John 13: 34-35 ESV

Fruit of the Spirit: Love

2020.11.15 16:49 deverbovitae Fruit of the Spirit: Love

The Apostle Paul, having established his great concern regarding the Galatian Christians turning to the rites of the Law, then desired to encourage them to avoid sin and accomplish righteousness. He did so by condemning the “works of the flesh” and affirming the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17-24). The manifestations of the fruit of the Spirit are enumerated in Galatians 5:22-23:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.
Paul did not just begin with love: in the construction of the sentence in Greek, one could say that the fruit of the Spirit is love, and the rest of the attributes serve as commentary. In English “love” is a general and elastic term, describing everything from erotic desire to deep affection. The Greek word translated here as “love” is the Greek word agape, a love and affection manifest in sacrificial service, seeking the best interest and welfare of the beloved without regard to one’s own interests.
The New Testament testifies abundantly regarding agape love. It is the love God has for the world in John 3:16; it is the love demonstrated by Jesus in His death, and thus the model for the love we ought to share among one another (1 John 3:16, 4:7-21). Love represents the ultimate demonstration of virtue: without it there cannot be any true faith, holiness, or righteousness. Love must energize and enervate all thought, feeling, and action if it would glorify God, for God is love, and His love is fully manifest in Jesus (1 John 4:7-21). No wonder, then, that Jesus gave His great, solemn command to His disciples: to love one another as He loved them (John 13:34). Nothing else is as essential: Christians can only be truly known as Jesus’ disciples by their love for one another (John 13:35). Few passages, however, more thoroughly define agape love than 1 Corinthians 13:1-8a:
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing. Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth.
Paul centers everything about the Christian life in love. Whatever is not done in love is worthless. Love is manifest according to defined characteristics, and we see those characteristics most perfectly embodied in Jesus. If we replaced “love” with “Jesus” in 1 Corinthians 13:4, the passage still “works.” But will the passage “work” if we substitute “love” with “us”? Do we suffer long? Are we kind? Do we not envy, and do we not vaunt ourselves? Are we puffed up, or do we behave unseemly? Do we seek our own? Are we easily provoked? Do we take evil into account? Do we rejoice in the truth and not unrighteousness? Do we bear, believe, hope, and endure all things? We can certainly see where we fall short. Hopefully, as we grow in faith, we better and more consistently exemplify love according to these characteristics.
In society love is reckoned as a feeling; yet the love God has called us to display in Jesus is truly a decision. The decision to love is not based on worthiness or merit but anchored in God’s love for us in Jesus. For good reason Paul prayed for God to strengthen Christians in the Spirit to better perceive the dimensions of the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge (Ephesians 3:14-19): we will never plumb the depths of that love fully, but the more we recognize its great expanse, the more it overwhelms us, and the more empowered we are to display love in every circumstance. In truth the kind of love we ought to display can only be empowered in Jesus. We might have some kind of benevolent affection for others sustained by a sense of camaraderie or passion, but such humanitarian based love will always have its limitations. It is only when we anchor and root ourselves in the love of God that we can love others as God has loved us: to love the undeserving, the alienated, the sinful, the hostile (Romans 5:6-11). To love one’s enemies and to bless those who persecute you will always prove countercultural; it can only make sense and work in Jesus who lived and died to reconcile sinful and hostile humanity to God (cf. Matthew 5:38-48, Luke 6:30-36). Love demands action: we cannot truly say we love God or our fellow man if our deeds do not display that love. We are to be those who love in deed and truth, not merely in word and pretense (1 John 3:16-18).
Jesus rightly distilled all the Law and the prophets into two commands: to love God with all one’s being, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:35-40). We are called to draw near to God in Christ to share in relational unity with God as He shares within Himself (John 17:20-23, Hebrews 10:22): love defines this relational bond. As we are transformed by drawing near to God, we are able to grow in relational unity with our fellow man in Christ (1 John 1:7): thus we are empowered to love one another as Jesus has loved us (1 John 3:16-18, 4:7-21). Every relationship we have ought to be informed by the love of God in Christ: we approach God in love; we encourage one another as God’s people in love; husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her (cf. Ephesians 5:22-33); parents and children ought to relate to one another in love; we should express this love to our friends and associates; we should love even those who stand against us and would harm us, for God loved us when we were working against His purposes.
Love is a gift: we only can love because we have been loved, and God empowers us to love others as He has loved us. Love makes life worth living, but proves very costly. We do well to surrender ourselves to the love of God in Christ and love as God has loved us!
Ethan
submitted by deverbovitae to u/deverbovitae [link] [comments]


2020.11.14 06:58 okJesus Stay faithful believers, Jesus loves you more than you could ever imagine. (Please Read if you have the time ❤️)

Hey guys,
This is a message for the beloved fighters who are more than conquerors through Christ. Yes, I’m talking to the people who are mentally drained from their distressing unwanted thoughts and even if you may not realize it, Jesus loves you with an everlasting love.
In this post I would like to share my experience with intrusive thoughts and how Jesus was with me every step of the way. It’s a bit long but please read if you need encouragement and insight from someone who has battled with this and came out stronger all thanks to Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. I can honestly say that I’m undeserving but all the more the thankful for what God has done in my life.
A couple months back when I first started getting these disturbing and unwanted thoughts, I honestly would have never imagined myself to be in such a great situation as I am now. At my lowest I kept feeding and stressing over these thoughts to the point where I thought it was over for me multiple times, yet Jesus kept showing and surrounding me with His unfailing love. It was one day when I was in prayer talking with God in His Holy presence about my mental health and I heard a beautiful soft whisper saying “My Grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” and I instantly started to begin to cry tears of joy because I knew right there He understands my pain. Hallelujah! Praise be to the Glory of our God!
