Christ4Ever said:

Sorry couldn't help it. It was the naive part that got me @hoghead. Just because we would not follow them now doesn't mean that those biblical laws in their day somehow lacked validity. It would be a bit presumptuous of us enlightened folks of this age to believe so don't you think? :wink:

You can hold whatever belief you desire, but since I believe the Bible as being the inerrant Word of God, it would be difficult for me to find your position valid. I'm sure you don't find the Bible as being the inerrant Word of God, and so cannot come to the position that I hold to be true.

Notice that some of the scripture that I used, predates the Hellenistic School of thought. Unless of cause this concept originated with our Adversary, which would predate even our own existence........hummmm

I've always find it interesting how finite minds will always attempt to place the infinite into a box. It seems that is the only way we can come to believe that we understand what we are currently incapable of comprehending. I do have to thank-you hoghead. It makes me appreciate John 17:3 all the more! Much to learn and much to know! Maybe, I am a bit naive!
Love you Hoghead! With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
<><

Click to expand...

Some of the Bible definitely does predate Hellenic thought. However, the classical model of God came largely from the influx of Hellenic philosophy. The Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. For example, the Bible tells us very little about how God is built, so to speak. At best, we receive but snap shots that often conflict. It's up to us to piece these together. So, in order for the church to survive and grow, it relied heavily on Hellenic philosophy. Augustine, for example, stated Plato is the most Christian of all philosophers. Also, the early fathers had no trouble in incorporating "pagan" ideas. They felt that God had planted treasures in the pagan world and that the church should use these. This same principle is found in church arthecture. Once the church grew to the extent members could no longer meet in private homes, ideas from Greco-Roman civil and imperial buildings were incorporated as designs for the larger churches now needed.
In ranking schools of Hellenic philosophy, the world of time, change, and materiality was seen as something inherently evil, a big illusion. The "really real," the truly divine, was a wholly immaterial, simple, immutable realm of existence. Incorporated into Christendom, this meant God was describe as void of body, parts, passions (emotion), compassion, wholly immutable. That is the picture of how God is built that is found in teh major creeds, confessions, and also the writings of the fathers. Essentially, the church baptized Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.
one major problem is that this classical model of God stands in tension with the Bible. True, many passages speak of God as immutable. However, it is also true that about 100 also speak of God as changing, such as Gen. 6:6. The Bible also attributes deep emotion to God. Indeed, the biblical model of God presents a highly anthropomorphic image of God. The ancient Hebrews attributed just bout every body part to God, which strongly suggests they viewed God as embodied.
Classical theists were, of course, aware of this biblical imagery, but quickly dismissed it as mere figures of speech that had nothing to do with the actual nature of God, who was, in himself, wholly ice cold and unaffected by the world. So, in recent times, theologians have promoted an alternative or neo-classical model of God.
Bottom line: The traditional doctrine of God is largely Hellenic in nature and therefore has been undergoing a major face lift.
I have oversimplified matter here, for the sake of spacing. I would be happy to provide more detail. My immediate goal is to help persons tune in more to where their concept of God is coming from.
You next brought up about the inerrancy of Scripture. Nobody comes to Scripture, with a totally blank mind. Everyone reads Scripture through a lens. Often, this is the lens provided by the traditional teachings of one's church. In fundamentalaistic circles, it is taken as axiomatic that the Bible is inerrant. No question about it. The way the Bible says that events happened is exactly, to the letter, they way they did. Anyone who dares question this dogma is a lost soul, etc. While that may work in fundamentalist Christianity, it does not at all work in modern biblical studies. In fact, that is about the worst way to come to biblical studies. One should come with an open mind. Biblical inerrancy is a theory about how God and Scripture may be related. Maybe it is valid, maybe no. Let's check it out first and then conclude. my conclusion is that some parts of Scripture stand out very well, whereas others are in question. For example, there are about 100 major contradictions in the Bible. One I think I mentioned earlier is that of 2 Sam. 21:19 claiming that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. And, as I mentioned earlier, if you Bible says "brother of," that represents a serious tampering by the translator to gloss over the contradiction here. The original Hebrew text contains no "brother of." Also, you have the matter of the biblical cosmology, which, with its flat earth and geocentric viewpoint, is clearly obsolete. Another important matter is what do you consider canon and what not? Should teh Apocrypha be included in the Bible? It was in original Protestant Bibles, then dropped. It is still retained in Catholic Bibles. Whether it is in or out largely has depended on the arbitrary dictates of teh clerics. So I think it most naïve to assume that God wrote Scripture and then dropped it on our heads on a silver platter or dictate it word for word to purely passive scribes who wrote it down via automatic writing. Divinely inspired as it may be, still it is the product of fallible human beings.

