Discernment and The Word

[Gary K]

Jesus said "They used to say 'an eye for an eye', but I say 'turn th other cheek'". The latter is not implicit in the former, it is the opposite, or at least a development in a radically different direction. And so on.

Bravus,

The only place the "eye for an eye" phrase is found in the Bible is in Matthew 5:38, which you are quoting. Jesus is pointing out that Jewish tradition was not, necessarily, Biblical truth. Of course it's new to them, for they hadn't been taught the truth.

When you first discovered that Jesus is your savior was that new to you? Does that mean it wasn't previously known truth? Of course not, but it was new to you. Even so, the truths that Jesus was speaking in the Sermon on the Mount were known truths, but new to the people to whom He was speaking. To that generation, and for a few genearations before them, these truths had not been taught to them by their spiritual leaders, but that didn't mean the truths weren't in their Torah.

[Tom Wetmore]

The only place the "eye for an eye" phrase is found in the Bible is in Matthew 5:38, which you are quoting. Jesus is pointing out that Jewish tradition was not, necessarily, Biblical truth. Of course it's new to them, for they hadn't been taught the truth...

Wrong! Read Exodus 21:23-25 and Leviticus 24:20. Jesus was quoting directly from Hebrew Scripture from the books of the law.

[fccool]

... given by God.

[Overaged]

This, in fact, is what I have done. And what the Holy Spirit has taught me is that some parts of the Bible are not literal.

If you want to dispute that, take it up with Him.

That's true Bravus; not all parts of the Bible are "literal" and there are many places in the Bible where the author intends more than one meaning.

[cardw]

If there was, we could discount anything the Bible says is sin and thus justify any behavior we so desired. I could justify being a thief if I discounted what the Bible says about dishonesty. Is that a good idea?

And yet you justify intellectual dishonesty by not holding yourself to the same standard as others. You stated that no where in the OT was a direct reference to the law an eye for an eye and you are clearly wrong.

And yet when you have to come up with a direct reference for being born again you place your own assumption that it is taught in the OT without citing a direct reference.

The other problem with this story is that the word "again" in Greek can also mean "from above" which provides the play on words for Nicodemus misunderstanding Jesus to mean born again as a baby instead of the metaphorical born from above. This is very clever except Jesus would be having this conversation in either Hebrew or Aramaic, neither of which this play on words works.

When it suits you there is an appeal to generalities and vague implications, but when it doesn't you require direct references, which Tom has provided.

Here is another puzzle. From this statement by Jesus it would appear that we don't have to believe to avoid judgment.

"And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." (John 12:47)

What all of this shows is that nobody really knows what the bible says and the Bible itself is not an honest revelation of truth by its own clumsy contradictions.

[Overaged]

When it suits you there is an appeal to generalities and vague implications, but when it doesn't you require direct references, which Tom has provided.

What all of this shows is that nobody really knows what the bible says and the Bible itself is not an honest revelation of truth by its own clumsy contradictions.

Thanks for this special information. I'm not sure what file to put it under yet.

[Bravus]

I don't jump to the dishonesty assumption, cardw (see the new thread), but I do think it's amusing that it's the heterodox ones in this conversation - me and thee - who seem to know the Word better than its more orthodox defenders...

[cardw]

I don't jump to the dishonesty assumption, cardw (see the new thread), but I do think it's amusing that it's the heterodox ones in this conversation - me and thee - who seem to know the Word better than its more orthodox defenders...

I think intellectual dishonesty is rarely willful. I used the word dishonesty in this case because Gary referred to it and used the same "logic."

Maybe there is a better word or maybe unconscious contradiction.

The human capacity to filter out unwanted information never ceases to amaze me. We are fearful beings. LOL

[BobRyan]

Your argument is primarily against what the Bible says and against the God of the Bible assuming that you agree with the New Testament statement in 2Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1:21 that the Old Testament is authored by God. (recall that in the New Testament God says He will resurrect every single wicked person killed in the Old Testatment and kill them again in Rev 20 - lake of fire -- so it is indeed the SAME God in both the Old and New Testament).

[BobRyan]

I do think it's amusing that it's the heterodox ones in this conversation - me and thee - who seem to know the Word better than its more orthodox defenders...

I too find that idea amusing.

in Christ,

Bob

[Overaged]

No conceit in Bravus' family; he has it all

[Bravus]

Back at it, eh?

[Overaged]

So are you

[Dr. Rich]

I have asked this before but no one ever answered it yet. Jesus gave a prophecy about wheat and tares. They would grow together without anyone knowing the difference until just before harvest time. right? Well then, can anyone tell me what the difference is between them? When you do, then you will have your truthful answer as to how to discern what is true and false in the bible.