I know how it feels to be in that storm, all the miserable days where I felt trapped in the prison of my mind and I thought I would never make it out. The restless nights of condemnation and feeling like these thoughts robbed me of my faith. Everyday was me battling against unwanted thoughts and it felt like I was losing my mind. In fact, I would read these reddit posts, such as this one, of people getting better and I would think if that were to ever happen to me? Well, now I can officially say that by the perfect steadfast love, faithfulness, grace, long suffering, and great mercy that is the praiseworthy character of God, I am in a much better place now than I ever was before. What a blessing it is to have a such an amazing God. I’m not saying I understand everyone’s exact situation, because we all face our own hardships in this life, but I do know that God does, and he has already given you the victory through his only begotten son, Jesus Christ. (NLT) John 16:33 “I have told you all this so that you may have peace in me. Here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows. But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” When Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, He overcame the world and saved us from God’s wrath, the eternal punishment that we ALL deserve. God’s love for us was displayed on the cross, this is the ultimate sacrifice that was to redeem mankind of its sinful nature. There is nothing that any human could ever do to deserve this, rather it was only God’s love and mercy that allowed this to take place. (NLT) John 3:16 “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” On top of accepting the free gift of salvation made available by God’s Grace through faith, everyone who believes in Him could also have peace through Him in all the trials we face in this lifetime. So, is life easy? absolutely not. Has God given you the victory in this life and the everlasting life through believing in Jesus Christ? Yes, He absolutely has.
(ESV) Isaiah 40:8 “Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.” For the people that think they are alone because of their thoughts, don’t think for a second that no one knows what you are going through. God understands the pain and He knows all of the problems we deal with, He created you, has called you to this purpose in Jesus Christ, and is able to protect you, so trust in HIM. None of us are truly able to do deal with life’s battles on our own strength, because we will fail every time, but that is the essence of our faith in Jesus Christ, our absolute need of the Lord and Savior of the world. We must rely on HIS strength and trust in Jesus alone. This means reading the word, being honest in prayer, being in worship, fasting when necessary, being obedient to His voice/word and striving to always focus on Jesus regardless of how things may look. I know it may be a little overwhelming at times with these thoughts but please keep praying. Prayer to our Heavenly Father is so powerful. View it as a communication that isn’t stressful, but as a peaceful conversation with God, who is love, who is your creator, and who is always there with you; and wants the best for you.
Lastly, I know how frightening these thoughts may be and how sometimes you just want to give up and walk away, but please, if you’re reading this, don’t give up on God, because he won’t give up on you. Please keep pushing forward and know that if you’re breathing, God has a plan and purpose in your life. I’m not saying I have a perfect thought life, because I don’t, but I’m saying that God will help you and His grace is sufficient for you. While you may hear that lie of a voice in your head saying that you’re done for and there is no hope, know that Jesus is that hope and he is welcoming you with His unfailing love towards you and all of your circumstances. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the light of the world. He is the answer to all of our problems. God bless all of you and PM me if you have any prayer requests or want to talk. Praise Jesus Christ!
(Here are some helpful Bible Verses that can encourage you as you keep them close to your heart. These and many other faithful promises in the word of God are your armor and protection. Once you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you should know your identity in Christ and allow God to define you, not anything else):
(NIV) Psalm 139:13-14 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
(NIV) John 10:28-29 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
Bible verses about your firm Identity in Christ
For more on your Identity in Christ
(NIV) 2 Corinthians 12:8-10 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
(NLT) Romans 8:31:39 Nothing Can Separate Us from God’s Love 31 What shall we say about such wonderful things as these? If God is for us, who can ever be against us? 32 Since he did not spare even his own Son but gave him up for us all, won’t he also give us everything else? 33 Who dares accuse us whom God has chosen for his own? No one—for God himself has given us right standing with himself. 34 Who then will condemn us? No one—for Christ Jesus died for us and was raised to life for us, and he is sitting in the place of honor at God’s right hand, pleading for us.
35 Can anything ever separate us from Christ’s love? Does it mean he no longer loves us if we have trouble or calamity, or are persecuted, or hungry, or destitute, or in danger, or threatened with death? 36 (As the Scriptures say, “For your sake we are killed every day; we are being slaughtered like sheep.”[a]) 37 No, despite all these things, overwhelming victory is ours through Christ, who loved us.
38 And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[b] neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. 39 No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.
For More on God’s love
submitted by okJesus to Scrupulosity [link] [comments]


2020.10.13 23:53 God_Is_Good123 Why I'm KJV Only

First, let's get through some of the weaker objections to KJV Only before we get to the only decent one.
"It's language is archaic. It's too hard to understand. And what about other languages? Thus, it's outdated and falls short of other versions."
Every new "Bible" that hits the market attacks the King James Bible with the flat-out lie that the KJV is too hard to understand. They all claim that the King James Bible is "too archaic." "You can’t understand the Elizabethan language. It’s just too difficult to understand." This is the number one reason people lay down their King James Bible.
However, recent evaluation shows the reading level of the King James Bible to be fifth grade, as a whole—many individual passages would be lower. The modern "Bibles" are shown to be between sixth and ninth grade levels as a whole. The modern versions claim to increase readability when in reality, they often make readability more difficult. Source
Regardless, even if we grant that the KJV is indeed "too archaic," would you rather have a hard to understand but perfect Bible, or an easy to understand but corrupted Bible? I used to be scared to touch the KJV because I really thought it would be too difficult for me to understand. However, God really does bless believers with understanding of His Word if we trust in Him and what He said to guide us. He will give you understanding:
"These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."-1 John 2:26-27
KJVO people do not believe that God can't speak to believers through other versions. On the contrary. We just believe that God will gift them with understanding if they do seek out a perfect version, and that they will always come to find out that it's the KJV. God will put the KJV in their hands if they're truly seeking it. If not this, at least a translation in their language that stems from it. Seeing as we know what happened at Pentecost, (Acts 2), none of this is rather too farfetched to assume. After all, with God, all things are possible.
"The KJV doesn't translate the Greek word for (blank) and the Hebrew word for (blank) exactly as said. Therefore, it is a poor translation compared to modern ones."