You brought up about biblical laws. Here, we all cherry pick. We have to. There are many laws in the Bible we would find quite abhorrent to live by. Exod. 21 sanctifies slavery, selling your daughter into slavery, and also the beating of slaves. Incidentally, that is why the Bible served as a major rationale offered by the Old South for retaining slavery. Now, certainly we are not going to hold with that biblical principle today.
Christianity is not a monolithic religion, just one way. Christianity has always represented a rich plurality of divert POV's which often do conflict with one another. For many, that has been a big problem. But I like it, I love it, I ant some more of it. It means we have freedom, choices. If one church doesn't work for you, there is another you can try that might. There have been three basic models of authority in Christendom. There is church-type Christianity, where the church is the ultimate authority. There is sect-type Christianity, where the Bible is ultimate authority. There is the mystical-type Christianity, where one's personal experiences are the ultimate authority. The "right" one is the one that works best for you.

I can't fit myself into one of your boxes. I must have ascended already; praise God.

hoghead said:

Some of the Bible definitely does predate Hellenic thought. However, the classical model of God came largely from the influx of Hellenic philosophy. The Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. For example, the Bible tells us very little about how God is built, so to speak. At best, we receive but snap shots that often conflict. It's up to us to piece these together. So, in order for the church to survive and grow, it relied heavily on Hellenic philosophy. Augustine, for example, stated Plato is the most Christian of all philosophers. Also, the early fathers had no trouble in incorporating "pagan" ideas. They felt that God had planted treasures in the pagan world and that the church should use these. This same principle is found in church arthecture. Once the church grew to the extent members could no longer meet in private homes, ideas from Greco-Roman civil and imperial buildings were incorporated as designs for the larger churches now needed.
In ranking schools of Hellenic philosophy, the world of time, change, and materiality was seen as something inherently evil, a big illusion. The "really real," the truly divine, was a wholly immaterial, simple, immutable realm of existence. Incorporated into Christendom, this meant God was describe as void of body, parts, passions (emotion), compassion, wholly immutable. That is the picture of how God is built that is found in teh major creeds, confessions, and also the writings of the fathers. Essentially, the church baptized Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.
one major problem is that this classical model of God stands in tension with the Bible. True, many passages speak of God as immutable. However, it is also true that about 100 also speak of God as changing, such as Gen. 6:6. The Bible also attributes deep emotion to God. Indeed, the biblical model of God presents a highly anthropomorphic image of God. The ancient Hebrews attributed just bout every body part to God, which strongly suggests they viewed God as embodied.
Classical theists were, of course, aware of this biblical imagery, but quickly dismissed it as mere figures of speech that had nothing to do with the actual nature of God, who was, in himself, wholly ice cold and unaffected by the world. So, in recent times, theologians have promoted an alternative or neo-classical model of God.
Bottom line: The traditional doctrine of God is largely Hellenic in nature and therefore has been undergoing a major face lift.
I have oversimplified matter here, for the sake of spacing. I would be happy to provide more detail. My immediate goal is to help persons tune in more to where their concept of God is coming from.
You next brought up about the inerrancy of Scripture. Nobody comes to Scripture, with a totally blank mind. Everyone reads Scripture through a lens. Often, this is the lens provided by the traditional teachings of one's church. In fundamentalaistic circles, it is taken as axiomatic that the Bible is inerrant. No question about it. The way the Bible says that events happened is exactly, to the letter, they way they did. Anyone who dares question this dogma is a lost soul, etc. While that may work in fundamentalist Christianity, it does not at all work in modern biblical studies. In fact, that is about the worst way to come to biblical studies. One should come with an open mind. Biblical inerrancy is a theory about how God and Scripture may be related. Maybe it is valid, maybe no. Let's check it out first and then conclude. my conclusion is that some parts of Scripture stand out very well, whereas others are in question. For example, there are about 100 major contradictions in the Bible. One I think I mentioned earlier is that of 2 Sam. 21:19 claiming that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. And, as I mentioned earlier, if you Bible says "brother of," that represents a serious tampering by the translator to gloss over the contradiction here. The original Hebrew text contains no "brother of." Also, you have the matter of the biblical cosmology, which, with its flat earth and geocentric viewpoint, is clearly obsolete. Another important matter is what do you consider canon and what not? Should teh Apocrypha be included in the Bible? It was in original Protestant Bibles, then dropped. It is still retained in Catholic Bibles. Whether it is in or out largely has depended on the arbitrary dictates of teh clerics. So I think it most naïve to assume that God wrote Scripture and then dropped it on our heads on a silver platter or dictate it word for word to purely passive scribes who wrote it down via automatic writing. Divinely inspired as it may be, still it is the product of fallible human beings.

