Biblical literalists-To Law or not to Law

[Gawen]

Unless I missed something, or it's too early in the morning for me, it seems we are in agreement about the Sabbath.

Yes, that is true...in both cases...*chucklin*. But I brought up the Sabbath account as evidence for the Law and not its abolishment. It lends to my case quite well.

[AnimatedDirt]

Unless I missed something, or it's too early in the morning for me, it seems we are in agreement about the Sabbath.

Yes, that is true...in both cases...*chucklin*. But I brought up the Sabbath account as evidence for the Law and not its abolishment. It lends to my case quite well.

The difference we have or our disagreement then is that you equate the 10 C's and the rest of the laws where I don't see the scriptures or God/Jesus equating them, in fact there is a clear line of being distinguished between as I've already mentioned.

 

[AnimatedDirt]

You simply must get past that there are 613 commandments of which the 10 C's are included. These Laws were given to an ancient, goat herding, bronze age, fire mountain worshiping tribe. You just can't rip off or borrow 10 Laws of their laws and forget the rest to fit your worldview.
Sorry....I guess you can, Most of the Christian Culture Club does it.

There is only once that God writes something down Himself  (Three if you consider Daniel 5:5, 25-28 and John 8:6)  that is physically given to a human.
I refer you to Genesis 31:18, Deut. 9:10

That, in and of itself, separates the 10 from the rest.  Not to mention only the 10 is placed/kept inside the ark (as a symbol of its perpetuity) as already pointed out.

And in turn I shall point you to:
Exodus 20:1:  And God spake all these words, saying,...
Exodus 24:3: And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
And then...
4: And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD,...

I think I made my point with God's own finger being very rare or basically non-existent other than the tablets of stone.

As I mentioned, for a person to follow God and His Law is for that person to place their faith in God.  No person can gain salvation SIMPLY by adhering to God's Law and not putting faith in the one that put the Law in place.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to keep God's Law as part of the Law is acknowledging God as God, Creator and Savior.

I have just shown you how that is not true.

I suppose we are at a point in which neither of us is going to concede this point.  I believe I have the backing of the Bible on the whole and (to me it seems) you are claiming points here and there without taking into acct. the whole (old and new, old covenant and the "new" covenant, the promise of a Savior vs. the Savior/God in physical form fulfilling that which was previously ceremonially celebrated as shadows of things to come).  By that matter, just about every sin conceivable can be justified and/or shone to have biblical support. 

Wash in what?  Downey, Tide?  Certainly there is more to the meaning of those words than the use of a washing machine or washboard.  Again, I say, if this is all the enlightenment we had, I would agree.  But as has been said, "A text without context is a pretext."

AD, as I said above, Christians spin all this to fit their worldview. You are no exception.

No spin.  You simply may be ignorant to the meanings of certain words or ideas in scripture that in a literal sense mean one thing and in a spiritual (or biblical) sense mean something different.  It is no spin of any kind when one uses the whole of scripture to interpret one part.  Case in point;  "Washed Robes"  why would there be a need for clean robes entering into heaven?  Is it literal that we will be wearing robes in heaven?...  and so on. 

Who decides what is just and right.  Again...faith that God is God and ultimately that God saves us.

Well, not quite. Who is God. Why, is to follow all the Law. Paul is wrong.

I really have no clue here.  Might you make your question/point more clear for me, plz.

What or who decided that an offering of fruit/veggies was not acceptable.  So the "what is right" in this context was the animal sacrifice, shedding of blood, was the right thing to do.

We really can't proceed here. You have to show me where God's Laws are preempted and sanctified by God himself. It makes no sense for the Hebrew Bible to say numerous times that the Law is for ever only to be thrown away by vicarious human sacrifice, which was illegal and performed by a Jew living under said Laws.

God's Law preempted?  I don't understand.

It makes no sense when it is said, "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies...let those in Judea flee to the mountains...let those in the city get out..." (see Luke 21:20-24)
How does it make sense to tell someone that when you see yourself surrounded, to flee?  Isn't it logical that if you're being surrounded that it is too late to flee?