The KJV is a perfect translation regardless of the Hebrew or Greek because, if we were to translate literally from those languages, we would vastly change things God meant in plain English. For example, nobody wants to translate Shakespeare into modern English. Do you want to know why? Because all the rich language and meaning would be lost if that happened. The Hebrew is for the Hebrew and the Greek is for the Greek. Conversely, the English is for the English translation. This all feeds into what I'm about to say next.
Stripping random Hebrew words out of context is kind of like someone randomly yelling the word "duck" at you while you're taking a stroll through your local park. Okay, well what kind of "duck"? Duck as in "duck and cover," or duck the animal? People are usually throwing around frisbees and balls at the park, after all. But there's also roaming ducks at said park too. Obviously, there must be a distinction and separation made between the two words if the immediate context and minimal information given doesn't definitively lead us down to one conclusion or the other, because we simply don't know all the facts to make such a decision. Making the wrong decision here could lead to wildly different conclusions. Thus, God makes the distinction as easy as possible in every instance like this in the best translated version of the Bible. The KJV.
If we cannot find the definitive meaning of something in an original language on our own for the context given simply being too vague by itself, God usually, if not, always makes something clear for us by using a different word and/or phrase in English (specifically for the KJV) to convey what He originally meant. If we translated the exact same things said word for word, the original message could be perverted and/or lost on us for attempting to decide upon what to do next in situations like this (despite requiring knowledge only God has). Putting ourselves in the position to make such decisions in situations where this happens in Scripture (of which are many) would be the equivalent of putting ourselves in the place of God.
This kind of ludicrous attitude is what “scholars" have committed to in translating modern "Bibles" and have been doing so for as long as we can remember. It's woefully wrong and it's the reason why we have hundreds upon thousands of perversions found in Scripture by modern translations, and also why we see so much sorely mistaken and unbiblical doctrine all throughout the known Christian world. [Note, Greek and Hebrew words can actually have anywhere between 5 to 13 different definitions. Not just two. This is just an example of showing the problem for words that could simply have 2 meanings. Not only that, but all the “lexicons" for these words can't even agree with each other on what each specific definition for each specific word is. And no “scholar” even agrees on what's the best “lexicon” to use. Who's the final authority here then? Obviously, “scholars” believe it's you.]
"Why the KJV out of all the other versions? Why not the ESV or NIV? Thus, KJV Only is silly."
Logically speaking, God is perfect and should very easily be able to preserve His word. Thus, there must be a perfect Bible out there without the need to delve into "the Greek" or "the Hebrew" or cross reference other fallible "Bibles.” After considering all the evidence, I've come to the conclusion that that perfect, inerrant, authoritative word of God (Bible) is the KJV. My logic of there being a perfect Bible (whether or not it's the KJV does not matter) is supported by and filtered through Scripture first and foremost:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."-Matthew 24:35
Let's look at some verses, shall we?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."-2 Timothy 3:16-17
According to the Word of God, "the man of God" is perfect if he has the Scriptures in his hands and abides by them and only them. Why would the Bible make such a proclamation, if there was not one book for the man to depend upon? Do you think that God would make it difficult to know His truth, or that He would lock it behind language barriers, cultural contexts, and various manuscripts in multiple places rather than simply put it all in one place to be easily accessible to all?
"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."-Hebrews 10:7
Notice, this verse says book (as in singular) and not "books." There must be one book from which we derive all our doctrine. Otherwise, things would be confusing ("For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints"; 1 Cor. 14:33) and it could be harder for someone to get saved, despite Jesus saying it only requires child-like faith to come to God and nothing more:
"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."-Luke 10:21
"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."-Luke 18:17
"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me."-Matthew 18:1-5
Do you really think learning a whole new language and pouring over thousands upon thousands of manuscripts could be considered "child-like" faith?
No.
"The LORD preserveth the simple: I was brought low, and he helped me."-Psalm 116:6
Reading the Gospels as ancient documents to be analyzed, dissected and read in their original languages may be a legitimate activity in its own right, but you’ll never come to faith in that way. That would be like performing literary source criticism on a love letter in order to get to know your beloved better. God is not limited by time, space, and the whims of culture and human language. His Word was meant to withstand the test of time, and be preserved. And we know this because the Scriptures say so.
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."-Psalm 12:6-7
The point I'm trying to make here is that English speakers have an easier path to the Word of God through simply approaching and reading the KJV, rather than having to learn a whole new language. Maybe someone decides to learn Hebrew and/or Greek, and that's great. But for the rest of us who don't, doctrinal sacrifices (most specifically those pertaining to the subject of salvation, as I'm well aware the rest of the Bible is rich with deeper meaning that requires one to study; Pro. 25:2 cf. 2 Timothy 2:15) aren't suddenly being made if we decide to make that decision. Since I'm KJVO, I'm perfectly fine with the belief that God preserved His Word in the English language through that version. If someone cannot speak English, then any other version translated using the KJV's manuscripts would do just fine for that person's language. Simple as that.
Now let's look at some other passages.
"And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."-Luke 4:20-21
This passage, again, seems to make clear that there is one book, and that everything you can learn about what God has decided to reveal to man is found in one place.
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”-Deuteronomy 8:3
Why would God starve His children by making it unnecessarily difficult for us to find His perfect preserved Word? Not only that, but this verse says that by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God does a man live. Not just some here and some there, but every. Would God sprinkle some of His Word here, or there? Or would He simply put it all in one place?
Fortunately, Scripture has already answered this for us: He would put it all in one place:
"Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book."-Jeremiah 30:2
"This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."-Joshua 1:8
"Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them."-Isaiah 34:16
God promised He would preserve His word forever. This promise of preservation goes beyond just the general message of the Scriptures to the very words themselves (Psa. 12:6-7). God did not promise He will preserve His word (singular), but His words (plural). If not every word God breathed-out is preserved, then we cannot say with certainty that the Scriptures are pure and inerrant.
