Biblical Inconsitencies

yeah, i've checked some more and have found studies with the same interpretation as you've been taught. interestingly, i asked a couple of my christian friends about their interpretation of eph.4:26 and they even agreed with the "keep on being angry if it's righteous anger" interpretation, which means that there's a hell of a lot of misinterpreting going on out there! haha....however, i am sorry that i was incorrect; after searching further, i see that the majority of studies are along the lines of what you've been taught.

so: proper translation is, as fransisco said,
"Be angry, and sin not" - righteous anger (godly anger) is good, as long as you don't start sinning,
"Let not the sun go down on your wrath" - but don't let your anger continue on after the sun has gone down or it will eat away at you.

peace,
sophia

 

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways just to suit belief.
Either the OT is irrelevant and should be excised from Christian teachings, or it is relevant and must be adhered to.
in the new testeament you treated slaves well
treating slaves is not at issue ~ it's the fact of having them, and JC thinks it's OK to have 'em, but treat 'em right! Yes 'm masser boss Jesus masser!
option of going once you paid your debt in most cases, some people just didn't leave or couldn't due to the law
slavery is forced servitude ~ no option. in some cases after long years slaves could pay their way out if the master looked kindly. But the point is that slaves are taken against their will. How can you justify slavery? ~ just so your precious beliefs arent ruffled by reality?
Jesus mate! ~ it's wakey wakey time!

anger is god given; so is wrath; yet it says that to express it is punishable while at the same time saying that you should maintain wrath. Now that's ridiculous.

 

You might like to look up < self-righteous > & < delusional grandeur > and masturbate on that while you're at it!

 

You missed the whole thing didn't you?

A)Jesus took a man out of slavery
B)Jesus Talked about slavery becuase he knew it was goning to go on and tried to make people at least treat them right if they were going to have them.
C)Slavery was part of culture like Abortion is now
D)Read up on it Slavery wasn't Like the Blacks back in the 1800's it was from debt most of the time. The Hebrew didn't go hey your my slave because your under me. You worked off your debt as a servent. You chose to stay and got your ear peirced. To show that you stayed with your master.In most cases.
E)Did you miss the whole Two diffrent words in greek? Guess so

Please if you are going to reply to this use fact not personal oppion. Also show me a scritpture where Jesus says "Hey Ya'll you should all have slaves" Jesus spoke to that generation, to that culture, to that time. Slaver was a big part of that time. You didn't bring anything to this discussion other then personal oppion. Please like i said if you are gonna reply do not take things out of contex to prove your point, don't use sound bites either...Seriously..

 

God is pretty funny.

Like, if you express your anger, you probably will lose it. So if you want to get really pissed off you should hold it in so that it can grow into something beautiful. Or maybe not. It might be one of those divine jokes that people get so worked up about, like death. Or maybe it's life. I forget which one is serious and which one's the joke.

 

Dmned if you do, damned if you don't ~ that's funny!!

 

Moses did show up at a concentration camp in 1942 but there was no water there . he left piss off and got drunk at Belgium bar. went Paris from there he went to America and open up a Pawn shop and dealt with stolen diamonds and gave up on the rest of the jews.

 

Jesus Talked about slavery becuase he knew it was goning to go on
So you know his thoughts, or he told you so?

Read up on it Slavery wasn't Like the Blacks back in the 1800's it was from debt most of the time
I suggest you read up about slavery. If you do, you'll find that contemporary slavery exists in todays 3rd world solely as a result of debt. Ancient slavery was predominantly the result of conquest 7 trade (slave trade).

Did you miss the whole Two diffrent words in greek? Guess so
Nope. Transliteration is only relevant if the bible is not the inerrant word of god. If it is the word of (imperfect) man, transliteration has place and meaning.

Please if you are going to reply to this use fact not personal oppion.
Identify the "oppion" (opinion?) if you please.

 

Now what was it that you said? "Oh you know what christ thought? Or did he tell you?" Also there is your opinion.

