So why the drastic change in beliefs?

[christundivided]

It certainly wasn't faith in the law. The law was never given to redeem anyone. Nor was it ever given to make anyone righteous. Not even in some mysterious "dispensation of the law".

Faith in God and the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

So, all of the OT "believers" knew that Jesus was going to come to earth, live a sinless life, be crucified, and rise again on the third day?

Yes. Do you have a hard time believing that? Name one that didn't and we will go from there.

We can start another thread and you can explain the words of Jesus when he said.

Joh 8:56  Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Luk 24:25  Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26  Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You do have a good point about the promises through Ishmael and I haven't thought through it enough. But I would like to point out a couple things. First, the seed of Abraham through Ishmael can also be considered "as the sands" and "stars". The seed is still procreant, so at least that part of the covenant still exists and fulfills God's covenant to Abraham in Genesis 21:13. Second, Abraham was told that as a seal of the covenant, he was to circumcise his offspring. He had Ishmael circumcised in recognition that he was a part of the covenant. Third, Genesis 21:20 says that "God was with" Ishmael. Granted, it may have been strictly for personal protection but it is curious to note, specifically when a couple verses later Abimilech told Abraham that it was evident that God was with him (Abraham) also.

Thanks for the response. I will go through most of it later. I would like to respond to your first comment.

The reject of Ishmael is detailed first in Gen 15. 

Gen 15:4  And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

Following this declaration, you find God speaks specifically to Abraham about the heir (Isaac) being the source of the "seed" that shall number as the "stars of heaven". I don't think you can accurately place Ishmael in such after being rejected in verse 4 of chapter 15. I do believe that God has blessed the children of Ishmael. Yet, after Gen 21 you see very little of Ishmael. The "blessings" received from Abraham are not to be compared to those in Isaac or The Son of Man, Jesus Christ.

I would admit to this as well. Remember, the initial covenant was to ABRAHAM. But God also made a promise to Hagar as well concerning Ishmael's seed.

Now concerning 15:4, God is contrasting the literal offspring of Abraham as opposed to that of his servant:

After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.”

This passage says that the heir was NOT Eliezer but does not mention either son in the context.

 

[rsc2a]

It certainly wasn't faith in the law. The law was never given to redeem anyone. Nor was it ever given to make anyone righteous. Not even in some mysterious "dispensation of the law".

Faith in God and the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

So, all of the OT "believers" knew that Jesus was going to come to earth, live a sinless life, be crucified, and rise again on the third day?

That is pretty much what CU believes. He will hold onto this view even whenyou point out how the disciples were all pretty much clueless about how it was going to go down even after Jesus explicitly told them He was going to die and rise again.

 

[christundivided]

It certainly wasn't faith in the law. The law was never given to redeem anyone. Nor was it ever given to make anyone righteous. Not even in some mysterious "dispensation of the law".

Faith in God and the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

So, all of the OT "believers" knew that Jesus was going to come to earth, live a sinless life, be crucified, and rise again on the third day?

That is pretty much what CU believes. He will hold onto this view even whenyou point out how the disciples were all pretty much clueless about how it was going to go down even after Jesus explicitly told them He was going to die and rise again.

I've offered to debate you on many things and you refuse. Just because they showed a lack of faith does not mean that it was not told to them. Nor does it mean it was not the means by which they were accepted in the beloved. Your lack of understanding is nauseating.


Stop following me around. You're obsessed.

 

[christundivided]

This passage says that the heir was NOT Eliezer but does not mention either son in the context.

You're exactly right and sorry for the confusion. I had something else in mind when I was referencing the passage that I will get to later. Yet, the context does set Isaac as the heir. Abraham has a vision in Gen 15 that can only reference the seed Isaac.

Gen 15:13  And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
Gen 15:14  And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

Have you considered the sacrifice that God told Abraham to offer?

Gen 15:9  And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

Abraham is called a prophet. In fact, it is the first mention of a prophet in the book of Genesis even though we read later that Enoch was a prophet. Does three years have any significance to the advent of Christ?

You may ask about the turtledove and young pigeon... Cattle, goats, and sheep had long been domesticated and lived many years. Doves and pigeons generally have a short lifespan in the wild. Still do. They represent the short lifespan of Christ.

