Dan56

There are no theological contradictions in the bible, but chronological differences among the 4 gospels have been known for centuries. The authors were not concerned with getting the sequence of events entirely accurate, since they never intended to write a chronologically perfect history book. The same format is used throughout the bible, historical parts are put in chronological sequence, but other parts, such as with the Minor Prophets, are grouped together. The gospel writers were explaining the Messiah's life, mission, message, and purpose. They each reviewed events that happened, but decades after the fact, they weren't trying to list a step by step or moment by moment biography of Jesus. If the Four Gospels did completely match, it would make all of them highly suspect, because it would be impossible to have four accounts completely agree without massive collusion. While they don't redundantly cover all of the same information, the four gospels tell essentially the same story. Bottom line; Jesus was baptized, Jesus was tempted, and Jesus chose all the apostles. So imo, nitpicking about the order of how the story is told, just causes a person to miss the message. It could be because John didn't include the temptation of Christ or the prayer in the garden... I believe the cup referred to here, was not regarding the immediate fate of Christ. Jesus already knew his purpose as the sacrificial lamb. But the crucifixion meant that a future cup would be poured out, the Cup of Wrath mentioned in Revelation. This is why Jesus was asking his Father if there was any other way. "But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children." I believe Jesus was sweating for us in Gethsemane, not himself. I suppose if we were dealing with inanimate objects instead of living souls, that would be a good argument. But we are here to prove our love for the Father, and love is not something that can be ordered from children who have free will.

So God cannot be perfect because your not perfect? Consider that God's work is still in progress, but the end result will be perfection. That's like saying that if you don't want people to get into car accidents, then why make cars accessible? God is omniscient (all knowing), but his omnipotence (all powerful) can change what would be into something else. It is God's intervention that changes what is going to be. In other words, God's omniscience is not set in stone, because his omnipotence dictates the future. God may know what you will do tomorrow, but he also has the power to alter things spiritually or physically. For example, God physically stopped the Pharaoh, otherwise the Hebrews would have died in captivity.

Call me crazy.... I guess I just assumed it was preferable to live. The Hebrews weren't suffering, they were eating drinking and playing (Exodus 32:6). Why would God expedite the journey after they had turned into a bunch of idolaters? Your analogy would be relevant if A&E were babies. Hearts change, nonbelievers can become believers. I see no contradiction, the Baptist was imprisoned during the ministry of Christ. No where does John record that Jesus 'scoffed' at the idea. John's gospel doesn't even mention the same prayer. The Greek word for 'touch' (haptou)' is translated as touch, hold, or cling. Jesus was telling Mary not to hold him up by clinging to him, because he had not yet ascended to the Father. Your interpretation presumes it was an order not to touch, but I read it as Jesus requesting of Mary (who was already clinging to him) to let him go and not hold him up.

Sin is where evil came from... God is good, all knowing, and all powerful.

I was referring to the death of souls, and in that sense, there has been no death yet. Other 'belief systems' aren't nonsensical to me, I just don't accept them as Truth. I don't believe God's Truth is divided by or restricted to cultures. God's Truth was made clear to those who will receive it. He tried that flame in the sky routine, but 40 days later, folks were back worshipping the golden calf. What's a God to do? God clearly told Eve what would happen if she ate of the forbidden tree, she ignored God and believed the serpent. So saying she didn't know does not excuse her disobedience. They knew, that's why they hid themselves. It is not God's perfect love that is being tested, its ours. I believe God does have a reason to test us. I'm aware of what you think are contradictions, but I simply disagree.. We see what we want to see.

Disobedience is not confusion, its rebellion. Confusion comes when we decide to separate ourselves from God. When we reject the truth and believe a lie, we are responsible for the result, which is confusion and death. Was Eve created confused, or did she freely choose to believe a lie? Cells don't have free will. We were created to be tested, you can't test a person by removing choice. I'm referring to Jesus of course.. He said, "I am the truth" (John 14:6). Nothing in the bible suggest that God sends unknowing people into eternal damnation. The millennium is specifically assigned for those who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel (Revelation 20). A teacher is not lack-luster because a student refuses to listen.