Now, let's look at how God feels when we try to put words in His mouth or intentionally leave out what He says, as well as a commandment He gives in regards to this:
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."-Deuteronomy 4:2
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."-Proverbs 30:5-6
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."-Revelation 22:18-19
I'm not "KJV Only" just because it's the KJV. I'm first and foremost a big believer of God being able to preserve His words, then am I KJV only. It's not the other way around. I come to the first conclusion, then the second after the fact. That means I pour through all the evidence of the KJV being the perfect Bible after having realized there must be a perfect version. KJVO folks do not conflate the two processes. If God led us to believe it was the ESV, then that's what we've would've considered as perfect. It's the same with every other version. But alas, we always come to the conclusion that it's the KJV after considering all the facts and evidence supporting it, not before.
"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."-Psalm 119:89
What I've shown you here does indeed establish the fact that there is one book, and one place where you can find all of God's Word in full. If "KJV Onlyism" is "bad" because we believe God can actually preserve His Word like He said He did, then all I have to say is Romans 3:4.
In the proceeding arguments, I intend to present all the evidence that leads KJVO to believe that it can only be the King James Bible that fits the description of a perfect, inerrant, authoritative Word of God, in contrast to every other version that simply cannot conceivably fill that very specific role in a Christian man or woman's practice of their faith.
"The KJV doesn't use the oldest manuscripts that we have available and, thus, has errors and scribe additions."
This is the most typical response I get when I say I'm KJV Only. However, older doesn't always mean better. And I'll show you why.
The KJV translators used the 1525 Daniel Bomberg, 2nd edition of the Jacob Ben-Chayyim Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the Received Text (otherwise known as Textus Receptus), originally published by Roman Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus, for the New Testament. These are considered the best original language texts for the following reasons:
  1. They represent the majority of ancient, manuscript witnesses.
  2. These manuscripts were used consistently and without interruption by God’s believing people. In fact, they can be traced all the way back to Antioch, where "the disciples" were first called Christians (Acts 11:16). Almost every time you read about Antioch, it's only positives. God did nothing but bless Antioch, used Paul to correct it immediately whenever things got out of hand, and delivered Paul whenever it did (Acts 6:5; 11:19-30; 13:1-4; 14:26-28; 15:35-41; 18:22-23; Gal. 2:11-21; 2 Tim. 3:11). If these manuscripts were good enough for Paul, then they should be good enough for us.
  3. These manuscripts were never lost to the “sea of time” or ever laid aside by God’s people. They were continually copied and re-copied and show signs of being worn out from use, thus indicating the confidence God’s people placed in them as being God’s holy Word.
Yet, on the other hand, the original language texts used to translate modern versions must be rejected for the following reasons:
  1. The manuscripts utilized by modern translations are few and represent the minority of witnesses.
  2. Those manuscripts have their origin in and around Alexandria, Egypt, an area infamously known for false teaching. With even Origen, (an early Church father), himself admitting this. Antioch and Alexandria are both mentioned for the first time in Acts 6. In contrast to Antioch, Alexandria is only mentioned 4 times in the Bible, but each time it is, it's never good. And every single modern Bible today comes from Alexandria (Acts 6:9; 18:24-26; 27:26; 28:11).
  3. The manuscripts utilized by modern translations are in pristine condition (comparatively to the ones used for the KJV), indicating they were never used by God’s people.
  4. Those manuscripts give the appearance they were altered or corrupted by heretical men who desired to undermine Christian doctrine.
People like to depend on the Alexandrian manuscripts because they're "older" than the Masoretic and Textus Receptus manuscripts. Newsflash: Older doesn't always mean better. Again, God is easily able to preserve His word. Why would He have any trouble keeping His word by administrating godly men in history to preserve, re-copy, and translate the manuscripts they had in their appropriate times, despite them seemingly being further ahead compared to the "older," yet, fallible Papyrus/Alexandrian manuscripts? It's simple to reconcile these facts when you realize the manuscripts for the KJV were used quite often and that the Alexandrian/Papyrus texts weren't. Hence why we don't seemingly have any "older" texts that are used for the KJV (and why they had to be copied and re-copied) in comparison to newemodern "Bibles" due to worn out use for the former and little to no use for the latter (with "wear and tear" for "older" texts being due most notably to the passage of time, not use).
When confronted with the reality of these facts, I get told:
"Well it's not like any important doctrine is being affected here, it's fine. You're just being silly and overzealous."
Actually, core doctrine is indeed being put in danger by all these modern "Bibles." Don't believe me? Look at the staggering number of "Bibles" that strip a key verse in Acts. Specifically, Acts 8:37. Want to know what that verse is? I'll give the verses right before and after it so as to give it some context:
"[36] And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? [37] And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."-Acts 8:36-38
Just look at what this looks like when you remove this passage of verse 37. This is where you get all your Catholics believing that baptism comes before salvation, effectively making your salvation dependent on works. The crazy thing is, these Alexandrian manuscripts aren't even consistent in their heretical theology! They not only strip and add to God's word flippantly, but they make doctrinal statements that contradict each other all over the place and support a wide variety of heretical beliefs which include (but are not limited to): Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witness theology, Eastern Orthodox, arianism, annihilationism, universalism, gnosticism, “humanism,” and so much more.
Another example would be even the most popular verse of the entire Bible not being immune to this treatment. John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Go ahead and look for yourself how many modern "Bibles" omit the word "begotten" here, effectively making Jesus look like a son (small s) of God (as if a created being like an angel or human) and not the only begotten Son (big S) of God (Who is, obviously, not created)...
It's subtle things like this that you'll find sprinkled everywhere throughout modern versions. The first recorded words of the serpent were “Yea, hath God said [...?]” (Gen. 3:1). This question was designed to instill doubt and uncertainty about the trustworthiness and authority of God’s words. God had spoken clearly to our first parents; they were obliged to believe and obey. Then the serpent appeared, and the authority of God’s Word was his first target. The enemy has never stopped attacking that target; indeed, he continues to this day. He wants to undermine our trust in the authority of God’s Word. Once we understand this strategy, we realize the battle for the Bible isn’t a modern phenomenon. It’s part of a battle stretching back to Eden.