Eliezer is a type/picture of the Holy Ghost. His name means "God's helper". You read later in Genesis the story of how Eliezer went back to the land of Ur to find a bride for Isaac. Before he sent the "ruler over all his house" to Ur, Abraham made Eliezer swear by placing his hand under his "thigh". Have you stopped to consider that Jacob later wrestled with the "Angel of the Lord" and that same Angel touched the hallow of Jacob's thigh and it was out of joint?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I've offered to debate you on many things and you refuse. Just because they showed a lack of faith does not mean that it was not told to them. Nor does it mean it was not the means by which they were accepted in the beloved. Your lack of understanding is nauseating. [/quote]

Yes. I have refused. A discussion with you generally ends up with you resorting to personal attacks and name calling. I'd rather debate with someone who actually addresses the issue instead of thinking that ad hom counts as a legitimate argumentative technique. If I see a change in your pattern of posting, I will reconsider...

[quote author=christundivided]Stop following me around. You're obsessed.[/quote]

Clearly...after all, my commenting on the posts of one of the more proflic posters definitely means I'm stalking you.  :

 

[christundivided]

This prophecy was for the SERPENT and the promise was for mankind, not Abraham's seed. Reason? Context. The serpent was told that he would thereafter have to crawl on his belly. Does Satan crawl on his belly? If so, how is it that he told God in Job that he was "walking to and fro" on the earth? The prophecy was directed specifically to the reptile.

The serpent "represents" more than just a certain "reptile". For example

Gen 49:17  Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

Psa 58:3  The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Psa 58:4  Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;

Isa 27:1  In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

I am sure you're aware of the many references to "serpents" in the book of the revelation.

Even so, wherein lies the "enmity" between "seeds"? and how does the "bruised" heal play into things?

You will remember at the birth of Esau and Jacob.....Esau was the first born and Jacob the second. Yet, Jacob received the blessing from Isaac and Esau was rejected. When Jacob was born he caught hold of the heel of Esau. Its a picture of the natural man and the bruised servant. Christ took upon Himself the form of the first man. Adam. In this he was bruised for our sins and chastened for iniquities. The second Adam received the blessings of Isaac.

of Christ seen in Isaac. It is seen throughout the life of Abraham and Isaac.

Allusion? I don't see it. Symbolic, perhaps but it was not recorded that it was made known to Abraham if it was an allusion.

Allusion....
The practice of making such references, esp. as an artistic device

Sure it was recorded. God doesn't speak just to hear Himself speak. EVERYTHING has to be reconciled. You can't naturally reconcile some of the statements made to Abraham without recognizing the promises fulfilled only in Christ.

My take is that Paul made a reputation out of taking the Old Testament out of context.

If the "blessing" of "all nations" refers to Christ (and it just might, ), how is it that there are nations throughout history that never knew of Christ? There are still languages today that do not have any Scripture in their tongue. Have there ever been nations that died, never knowing Christ?

Yes. The statement is one of access and not practical application for all nations for all generations. The argument is that the covenant promises and its blessings would extend beyond the natural seed of Abraham. You can't explain this beyond the truth of Jesus Christ.

Have many nations been blessed in Christ? Just because some haven't because of unbelief, doesn't mean that many many have. They have only experienced this through knowing Christ. Not from knowing national Israel.

When he recorded the Law that Jesus upheld.

To know the law is to know Jesus? Is that what you get from the statement. The one glaring contradiction to your statement is the fact those who knew the "law".... rejected Christ.

How about

Deu 18:15  The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Joh 6:14  Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

The Old Testament doesn't record a specific time as far as I can tell. It could have been when Abraham left Ur. It could have been when Abraham almost sacrificed his son (the time which James claims he was justified and Genesis shows that God would keep his end of the covenant because of the obedience).

I agree. However, it seems to me that the "Gospel" that Christ taught was obedience mixed with faith and not faith alone.

"James" ignores a few key facts in his argument.

First is clear that Abraham was a man of faith. Thank God for Abraham. YET, lets not ignore his failures. He married the wrong women in Hagar. He had a son Ishmael that has caused problems with Israel for thousands of years. He almost got his wife stolen in Egypt. Don't get me wrong. I'm a lot worse. Most people are. The problem is exactly what Paul said in Romans 4. Paul also mentions David.

Psa 32:2  Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Unless God refuses to impute our sin, then we have no hope. We are just not Good enough.

