Results 71 to 80 of 276
-
09-11-2008, 04:36 PM #71
Most dictionary definitions give the "earnest concern" example. A few include:
http://www.brainyquote.com/words/je/jealousy181406.html
http://dictionary.die.net/jealousy
http://www.jgames.co.uk/dictionary/jealousy.html
I tend to think of the OT primarily as a historical document. There are many references to it in the NT, and to have a Bible without it would become quite confusing in some instances.
As I stated, it isn't an easy reconciliation at all, and is a major reason why I still have many doubts. If Jesus Himself can override the old law of "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek," I tend to think that many instances of OT doctrine were time- and place-restricted and not eternal principles. Otherwise I'd have to worry about eating shrimp and wearing polyester clothing, for instance.
-
-
09-11-2008, 04:38 PM #72
Originally Posted by gladdyontherise - i can't agree with the bible at all, why you ask....well, i'm jewish
I believe if you look at the bible, you'll find out most of it's authors were too!
-
09-11-2008, 04:40 PM #73I've never heard that definition. And the way that most Christians today refer to a "jealous God" doesn't seem to be in that way to me. They alway say that when you ask them why faith is so important, because it offends god to not be worshiped. Do you have any sources on that, or document instances of people using that older definition?
Sounds like to me you don't even give Christians a chance, like you automatically konw how they think and what they will say? Have Christians actually said this to you or do you think they would say this to you?
Also you must not understand Judiasm more than Christianity as the old testament is the basis of Judiasm. As to why God must of had a personality change between testaments could be right, I'm not Bible major like jamming, but maybe he thought he'd take a new approach to us ever sinning humans....obviously that didn't work either...
***But I think many people in the OT misinterpeted Gods laws and sent Jesus to help us(Gods children) learn the true meaning of God's laws.
Off to class talk later 1st JN 4:4
-
-
09-11-2008, 04:45 PM #74
Interesting. I have to admit I was completely ignorant of that.
I tend to think of the OT primarily as a historical document. There are many references to it in the NT, and to have a Bible without it would become quite confusing in some instances.
Sure, but how can you take it as an accurate historical record while simultaneously dismissing the morality of it?
As I stated, it isn't an easy reconciliation at all, and is a major reason why I still have many doubts. If Jesus Himself can override the old law of "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek," I tend to think that many instances of OT doctrine were time- and place-restricted and not eternal principles. Otherwise I'd have to worry about eating shrimp and wearing polyester clothing, for instance.
Yes, you don't see the Westboro people getting up in arms about that. But don't you think that if god meant the "eye for an eye" stuff to be time- and place-restricted, it would have said so? That seems like putting words in god's mouth. Maybe god changed its mind...but isn't it supposed to be omniscient? Wouldn't it have gotten the plan right the first time?
-
09-11-2008, 04:47 PM #75
There is more evidence to support the bible as being true than any other ancient writing.
Josh McDowell has some great resources - http://tinyurl.com/426tf9
Ben Stein released a movie this summer that you might find interesting -
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
It shows how the intolerant the people supposedly preaching tolerance really are.
-
-
09-11-2008, 04:58 PM #76
I'm actually not a Bible major, Walt; that's ensbergcollector. I have read it thoroughly, though, and my parents used to study it almost nightly, so I definitely have familiarity with it.
gatorboymike, many historical documents contain abstract moral examples that we don't agree with, but we still use them as a generalized reference; as such, I can still use the OT without adhering exactly to each principle. Moreover, if Jesus can go beyond some of the old morals of it such as the "eye for an eye" law, then I don't feel too horrible about not following every last law from books such as Leviticus. Adulterers used to be stoned, but thanks primarily to Jesus (whose ideas were at the very least revolutionary), most nations don't have laws that constricting anymore.
As for God not being specific about the laws being time- and place-restricted, I agree that having the Bible be more specific on those issues would have helped now, but it's that way for a myriad of other issues it doesn't cover as well, such as homosexuality as a concept apart from its action. The Bible, while I hold it overall as a sacred and inspired document, is nonetheless finite and restricted to language written by humankind. As such, it can't cover every facet of life or every possible permutation of a given law, action, etc.
-
09-11-2008, 05:04 PM #77
I'm signing off for now, but later I plan to address why my family believes hell is not eternal since Walt mentioned he was interested in hearing why.
-
-
09-11-2008, 05:10 PM #78
hey guys - back home now. first of all, thanks for everyone who has been filling in and answering questions in my absence.
If anyone has questions that either might not get answered as fully as you would like or if you have other questions, my PM box is always open as well.
I will start answering some more after I spend a few minutes with my baby. She is cutting 2 teeth and isn't very happy about it!!
-
09-11-2008, 05:22 PM #79
Wow...if you guys were right in front of each other, this would be the biggest brawl on history. People are free to express whatever they want, but in doing so, we have to be careful not to hurt the other feelings and we need to respect their opinions. I think that ensbergcollector is doing a good job on trying to maintain this thread as civilized as possible.
-
09-11-2008, 05:32 PM #80
i can't agree with the bible at all, why you ask....well, i'm jewish
so i will never read it or care to do so, i've already had my bar mitzvah and read from the torah (same type of thing as the bible)
but here's my question, if the bible is so right and everything, why did he create people who have killed millions and millions of jew's since the existence of humans. what did jew's do wrong? because they wanted there own country? i'm lost.....
and also, not saying all, or trying to start fuss, but of any religion that i have seen or heard of, christians just hate jew's. not trying to start problems, i'm stating this is the case i've read since the begining of time in textbooks are from real world expierence
also there is so much torture to jew's. i get harrassed about being jewish alot, and for no other reason than its a minority religion and christians think they are better (or most do)
for starters, 2/3 of the Christian bible is the jewish bible. so we have more in common than a lot of people think.
while god created people who have committed atrocities, he didn't create people to commit atrocities. The basic thrust of hatred from christians to jews is the horrible attitude that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.
All of us are responsible for his death, however. He died for our salvation so my sin put him on the cross as much as the jews who stood in the crowd and watched it.
I do apologize for the harassment you receive. There is nothing in scripture that puts any blame on the jews. In fact, in the first 100+ years after jesus, it was the jews who persecuted the christians.
I know that the nazi's crimes against the jews had more to do with darwin's theory of evolution than the bible.
-
Originally Posted by gatorboymike 