 

"So you know his thoughts, or did he tell you"
Its like saying "war" is going to go on...Its inevtible

"Read up on slavery"
Here is a nice link to explian to you Hebrew Slavery http://www.rationalchristianity.net/slavery_ot.html

"Inerrant word of god"
When did I say anything about an error? I was saying that in Greek those were two diffrent words. what does transliteration have to do with word meaning? transliteration : to represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet

 

Mr. Ree, my friend, it looks as though you've been busy. I'll be short, because I'm anxious to see what else is going to happen here.

The answer is neither. In one of our previous discussions, I referred to the Hebrew word "Immanuel", which translates as "G-d with us". As Christians believe that Jesus is G-d made man, and believe that G-d is all-knowing, then it would follow that He knows all things that were to take place, inc. slavery.

Listen, I understand what you are trying to say, but please understand that both Greek and Hebrew are very different languages than English, or any others, for that matter. Some words do not translate well, and just as two English words can have similar but different meanings, so do the other languages.

I'm rusty with my Hebrew, and will be learning Greek 2 semesters from now, but I think once I learn these, I will much better be able to understand and think critically about the Word in its original form (a much better way to study it, wouldn't you agree?). Think about it. Any of the great novels are really better in their original language. Think "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo in French, not the horrible musical atrocity they've turned it into.

That's a cheap shot, no offense. Nobody's spelling is perfect. Consider responding to the sentiment of the comment, not its syntax. You're too smart for that childish game, and you and I both know it.

Well, sort of, but not exactly. Galatians 3:28 states that "There is neither Greek nor Jew, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus," but as I've been told many times before, this is in reference to the ability to be saved.

The man is still the head of his house, and the woman assists him. Now, a Christian man is going to let his woman be free (it would be very un-Christlike to do otherwise), but he's also gonna step in when she's stepped over the line. I said this earlier in another post, but typically women are nurturing and caring, whereas men are about leadership and duty. Emotional appeals must concede to reason every time, but reason must also be governed with a caring attitude and loving guidance.

Hey there! While I agree that G-d's existance cannot be proven, nor can I prove to you that Christ is Messiah, it's not exactly accurate to say that Christ is a fictional character... There have been references to Him outside of biblical works. Here's a website you may find interesting.

http://skeptically.org/bible/id3.html

 

HippieLngstckng, why do you censor the word god (i.e. g-d), but not the word jesus? If you're going to do it to one, surely you should do it to both?

 

ACTULLY, there are lots of people running around at the time claiming to be the son of god, that doens't mean that any of them were... there was no one single crist figure of the time - try reading some history books, and not the work of fiction called the bible.

 

Not necessarily. I was raised in a Jewish household, and many Jews don't write the "o" when writing "G-d". It's out of habit really, not because I believe there's any bad connotations in writing out the word. For some reason, most Messianics don't take out the vowels when writing "Yeshua" (Christ's Hebrew name), so I never did either.

Surely, you can understand that it's just the way I was raised?

I never even once for a moment denied that there were others who called themselves the "son of G-d". I'm afraid you misunderstood me. What I was refuting was the idea of Christ being a "fictional character", because His existence has been recorded outside of biblical works.

My apologies, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

BTW, just to let you know, the OT is used as a reference of history for the Jews, because it's the oldest record of our history.

Please don't assume that I don't know history just because I'm a converted Christian. That simply isn't fair. I haven't attacked anyone, so why the hostility?

I'm just trying to have a peaceful exchange of ideas, so please don't take it as anything else, all right?

 

What a boring subject really is . and the best part it leads no where. at least the old testament is actually funny and fun to talk about.

 

ROFL! I couldn't agree with you more!!!

So-and-so begets so-and-so, who lies with his wife such-and-such and "knew" her... It's a regular soap opera.

 

Fair enough, I was just interested.

I appologise if I seemed hostile, that wasn't my intention, but i stick by what I say.

sure thing.

 

Anyway, he's not so much a fictional charcter, he's a composit one.. made up of all the diffrent guys running around saying they're god, with a bit of 'spice' added for good measure...

I'm sorry, but while there might have been all these people running around claiming 'whatever', none of them were the son of 'g-d'

 

That's cool! I would never expect you to give up what you say just because I disagree with you... Like I'm some kind of authority or something. Sorry for misunderstanding your inquiry as hostility... It's easy to do in the Christianity forum. ROFL!!!