You brought up about biblical laws. Here, we all cherry pick. We have to. There are many laws in the Bible we would find quite abhorrent to live by. Exod. 21 sanctifies slavery, selling your daughter into slavery, and also the beating of slaves. Incidentally, that is why the Bible served as a major rationale offered by the Old South for retaining slavery. Now, certainly we are not going to hold with that biblical principle today.
Christianity is not a monolithic religion, just one way. Christianity has always represented a rich plurality of divert POV's which often do conflict with one another. For many, that has been a big problem. But I like it, I love it, I ant some more of it. It means we have freedom, choices. If one church doesn't work for you, there is another you can try that might. There have been three basic models of authority in Christendom. There is church-type Christianity, where the church is the ultimate authority. There is sect-type Christianity, where the Bible is ultimate authority. There is the mystical-type Christianity, where one's personal experiences are the ultimate authority. The "right" one is the one that works best for you.

Click to expand...

You seem to rely on Romanist material a lot for your information...Why not rely on the bible alone? Christianity is a relationship with God, not a philosophy.

rag4aCrown said:

I can't fit myself into one of your boxes. I must have ascended already; praise God.

Click to expand...

I don't provide boxes. Also, I found your remark very rude and ill-informed.

Bendito said:

You seem to rely on Romanist material a lot for your information...Why not rely on the bible alone? Christianity is a relationship with God, not a philosophy.

Click to expand...

That is not at all correct. Some material I use comes from Catholicism. It has to, as I am concerned with the history of doctrine. However, much also comes from Protestantism. As far as classical theism goes, Protestantism largely carried it over from Catholicism. As far as being "Romanist" goes, I feel that term is unduly prejudiced and disrespectful towards Catholicism. I am not a Catholic, but I am not out to throw rocks through stained-glass windows either.
If you want to gain insight into Christendom, you can't just go read the Bible alone. There is also the matter of traditional theological teachings, the major dogmas, the writings of teh major fathers and leaders. Unless you gain insight into where others have gone before you, you bound to end up with a highly ill-informed faith. Christianity has a long, impressive intellectual or philosophical tradition that is well worth studying.
Today, many fall into what I call a cowboy theology. You don't need to study doctrine, God forbid you should study theology or philosophy, skip history, just take a nice, easy anti-intellectual approach, sit back, relax, and free associate to Scripture. The result is a faith that lacks any real depth and generally a very careless biblical exegesis as well.
The Bible says we should be as iron upon iron, sharpening one another. That means we should all engage in a process of critique. That is precisely why there is a strong intellectual to Christendom. Maybe you have read Scripture and think it means such-and-such. Maybe you think you have been moved by the Spirit. But that is not enough. You should test out your ideas, gain insight from others.
As I mentioned before, everyone reads Scripture through a lens. The question is: Are you aware of what lens you are using? Why? What church were you raised in? What dogmas did it teach you? No,. it's never just you and Scripture alone.

