems just. of course, you could argue that such a story was allegory only, which makes the bible something to dis-believe, which then makes everyone who reads the bible their own god, which should be blasphemy. so, either your god is not a just god-and thus not worth following-or the bible can mean exactly what the individual wants it to mean-unless one person dominates the free will of another human, and foists their interpretation on the other individual. of course, that would be the sin of pride, wouldn’t it? I mean there are so many denominations and of course because the bible needs to be interpreted, and so isn’t clear. so, who is right? i know, YOU are! well, hello then, god. we need to talk, you and i, about why you created evil-and you did. unless you aren’t the creator of ALL…just of MOST. then you aren’t god either.

subzer0 response:
In what way does your interpretive approach about allegory mean that, “everyone who reads the Bible becomes their own God”?

After this question, regardless of your answer you are still and conducting a dishonest Biblical theology. You are not attaching the just and righteous features of God. Nobody foists interpretation upon an individual, it is called historical-critical methodology and anybody can employ it, it is merely reading the Bible based on context. You choose to accept that method as your critical methodology for exegesis or you are bound to conduct eisegesis instead – which you have demonstrated.

jerra-, on 29 October 2010 – 12:11 AM, said:

here is what the israelites thought of God..Exodus chapter 15, verse 3: “The Lord is a man of war”
Isaiah chapter45, verse 7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

subzer0 response:
You have to arrive at a conclusion not on just those few words there, but the totality of how God acts within mankind and taking into account all of the OT and NT.

God is creator of all. Including your free will, which is the choice to follow your own will. So yes, in essence, even though God in these times acts differently with mankind because Christ is the way now, man chose change and chaos over the originally established law and order. Thus God interacts to mankind through His direct commandments to the people of which He set apart, the Israelite people. God is the originator of all. Yet humanities actions based on our own will are fraught with calamity. Gods will however is completely lacking of unjustness and thus manifest perfect actions or commandments. God is in fact a just, loving God and does not show favoritism (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 18:30).

You have to consider all aspects of theological characteristics.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 12:12 AM, said:

lets deal with the last first. ….the “just” and “righteous” features of your god. you are referring to the god who created an entire human race, designed them exactly as “he” wanted to, deemed the creation good (and is considered to be omni-3). this same god then decided that “his” creation was sinful, and killed them all but 8 and changed nothing. this is the same god that commanded his chosen people to rape women, kill children and lay waste to towns all across the promised land, and only because those inhabitants were in the way of his people. this is the same god that has condemned a whole race-the human race-for the acts of one or two individuals. this is also the same god that created evil (for if it didn’t create evil, then there must be some other, higher god that your god) and allows that evil to assail the human race. before i can attach “Just”ness and “righteous” ness to your god, your god would need to actually exhibit those characteristics.

subzer0 response:
I have addressed those points already about the theological characteristics of God. Please respond to those, which you did not do in any substance with the above paragraph.

God sacrificed His only Son for one example. But also it isn’t my attachments, the Biblical record for these characteristics is there. Just read it honestly.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 12:12 AM, said:

now…if the bible is clear and it is not, then everyone who claims your christ would be on the same page, and they are not. since the bible is not clear, then all who claim christ must interpret the bible for themselves, meaning they become their own god, for they cannot know for certainty what your god actually wants/ed, and so must try to be that god. of course, many so-called christians who feel they know the bible are happy to share their interpretation with others, and with the implication that those others must adopt these interpretations, or the others are “wrong” ie., sinful and bound for punishment after death, if not before.

subzer0 response:
I just follow a strictly Biblical theology. I have no control over other people, I just present what I feel the Bible says through the most scientifically critical exegesis possible, namely historical-critical context inclusion. Denominational difference is another topic, lets stick with contradictions that you see, or perhaps even that word you claimed Paul used that was unclear.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 12:12 AM, said:

i have failed nothing. i will not do your homework for you. consider it my gift to you, that i will push you further along your path to seek understanding from your bible. feel free to look up the word i mention. as i said, i have nothing to prove, to you nor to anyone else. you claim to be a student of your bible, and yet i have seen nothing that elevates you past the ordinary, mundane christian who wants to tell others how they must believe.incidentally, a friend-an 80 year old retired lutheran pastor-posted on a web site for free thinkers that my wife and i used to operate, an article of a scholarly nature arguing for the presence of adam in the initial forbidden fruit scenario-rather than just even succumbing to the serpents exhortations ( a pleasantly awkward sentence). the article offered something of a rebuttal to the general anti-woman attitude of many christians. a fine article, but alas, we did’t renew the sites charter, and it has faded to obscurity.

subzer0 response:
Again you still cannot answer a simple question about a topic you brought up. What word did Paul use that was unclear in its reference to homosexuality?