From a Christian prospective, the bible can be held-up to close scrutiny. The bible can also be misconstrued and misinterpreted, and there's no doubt that some translations have taken some liberties in manipulating the manuscripts. Satan himself has twisted the Word from the beginning. But God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Jesus was the Word, and he brought clarification to what the traditions of men (Pharisees) had distorted. God will respond to religions and denominations that change, add, or subtract from His Word to suit themselves. We are accountable to God, he is not accountable to us. To blame God for our confusion is nonsense, it isn't His Word that causes problems, but rather our reluctance to adhere to his simple Truth. Perhaps people should avoid 'belief systems' (religion), most of it is confusion run amuck. I completely agree with this. Actually, the margin of the King James also denotes 'worlds' as 'ages'. So the Young's and KJV concur that Hebrews 11:3 is likely better translated as 'ages'. I personally think its referring to one world, but different dispensations of time, thus multiple world ages (Genesis 1:2).

Hebrews 11 gives us a good definition of faith. Faith is the substance of what you believe to be true. Faith is not just a mental conviction, it is activated by what we say and do. Belief is the acceptance of the Truth and faith is a conviction to the Truth. We profess our believe and demonstrate our faith. So what is the Truth? Who could possibly stand unblemished? (John 18:37-38)

After witnessing the miracles God performed while delivering his people from the Pharaoh, many of the Hebrews began worshipping a golden calf in the wilderness. Do you suppose their faith was questionable, or was it their devotion to God that led them to find the intellectual wisdom necessary to leave the God who delivered them from slavery? From what I've read, faith in idols was not a religious path that led to a good end. My point was not that a person can't lose faith in something they once believed in, but that faith so easily shaken was probably never very strong to begin with. Testing church goers is not necessarily a good measurement of their faith, in fact, having perfect knowledge pretty much removes the necessity of trust. Belief can be derived from inspiration as well as knowledge, and faith requires accepting a truth without verifiable facts. If a person scrutinizes, investigates, and seeks evidence to prove a belief, that's curiosity, not faith. For myself, I chose to believe the gospel because I loved the message, then my faith increased with greater understanding. We believe what we love, and we understand what we see. If we seek evidence to persuade ourselves to disbelieve, we'll generally find what were looking for. And if we seek wisdom to understand what we believe, we'll generally find the Truth. This is true, we all believe what we believe. But how many God's are there? If there is one God, would that God be content with those who believe and worship a different God? Does Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism all lead to the same God? That's the argument I guess; Many beliefs that lead to different Gods, or one Truth that leads to one God? I personally believe the latter.

My environment has never effected my spirituality, but it sure has altered my mood.

Nothing makes my beliefs any more valid than anyone else's. I have scrutinized my beliefs closely, and have found them to be believable I would argue that a Christian turned atheist was never a 'strong' believer in Christianity in the first place. I don't personally believe in Mormonism, but who knows where native Americans descended from? Mormons believe that the Lamanites and Nephites descended from 2 of the lost tribes of Israel (Manasseh and Ephraim), so Jewish DNA would only prove that they were not descendants of the tribe of Judah. In 1644, Antonio Montezinos, a Spanish explorer of Jewish ancestry also known as Aaron Levi, returned to Amsterdam from the New World. He claimed that a group of Indians he had met in the mountains of what is now Columbia, had spoke to him in Hebrew and were the remnant of the Tribe of Reuben. Rabbi Menassah Ben Israel believed Montezinos testimony and wrote "The Hope of Israel" in 1650, where he endeavored to prove that the Indians in North and South America were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. So the Mormon theory is nothing new.

I am Christian because Christ was perfect and I believe he was and is the only true and correct path. I agree that no other person or religion is perfect, which is why my faith is not in religion or other people. I just made an observation and was not scrutinizing. Combining Christianity and witchcraft doesn't mesh for me, but whatever floats your boat. And I agree that people who feel they need to save others can be a pain in the butt.

If you agree that the observation of Tsukino Rei is correct, then perhaps its his description of a "form of witchcraft" that shouldn't be followed? I think its important to distinguish between Christianity in general and one persons opinion. However, I must admit that I'm guilty of not following traditional Islam for the same reason, the willful ignorance of some Muslims.