[Overaged]

I have asked this before but no one ever answered it yet. Jesus gave a prophecy about wheat and tares. They would grow together without anyone knowing the difference until just before harvest time. right? Well then, can anyone tell me what the difference is between them? When you do, then you will have your truthful answer as to how to discern what is true and false in the bible.

May I ask what evidence you would cite for the part you assert re "not know the difference? Did not Jesus ask/tell the Church to allow them both to grow together, side by side? What's the logic in even calling them two different things; if we don't know or can't know the difference?

[Dr. Rich]

Sure thing: Matthew 13:26-27. Only just before harvest are the seeds/grain visible and can be seen.

[phkrause]

May I ask what evidence you would cite for the part you assert re "not know the difference? Did not Jesus ask/tell the Church to allow them both to grow together, side by side? What's the logic in even calling them two different things; if we don't know or can't know the difference?

Good point Overaged.

[phkrause]

Sure thing: Matthew 13:26-27. Only just before harvest are the seeds/grain visible and can be seen.

Here's the whole thing Dr. Rich, and it seems to me that they already know who the weeds are. 24 Yeshua put before them another parable. "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while people were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, then went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads of grain, the weeds also appeared. 27 The owner's servants came to him and said, `Sir didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?' 28 He answered, `An enemy has done this.' The servants asked him, `Then do you want us to go and pull them up?' 29 But he said, `No, because if you pull up the weeds, you might uproot some of the wheat at the same time. 30 Let them both grow together until the harvest; and at harvesttime I will tell the reapers to collect the weeds first and tie them in bundles to be burned, but to gather the wheat into my barn.'"

[Dr. Rich]

PK, those 'servants' who discover the difference are those being fed (taught) by the ONE person found in Matthew 24:45. Notice that this ONE person will be doing this when Jesus comes like a thief.

Rev. 1:1-3 makes it clear that only "Bond Servants" living in the last generation are the ones who Jesus gave the information for and what John wrote down for them to read and understand. This information is clearly NOT for the whole world, nor to christians or even all of the Adventists to know and understand. Only those (the few) who have overcome sin and have been born again of the same Woman (the Holy Spirit) that was the Mother of Jesus, as found in Revelation 12, will 'see' the difference between the 'wheat and the tares', as prophesied by Jesus Himself.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

You response ignores the validity of the statements. I don't appeal to any method of reading the Bible. I address the message of the Bible in its lack of rational consistency and immorality.

If we are to address the original languages of the Bible it becomes apparent that significant parts of it are forged under false claims of authorship.

...

The Bible is so full of problems like this that to even start trying to examine what it says as being some divine mandate is simply untenable rationally.

Ok so you have two complaints.

1. You don't like what the Bible says

[BobRyan]

Now one more question for the sake of context - Are you a Christian?

If not - have you seen the book of Daniel yet?

[LifeHiscost]

[BobRyan]

Well given that cardw has said that he/she is not a Christian it is expected that cardw claims to reject the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

[LifeHiscost]

What all of this shows is that nobody really knows what the bible says and the Bible itself is not an honest revelation of truth by its own clumsy contradictions.

Thank you for your honesty, cardw. At least you make it known whose side you would be on were Jesus to appear in the heavens while you are still alive. The one's most to be concerned about are those who profess to be wise enough to lead exemplary lives without the aid of Divine power, all the while posing credence to the right of God to be sovereign.

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

I have asked this before but no one ever answered it yet. Jesus gave a prophecy about wheat and tares. They would grow together without anyone knowing the difference until just before harvest time. right? Well then, can anyone tell me what the difference is between them? When you do, then you will have your truthful answer as to how to discern what is true and false in the bible.

The scripture referring to the wheat and tares does not say the tares are unidentifiable. It only refers to who it is that had sown them, an enemy. Because they had such close characteristics to the wheat, only those with the ability of discernment would be able to treat them properly as a tare for their uprooting, therefor making it necessary to let them grow together with the wheat lest the wheat be uprooted with the tares by the undiscerning, before the time of the harvest.

It also gave time for the tares to properly reveal who it was they were and who they intended on remaining, that at last the wheat would be readily identifiable for the harvest, without interference by the tares.

"For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies."John 8:44 NLT

Do you not find it ironic, that advice was given by the Giver of the gift of discernment, to the religious leaders of His day, the Jewish leaders. Only Divine discernment could have known the difference indicating they were the tares needing to be uprooted.

God blesses!