Among the many differences between the King James Version and most modern translations of the Bible, one of the most significant is in 1 John 5:7. The KJV contains a longer reading called the "Comma Johanneum" which is not present in almost any modern translations. The verse in reference, in the KJV, reads:
"[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."-1 John 5:7-8
[Note, I include verse 8 for reasons that I am about to make clear by way of quoting another translation's reading of both verses 7 and 8.]
Obviously, this a clear proclamation of the Triune nature of God. It is the clearest we've ever gotten and scholars still see to it to remove it any chance they get for dependence on Alexandrian manuscripts. Let's look at a modern "Bible's" reading of the verse. The NIV:
"[7] For there are three that testify: [8] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."-1 John 5:7-8
This modern "Bible" not only omits pretty much the entirety of verse 7, but also the words "there are three that bear witness in earth" in verse 8 so as to try and make the two frankensteined verses make any sense. It even says "these three are in agreement" rather than "these three agree in one" in verse 8.
This is a deliberate attack on the Trinity.
I am not being "overzealous." I do not believe you need to read the KJV to be saved. I just believe that, if there is a perfect version out there, believers should obviously take advantage of that, no? Reading a corrupted Bible, then, would be like reading God's Word with the lamp off versus simply turning the light on (KJV). Not only this, but if there is a perfect Bible, it'll certainly make it easier to shut down Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and other heretical beliefs with ease if we could all simply agree upon there being one sole, perfect, inerrant, and authoritative Bible/Word of God. It could very well lead many others who are lost to the aforementioned heresies to being saved, in fact. So, this is awfully important to get right.
With all that being said, there is one, (and only one), decent point raised by critics of KJVO. The point in reference being:
"If the 1611 AV is in fact the preserved word of God, why do contemporary re-printings of it omit the apocryphal texts it first included?"
The answer to this oft raised question is actually pretty easy. Before giving that answer, however, we need to address some things first concerning the Apocrypha and give some background information on both it and the KJV, so that the final answer I give to this question will have fuller effect.
Apocrypha are a set of texts included in the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. While Catholic tradition considers some of these texts to be deuterocanonical, Protestants consider them, well, apocryphal. The main reason as to why Roman Catholics receive the apocryphal books as Scripture is because the Roman Catholic Church says so. Since they believe that the church is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice, whatever it says is final. Therefore, the matter is not up for debate (for them, at least). There are other reasons why they regard Apocrypha as canon, but I am not going to cover all of them due to the fact that the KJV already does not include the Apocrypha. (Yes, I know the 1611 KJV once did, but I'm getting to that. Hold your horses.).
The Apocrypha include added books and texts such as: Tobit, Judith, Baruch including the "Letter of Jeremiah" as the 6th chapter or standalone book, Sirach, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Additional verses to Esther, Additional verses to Daniel: Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90) Susanna and the Elders (Vulgate Daniel 13) Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
In these books is essentially the doctrines of purgatory and salvation by works (through the practices of praying for the dead and tithes/almsgiving for both). This is woefully wrong. However, for the sake of the argument (and time), I'm going to simply establish some of the reasons why we as Protestants do not include the Apocrypha within our Bibles, rather than go into finer detail as to why the Apocrypha does, in fact, contradict the rest of Scripture (though, if one is interested in finding out said contradictions for themselves, they can click here for more information):
  1. The Apocrypha is never cited in the New Testament as Scripture. Though the New Testament cites directly, or alludes to, almost every book of the Old Testament as Scripture, it never cites the Apocrypha as being God's Word. The Apocrypha was not the Bible of Jesus or His apostles. While Jesus and His apostles often quoted the Masoretic Text, they never quoted the Apocrypha. While there may be some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers, there is no direct quote from them. An allusion is not the same as a direct quote.
In addition, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, "It is written," or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way. Furthermore, no book of the Apocrypha is mentioned by name in the New Testament.
If the writers of the New Testament considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture, we would certainly expect them to refer to it in some way. However, we find no direct quotations. This is in contrast to over 250 quotations from the authoritative Old Testament Scriptures.
The fact that the present canon was repeatedly quoted as being divinely authoritative as well as the absence of any direct quote is an indication of the extent of the canon - it did not include the Apocrypha. [Note, I'm well aware some believe that the book of Enoch, a book considered by both Protesants and Catholics to be apocryphal, was quoted by Jude. However, there is evidence suggesting Jude wasn't actually citing 1 Enoch, but that it was/is the other way around instead. Some of that evidence can be found and expounded upon here.]
  1. The Apocrypha has always been rejected by the Jews as Scripture and, therefore, could not have been part of the Jewish canon at the time of Christ's life. The Jews have never considered these works to be divinely inspired. They explicitly denied their authority. At the time of Christ we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that there were only twenty-two books divinely inspired by God. These books are the same as our thirty-nine in the Old Testament. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these. The same testimony is found in Second Esdras - the Ezra legend. This work was written in A.D. 100. Therefore, these books were never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.
  2. The books of the Apocrypha were written during the four hundred silent years between the Book of Malachi and the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist. Jewish and New Testament sources both agree that no divinely inspired prophetic utterance of extra-revelation occurred during this time.
The common argument I hear against this line of reasoning would be:
"Why would the Jews, who denied Christ, know anything about what should be in the Old Testament anyway?"
Another argument against my position (that position being that the KJV doesn't include the Apocrypha and, therefore, the Apocrypha should not be considered as inspired), would be:
"Well the original 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha. It wasn't removed until much later in 1885. If the original KJV is supposed to be the Holy Word of God, removing the Apocrypha negates that statement and begs the question: 'Is the current KJV sans the Apocrypha the Holy Word of God?'"