Again where in the Bible does it lead you to believe Adam was or was not there?

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 12:34 AM, said:

you DO realize how conflicted your post is, don’t you?you mention that you god is “just” and that he created all, so that means he also created evil. hmm…..and then you say your god has people he set apart, and yet you say he doesn’t show favoritism

subzer0 response:
He did not create evil. He created free will of which then those who exorcise it inject their own will, and thus chaos and sin/evil into the world.

God does not show favortism because the Israelite people were set apart as an example for ALL of mankind. God was trying to lead by example. He then became flesh through a new covenant and sacrificed His Son on Earth. Again leading by example, this time by one MAN that was the Son of God.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 12:51 AM, said:

your god created all. your words. that means he also created the debil. since he was omni-3, he also should have known what the debil would do, and let it happen. since he had the power to stop it and didn’t he created evil. he allowed evil to flourish. and since he had his favorite people, he allowed others far flung from the middle east to “enjoy” evil. that seems-again-unjust. to allow an entire world to experience evil, while only the jews knew the score. sorry.ALL mankind didn’t know of the jews. still no justness there.

subzer0 response:
What is “debil”?

He let the free will of man flourish, to either choose Gods will or their own. That is all.

The entire world is experiencing their own free will flourish, thus that is the evil you allude to. Again God acts righteously and justly, not sinfully. You would rather be a mindless robot of Gods, or have your own free will to exorcise as you are doing now?

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 12:51 AM, said:

in fact, many of the worlds mythologies have a record of a demi-god being sacrificed, so even the claim that your god gave his only begotten son just cheapens it by its ubiquitessness. there is little difference between the bible and the other world myth systems.you do realize that theology is a man made construct? in other words, someone is playing at god.

subzer0 response:
It actually shows to me the immense influence of Gods will had upon the world. Indeed little difference because there is truth to be found. Thus I CHOSE through free will to try to follow Gods will.

jerra-, on 29 October 2010 – 12:51 AM, said:

everyomne else was trash compared to the israelites (in their own eyes of course) and wothry only of being killed or stolen from and what is truly sad is the way christians hold on to the old testament which causes a lot of people to feel that Christ is no different from the old testament and just as vindictive.and that is truly sad and the ones who are responsible for that are the christians themselves who refuse to see Christ as what He was.. a deliverer from the evil judeac religion.

subzer0 response:
Again, your own quotes that you posted were actually in support of God exorcising divine judgment upon the Israelites themselves. Meaning they were no more special, and thus the attitude shown you have put forth is human will.

Your use of the word vindictive is dishonest as I have shown that other places of His just nature, etc, etc while you have not to prove your use of that word.

lucifershammer, on 29 October 2010 – 01:15 PM, said:

So Sub what you are saying is god abandoned mankind? He ran away and left us to live and die? Now that is some funny stuff.

subzer0 response:
I just said He gave His ONLY Son, namely CHRIST as the way the life and truth. He did not abandon us, for one His word is still with us, AND He has given His son for us to follow. He withdrew from the old ways to implement the new way. It is that He doesn’t command us to do things like it was in the OT with primitive man.

lucifershammer, on 29 October 2010 – 02:29 PM, said:

Jesus even contradicts himself on who he is.. JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one. JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

subzer0 response:
It is called the Trinity. Namely, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are all God or part of the same Godhead, yet subordinate to each other and maintaining their own characteristics for function. So you don’t have contradiction, but merely expounding on the different characteristics of the Trinity at different times.

lucifershammer, on 29 October 2010 – 02:40 PM, said:

The concept of the trinity did not come until three hundred years AFTER Christs death. It was created by the Nicean council to unite pagan and the new christian philosophy.

subzer0 response:
The Trinity was within the writings of the OT and NT as soon as they were circulating, prior to 100 AD. Secondly the Nicean council merely reaffirmed the established view of the Trinity. Thirdly your assumption to unite paganism with new christian philosophy is absolutely laughable with no historical source to back it up of course. Fourth, in 318 AD there was already hearsay brought up by Arius regarding the Trinity, meaning, prior to 300 AD there was a fundamental doctrine of which the Trinity encompasses. The Nicene creed was established to combat hearsay around 318 AD, so your “three hundred years after” is bogus.