History tells us that Cestius Gallus had initially brought his army against jerusalem, but was unsuccessful.  After being run off, many of the Jews fled.  Vespasian then shows up a few years later and more flee but the entire area was eventually subdued and finally destroyed by his son, Titus in the Spring of 70 AD.  (paraphrased from here and here.  I knew the basics, but needed some refresher on the matter and just used the first points I found.)

I honestly can't stand the quote feature of this board...*sigh*

Nor do I.

btw, sometimes I feel overwhelmed by the number of points you make so if I seem to disregard something, it may be that something else seemed more important at the moment to me than another.  I'll try and keep my points/replies to a point or two also.

[Gawen]

Unless I missed something, or it's too early in the morning for me, it seems we are in agreement about the Sabbath.

Yes, that is true...in both cases...*chucklin*. But I brought up the Sabbath account as evidence for the Law and not its abolishment. It lends to my case quite well.

The difference we have or our disagreement then is that you equate the 10 C's and the rest of the laws [/li][/list]
where I don't see the scriptures or God/Jesus equating them, in fact there is a clear line of being distinguished between as I've already mentioned.

 

Ok, one more time. I haven't given up on you yet...*chucklin*

I'll try it this way. And this is very long.

Several years ago I had pretty much the same debate as you and I are having. I kept the debate for future reference. I've already shown you how the entire Law is eternal, perfect, gives salvation and will again give sources (here are some, there are more):
Matthew 5:17,18,20
Psalms 119: 152, 155, 160
Psalms 19:7
Ezekiel 37:24
Ezekiel 36:27
Deuteronomy11:1
Deuteronomy 4:2
Deuteronomy 6:2,5,24-25
Revelation 14:12
Revelation 22:14
Revelation 17:17
Revelation 10:7
Revelation 5:19

What I don't understand is why Christians call themselves Christians when the man they keep citing is Paul. Paul may have said the law is over or fulfilled, but that is not what Jesus said, or God commanded. Now you may argue that Jesus does say he came to fulfill the Law. The word "fulfilled" here is clearly a bad translation and to read it in context it requires that the word actually be "uphold" or "continue" or "enforce" and this is where Rev 17:17 comes into play. If he meant to negate the law then he's an idiot and I've already covered that in a previous post.

Note that in all of the Jewish scripture which Christians incorrectly call the Old Testament, there is no mention of God's law alluded to being cancelled or fulfilled (as in rendered outdated) by Paul or anyone else. Whoever heard of a law, any law, being fulfilled? Does it mean I can stop eating because eating has been fulfilled? Can I stop speeding because the law against speeding has been fulfilled? Are laws today designed to be "fulfilled?

Is there any textual scriptural support for this "fulfillment" anywhere in the so-called OT? No.
It seems to me that Paul struggled to find converts to Judaism, and so made an extremely watered down version by arguing his way around some of the more awkward elements (circumcision being a major one). Not to mention his lack of knowledge of scripture and the outright corruption of the Torah he did use in many cases.

I know a lot of Christians believe in the 10 Commandments (although which set of the 10 Commandments is an interesting issue unto itself and I am happy to know that no Christian boils a baby Goat in its mothers milk), and are also happy to quote some of the Levitical laws on occasion when it suits them. They are equally happy to ignore others though, so it all seems a little too convenient. It's a case of having ones pork and eating it too.

Paul flat out lies in order to push his own theology, his own doctrine of disregarding the Law and putting your faith in a human blood sacrifice. Take his little deception in Romans 10:8 in which he changes the words of Dt.30:14 to match his doctrine of faith and ignoring the Law. He omits the words "that thou mayest do it", meaning obey the law, and in its place puts "that is, the word of faith which we preach." And that's not the only place where Paul manipulates and distorts scripture to suit his purposes.