Well, here's the kicker. Lo and behold, the Apocrypha are found within the Septuagint which was made for a Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. I've already established in my previous defenses why you shouldn't trust any of the Coptic, Alexandrian, and Papyrus manuscripts. So, the Septuagint translation proves nothing. The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything in the slightest. In fact, all it does is merely testify that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.
The Apocrypha were even labeled as non-canonical by Saint Jerome, a 4th century monk and scholar who made the original translation from the original languages in Latin that is still, to this day even, used by the Roman Catholic church. Even at the time of Saint Jerome's translation, (the only scholar around his time who knew Hebrew), the Apocrypha could only be found in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish Canon finished during the silent years, which, we've already established as a problem considering both Jewish and New Testament sources agreeing that no new and divinely inspired revelation occurred during this time. Because of these reasons, (amongst many others), Jerome felt the Apocrypha didn't belong and held no value (the meaning of apocryphal is "these don't belong"). He only kept them at the behest of his friend Saint Augustine. Saint Jerome, mind you, is yet another early Church father amongst the many (including Origen, as I previously stated) that testify to the fallibility of the heretical Alexandrian manuscripts.
Another typical argument against what's been said here, (and one in support of the validity of the Septuagint), would be the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, which, are Papyrus manuscripts that included some of the apocrypha and are dated to being written at around 3 B.C. to first century A.D. Again, this argument already falls flat on its face considering I have already shown you just how "dependable" these manuscripts are in my defense for the KJV as well as the impossibility of anything coming from the silent years. If you're a Protestant reading this, you should seriously reconsider which manuscripts you put your trust in, considering literally no Apocrypha are found in the Masoretic Text, versus the Septuagint in contrast. I say this because I see modern day Protestants everywhere scoff at the mere mention of KJVO due to the KJV translating from the Masoretic Text instead of the obviously corrupted Septuagint, which, many Protestants will quickly consider the latter more trustworthy than the former, despite everything I've said. It's just something I find strange and, quite honestly, ironic.
Furthermore, I want to finally address the argument that suggests the KJV is fallible due to firstly including the Apocrypha and later removing it. Let's go to 1560 where the Reformation was, by this time, in full swing.
By this time, there are already several available translations of the Bible in English (the Wycliffe's Bible from the 14th century, William Tyndale's work from the early 1520's, the Coverdale Bible which used Tyndale's translations of translations of the Vulgate [the Vulgate being Jerome's translation, mind you], the Matthew's Bible which was the first from the original languages, and the Great Bible which was a rework of Matthew's). The Reformers in Geneva decided to translate their own Bible as better texts became available (both for translation and instruction/reference) and they created the Geneva Bible. The first Bible with verse markings (the chapters we still use today were invented in 1412 at the University of Paris), the first with comprehensive text notes, translational notes, and chapter headings. This was a joint venture by some of the best scholars and translators of the Reformation and is still recognized in academic and theological circles as one of the best translations ever done as far as accuracy and readability. The 1560 Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha, but it was separated from the rest of Scripture and contained almost no marginal notes. Many later editions of the Geneva Bible did not even contain the Apocrypha. Fast forward to 1611 and we've got a retranslation based on the Geneva Bible.
This is the King James Bible.
The King James Bible was authorized by King James 1st of England and was translated against the Vatican's wishes. It took 7 years to complete, (hence why it's titled the 1611 KJV). The Apocrypha were still included in the KJV at this time for historical reference, not doctrine. Seeing the treatment of the Apocrypha by the creators of the Geneva Bible only attests to that fact even further. It was neither holy nor inspired and its translators understood this. It just wasted space in the Bible. Not only this, but it too was separated from the rest of Scripture, just like in the Geneva Bible. This is in stark contrast to Catholic "Bibles" today that not only include but also integrate the Apocrypha with the rest of Scripture.
Fast forward even further to 1885 and we see the removal of the Apocrypha in the KJV. The reasons are as follows:
  1. It was around 1885 when the masses learned how to read instead of a privileged few (wealthy and educated).
  2. The printing press made everything easier making the KJV available to everyone versus the few copies handwritten by scribes.
  3. More people started seeing the contradictions within Scripture. Namely in the Apocrypha versus the rest of Scripture. Considering the treatment of the Apocrypha by those who created the Geneva Bible and those, at this time, being made aware of the history and origins of it, it's unsurprising why there's a removal of the fallible texts in the KJV. The absolute best argument against this act of "heretical removal" (as the Catholics like to put it) was the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls which includes some of (not even all) the Apocrypha. That argument, however, no longer works after having already established as such.
The reason we see this removal of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible is because God never wanted it there in the first place. The only reason the Apocrypha was even included in the original 1611 KJV was for historical reference purposes. Not doctrinal. People saw it somewhat valuable for the former but disregarded it when it came to the latter. When, as I said, the masses began to learn how to read instead of only a very privileged few, everyone saw it a waste of space in their Bibles and recognized its uninspired nature due to not only the history and origins behind it, (despite not yet knowing about the very obviously corrupted Dead Sea scrolls at this time), but also its wealth of stark contradictions to the rest of Scripture. The only reason it was easy for people to pick and point out the contradictions was because it was separated from the rest of Scripture by being placed smack in the middle between the Old Testament and the New. If it weren't for this, you'd have an incredibly corrupted KJV as well as every other Protestant Bible probably including and integrating the Apocrypha too.
Knowing everyone and everything the Bible had to go through just for this to happen, this removal should be considered a miracle. This is one of those “God had to be at play here" moments. I know this to be the case due to what I'm about to say. The final nail in the coffin:
God’s Word(s), based upon Psalm 12:6-7, has gone through a seven-fold purification process in the English language. Beginning with Wycliffe's Lollard translations (not yet purified), then Tyndale's Bible (purified once), Coverdale's Bible (purified twice), Matthew's Bible (purified 3 times), the Great Bible (purified 4 times), the Geneva Bible (purified 5 times), and then the King James Bible, (or Authorized Version; purified a 6th and 7th time).
This providentially guided process certified the purity of God’s Word as He divinely guided the translators to burn off any dross by their continual translation. Therefore, the King James Bible represents the culmination of purity.