hoghead said:

That is not at all correct. Some material I use comes from Catholicism. It has to, as I am concerned with the history of doctrine. However, much also comes from Protestantism. As far as classical theism goes, Protestantism largely carried it over from Catholicism. As far as being "Romanist" goes, I feel that term is unduly prejudiced and disrespectful towards Catholicism. I am not a Catholic, but I am not out to throw rocks through stained-glass windows either.
If you want to gain insight into Christendom, you can't just go read the Bible alone. There is also the matter of traditional theological teachings, the major dogmas, the writings of teh major fathers and leaders. Unless you gain insight into where others have gone before you, you bound to end up with a highly ill-informed faith. Christianity has a long, impressive intellectual or philosophical tradition that is well worth studying.
Today, many fall into what I call a cowboy theology. You don't need to study doctrine, God forbid you should study theology or philosophy, skip history, just take a nice, easy anti-intellectual approach, sit back, relax, and free associate to Scripture. The result is a faith that lacks any real depth and generally a very careless biblical exegesis as well.
The Bible says we should be as iron upon iron, sharpening one another. That means we should all engage in a process of critique. That is precisely why there is a strong intellectual to Christendom. Maybe you have read Scripture and think it means such-and-such. Maybe you think you have been moved by the Spirit. But that is not enough. You should test out your ideas, gain insight from others.
As I mentioned before, everyone reads Scripture through a lens. The question is: Are you aware of what lens you are using? Why? What church were you raised in? What dogmas did it teach you? No,. it's never just you and Scripture alone.

Click to expand...

I'll respond only to your last sentence.....It is between my and the Holy Spirit (the Word) He is my teacher, mentor, councilor, and father...

Hogshead I think I'll withdraw from talking with you, at least for a while....I am not here to argue and fight and you seem to be very sensitive right now.....I'm done

Bendito said:

I'll respond only to your last sentence.....It is between my and the Holy Spirit (the Word) He is my teacher, mentor, councilor, and father...

Hogshead I think I'll withdraw from talking with you, at least for a while....I am not here to argue and fight and you seem to be very sensitive right now.....I'm done

Click to expand...

Wise idea. Yes, I am sensitive. God wants us all to be sensitive and I aim to oblige. Just remember, every fanatic, kook, and nutcase in the book claims that he or is motivated solely by the Spirit and Spirit alone. Let's hope that isn't the case with you.

hoghead said:

As to the Bible being an instruction book, I think that is a bit naïve. There are many, many biblical laws we do not hold with and for good reason.

Click to expand...

All of us my friend are in a measure on the naive side. That would of course except anyone who has already overcome all of the world that Jesus overcame. Since I am not one of those, how could I be certain if I met one?

amadeus2 said:

All of us my friend are in a measure on the naive side. That would of course except anyone who has already overcome all of the world that Jesus overcame. Since I am not one of those, how could I be certain if I met one?

Click to expand...

I don't think you quite grasped my point. Some have presented the Bible as an instruction book as to how to live. The reason I say that is naïve is that there are many laws we are not inclined to follow and with good reason. According to Exod. 21, slavery is sanctified. Do you believe that? Do you think you should sell your daughter into slavery, that that's OK with God? Do you follow all the dietary laws? Do you refrain from eating ham? Do you avoid wearing clothing made out of two different fabrics? What about polygamy? That's sanctified in the Bible. Do you hold with polygamy? What about the NT? Well, it does seem the dietary laws are dropped. But what about slavery? Paul tells the slave go to go back to his master. Would you have done that when the underground railroad was running? What about polygamy? Paul seems to push toward monogamy, but that is still a controversial issue. Also, he does hold up celibacy as a higher state than matrimony. Are you celibate? What about the many issues we face that aren't addressed at all in Scripture? Do you want to live like the traditional Amish did, a society where rubber tires were forbidden because Scripture said nothing about them?

