The Progressive Faith in the Christian Life - Page 27

On October 10 2013 09:41 IronManSC wrote:


Yes. Jesus's death and resurrection.

On October 10 2013 09:43 IgnE wrote:


So that is all you believe about Jesus? As long as people believe Jesus died and rose from the dead then they are privy to the fullness of God's divine grace?

On October 10 2013 06:19 peacenl wrote:

The urge that most of the people feel here to contest someone's beliefs. It's his belief, everyone is entitled to their own belief and the possibility to connect with those that believe a similar thing or want to listen to them. Yet, quite franctly I'm not sure if everyone respects his opinion, you don't have to agree with eachother, just respect eachother. And bluntly stating someone is a lost cause is just not very respectful.

I strongly advise most of you to read the OP again, it says clearly don't argue for the sake of arguing. And let's be honest are you arguing people really interested in learning about religion or more so in proving someone wrong? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, a very selfish, close minded and evil approach if you ask me.

An argument can only take place if you really listen to the other, not the one directional blind-sided approach or pre-assumptions before going into an argument.

PS. I'm not religious myself.

On October 10 2013 13:46 Capped wrote:


I did not state he was a lost cause at all, i said [...] Evolution is fact

On October 18 2013 15:46 IgnE wrote:
John did not write Revelation. It was written in an entirely different style with different theological flourishes. It was a different John, or someone who wanted to use the name John to grant the writing extra authority (whom we would just call John anyway because we don't know his real name).

Even though traditionally it was believed that John the Apostle wrote all three works, the historical evidence does not back this up. This is one example of something for which the history influences the theology. I asked you if you thought the history mattered and you said you did. One important question you should ask yourself is whether it ultimately matters whether John wrote all the things you said he wrote or whether multiple authors did.

I have another question for you IronManSC. What passages in the New Testament lead you to believe that God has prohibited homosexual acts?

On October 18 2013 16:19 IronManSC wrote:
He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. Just because it was in the Old Testament doesn't mean it's no longer the way God wanted it.

On October 18 2013 16:19 IronManSC wrote:


Four times the author in Revelation identifies himself as John (1:1, 1:4, 1, 22:8). From as early as the second century, it's been traditionally seen as the Apostle John even though Dionysius thinks it was a different John according to other ancient pieces of writing. When you compare the Gospel of John to Revelation, there are some phrases or words of choice that you wouldn't think John would use. Yes, it's a different style of writing. It goes from "Lamb of God" to "wrath of God" type writing; apocalyptic.

I would think the majority of Revelation was written by Apostle John (if not all of it), to say the least. I don't know too much about the deep end of authorship with some of the books in the Bible. I'm not saying it doesn't matter to a degree, but the most important thing that the author was aiming for was to preserve the teachings of Christ and the life he lived. Because John was the only apostle to witness the crucifixion, it would make more sense that he would focus much more on the deity and power of Jesus.

As for your question, Romans 1:25-27. Also keep in mind that God's design and intention for sex is to be between one man and one woman within the bounds of marriage. If that is the way he ordained it, then obviously homosexuality is prohibited in the eyes of God. God and his words do not change. He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. Just because it was in the Old Testament doesn't mean it's no longer the way God wanted it.

On October 18 2013 16:24 Tobberoth wrote:

Then please explain this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Old_Testament_versus_New_Testament

Elisha had had children eaten by bears; Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me".

Joshua had the sun stopped in order to prolong the slaughter of his enemies. Paul quoted Jesus as commanding "Let not the sun go down on your wrath"(Eph 4:26).

In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted and so was polygamy; in the New Testament, neither is allowed.

Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has freed believers from both.

God commanded that no work should be done on the Sabbath, yet he told the Israelites to carry the ark around Jericho seven times on the Sabbath.

No graven image was to be made, yet Moses was directed to fashion a bronze serpent.

On October 18 2013 17:29 IronManSC wrote:


I'll break that section down, then i'm going to bed and won't be back till saturday night (busy the next two days).

Taken from the link:

For example, Elisha had had children eaten by bears; Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me". Joshua had the sun stopped in order to prolong the slaughter of his enemies. Paul quoted Jesus as commanding "Let not the sun go down on your wrath"(Eph 4:26). In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted and so was polygamy; in the New Testament, neither is allowed. Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has freed believers from both. Even within the Old Testament, Marcion found contradictions. For example, God commanded that no work should be done on the Sabbath, yet he told the Israelites to carry the ark around Jericho seven times on the Sabbath. No graven image was to be made, yet Moses was directed to fashion a bronze serpent.