Well, it just goes against the character of God.. To presume that God would all-of-the-sudden accept what he had previously called an abomination, would be hypocritical. I wish the story had more detail, but we each read and interpret it as we will. Paul mentions Jephthah in Hebrews 11:32 along with other faithful people like David, Sampson, Gideon, and Samuel. So Jephthah was not admonished for his vow, but it appears to have been a righteous vow. The 31st verse you quoted says 'whatsoever' not 'whomsoever', so I suspect Jephthah presumed it would be an animal. Its also important to note that Jephthah had no other children: “She was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter” (11:34). For his daughter to be consigned to perpetual celibacy meant the extinction of Jephthah’s family line, so in that sense, it was quite a sacrifice.

"You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the Lord which he hates they have done to their god; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:31). Anyone who would have done these things in Israel would face the death penalty. Human sacrifice were an abomination before God. In keeping with the thrust of the context; "Then she said to her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I" (Judges 11:37) She was sad over the fact that she would never marry, not that she was going to die. "She returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man" (Judges 11:39). What was the result of her father doing his vow? "she knew no man". "Lament" usually means to mourn or wail, but "lament" as used in verse 40 is; The idea of attributing honor, to ascribe praise, ie; celebrate, commemorate (Strong's Concordance #8567). People don't usually celebrate death, they mourn death and express grief or sorrow.

Its a very logical conclusion (1 Corinthians 15:17). If it didn't please God to raise Jesus, none of us have a shot in the dark. I believe God told Job that he has mercy on whomever he pleases.

God's love isn't what's being questioned, its our love, or the lack thereof, that is being tested. God's love is freely given, but it has to be received to be of consequence. Perfect love cannot be polluted, it is righteous and sin cannot dwell with it. God is all knowledgeable, but he expects and requires us to be faithful to what he reveals to us. In other words, I believe God's love is conditional. God gave us laws because he loves us, and when we obey his laws, it demonstrate that we love him. There is nothing wrong with the death penalty, because it was instructed by God. From the beginning, death was the result of us choosing evil rather than good. Satan is the Destroyer, who inspires the spirit of punishment, not God. I look at it from the prospective that God's laws are what's best for us, we benefit from our obedience to the law, and we are rewarded with God's blessings when we adhere to the law. God's laws are just, perfect and holy, and cannot be improved by "one jot or tittle". God challenges and chastens, but he also loves, comforts and forgives us. But sadly, most of the world has concluded that Lucifer was right and that we are better off reasoning which truths are good for us, after-all, without the law, lawlessness cannot exist. When we rebel against God, we rebel against good, which demonstrates that we prefer sin, which is death. The question isn't whether God is too harsh, but why he doesn't kill us all? God's patience is beyond my comprehension. "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel 33:11) Regarding Judges 11:30-40, It doesn't explicitly say that Jephthah killed his daughter. Jephthah carried out his vow by dedicating his daughter to a life of perpetual virginity, that was the sacrifice. Human sacrifice was contrary to the Law of Moses and God would never accept it (Leviticus 18:21 & 20:2-5). Whatever or whoever came out of Jephthah's door would be offered to God, an animal would be a burnt offering and a human would be dedicated to the Lord. The indication that the daughter went into the mountains to bewailed her virginity for 2 months and knew no man supports celibacy.

Perhaps I didn't articulate what I think very well? By law, I don't see anything wrong with the death penalty, but the penalty was changed by Christ; "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). So by law, we are all guilty and under a death sentence, but the price for our redemption was paid by the lamb of God. But Jesus didn't change the law, and I believe that those who reject him for other god's are still in danger of judgment. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 is concerned with the dignity of the individual male who in his circumcision bears in his body the sign of the covenant. The forbidden act shows contempt for the covenant. A wife grabbing an assailants genitals to protect her husband was a breech of the law because it defiled the sign of the covenant between God and Israel. Circumcision was an important sign at the time, significant to comprehending spiritual things. The passage isn't applicable to Christians (statute or punishment).