Let's move for a moment to Vicarious human sacrifice. The only sin sacrifice that comes close to the kind of sin sacrifice Christians say Jesus was is the animal sacrifice which provides remission of unintentional minor sins. But here Christians have more problems. Jesus was not only human, which is forbidden, but he did not meet the prerequisite conditions for being a sin sacrifice. In order for a sin sacrifice to be lawful it must conform with the Torah which:

1. Requires that a sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (see Leviticus Chapters 1-7). Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33; John 19:18, 23).

2. Requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkled by the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Leviticus 4: 5-6). New Testament evidence clearly shows this was not done.

3. Requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defect or blemish (e.g., Leviticus 4:3). According to the various accounts in the NT, Jesus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mark 14: 65, 15:15-20; Luke 22: 63; John 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar ("sign of the covenant"). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Philippians 3:2, Galatians 5:12).

4. Requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offered on an individual (per household) basis (Numbers 28:22), not as a communal offering. According to the NT, Jesus' death (termed a "sin sacrifice") expiated the sins of mankind (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).

5. Directs that the Paschal Lamb was NOT to be offered for the removal of sins. It was a commemorative/festive offering (see also under items 4 above and 6 below). A more appropriate time for a sin offering would have been on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement; Numbers 29:11 [individual sin-offering―male goat]; Leviticus16:15 [communal sin-offering―male goat]).

6. Requires the sacrificed Paschal Lamb to be roasted and eaten, and its blood marked on the side-posts and lintel of the doors (Exodus 12: 7-8). There is no record in the NT that this was done (lest it be suggested that Christianity promotes cannibalism).

7. States that the sacrificial sin offering could only atone for UNINTENTIONAL sins, with few notable exceptions as stated in Leviticus 5:1-6, 20-26 [Leviticus 6:1-7 in some Christian Bibles]; [e.g., Numbers 15:27-31] .

8. Teaches that sacrifices can only atone for sins committed PRIOR to the offering of the sacrifice. No sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed AFTER the sacrifice was offered. Thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered.

9. Strictly FORBIDS human vicarious atonement (e.g., Exodus 32:31-33; Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jeremiah 31:29 [30 in some Christian Bibles]; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7).

There are other different types of sins that require different types of sacrifices or atonement. Forgiveness does not always require bloodshed. Offerings of fine flour (Leviticus 5:11 ), money (Ex 30:15-16), jewelry (Num 31:50) and prayer ( Hosea 14:1-4) can also atone for sin.

You, AD, simply have no foot to stand on. But I'm not finished yet.

One may argue the Gentiles were without the Law from the beginning so the Levitical ordinances never applied to them. Anyone saved by God's grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) in Paul's gospel (Romans 2:16, 16:25, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) is under grace and not law (Romans 6:14). And Jews may or may not remain under the law for all time. It's a nice try but without merit. The truth of the matter is that if one wants to follow Paul then one is not a Christian, one is a Paulinian. One needs to get the terminology straight. It's either Paul's doctrine of vicarious human blood sacrifice or God's Law. Jesus said follow the Law; to obey the Law. And, as I said, he does so in the Book of Revelation which means that Paul is pretty much an island unto himself. Mind you there are numerous passages where Paul advocates obeying the law but most of these instances are used for his own advantage...not God's.

Moreover, maintaining the point that Jesus is for the Jews and Paul is for the Gentiles, as some Christians do, is flat wrong. Jesus said his word was meant for all people, not just the Jews. Take a look at His own words: Matthew 28:29, Mark 16:15. What did Jesus teach and command? What was "all things"? That everyone obey the Law. Did I hear Jesus any mention anything about Paul in any of that? No. Remember that Jesus forbade teaching people to disregard the law. Sound like Paul? Of course it does.

Then there's Luke 2:32: A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.  Hmm..."lighten the Gentiles". Sounds to me like Jesus' words are meant for everyone, not just the Jews. Actually if you look at it in a graphical way you will see Paul is isolated and surrounded by the rest of the Bible which teaches observance of God's law. Even so, as I said, Paul is in a bit of a pickle since he also advocates the law in some places, but for his own ends.