Second, James ignores the fact that Christ died for humanity. He uses a very silly argument that "devils believe and tremble." The reason they "tremble" isn't necessarily because they "believe". The problem is.... they have NO SACRIFICE to claim. NONE. Christ did not die for them and did not take upon himself the nature of an angel to redeem them. They have nothing to BELIEVE IN. Yes, they believe they are going to face the judgement of God without ANY HOPE. Yet, mankind has HOPE. This a fatal argument lost upon the writer of James. Don't believe a devil would agree to do good works if he could avoid judgment? Don't believe a devil would claim faith in Christ is he could? They fact is.... they CAN'T.... and James ignores this in his argument.

Third.

Jas 2:18  Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

This is clearly a judaizer argument. It ignores the truth found in...

Rom 14:4  Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Do you accept this truth. That no man has a right to judge another man's servant? Do you like when your faith is judged by another..... even to the point it effects your justification?

 

[sword]

Was not the purpose of the sacrifice (Gen 4 on) to foreshadow a coming savior & to tell the story of Jesus who would one day come to pay the price for Adam & Eve's sin. Did not every Father & Mother tell the story of Jesus each time blood was shed for a sacrifice. Were not the sacrifice requirements all related to the final sacrifice? Was not the pass over & the serpent in the wilderness pictures of the coming lamb? I'm not much of a history student but I thought this was commonly accepted?

I have always believed from Adam & Eve until Calvary they looked forward to the cross, just as we look back to the cross for our salvation. Jesus paid for the sins of all.  We trust in what was done, just as they had faith in what would be done. Simple enough if you ask me.

Eph. 2: 8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=sword]I have always believed from Adam & Eve until Calvary they looked forward to the cross, just as we look back to the cross for our salvation. Jesus paid for the sins of all.  We trust in what was done, just as they had faith in what would be done. Simple enough if you ask me.[/quote]

They trusted in God to be faithful to His promises, just like you and I. They couldn't have been aware of the cross because crucifixion as a means of punishment was still 100s (to 1000s) of years away.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=sword]I have always believed from Adam & Eve until Calvary they looked forward to the cross, just as we look back to the cross for our salvation. Jesus paid for the sins of all.  We trust in what was done, just as they had faith in what would be done. Simple enough if you ask me.

They trusted in God to be faithful to His promises, just like you and I. They couldn't have been aware of the cross because crucifixion as a means of punishment was still 100s (to 1000s) of years away.
[/quote]

Don't pay any attention to him at all sword. He really doesn't know what he is talking about. He's obviously never read Deut 21. Probably never read even read Deuteronomy at all. He may have order the "cliff notes" and didn't even read them. Not to mention that Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness really didn't mean anything at all. It was just a way for Moses to pretend to have power over a feeble congregation that would believe anything he said.... << sarcasm.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The serpent "represents" more than just a certain "reptile". For example

Gen 49:17  Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

Psa 58:3  The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Psa 58:4  Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;

Isa 27:1  In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

I am sure you're aware of the many references to "serpents" in the book of the revelation.



Again, you are typecasting. Not all references to serpents in the Bible represent Satan himself. And even so, the serpent in the garden was cursed at that point, Satan was not. IMHO, he had already been cursed which is why he was on the earth to begin with and no longer dwelled in heaven.

Even so, wherein lies the "enmity" between "seeds"? and how does the "bruised" heal play into things?


Pretty simple. My son just last month killed a copperhead in our backyard. Why? Because it might bite one of the kids or one of the dogs. The fact that "enmity" was given as a curse indicates that there previously had been civility between serpents and humans. And the curse to drop the serpent to the ground indicates that the serpent walked at one point. Hence, the serpent would become an enemy of humans and since he was now crawling, could only bruise the heel and man had the ability to stomp the serpent underfoot. Could it be symbolic? Sure, but I don't see it as an allusion.

Allusion....
The practice of making such references, esp. as an artistic device

Sure it was recorded. God doesn't speak just to hear Himself speak. EVERYTHING has to be reconciled. You can't naturally reconcile some of the statements made to Abraham without recognizing the promises fulfilled only in Christ.



An allusion is a deliberate statement in artistic language concerning a specific thing. Symbolism is something where characteristics of a story can be applied to another situation. Sometimes both can be used in the same element. For example, Isaiah 14 does both. An example of this is Isaiah 14. Lucifer is NOT the devil or Satan as is what is the common thought. "Lucifer" was an allusion about an earthly king (IMHO, Sennacherib, though not positive) who was invading foreign territories. The idea of pride in the passage along with the mention of light is symbolic of Satan but the passage was not written about him. The allusion was to a king though there is some symbolism to Satan.