It was just that: a law. It was jewish culture to live by the law (doing good works and earning God's favor in order to be "right" with him), but the reality is that everyone falls short of the glory of God, so trying to be saved by the law was not possible. Jesus relieved us of the burden of trying to be saved by the law of Moses and that being saved was by being right with God, and Jesus made that possible through himself. That's why his yoke is easy and his burden is light. We rely on Christ Jesus now to sustain our justification in God, not by trying to earn it through a set of rules.

On October 18 2013 17:29 IronManSC wrote:
All I see from that wikipedia page about "contradictions" between the OT and NT is someone who is only reading the words and not understanding the context.

On October 18 2013 18:10 IgnE wrote:


How can you say that after just saying in your last post that God is the same, forever and always? If Leviticus says that eagles, vultures, and osprey are loathsome birds, not to be eaten, that shellfish are unclean, not to be eaten, and that homosexuality is an abominable deed, not to be done, why do you ignore the first two but still think the third one applies?





Oh, the irony. And you still think John the apostle wrote the Book of Revelation and that Paul wrote all the epistles attributed to him.

On October 19 2013 00:42 IronManSC wrote:


God freeing us from the law doesn't mean the law doesn't apply or doesn't matter anymore. We still ought to follow it because they are good for us. God freed us from trying to make ourselves right with God BY the law. To be made right with God in those days you had to sacrifice animals; shedding their blood to cover for your sins as a temporary substitution for yourself. God told us not to eat certain foods because back then they were highly prone to diseases and were therefore unclean. God was making that known to them (they wouldn't have known that back then). He wasn't saying "you can't eat meat! Be a vegetarian!"

One of the rules to sacrificing an animal back then was that the animal could not have any defect of any kind. Jesus, who had no defects because he was sinless, became our permanent substitution therefore qualified to carry the sins of the world. Symbolic, is it not? No one took his life either - he willingly laid down his life for our sins once and for all. So, we are made right with God today through Jesus. The Ten Commandments themselves do not change, but rather the motivation and driving factor behind it. You're not trying to get saved by keeping God's law anymore, you're simply doing them because through Jesus, you know you ought to even though you can't earn it. It goes back to the question i've asked before: Why do we do what we do? We love Christ because Christ first loved us. We do good things because of what Christ did for us.

Also I don't know what the differences between the OT and NT have to do with authorship of Revelation, and now suddenly you're bringing Paul into the picture. Though interesting, I personally do not care who wrote certain books because it doesn't impact the truth itself or my faith. I'm more interested in the actual story. What's ironic, to me, is that you take the Bible out of context in the same way that Marcion does in the wikipedia link (a totally unreliable source for getting info), but somehow you toss it on me because I don't know who the author explicitly is for a particular book? lol ok. You're the kind of person who reads Matthew 7:1 and takes it absolutely literally without knowing what it truly means.

I'm tired of responding to your stubbornness on literally everything I post. This may be the last time I respond to you because you have no real interest in knowing God, and you are only out to try and trip me up on my beliefs and opinions.

On September 10 2013 13:43 Janaan wrote:


As a single example, the Scribes and Pharasees would take laws such as "Honor the Sabbath day to keep it holy" and turn it into a legalistic thing such as the Jews would not be allowed to walk outside a certain radius of their house. They also deemed it "work" to do the mission of the church, which it obviously is not. This is why they had a problem with Jesus healing on the Sabbath, which in my mind is obviously corrupting and adding to the Law given by God.

On October 20 2013 17:29 IgnE wrote:



This isn't actually true either. The pharisees were quite liberal in their interpretation of the law, believing that human beings took precedence over it an had no teaching against healing on the sabbath. That prohibition was held by the sadducees and later editors of the Bible changed the stories to make the pharisees look bad so that Christianity could be seen as a break from Judaism. Jesus may have very well been a pharisee himself. Many of his sayings are substantially similar to sayings in pharisaic writings from the same time, including the part about loving god and loving your neighbor to be the two most important laws and the ones on which the scripture and the prophets hang.