Who is this Paul guy? Does Paul have the power to make declarations (Romans 7) which contradict a law made by a deity to whom he is subservient? There is no mention of any of this in any part of the Torah where God lays down his laws.

The Law IS still in full force against ALL of the living, who are yet engaged in the satisfaction of the lusts of the flesh. But as many as have believed His words, and been immersed into His name, are accounted as being dead under the Law, wherefore the letter of The Law no longer has dominion. The man that says that he keeps The Law of God, and observes all of His Statutes and Ordinances, to do them, makes himself to be a liar, whom deceiving himself, also deceives whosoever receives his testimony.
No man under The Law, is justified by the hundreds of Laws, Statutes and Judgments that are observed, but all are condemned under The Law, by a single solitary commandment that is neglected, altered, perverted or voided for convenience sake. With Law there is condemnation and penalties upon its trespassers, but justice and mercy are within the power and the province of Judgment; wherefore, if The Law condemns, it is the Judge alone, who is empowered to show His mercy and His leniency upon the trespassers.                                                                                                                            
As many as are in The Messiah our Passover, are exempted from the penalties of The Law regarding "touch not, taste not, handle not," those matters being unlawful to them under The Law, become exempt and therefore lawful, unto them whom through faith, submit themselves to accepting His just and compassionate offer of His exemption, Our Passover.

The above three paragraphs actually came from a Christian in another forum I frequent. The arguments seem quite convincing from a Christian perspective don't they, AD? But they are sophistries and wishful thinking and I told him so. The Christian poster, like you, is using Paul to justify Paul. One ought to know better because it's circular reasoning. The key is whether one believes in Paul or whether one believes in Jesus and his Father. It's a choice. It should be a dilemma. And it won't go away if one keeps repeating Paul.
Is Paul a member of the Trinity? No.
Did God mention Paul anywhere? No.
What is Paul's authority? There is no satisfactory answer to the last question except Christian wishful thinking.

Actual Christian statements like the one below are saying no one can observe the commandments, which are a burden and are impossible to obey. Much like you say, AD:
"The man that says that he keeps The Law of YHWH, and observes ALL of His Statutes and Ordinances, to DO them, makes himself to be a liar, whom deceiving himself, also deceives whosoever receives his testimony."[size]

The problem here is one would be wrong and I've covered that in previous posts as well.

The Christian mentioned above eventually went into some sort of alpha state trying to sound holier than thou and repeating a common version of Christian doctrine. But that is not an argument. The "misunderstanding" of the Law, in this particular Christian's case constituted willful ignorance of the Law. Many Christians keep hiding behind Paul and make no mention of passages that show Jesus' direction that the Law be obeyed in full. They keep missing the obvious and it's because they've bought into the mainstream Christian doctrine that Paul had authority to overwrite God's Law. All the rest is dodging and apologetics on their part. Per his example:

"Are you familiar with The Law as set forth in Deut. 17:8-13, 21:5 and 25:1 with their implications for the words and events recorded in Acts 4:17-19?"

Sound familiar AD? Please be serious. What on earth part of those passages contradicts my position that God's law is supposed to be obeyed? Can you tell me? He couldn't either. But here this Christian goes mentioning Paul again as proof of Paul as though citing Paul to justify and explain Paul somehow constitutes an argument that disproves my argument that the Law is to be obeyed forever. It's what is called circular logic.

That is why a distinction must be drawn between what Paul says about the Law and what Jesus says about the Law. It's not Paul's Law remember. Many Christians (including you, AD) point that I am missing something about the NT words and deeds regarding the Law. This shows only that they (and you) are taking a very selective readings of the Bible and are at the same time completely disregarding God's and Jesus' instructions.  

Christians routinely try to dismiss my arguments by trying to redirect the argument (moving the goal posts); saying I am contemptuous of Paul, for example, and it won't work. An example from the same Christian:  

"Think not that you have a quarrel with brother Paul alone, but your quarrel is with every soul of faith who has stood firm for His witness, rejecting the letter of The Law, and its injunctions, unto confessing His name before men."