jerra-, on 29 October 2010 – 03:02 PM, said:

now about your post from paul..
nowhere does it say the word sacrifice.

subzer0 response:
USE CONTEXT. Read the rest of the NT to supplement it and realize that when it states in 1 Chronicles 15:3″…that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” that when you use the context of the rest of the NT like John 1:29 and John 1:36 that Him being referenced to as the LAMB OF GOD has to do with the OT history as well. But I forgot you don’t take into account OT historical context for the explicit references to Christ as a sacrificial Lamb of God, thus you see contradiction.

Like I have said before, the OT is immensely important when studying the NT and vice-versa for a Christian who wants to reveal correct interpretive methods.

lucifershammer, on 29 October 2010 – 03:08 PM, said:

Try again Sub..
. Arius (AD 250 or 256 – 336) was a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead, which emphasized the Father’s Divinity over the Son, and his opposition to the Athanasian or Trinitarian Christology, made him a controversial figure in the First Council of Nicea, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D. After Emperor Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity of the time in the Roman Empire, the newly recognized Catholic Church.

subzer0 response:
LOL.

All I said is that there was a man who challenged the Trinity named Arius. Thus the Nicene creed was in response to that. So you have just proven that even more by quoting some source and not posting the link. Also your assumption that it was to unite paganism with new christian philosophy is absolutely laughable with no historical source to back it up of course.

lucifershammer, on 29 October 2010 – 03:23 PM, said:

I did forget to cite the source but I can do math and 300 years seems about right in our little argument, you seem to be getting upset, that isn’t the intention of this discussion, maybe you should take a walk and calm down and we can talk some more later.

subzer0 response:

So again. Where is the source? And no, your math is wrong.

jerra-, on 29 October 2010 – 03:23 PM, said:

paul changed christianity from a religion of helping others to a holier than thou attitude in which people could be as selfish as they want and still go to heaven- which is in strict opposition to what Christ taught.and that is why the world is the way it is today.. all messed up totally all because of paul.

subzer0 response:
Quote the contradiction and be specific when you point it out. Where does Paul teach opposing Christ?

lucifershammer, on 29 October 2010 – 03:41 PM, said:

Look Sub I am not looking to change your views on Christianity, to the best of my knowledge I have NEVER changed a believers mind, but I have shown you examples of contradictions and I have shown the fallacies that exist in the text and that seems to upset you, go and get your bible and take a look at it, that will be the only way to see the perspective that I am coming from.

subzer0 response:
I have dealt with each and every one. And then you go onto another one without addressing any of my points that show lack of contradiction for the examples you already cited.

lucifershammer, on 29 October 2010 – 03:58 PM, said:

Sub everyone here has seen the contradictions except for you if you choose to be willfully ignorant then that is a personal problem an that is between you and god. You are getting mad I see it as does everyone else here so I am gonna go hang out with the kid a while and give you a chance to regain a little composure.

subzer0 response:

Just provide substantive counter-points to my points of why it can’t be a contradiction and why your readings lack context. Most of your alleged contradictions were just parts where certain things were stated differently compared to other parts that stated it more specifically. Instead you don’t, you merely say I am ignorant. Typical attitude of those who believe like you…. No substance.

lucifershammer, on 29 October 2010 – 07:06 PM, said:

I was gonna apologize to you Sub because I felt like I was pushing you outside your comfort zone, then I read your condescending post and it occurred to me that very little separates you from the more close minded people who have posted in this thread. You are not any better or more informed than anyone else who posts their ideals here yet you are striking out in anger instead of addressing the obvious questions about your philosophy, I thought perhaps you could have a conversation about religion but you fall into the same pattern they all do. I will close with an old song lyric ” free your mind and your ass will follow”

subzer0 response:

I don’t want to free my mind. I like to be grounded in Biblical truth that manifests itself through scientifically critical exegesis.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 09:39 PM, said:

sub zero must be one of your drone clones then?of course the bible mentions three entities-four or more, if you consider the OT plural form of god. sure, one can make the suggestion that the “come let us make…” is a translational error, or that jesus and the HS were present even then, which makes one wonder then why your god waited so long and subjected so many to your pagan hell. again, hardly a just god.

subzer0 response:
Where specifically does it mention the OT plural form of God?
And make the case that “come let us make” is a translational error.
What pagan hell? Salvation of man is dependent upon Gods revelation up until that time.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 09:39 PM, said:

the issue at the nicean council was the divinity of jesus, not that he was or wasn’t mentioned in the bible. in fact, he wasn’t, but his alleged office was.

subzer0 response:

Did you just say Jesus wasn’t mentioned in the Bible?