Allusion needs some kind of proof text to determine a second "meaning". Revelation clearly states at the beginning that it was "signified" or "a sign":

...(Jesus) sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John...

Revelation is an allusion to specific events. To say the OT is all an allusion to Christ is erroneous, IMHO. Can it be symbolic? Sure. Is there SOME allusion to Christ? Absolutely (specifically in prophecy). But is every historical event an allusion to Christ? I just don't see it.

To know the law is to know Jesus? Is that what you get from the statement. The one glaring contradiction to your statement is the fact those who knew the "law".... rejected Christ.

How about

Deu 18:15  The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Joh 6:14  Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

Funny that the KJV capitalizes "prophet" when other major translations didn't. Regardless, Jesus DID fit the profile of the said "prophet" but the context then set the bar as to who would be considered a prophet and who wouldn't.

Passage continues with:

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

So though the verse might symbolize Jesus, the context of the original passage shows the idea of a prophet in general. Now it does appear that the people in John were looking for a certain prophet but the thing that doesn't make sense to me is that the society in general was looking for a king to overtake Rome, not necessarily a prophet. Not sure how that all ties together.

"James" ignores a few key facts in his argument.

First is clear that Abraham was a man of faith. Thank God for Abraham. YET, lets not ignore his failures. He married the wrong women in Hagar. He had a son Ishmael that has caused problems with Israel for thousands of years. He almost got his wife stolen in Egypt. Don't get me wrong. I'm a lot worse. Most people are. The problem is exactly what Paul said in Romans 4. Paul also mentions David.

Psa 32:2  Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Unless God refuses to impute our sin, then we have no hope. We are just not Good enough.



James did not ignore Abraham's faith but rather added works to that faith:

You see that faith was active along with his (Abraham's) works, and faith was completed by his works;

Paul misquoted David. Paul said:

...just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

David said this:

Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity, AND in whose spirit there is no deceit.

David's statement included a caveat: a sincere heart. Paul ignores that part of the verse. In fact, Paul started by saying, "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness..." and uses David's statement as proof text. David said nothing in his statement about anything being imputed to him but rather that his transgression would not be imputed to him. So Paul's doctrine of God imputing righteousness instead of forgiveness is taking the passage out of its context, IMHO.

Second, James ignores the fact that Christ died for humanity. He uses a very silly argument that "devils believe and tremble." The reason they "tremble" isn't necessarily because they "believe". The problem is.... they have NO SACRIFICE to claim. NONE. Christ did not die for them and did not take upon himself the nature of an angel to redeem them. They have nothing to BELIEVE IN. Yes, they believe they are going to face the judgement of God without ANY HOPE. Yet, mankind has HOPE. This a fatal argument lost upon the writer of James. Don't believe a devil would agree to do good works if he could avoid judgment? Don't believe a devil would claim faith in Christ is he could? They fact is.... they CAN'T.... and James ignores this in his argument.

Don't have time to go into it now, but the idea of a sacrifice was preached against by prophets in the OT. It is not recorded that Jesus ever offered a sacrifice at the temple yet He kept the entire Law. The idea of human sacrifice was abhorred by God so why would He make such a demand? And if Jesus was the "spotless" sacrificial lamb, how is it that he was marred beyond recognition? That would have made the sacrifice null and void based on Levitical tradition. Jesus Himself also mentioned that the thief makes sacrifice: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." Kill is mistranslated as the word is thyō meaning 1) to sacrifice, immolate,
2) to slay, kill of the paschal lamb. Jesus, when He overturned the tables actually quoted Jeremiah's sermon against temple sacrifice (Jeremiah 7).

In all honesty, I don't know where I stand concerning the need for sacrifice as there seems to be a conflict of interest throughout the Bible about the subject. This is one of the things I am researching so I have not come to any conclusion at this point.

Third.

Jas 2:18  Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

This is clearly a judaizer argument. It ignores the truth found in...

Rom 14:4  Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.


Again, the pitting of James' words against Paul's as if Paul was the one who was authoritative. Rather than putting them against one another, shouldn't BOTH be measured against what Jesus taught?

 

[christundivided]

Again, the pitting of James' words against Paul's as if Paul was the one who was authoritative. Rather than putting them against one another, shouldn't BOTH be measured against what Jesus taught?