This is mindless repetition of mainstream Christian doctrine.
It has yet to be shown:
1) Where Jesus and/or God make any mention of faith in a human blood sacrifice somehow becoming a substitute for the Law.
2) Where it is written that Paul is a member of the Trinity or where he was ever granted authority by God or Jesus to overwrite and change the Law.
3) Why Paul's declarations about the Law are more important than Gods' and Jesus' statements about the Law.
4) How the words "eternal" & "forever" mean "only until some guy named Paul comes along with his new doctrine of faith in a human blood sacrifice.
5) How Paul's treatment of the Law does not constitute a violation of God's and Jesus' commands against teaching others to break the Law and changing or manipulating it.
And you can't do this. He couldn't do this. No Christian can without resorting to fallacies and wishful thinking. In short Christians have yet to show why the word of Paul is more authoritative and binding.  

The point Christians keep missing over and over and over is that Jesus, one third of their Triune God, said to follow the Law. His Father, a second third of the Triune God said to obey the Law, which are unconditional and permanently binding. Any lapses or inconsistencies in observance or interpretation of the so-called Mosaic Law are the products of man's inherent failings and do not in any way nullify the Law which is described as perfect. The Law precedes anything that happened in Acts or Romans. All this tap dancing around the elephant in the room is not going to get anywhere.

So if Jesus is THE man, why don't Christians obey him? If Gentiles wanted to be part of God's fold, they were to adopt the covenant God made with the Israelites (Isaiah 56:1-7). Did Paul teach this? No.

If one is saying the early believers felt justified to ignore the judges/priests and preach in the name of Jesus by using Paul and that makes it OK to adopt new rules for behavior, then it's a rather empty assertion.

If one wants to deny this passage (Ezekiel 18:20-27) and claim it's outdated or replaced that's up to him. But I think what we have here is yet another example of how the Bible will mean whatever a believer wants it to mean. I keep asking Christians where God ever mentions baptism as a way out of or substitution of obeying the Law. They can't. Why? This baptism thing is made up as well. You can offer no scriptural support for this doctrine that can be reconciled with the Law.

You readers that made it this far, can you not see how Scripture is whacked out of context and twisted to conform to a Christian worldview? I do know what the bible says about the Law and Christians try to maneuver me into an extreme position or opinion and it won't work. Largely, AnimatedDirt's apologetics and the the above quoted apologetics are a semi-incoherent regurgitation of mainstream Christian doctrine.

It's quite logical in my opinion when proto-Christians believed when someone broke the Law or someone told them to break the Law in Acts (for example) and decided to base a religion on it. They are passing their own revision of the Law with no Hebrew Bible authority. Don't try to come up with a theology based on one incident where someone broke the Law. If someone breaks the law, the law does not disintegrate. You still have to obey the Law. Nobody present in Paul's Epistles had the authority to pronounce new legislation on the Law.  

I like the way Paul and Joel and Acts are quoted as though Christians have found something really potent. I mean God and Jesus versus some bit player named Paul? It's a mismatch and Christians don't know it, or they know it and disregard it. Are those people in Acts going to pass judgment on them?

If I have mishandled the texts then prove it. Bring forward a Jewish scholar or quote me something from the Tanakh to show how I am wrong.  

I am firmly convinced that the odds of swaying away any Christian that fervently believes Paul is next to zero.

I am an unbeliever and yet I firmly think Christians are incorrect, incoherent about and justifying, self deceived, delusional and plain fooling themselves if they believe Paul's declarations gets them off the hook of obeying the Law. The words of God and Jesus trump anything Paul or anyone else said until proven otherwise by citing the appropriate scripture. So far I have been unable to find any. And neither have the Christians.











[/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list]

[AnimatedDirt]

I've already shown you how the entire Law is eternal [...]

I know a lot of Christians believe in the 10 Commandments (although which set of the 10 Commandments is an interesting issue unto itself and I am happy to know that no Christian boils a baby Goat in its mothers milk), and are also happy to quote some of the Levitical laws on occasion when it suits them. They are equally happy to ignore others though, so it all seems a little too convenient. It's a case of having ones pork and eating it too. [...]

