Adam and 4000 BC

Not a problem, without the inflection of the human voice, the emotion behind words is hard to interpret.

 

Have what settled? Have you finally realized that "the women" does not have to included the women that told others as mentioned in other places in the Bible?

 

(1 Corinthians 5:7) . . .For, indeed, Christ our passover has been sacrificed.
(Ephesians 5:1-2) Therefore, become imitators of God, as beloved children, and go on walking in love, just as the Christ also loved YOU and delivered himself up for YOU as an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling odor.
(Hebrews 2:17) Consequently he was obliged to become like his “brothers” in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people.
(Hebrews 9:24-28) For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us. Neither is it in order that he should offer himself often, as indeed the high priest enters into the holy place from year to year with blood not his own. Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself. And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment, so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many; and the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin and to those earnestly looking for him for [their] salvation.

And yet you continue to say that Jesus did not sacrifice himself and if he did it would not have been acceptable to God but do not disagree with the Bible.

Insist on it? I will tell you what the Bible says.
(Matthew 1:21) She will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
(Matthew 9:13) For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.”
(Matthew 26:28) for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.
(Romans 3:23-24) For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and it is as a free gift . . .
(Romans 5:12) That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned. . .
(Romans 5:19) For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners. . .
(James 5:16) Therefore openly confess YOUR sins to one another and pray for one another, that YOU may get healed. . . .
(1 John 1:8) If we make the statement: “We have no sin,” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us.

 

Yes, as I said Peter was corrected but what was written in the Scriptures was not.

Also Jesus was not corrected by the women.

I'd like to see that Scripture. You know the one were Jesus says the Bible is not the word of God.

 

No, I was talking about the exchanges among the last several posters. I don't consider the issue you're talking about "settled". The interesting thing is that you keep bringing the non-issue of the number of women up, when I said in two previous posts: "Just to clarify, your position that the three women subsume the others is logically possible, although implausible, and the theory that the two disciples informed the other nine is logically possible. But it doesn't seem logically possible that the women told no one and that they told any disciples." The reason I put it in bold face and italics is to avoid having to do what I expected you to do and go for the easier (i.e., logically possible) matter and avoid the one that I thought would be more difficult to address. This is the third time I've raised this question, in italics and bold face, and you've so far managed to ignore it and keep coming back to the non-issue concerning the number of the women. Why is that? Prophecy of Karnack: "(a) pick one small passage, carp at it, and ignore the rest;" Am I psychic or what?

 

You will note that not one of these are statements attributed to Jesus and that is because that is not what he taught. New wine is for new skins.
How do you rework a fundamental tradition of sacrifice and yet still respect the blood and treasure given to god in the past but to tell a story that fulfills once and for all the requirement for sacrifice.
Jesus tells a different story. I am the way the truth and the life.

If we are redeemed in Christ, where is our sin? Let he who is blameless cast the first stone. We are condemned by our accusation against our brother.
Again it seems you would insist that your brother is guilty because the bible says it is so, but the bible does not have an opinion, you do. It is the son of man who has the power to forgive sins.

 

But it doesn't seem logically possible that the women told no one and that they told any disciples." I have been addressing it but I'll spell it out for you one more time. "The women" did not tell the disciples but Mary Magdalene did and also other women did but "the women" did not.

You may consider the "number of women" there a "non-issue" but the fact is there were enough women there so it is possible that some women told and some did not.

It is interesting that you would bring up the "Prophecy of Karnack: "(a) pick one small passage, carp at it, and ignore the rest;"", because that is exactly what you are doing.

Myself, I'm looking at all the scriptures that bear on the subject and to see the whole picture and you keep picking at this one scripture saying it has to mean what you say it means, although the rest of the scriptural accounts seem to disagree with your interpretation.

 

Interestingly you seem to keep denying that anything in the Bible, that Jesus didn't say and doesn't agree with you, was inspired of God.

I didn't rework anything, if you'll notice I just quoted what the Bible says about sacrifice and not even all of what it says. It seems that you are the one who likes to rework what the Bible says.

Yes, Jesus does say; “I am the way and the truth and the life" but it is not a different story.

Both God and Jesus are without sin and both have pointed out that mankind are sinners. Are you saying they are condemned by that accusation?

I insist nothing, you are the one saying you have no sin, I merely pointed out that the Bible says: If we make the statement: “We have no sin,” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)

 

As Christians, it's Christ's words that we are to live by. He has shown the way with His words and His example. No collection of various ancient myths, stories, prayers or opinions are as relevant. He has given us the higher law that supercedes the baby food that was necessary before we were ready to follow His way.

 

No, I'm just pointing the disparity between what Jesus teaches and certainly what Paul teaches.

It is a rhetorical question waterbrother. What does jewish theology have to do with the practical teaching of Jesus. I am not reworking what the bible says, I am remarking at what I see written there.

No I am saying that we condemn ourselves when we condemn our brother.

Actually waterbrother what I said is if I tell you that the children of god are "innocent in creation" would you insist that they are sinners because "the bible says so" and you answered in the affirmative. Every time I have stated that the children of god are innocent you have offered in particular the scripture that you have emphasized, 1john1:8. I never said anyone was without sin, I said they were innocent. We are all subject to errors in perception, sin, to miss gods sign.

 

Jesus, himself, admitted that he spoke nothing of his originality but only what he learned from his father, God. Jesus oft quoted from the Bible, do you really think that he thought the Bible was just a "collection of various ancient myths, stories, prayers or opinions"? Does this; “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.", really sound like Jesus thought that the Bible was a "collection of various ancient myths, stories, prayers or opinions"? Thus all the words of God and that would include what you call a "collection of various ancient myths, stories, prayers or opinions" should be as important to us as they were to Jesus.