While I definitely agree with you that others claimed to be the "Son of G-d", I don't necessarily think that they are composite. I think they are all separate individuals, because other people have had experiences with them.

If people other than the disciples and biblical characters have met Christ, I think it's very likely that it isn't just a religious hoax. Granted, there is not much information on His historical existance, nor does it mention His works, but it is there. Here's a link.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

You don't need to be sorry for disagreeing with me, hun. I just find it to be too compelling not to believe... He fulfilled every prophecy my Jewish forefathers made about Him.

G-d challenges me to try to foster communication with people of other religions, because the little sticker on your sig says everything (the one that says "Coexist"... That's a cool sticker by the way!). The mainstream Churches do a very poor job of communicating G-d's love... It seems they're more concerned with putting themselves up, and putting others down.

I love other people too much to allow those churches to try to dictate who is getting saved, and who is not, because it's not their place to decide. Those who are won for Christ are to be won with love, not fear of Hell. But that's just my thought on it.

 

MrRee, I'll just respond to a few:

God dwells in light (1 Timothy 6:16)
God dwells in darkness, (1 Kings 8:12)

God dwells in both light and darkness, his spirit dwells everywhere..

Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable (Mark 3:29,Matthew 12:31)
Believers are justified in all things. (Acts 13:39)

What has been the unforgivable sin has been ruminated for a long time. I feel that such blasphemy is to die by suicide (for example). It is a hatred of life and love.

Believers are not justified in blaspheming the Holy Spirit. As believers they have the love of life in them. Therefore they cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

John the Baptist is Elias (Matthew 11:14)
John the Baptist isn’t Elias (John 1:21)

Some thought he was Elias or Elijah. Who was Elias? Elijah's successor.

A brother will marry his brother’s widow (Deuteronomy 25:5)
Such a thing is unclean (Leviticus 20:21)

Deut: if the brother dies the brother has to marry the widow.
Lev: Adultery with a brother's wife. The brother is still alive.

I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34
... all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52, Revelations 13:10)

What was the context? The context was:
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

The unbeliever, coming from a household which did not believe will most likely end up with the new believer at variance with the non-believers.

As for Matt 26:52 it was very specific, it concerned one of his followers attacking a priest. His admonition was, "I have been with you advocating Peace, and now you'd resort to the sword? If you kill the Priest, the Priesthood will kill you all. It's better if I just die. Put away your sword."

For wrath killeth the foolish man... (Job 5:2)
... let not the sun go down on your wrath. (Ephesians 4:26)

Believers were admonished not to let the sun go on their wrath like the unbelievers.

And no man hath ascended up to heaven.... (John 3:13)
...and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 2 (Kings 2:11)

Is it the same heaven being referred to? John 3:13 says that no man has ascended to heaven but him who descended from heaven. Since Jesus was already on Earth this heaven was spiritual - one that he ascended to after the 40 days of fasting. Otherwise it could be thought of in Gnostic terms, that of meditation.

The Heaven of Elijah was the physical heaven, the sky. Is he at the right hand of God?

Supposedly there are 7 heavens (Revelation). So who knows to what plateau he ascended to; it was probably the second heaven, the one after death. Elijah was therefore translated to the second heaven without physical death.

I may be wrong in my intrepetations, but you are definitely wrong in how you present your arguements.

If you attack Christianity because you are an Evolutionist on the grounds that they have false beliefs, then hold that same standard to Evolution, whether it is the mistaken ideas they had in the past of Man evolving from Apes, Man being reconstructed from a tooth which was proven to have come from a boar, saying that Blacks came from Apes and therefore are stupid, etc. If Evolution has made these mistakes then you should reject Evolution until such time it is proven to be false. To do otherwise makes you out to be disengenious and have a political modtivation, there is no Love in your heart as you must make appeals only to the mind, to logic, to Science, etc. I say reject them both and find your own truth. But don't believe in Science as easily as believers believe in the Bible. That makes you no different. Your judgement therefore is faulty. It exposes you for what you are...

"See the lillies of the field..."

gotta go, and I really can't bother wasting any more time correcting your supposed mistakes and contradictions.