I appreciate the response. I don't have time at the moment to go though all of it. I will later. I do believe your last statement is telling. You have to admit you pit Paul's words against James as if "James" was the one who was authoritative. I remind you that I haven't used an "authoritative" argument with you yet. I don't need to. So don't read anything into what I write. I simply have approached the subject as being self revealing. I accept Paul's arguments because I believe them to be accurate, sensible and beyond reproach. You seem as if everywhere you turn you find another problem.

I am concerned that you've gotten to the point that you are actually questioning the necessity of Christ's sacrifice. I'm not trying to belittle you in the least. I am genuinely concerned. So often things in this life go beyond words. There is a point where the Scriptures become a living, breathing, manifestations of the character of God. They genuinely comfort His own. Do you feel any regret in such a decision? Is there any sense of being "pulled" to one side or the other?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I appreciate the response. I don't have time at the moment to go though all of it. I will later. I do believe your last statement is telling. You have to admit you pit Paul's words against James as if "James" was the one who was authoritative. I remind you that I haven't used an "authoritative" argument with you yet. I don't need to. So don't read anything into what I write. I simply have approached the subject as being self revealing. I accept Paul's arguments because I believe them to be accurate, sensible and beyond reproach.

Well, I don't see how James' words can be contradictary of Jesus' teachings. Perhaps they are but I don't see it at this point. Paul on the other hand, well, there are so many red flags from the very beginning that IMHO, need to be dealt with.

You seem as if everywhere you turn you find another problem.

I am finding that to be the case.

I am concerned that you've gotten to the point that you are actually questioning the necessity of Christ's sacrifice. I'm not trying to belittle you in the least. I am genuinely concerned. So often things in this life go beyond words. There is a point where the Scriptures become a living, breathing, manifestations of the character of God. They genuinely comfort His own. Do you feel any regret in such a decision? Is there any sense of being "pulled" to one side or the other?


I have been lied to week after week for the last 40 years. I have been deceived into putting my entire life into an entire belief system that is nothing more than cotton candy: fluff but no substance. I really want to know the truth, stand with the truth and live by the truth whatever the heck that truth is. The only way I know how to investigate the truth is to take off my "Christian" lenses and try to evaluate everything from all angles. I just don't know how else to do it.

Do I feel being "pulled"? Kinda, but mostly on the Christian side of things. The "pulling" comes on the part of being put on guilt trips, false accusations, being told that because I question things, I never had faith to begin with, thoughts discussed being met with sarcasm (FYI, not on YOUR part), etc. But the more I inspect, the more I see my faith was in the Bible than in Jesus and it seems to me that I am seeing a chasm between the two. I believe strongly in the teachings of Jesus. I believe He was murdered. I believe He rose from the dead. I really don't have doubt about those things. What I do doubt is the "Christian" perceptions I had concerning the things He taught and the importance of such things. Dunno if I am explaining myself here...

 

[christundivided]

I appreciate the response. I don't have time at the moment to go though all of it. I will later. I do believe your last statement is telling. You have to admit you pit Paul's words against James as if "James" was the one who was authoritative. I remind you that I haven't used an "authoritative" argument with you yet. I don't need to. So don't read anything into what I write. I simply have approached the subject as being self revealing. I accept Paul's arguments because I believe them to be accurate, sensible and beyond reproach.

Well, I don't see how James' words can be contradictary of Jesus' teachings. Perhaps they are but I don't see it at this point. Paul on the other hand, well, there are so many red flags from the very beginning that IMHO, need to be dealt with.

You seem as if everywhere you turn you find another problem.

I am finding that to be the case.

I am concerned that you've gotten to the point that you are actually questioning the necessity of Christ's sacrifice. I'm not trying to belittle you in the least. I am genuinely concerned. So often things in this life go beyond words. There is a point where the Scriptures become a living, breathing, manifestations of the character of God. They genuinely comfort His own. Do you feel any regret in such a decision? Is there any sense of being "pulled" to one side or the other?


I have been lied to week after week for the last 40 years. I have been deceived into putting my entire life into an entire belief system that is nothing more than cotton candy: fluff but no substance. I really want to know the truth, stand with the truth and live by the truth whatever the heck that truth is. The only way I know how to investigate the truth is to take off my "Christian" lenses and try to evaluate everything from all angles. I just don't know how else to do it.