 

the only disparity is between what you teach and what the Bible teaches. There is no disparity between what Jesus teaches and what Paul teaches.

A rhetorical question? As I just pointed out to worldsofdarkblue, Jesus said; “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place". Does that really sound like Jesus being dismissive of "jewish theology"?

I'll go along with that but you've said a lot more in this discussion than that.

And I said I don't insist on anything. God says they are sinners in his inspired word the Bible.

Interestingly in your post you say; "if I tell you that the children of god are "innocent in creation" would you insist that they are sinners", which seems to me that you are making a contrast between innocent and sin. But if you tell me "the children of god are innocent in creation", I have no clue what you may mean by that but if you ask me if they are sinners, I'll tell you the Bible says they are. 1John1:8

 

I have always been taught, and read somewhere, that a "child" is "innocent" - heaven bound for sure...until the "age of accountability." This may vary from person to person, but in protestant religions the approximate age of accountability is 12 or 13.
The way "taboo" subjects are treated to young children may even change this - as far as that "age of accountability". It is when one understands the difference between right and wrong AND that they have a choice to make regarding this...imo.

 

But aren't we all born innocent - but us being in flesh makes us sinners, right?
only until this age I just wrote about - the age of accountability - one is considered innocent basically.
Mentally retarded adults which never reach a mental age of more than 10 would surely be considered innocent. Right?

 

He came to fulfill the law. He destroyed nothing, but he definately contradicted earlier pronouncements of law. The Law to which He is referring in this passage is the Law of Karma (an eye for an eye, live by the sword - die by the sword and as you sow, so shall you reap) which is one of the most important precepts. And yes, He knew precisely what the old writings were which is why He was comfortable in His authority at changing the old ways to the new Way - a higher law.

Peace, Charity, Mercy, Forgiveness. This is the Way of Christ. The old testament has no relevance in light of this higher Law. Neither do the opinions of Paul in his letters or any pope in his proclamations or any evangelist in his damning accusation of sin or sinner.

The only way to be Christian is to be Christian. You can't 'sign up'. Jesus addressed this when he said 'many will say unto me Lord, Lord, and I will say I know you not'.

Peaceful, Charitable, Merciful, Forgiving. If you are this, you are His. If you are not this, memory of every word in any bible is useless. Belief in the old testament is irrelevant. The priests of His time were experts on it and they were reproached for hiding the Law. His Law survives man's interference and self-important alterations, for no man would dare to change His Way as has been given.

So, as Christians, the gospels are all that's needed to follow. Old allegories are fun and interesting but have no importance in the following of Him.

 

It is not that the child is "innocent" or without sin. Death is the wages of sin and even children can die. But 1 Corinthians 7:14 seems to point out that God considers the obedient child of faithful parents to be Holy until the child is old enough to be accountable for their own spirituality.

As for the mentally retarded, since some never reach an age of accountability, I believe that God, who searches the heart would know how to treat them lovingly but that would not mean that they are "innocent" or without sin.

 

I'm sorry but when Jesus said; “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place." (Matthew 5:17-18), it just doesn't sound like Jesus came to earth to change the law or contradict earlier pronouncements of law.

Do not misunderstand the Christ, Jesus is not all sweetness and light. Was it not Jesus who said; “Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness." (Matthew 23:27) and “Serpents, offspring of vipers, how are YOU to flee from the judgment of Ge·hen′na?" (Matthew 23:33)? And wasn't it Jesus who "entered into the temple and threw out all those selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. And he said to them: “It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but YOU are making it a cave of robbers.”(Matthew 21:12-13)?

Actually what Jesus said is the one acceptable to him will be "the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens".

I agree that one should be "Peaceful, Charitable, Merciful, Forgiving" but those things do not make you a Christian.

And yet, "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." Jesus even quoted from the Bible many times, so he must not have thought it to be "irrelevant".

Jesus said this about the religious leaders of his day; “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore all the things they tell YOU, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but do not perform. They bind up heavy loads and put them upon the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger. All the works they do they do to be viewed by men; for they broaden the [scripture-containing] cases that they wear as safeguards, and enlarge the fringes [of their garments]. They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues, and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men." Jesus was saying that the law they tell you to do, you should do but do not follow their example because it was a bad example. There was nothing wrong with the law itself.

Once again, "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." Jesus even quoted from scripture many times, so he must not have thought they had some "importance".

 

The "bible", as we know it did not exist in Jesus' time.
The living word of God has always been, and God's law is written in genetic code not on paper. Words are symbols for something, they are not the something, just as God's temple, while symbolically is an edifice, is actually the heart of man.

 

Really then then what did he quote from? The law and the prophets that Jesus quoted from have been the same as what we have now, for thousands of years. And I don't believe Jesus would quote from it if he thought it was just "collection of various ancient myths, stories, prayers or opinions", do you?

Written in "genetic code"? Really?

Yep, words are symbols for something and as you say they are not the something. I don't consider God's word, the Bible, to be God either but it is God's word, what he has said to mankind to benefit us.

 

There was no christian church when Jesus was alive. Paul teaches things that Jesus did not.

How is it waterbrother that to love god with all your might and to regard your brother as yourself accomplishes the fulfillment of the whole law? What Jesus taught transcended Jewish convention, these things being passed down by Moses for "hardness of heart".

If you have already decided what the answers are then why do you ask?

Actually it is written in the bible that god created man and saw that it was good, very good.

Do you know what innocent means? Do you know what creation means? If so you now what created innocent means. That a man may make an error in perception does not change the being that god created, it only makes the truth obscure. Man has not usurped the power of god, he only dreams he has, and for this dream he hides from the truth. And if you waterbrother, saw the truth about your brother you would weep for joy at the beauty you see there and know that he is gods gift to you.