Before I go any further in reading your post (which again as I mentioned above gets to be overwhelming in forming an answer from so much to answer to or expected to answer to...) It seems quite clear here that you make no distinction between the Law of God (the 10 C's) and the laws or ceremonial laws that are apart from the 10.  Please notice there is no law, nothing close, about goats, cooking baby goats, goats milk, mother's milk or anything of the sort in the 10.  In my dealings with the Levitical laws, there are certainly ideas which can still be followed, but nothing which points at sin itself.  If anything the 10 are the only measure of SIN that remains as perpetual.

The 10 C's are separate and distinct in that they are the only hand-written 'legal' document written by God's own finger.  Not only that, but it was set apart from the rest of the writings of Moses (the ceremonial laws) as it was the only Law(s) placed into the ark of the covenant.  I think anyone can easily see that there is an obvious difference.

Now back to your post of which I know I will be accused of overlooking a point or two.  (sigh)

[Gawen]

Before I go any further in reading your post (which again as I mentioned above gets to be overwhelming in forming an answer from so much to answer to or expected to answer to...) I understand this entirely. But I can't just throw out snippets here and there. The subject matter is intensive.

It seems quite clear here that you make no distinction between the Law of God (the 10 C's) and the laws or ceremonial laws that are apart from the 10. 

There IS no distinction between them. All are mouthed by God himself. No where in the Hebrew Bible does it say to hold the first 10 above all others. No where in the HB does it say the 613 commandments will be lessened to 10 in some unspeified time in the future.

Please notice there is no law, nothing close, about goats, cooking baby goats, goats milk, mother's milk or anything of the sort in the 10. 

Exodus 20:2–17
vs
Deuteronomy 5:6–21
vs Exodus 34 (which states:
1. Thou shalt worship no other god...
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods...
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep...
4. All that openeth the matrix is mine...
5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest...
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks...
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven...
8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring...
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk...

The 10 C's are separate and distinct in that they are the only hand-written 'legal' document written by God's own finger.

Oh, so if it's written by a finger of God, it's more important? More important than the other 603 that he only communicated to Moses by mouth? You're really splitting hairs here, AD.

Not only that, but it was set apart from the rest of the writings of Moses (the ceremonial laws) as it was the only Law(s) placed into the ark of the covenant.

Putting the 10 into the arc because the stone tablets were written by God would be a good explanation. But it doesn't lessen the remaining 603 as just as eternal because Moses wrote them down.

I think anyone can easily see that there is an obvious difference.

Only when trying to cram it into a Christian world view.

Now back to your post of which I know I will be accused of overlooking a point or two.  (sigh)

Take your time. I'm in no hurry.

You, at this time, still have no leg to stand on. You cannot find scripture that directly relates to your views.

[AnimatedDirt]

I suppose we are at a point which we cannot agree.  If we cannot agree on this, then it seems useless to move on to the other.

What is clear is that the 10 and the other 603* are distinct.  Yes, the finger of God does make a difference and the placement God directed adds to that distinction and difference.
I guess there's no distinction between that which is encased in glass in Wash. D.C. is equal to that which is not encased in anything at all but here in my city that stated no overnight parking on city streets except for residents with resident stickers on their cars.  Oh but wait, that law is going to be done away with and they are simply going to NO overnight parking for anyone.  Yes...that "law" is just as important as that one encased in D.C.  We'll stick with your spin.

The whole of scripture supports my view(s).  It's the spin YOU put on it that doesn't.  But I guess your spin is better than mine.

I concede.  I suppose I'll continue in my delusion and split hairs.

[Recusant]

I thank you, Animated Dirt and Gawen, for making this thread a very interesting read! I certainly appreciate all the effort that both of you have put into the discussion.