hoghead said:

I don't think you quite grasped my point. Some have presented the Bible as an instruction book as to how to live. The reason I say that is naïve is that there are many laws we are not inclined to follow and with good reason. According to Exod. 21, slavery is sanctified. Do you believe that? Do you think you should sell your daughter into slavery, that that's OK with God? Do you follow all the dietary laws? Do you refrain from eating ham? Do you avoid wearing clothing made out of two different fabrics? What about polygamy? That's sanctified in the Bible. Do you hold with polygamy? What about the NT? Well, it does seem the dietary laws are dropped. But what about slavery? Paul tells the slave go to go back to his master. Would you have done that when the underground railroad was running? What about polygamy? Paul seems to push toward monogamy, but that is still a controversial issue. Also, he does hold up celibacy as a higher state than matrimony. Are you celibate? What about the many issues we face that aren't addressed at all in Scripture? Do you want to live like the traditional Amish did, a society where rubber tires were forbidden because Scripture said nothing about them?

Click to expand...

Some laws have specifically changed between the old testament and new. Can you give an example of something that is not addressed in scripture? (I find that highly unlikely).
The Bible doesn't say slavery is sanctified, it says if you buy a slave... then here are rules around that.
It doesn't say to buy a slave, it says "IF" you buy a slave.

You have quite a misunderstanding of slavery in the old testament. Very rarely did the Jews take non-Jews as "slaves".
The slaves they did take were usually as indenturement of a debt. You will work for me until you pay off the debt.
If you die before the debt is paid off, then yes... one of your children will have to pay it off.

This isn't much different from today. The bank owns your car/house until you pay it off. You are basically their
"slave" until this is paid off. Paul gives about 20 times more scripture about being married than being single.
Again, he doesn't command celibacy, he simply says he wishes some would be like himself.

B-A-C said:

Some laws have specifically changed between the old testament and new. Can you give an example of something that is not addressed in scripture? (I find that highly unlikely).
The Bible doesn't say slavery is sanctified, it says if you buy a slave... then here are rules around that.
It doesn't say to buy a slave, it says "IF" you buy a slave.

You have quite a misunderstanding of slavery in the old testament. Very rarely did the Jews take non-Jews as "slaves".
The slaves they did take were usually as indenturement of a debt. You will work for me until you pay off the debt.
If you die before the debt is paid off, then yes... one of your children will have to pay it off.

This isn't much different from today. The bank owns your car/house until you pay it off. You are basically their
"slave" until this is paid off. Paul gives about 20 times more scripture about being married than being single.
Again, he doesn't command celibacy, he simply says he wishes some would be like himself.

Click to expand...

The Bible most clearly does sanctify slavery in that it presents it as acceptable in the eyes of God. There is nothing in Scripture about any sort of indentured servitude here, which amounts to slavery anyway. You are definitely not a "slave" to the bank until you pay your car off. You yourself seem to have some serious misunderstandings about slavery.

People are acceptable to God, that doesn't mean they are sanctified. Acceptable does NOT mean sanctified.
Slaves could run away (and sometimes did). Everything talked about in the Bible doesn't mean God approved of it.
It says "if you seduce a virgin... then you have to do this... that doesn't mean He approves of seducing young women.
If you don't pay off your house or car, it will be repossessed, and affect your credit.
You are a slave to choices you make. You can be thrown in jail for some choices. Then you are a slave to local authorities.

B-A-C said:

People are acceptable to God, that doesn't mean they are sanctified. Acceptable does NOT mean sanctified.
Slaves could run away (and sometimes did). Everything talked about in the Bible doesn't mean God approved of it.
It says "if you seduce a virgin... then you have to do this... that doesn't mean He approves of seducing young women.
If you don't pay off your house or car, it will be repossessed, and affect your credit.
You are a slave to choices you make. You can be thrown in jail for some choices. Then you are a slave to local authorities.