This is the hand of God.
"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."-Psalm 118:8
submitted by God_Is_Good123 to TorahChristian [link] [comments]


2020.08.30 19:14 God_Is_Good123 Why I'm KJV Only

First, let's get through some of the weaker objections to KJV Only before we get to the only decent one.
"It's language is archaic. It's too hard to understand. And what about other languages? Thus, it's outdated and falls short of other versions."
Every new "Bible" that hits the market attacks the King James Bible with the flat-out lie that the KJV is too hard to understand. They all claim that the King James Bible is "too archaic." "You can’t understand the Elizabethan language. It’s just too difficult to understand." This is the number one reason people lay down their King James Bible.
However, recent evaluation shows the reading level of the King James Bible to be fifth grade, as a whole—many individual passages would be lower. The modern "Bibles" are shown to be between sixth and ninth grade levels as a whole. The modern versions claim to increase readability when in reality, they often make readability more difficult. Source
Regardless, even if we grant that the KJV is indeed "too archaic," would you rather have a hard to understand but perfect Bible, or an easy to understand but corrupted Bible? I used to be scared to touch the KJV because I really thought it would be too difficult for me to understand. However, God really does bless believers with understanding of His Word if we trust in Him and what He said to guide us. He will give you understanding:
"These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."-1 John 2:26-27
KJVO people do not believe that God can't speak to believers through other versions. On the contrary. We just believe that God will gift them with understanding if they do seek out a perfect version, and that they will always come to find out that it's the KJV. God will put the KJV in their hands if they're truly seeking it. If not this, at least a translation in their language that stems from it. Seeing as we know what happened at Pentecost, (Acts 2), none of this is rather too farfetched to assume. After all, with God, all things are possible.
"The KJV doesn't translate the Greek word for (blank) and the Hebrew word for (blank) exactly as said. Therefore, it is a poor translation compared to modern ones."
The KJV is a perfect translation regardless of the Hebrew or Greek because, if we were to translate literally from those languages, we would vastly change things God meant in plain English. For example, nobody wants to translate Shakespeare into modern English. Do you want to know why? Because all the rich language and meaning would be lost if that happened. The Hebrew is for the Hebrew and the Greek is for the Greek. Conversely, the English is for the English translation. This all feeds into what I'm about to say next.
Stripping random Hebrew words out of context is kind of like someone randomly yelling the word "duck" at you while you're taking a stroll through your local park. Okay, well what kind of "duck"? Duck as in "duck and cover," or duck the animal? People are usually throwing around frisbees and balls at the park, after all. But there's also roaming ducks at said park too. Obviously, there must be a distinction and separation made between the two words if the immediate context and minimal information given doesn't definitively lead us down to one conclusion or the other, because we simply don't know all the facts to make such a decision. Making the wrong decision here could lead to wildly different conclusions. Thus, God makes the distinction as easy as possible in every instance like this in the best translated version of the Bible. The KJV.
If we cannot find the definitive meaning of something in an original language on our own for the context given simply being too vague by itself, God usually, if not, always makes something clear for us by using a different word and/or phrase in English (specifically for the KJV) to convey what He originally meant. If we translated the exact same things said word for word, the original message could be perverted and/or lost on us for attempting to decide upon what to do next in situations like this (despite requiring knowledge only God has). Putting ourselves in the position to make such decisions in situations where this happens in Scripture (of which are many) would be the equivalent of putting ourselves in the place of God.
This kind of ludicrous attitude is what “scholars" have committed to in translating modern "Bibles" and have been doing so for as long as we can remember. It's woefully wrong and it's the reason why we have hundreds upon thousands of perversions found in Scripture by modern translations, and also why we see so much sorely mistaken and unbiblical doctrine all throughout the known Christian world. [Note, Greek and Hebrew words can actually have anywhere between 5 to 13 different definitions. Not just two. This is just an example of showing the problem for words that could simply have 2 meanings. Not only that, but all the “lexicons" for these words can't even agree with each other on what each specific definition for each specific word is. And no “scholar” even agrees on what's the best “lexicon” to use. Who's the final authority here then? Obviously, “scholars” believe it's you.]
"Why the KJV out of all the other versions? Why not the ESV or NIV? Thus, KJV Only is silly."
Logically speaking, God is perfect and should very easily be able to preserve His word. Thus, there must be a perfect Bible out there without the need to delve into "the Greek" or "the Hebrew" or cross reference other fallible "Bibles.” After considering all the evidence, I've come to the conclusion that that perfect, inerrant, authoritative word of God (Bible) is the KJV. My logic of there being a perfect Bible (whether or not it's the KJV does not matter) is supported by and filtered through Scripture first and foremost:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."-Matthew 24:35
Let's look at some verses, shall we?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."-2 Timothy 3:16-17
According to the Word of God, "the man of God" is perfect if he has the Scriptures in his hands and abides by them and only them. Why would the Bible make such a proclamation, if there was not one book for the man to depend upon? Do you think that God would make it difficult to know His truth, or that He would lock it behind language barriers, cultural contexts, and various manuscripts in multiple places rather than simply put it all in one place to be easily accessible to all?
"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."-Hebrews 10:7
Notice, this verse says book (as in singular) and not "books." There must be one book from which we derive all our doctrine. Otherwise, things would be confusing ("For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints"; 1 Cor. 14:33) and it could be harder for someone to get saved, despite Jesus saying it only requires child-like faith to come to God and nothing more:
"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."-Luke 10:21
"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."-Luke 18:17
"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me."-Matthew 18:1-5
Do you really think learning a whole new language and pouring over thousands upon thousands of manuscripts could be considered "child-like" faith?
No.
"The LORD preserveth the simple: I was brought low, and he helped me."-Psalm 116:6
Reading the Gospels as ancient documents to be analyzed, dissected and read in their original languages may be a legitimate activity in its own right, but you’ll never come to faith in that way. That would be like performing literary source criticism on a love letter in order to get to know your beloved better. God is not limited by time, space, and the whims of culture and human language. His Word was meant to withstand the test of time, and be preserved. And we know this because the Scriptures say so.