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 09:45 PM, said:

what YOU aren’t getting is that your god didn’t have to construct the world in any way that involved sin, evil, or free will-unless your god is limited, which means it isnt god.

subzer0 response:
Or unless to be truly loving, you need a creation in which choice is a factor to truly express that love.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 09:45 PM, said:

you have argued that the jews served as the exemplar, and yet the world knew not of the jews, so by that alone, your god condemned many to the pagan hell. they might have had free will, under your argument, but they were not aware of their choices. again, that is not the act of a just god. then you could argue that your god could have revealed himself to all cultures, and then i will agree, and say that all cultures have that revelation, and they are expressed culturally, which makes the bible a useless cultural artifact pertaining exclusively to a desert tribe called the jews that now are wide spread.

subzer0 response:
Creation itself attests to a Creator. I choose to believe the Biblical record.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 09:56 PM, said:

edit: if you do not know that in Genesis there was used the plural form of god, and that the jews had no concept of hell until babylonian captivity where they borrowed hel from the greeks they encountered, you DO need to read more. the “hell” usually translated meant the grave-literally.

subzer0 response:

Don’t just say it, provide sourcing material please and provide the case, as you say.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 09:56 PM, said:

or unless to be a true god, such an entity can construct a world/universe in which humans can truley love their god, and yet not have to contend with sin/evil. as i have said, your god is supposed to be limitless. the fact that it CHOSE to inflict evil and sin upon us even though your gods potential acts are infinite-shows your god to be unjust. check mate.

subzer0 response:
Again. That isn’t consistently Biblical. God gave man choice. That choice is their own will. Thus your own will/my own will inject evil into the world not God. He injects free will for mankind. He doesn’t hold a gun to your head and say, YOU MUST BE SINFUL, that would be consistent with what you are saying. Instead being always revealed to mankind in one way or another He has given us ample choice to see and follow His will… We are not robots no matter how much you want us to be, that just isn’t Biblical.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 09:56 PM, said:

creation attests to an antecedent. call it what you wish.i will not do your homework for you. i have read countless books and served untold websites. i will not and frankly cannot condense them into a conveneint soundbite to satiate your laziness.

subzer0 response:

Then don’t talk about them. I don’t want a convenient soundbite I want a thorough analysis of current historical-critical interpretations and why yours is better and more logical. You AGAIN fail at that. You keep bringing things up then leaving them aside.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 10:24 PM, said:

i realize i am using reason. that confounds you. your god is infinite. that is biblical. i will not bother to cite that, unless you plan to dispute that your god is infinite. since you agree that your bible claims your god is infinite, then it is also true it created everything. yes? then it created the conditions into which sin and evil may announce and prosper. yes? i know, you call that free will, which you readily admit your god gave humans. since you claim your god is infinite (please spare me the attempt at diversion by asking me where you specifically claimed your god is infinite. to do so would insult my intelligence and yours as well) then it also would know the outcome of creating a universe as it supposedly did, and thus it would be aware that it would be allowing misery and pain ro visit the creation your god claims to love.

subzer0 response:
You would have Biblical logic if you realized that sin only entered into the world through HUMAN will. HUMAN WILL IS SIN. Thus once relied upon instead of Gods will SIN entered into the world. That is what a truly loving God would do, give His will to follow and then a will based on your own. All the death and disease, wars and hate, etc, etc is a result of OUR will originally. Gods will is for us to align with His will which is why we needed choice. You cannot display love if your creation does not CHOOSE your will.

vincubuswon, on 29 October 2010 – 11:01 PM, said:

sorry. you have not even passed the first hurdle. you must either realize your bible is wrong, or that your god is not real. you divert into theology-speak to save you from that decision.you totally missed the meaning/intent/direction of my first paragraphs. i am not surprised. we did briefly discuss the ego, didn’t we? LOL!!

you really-and i don’t mean this in a pejorative sense-have no clue, do you.

subzer0 response:
And….. nothing.

Its called Biblical theology and is what this discussion has been about. HELLO?!