Click to expand...

Good point B-A-C
Proverbs 22:7 (CJB)
7 The rich rule the poor,
and the borrower is slave to the lender.

It's vital that we allow the Holy Spirit to teach us and not try to understand the Word with our man minds... one reason why I appreciate you...You always work to allow the Holy Spirit to lead

B-A-C said:

People are acceptable to God, that doesn't mean they are sanctified. Acceptable does NOT mean sanctified.
Slaves could run away (and sometimes did). Everything talked about in the Bible doesn't mean God approved of it.
It says "if you seduce a virgin... then you have to do this... that doesn't mean He approves of seducing young women.
If you don't pay off your house or car, it will be repossessed, and affect your credit.
You are a slave to choices you make. You can be thrown in jail for some choices. Then you are a slave to local authorities.

Click to expand...

Slavery is sanctified in the Bible because it is seen as acceptable in the eyes of God. No, you are not a slave to the choices you make. Of course, you can get thrown in the can for making some dumb decisions, such as murdering others, etc. Of course, if get thrown in the can, you lose all sorts of rights the rest of us have. But that is not what the Bible is talking about in Exod, 21.

Bendito said:

Good point B-A-C
Proverbs 22:7 (CJB)
7 The rich rule the poor,
and the borrower is slave to the lender.

It's vital that we allow the Holy Spirit to teach us and not try to understand the Word with our man minds... one reason why I appreciate you...You always work to allow the Holy Spirit to lead

Click to expand...

So I am curious what you find the holy Spirit teaching you in Proverbs 22:7. I see it as a warning that you as are asking for real trouble when you become either a borrower or a lender.

hoghead said:

Slavery is sanctified in the Bible because it is seen as acceptable in the eyes of God. No, you are not a slave to the choices you make. Of course, you can get thrown in the can for making some dumb decisions, such as murdering others, etc. Of course, if get thrown in the can, you lose all sorts of rights the rest of us have. But that is not what the Bible is talking about in Exod, 21.

Click to expand...

Yeah..Well......Anyway, back to the topic...Why did God wait so long? I like Robaston's answer "He didn't wait bud, it was instant-He is outside time"

hoghead said:

So I am curious what you find the holy Spirit teaching you in Proverbs 22:7. I see it as a warning that you as are asking for real trouble when you become either a borrower or a lender.

Click to expand...

Don't owe anything....Living in Love fulfills all the law...


Romans 13:8 (CJB)
8 Don’t owe anyone anything — except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow human being has fulfilled Torah (The law).

Bendito said:

Yeah..Well......Anyway, back to the topic...Why did God wait so long? I like Robaston's answer "He didn't wait bud, it was instant-He is outside time"

Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it say God is "outside time"? The Bible introduces God as the Lord of history. That would mean God is the most time conscious being that there is. The whole notion of God as residing in some timeless realm is Hellenic in origin. It rests on the notion that the world of time and change is a big illusion, but that is definitely contra Scripture and also irrational.

hoghead said:

Where in the Bible does it say God is "outside time"? The Bible introduces God as the Lord of history. That would mean God is the most time conscious being that there is. The whole notion of God as residing in some timeless realm is Hellenic in origin. It rests on the notion that the world of time and change is a big illusion, but that is definitely contra Scripture and also irrational.

Click to expand...

Why is it that all you want to do is fight? Are you so unsure of yourself that you have to be a know it all? What makes you so sure you ARE right anyway? Stop the strife now...Please?!

Bendito said:

Don't owe anything....Living in Love fulfills all the law...


Romans 13:8 (CJB)
8 Don’t owe anyone anything — except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow human being has fulfilled Torah (The law).

Click to expand...

That's probably is the right thing to do. The Protestant Reformers, especially Luther, really cracked down on usury or money-lending, as did Christ himself. I should know. I borrowed money from Wells-Fargo, fell on some hard times, couldn't make my payments, and they foreclosed on my home without telling me, which is legal, by the way. Luckily I found out in time and managed to stop it. That's the last time I borrow any money.