What can I say, God hates idolatry. Where did I insinuate that anyone who disagree's with me should be killed? That's absurd. Death was the penalty for breaking the first commandment in the old testament. Its biblical, so of course I agree with it. Do I want people to be killed? Of course not, and neither does God. I didn't make that statement, God did. My agreeing with God's judgment means that I've never experienced his love?? I've been unable to find any verses to substantiate your observation? "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (Revelation 14:12). Love is a 2-way street, the person who says that they know God but doesn't keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him (1 John 2:4). Odds are that if your worshiping a false God, you don't have much love for the real deal. I think your putting words in my mouth. What I said was biblical, and "Love me or die" wasn't in my post. As you know, God in his love and grace offers us salvation from sin and death. Our response to God determines whether we will spend eternity in heaven or in hell. Jesus said; "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). I completely agree that its a service of love and not fear.

This is the first commandment; "Thou shalt have none other god's before me".... Greatest commandment; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, and mind." I don't have a problem with this law or the punishment. Slavery in the Bible was based on crime and debt, not skin color, the distinction is significant. People go to prison for committing a crime today, and are bound to the state, but there were no prisons back then. With no bank loans, and no unemployment benefits, debt was repaid via indentured servitude. Things like crime, debt, war reparations, and restitution were valid reasons for justified bond-service. Kidnapping and stealing men to own or sell them as slaves was emphatically condemned in the Bible. "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death"(Exodus 21:16). In the New Testament, it was a lot more of a firm employer/employee relationship, but in a bit more of an indentured way, generally because a debt was owed by the person or family. This is the 7th commandment, nothing controversial about it imo. I'm guessing your objection is with the punishment and not the rule? I don't have the energy to comment on all of these laws, but suffice to say that God governed the Israelites to establish law and order, and define crime and punishment. His laws covered food, agriculture, cleanliness, etc. All the laws, statutes, and ordinances of the old covenant were applicable at that time. Those who did not live by the law, died by the law. Today, we are no longer condemned by the law thanks to Jesus, so I fail to understand why you detest the commandments.

I don't agree with the interpretation of some of the examples you cited (surprise!). Jesus was not announcing that all foods are clean, food wasn't even the subject. “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders, These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man" (Matthew 15:18-20). I know the NIV margin says "Jesus declared all foods clean", but Jesus was addressing the Pharisees tradition of hand washing, not their diet. Mark 7:19 Explained Leviticus 10:9 does say; "Do not drink wine nor strong drink" but continues with "when ye go into the tabernacle". This was told to Aaron (priest), couldn't have drunks staggering around in the tabernacle! "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities" (1 Timothy 5:23). The Lord of the Sabbath, knew what the Sabbath law meant. Jesus pointed out that "spiritual services" were not a violation of Sabbath law. The Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel, the New Covenant no longer requires resting on the seventh day, Christ became our Sabbath (Hebrews 4:9-11). I don't consider that God made an evil set of laws, but that His laws are righteous. "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him"(John 14:21). The verse may have no meaning to you, but I don't interpret or consider it as the chants of a tyrannical bully.

I do agree that Jesus did die for his love for people; "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son". A sacrifice is to forfeit one thing for another, and Jesus forfeited his life that we might live. Jesus did not rebel against the law, he was the law. He did not challenge the law, he explained the meaning and clarified the intent of the law. We are no longer held in bondage to the law, but freed by Grace and led by the Spirit of Truth. So for me, the cross was not representative of an evil death, but a righteous death.

As a Conservative, I want to enable people to provide themselves decent lives.

Thanks for the link, it pretty much explains the differences. I don't think that conservative Christians believe that there's only one way to interpret the bible, but only that the bible is true and inspired by God. I understand what your saying, I disagree, but understand where your coming from. It should be of consequence whether Jesus resurrected, because if he didn't, then neither will we. I also don't share your belief that Jesus died for "the spirit of love". His sacrifice was because he loves us, but he died for the remission of sin. Maybe I'm straining at gnats, but it seems so much easier to just believe what it says rather than to speculate about what may have happened.