I don't think we currently have any members who are truly Biblical literalists, but I just want to point to one passage which seems to be ignored by even the most literal of literalists. Jesus himself is speaking in Matthew 18, and in Matthew 18:8-9, he gives a way of dealing with sin:

8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Elsewhere, a staunch literalist was using Matthew 18:18 to justify his ability to pronounce the verdict of heresy on other Christians.  (Christians who accept the theory of evolution are heretics, according to him.) I asked him why one doesn't commonly see self-mutilation (as clearly prescribed by Jesus) in literalist Christian communities, and he ignored me. I guess even they have their limits when it comes to interpreting the Bible literally.

[Gawen]

I suppose we are at a point which we cannot agree.  If we cannot agree on this, then it seems useless to move on to the other.

The whole of scripture supports my view(s).  It's the spin YOU put on it that doesn't.  But I guess your spin is better than mine.

I concede.  I suppose I'll continue in my delusion and split hairs.

I haven't yet seen how scripture supports your views, AD, not without selective readings, spin and wishful thinking. Alas, I too must stop, for I have just about shot my entire wad.

Until next time!

Me

[Gawen]

I thank you, Animated Dirt and Gawen, for making this thread a very interesting read! I certainly appreciate all the effort that both of you have put into the discussion.

I don't think we currently have any members who are truly Biblical literalists, but I just want to point to one passage which seems to be ignored by even the most literal of literalists. Jesus himself is speaking in Matthew 18, and in Matthew 18:8-9, he gives a way of dealing with sin:

8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Elsewhere, a staunch literalist was using Matthew 18:18 to justify his ability to pronounce the verdict of heresy on other Christians.  (Christians who accept the theory of evolution are heretics, according to him.) I asked him why one doesn't commonly see self-mutilation (as clearly prescribed by Jesus) in literalist Christian communities, and he ignored me. I guess even they have their limits when it comes to interpreting the Bible literally.

Hiya Recusant,
Thanks for the compliment.

Matthew 5: 27-30 as well.
"You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.'
28: But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 
29: If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 
30: And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

There is one body part in particular that might tempt you to sin, and it is NOT what a Christian would expect.  But in those days and in some circles today it would be vulgar to mention 'penis'  and 'testicles', although it is quite proper to mention 'foreskin' (because it is used in the bible). We know verses 29-30 are ridiculous on several levels. A hand cannot "cause you to sin" -- your brain causes "sin." Therefore, gouging your eye out or cutting your hand off may be useless. If you have a problem with "sin" and you are going to amputate something to solve it, you would need to cut out your heart, since that is the organ where all "sin" originates - as was believed in ancient times. But Jesus and Paul seem to really mean it, when they speak of making one a eunuch for the kingdom of Heaven's sake. Of course, one can imagine an omniscient being to know of these things, but this is one case where Jesus sounds ignorant and rather emotional instead of thoughtful.

Jesus tells them that those who are able to make themselves eunuchs should do so. "He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." Making yourself a eunuch sounds extreme, but Jesus says you should do whatever it takes to live a sinless life, even cut off body parts that tempt you to sin.  Since no one listens to Jesus any more and would rather follow some guy named Paul, who never met the man, he says it also.

I could go on for a couple of pages just on the faulty ethics of Jesus. But this thread took quite a bit out of me. If anyone's interested, they can start a new thread and I'll join in.

Oh....and Biblical literalists are hard to come buy in discussion boards. Sad part is they really can't be literalists because of all the contradictions (they never see). So even when dealing with a literalist or a cherry picker, they ALL pick and choose

[Sweetdeath]

How would one eye cause you to sin but not the other?  And the foot...? *blink blink*

The bible is just confusing, bloody nonsense.

[OldGit]

^ Hear, hear!

[Gawen]

How would one eye cause you to sin but not the other?  And the foot...? *blink blink*

The bible is just confusing, bloody nonsense.

Well, some people seem to think it makes....absolute...*ahem*...sense.

[Sweetdeath]

Talking donkeys always make sense. *stern nod*

[Tom62]

30: And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
I always thought that it was your soul, that goes to heaven or hell.