Do I feel being "pulled"? Kinda, but mostly on the Christian side of things. The "pulling" comes on the part of being put on guilt trips, false accusations, being told that because I question things, I never had faith to begin with, thoughts discussed being met with sarcasm (FYI, not on YOUR part), etc. But the more I inspect, the more I see my faith was in the Bible than in Jesus and it seems to me that I am seeing a chasm between the two. I believe strongly in the teachings of Jesus. I believe He was murdered. I believe He rose from the dead. I really don't have doubt about those things. What I do doubt is the "Christian" perceptions I had concerning the things He taught and the importance of such things. Dunno if I am explaining myself here...

I appreciate your honesty. I can honestly say that I've been there before. I do believed it is a good thing for someone to "get there". I don't regret being forced to really establish what I should believe. I still remember the pain of realizing I had been lied to for many years and I see your sense of wanting to genuinely hold to the teachings of Christ. I believe that comes from really wanting to know Him. Though you may not like what Paul teached. I have always found his words in Acts 17:27 to be of great comfort.

Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

I do caution you to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Many lies are sold with a "sliver" of truth. Don't get so angry that as to ignore that "sliver". Not saying you are. Just talking. I'll respond to the rest of your post later. Thanks

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Was not the purpose of the sacrifice (Gen 4 on) to foreshadow a coming savior & to tell the story of Jesus who would one day come to pay the price for Adam & Eve's sin. Did not every Father & Mother tell the story of Jesus each time blood was shed for a sacrifice. Were not the sacrifice requirements all related to the final sacrifice? Was not the pass over & the serpent in the wilderness pictures of the coming lamb? I'm not much of a history student but I thought this was commonly accepted?

I have always believed from Adam & Eve until Calvary they looked forward to the cross, just as we look back to the cross for our salvation. Jesus paid for the sins of all.  We trust in what was done, just as they had faith in what would be done. Simple enough if you ask me.

Eph. 2: 8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

One of the arguments I've read about Genesis 4 is that the actual offerings were "swapped" in that Abel offered the grain offering and Cain the blood sacrifice. According to the argument (and I don't have any further documentation to confirm it), blood sacrifice was not mentioned in the Torah until the Levitical process was introduced to Israel which was AFTER their release from Babylonian captivity. The thought is that the Babylonian influence is what triggered the idea of sacrifice for Israel. Not saying that I agree with that, but just bringing forth the argument.

Two more points to consider:

Jeremiah 7 says,

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

Second point to consider is the real reason why Levi was not given land. The Levitical part of the Torah defends Levi as being "special" to God but a totally different reason was given in Jacob's prophesy about the tribe of Levi:

“Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are their swords. Let my soul come not into their council; O my glory, be not joined to their company. For in their anger they killed men, and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce, and their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel."

Did the tribe of Levi repent? Not really sure. But it is interesting to note that Jacob said that Israel was "not to be joined to their company" as well as the fact that Levi (and Simeon) had a reputation as being violent to men and cruel to animals. This verse seems to imply that Levi might have had some kind of bloodlust which is why Jacob said Levi was to be avoided and prophesied that they were to be scattered. Ironic that the "bloodthirsty" tribe was given permission to the rites of animal sacrifice. The Levitical portrayal of Levi's scattered tribe seems to indicate a blessing from God yet Jacob's prophesy seems to indicate otherwise.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Though you may not like what Paul teached. I have always found his words in Acts 17:27 to be of great comfort.

Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

I choose to rely on the promises of Christ Himself:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven...Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Forgot to add this:

cu: To know the law is to know Jesus? Is that what you get from the statement. The one glaring contradiction to your statement is the fact those who knew the "law".... rejected Christ.

Not quite. Reverse the order. To know and obey Jesus is to know and obey the Law. He presented a different view of the Law which was not based on tradition, but rather God's intention all along. The Law they thought they had received down from Moses had been infiltrated through the generations. Jesus re-established what the true Law of God was and is.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]I choose to rely on the promises of Christ Himself:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven...Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

[/quote]

At least Matthew's version of Jesus' words.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]I choose to rely on the promises of Christ Himself:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven...Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

At least Matthew's version of Jesus' words.
[/quote]

Yep.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]I choose to rely on the promises of Christ Himself:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven...Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

At least Matthew's version of Jesus' words.

Yep.
[/quote]

I prefer Luke.

I'll catch up with the rest shortly.