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."-Psalm 12:6-7
The point I'm trying to make here is that English speakers have an easier path to the Word of God through simply approaching and reading the KJV, rather than having to learn a whole new language. Maybe someone decides to learn Hebrew and/or Greek, and that's great. But for the rest of us who don't, doctrinal sacrifices (most specifically those pertaining to the subject of salvation, as I'm well aware the rest of the Bible is rich with deeper meaning that requires one to study; Pro. 25:2 cf. 2 Timothy 2:15) aren't suddenly being made if we decide to make that decision. Since I'm KJVO, I'm perfectly fine with the belief that God preserved His Word in the English language through that version. If someone cannot speak English, then any other version translated using the KJV's manuscripts would do just fine for that person's language. Simple as that.
Now let's look at some other passages.
"And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."-Luke 4:20-21
This passage, again, seems to make clear that there is one book, and that everything you can learn about what God has decided to reveal to man is found in one place.
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”-Deuteronomy 8:3
Why would God starve His children by making it unnecessarily difficult for us to find His perfect preserved Word? Not only that, but this verse says that by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God does a man live. Not just some here and some there, but every. Would God sprinkle some of His Word here, or there? Or would He simply put it all in one place?
Fortunately, Scripture has already answered this for us: He would put it all in one place:
"Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book."-Jeremiah 30:2
"This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."-Joshua 1:8
"Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them."-Isaiah 34:16
God promised He would preserve His word forever. This promise of preservation goes beyond just the general message of the Scriptures to the very words themselves (Psa. 12:6-7). God did not promise He will preserve His word (singular), but His words (plural). If not every word God breathed-out is preserved, then we cannot say with certainty that the Scriptures are pure and inerrant.
Now, let's look at how God feels when we try to put words in His mouth or intentionally leave out what He says, as well as a commandment He gives in regards to this:
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."-Deuteronomy 4:2
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."-Proverbs 30:5-6
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."-Revelation 22:18-19
I'm not "KJV Only" just because it's the KJV. I'm first and foremost a big believer of God being able to preserve His words, then am I KJV only. It's not the other way around. I come to the first conclusion, then the second after the fact. That means I pour through all the evidence of the KJV being the perfect Bible after having realized there must be a perfect version. KJVO folks do not conflate the two processes. If God led us to believe it was the ESV, then that's what we've would've considered as perfect. It's the same with every other version. But alas, we always come to the conclusion that it's the KJV after considering all the facts and evidence supporting it, not before.
"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."-Psalm 119:89
What I've shown you here does indeed establish the fact that there is one book, and one place where you can find all of God's Word in full. If "KJV Onlyism" is "bad" because we believe God can actually preserve His Word like He said He did, then all I have to say is Romans 3:4.
In the proceeding arguments, I intend to present all the evidence that leads KJVO to believe that it can only be the King James Bible that fits the description of a perfect, inerrant, authoritative Word of God, in contrast to every other version that simply cannot conceivably fill that very specific role in a Christian man or woman's practice of their faith.
"The KJV doesn't use the oldest manuscripts that we have available and, thus, has errors and scribe additions."
This is the most typical response I get when I say I'm KJV Only. However, older doesn't always mean better. And I'll show you why.
The KJV translators used the 1525 Daniel Bomberg, 2nd edition of the Jacob Ben-Chayyim Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the Received Text (otherwise known as Textus Receptus), originally published by Roman Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus, for the New Testament. These are considered the best original language texts for the following reasons:
  1. They represent the majority of ancient, manuscript witnesses.
  2. These manuscripts were used consistently and without interruption by God’s believing people. In fact, they can be traced all the way back to Antioch, where "the disciples" were first called Christians (Acts 11:16). Almost every time you read about Antioch, it's only positives. God did nothing but bless Antioch, used Paul to correct it immediately whenever things got out of hand, and delivered Paul whenever it did (Acts 6:5; 11:19-30; 13:1-4; 14:26-28; 15:35-41; 18:22-23; Gal. 2:11-21; 2 Tim. 3:11). If these manuscripts were good enough for Paul, then they should be good enough for us.
  3. These manuscripts were never lost to the “sea of time” or ever laid aside by God’s people. They were continually copied and re-copied and show signs of being worn out from use, thus indicating the confidence God’s people placed in them as being God’s holy Word.
Yet, on the other hand, the original language texts used to translate modern versions must be rejected for the following reasons:
  1. The manuscripts utilized by modern translations are few and represent the minority of witnesses.
  2. Those manuscripts have their origin in and around Alexandria, Egypt, an area infamously known for false teaching. With even Origen, (an early Church father), himself admitting this. Antioch and Alexandria are both mentioned for the first time in Acts 6. In contrast to Antioch, Alexandria is only mentioned 4 times in the Bible, but each time it is, it's never good. And every single modern Bible today comes from Alexandria (Acts 6:9; 18:24-26; 27:26; 28:11).
  3. The manuscripts utilized by modern translations are in pristine condition (comparatively to the ones used for the KJV), indicating they were never used by God’s people.
  4. Those manuscripts give the appearance they were altered or corrupted by heretical men who desired to undermine Christian doctrine.
People like to depend on the Alexandrian manuscripts because they're "older" than the Masoretic and Textus Receptus manuscripts. Newsflash: Older doesn't always mean better. Again, God is easily able to preserve His word. Why would He have any trouble keeping His word by administrating godly men in history to preserve, re-copy, and translate the manuscripts they had in their appropriate times, despite them seemingly being further ahead compared to the "older," yet, fallible Papyrus/Alexandrian manuscripts? It's simple to reconcile these facts when you realize the manuscripts for the KJV were used quite often and that the Alexandrian/Papyrus texts weren't. Hence why we don't seemingly have any "older" texts that are used for the KJV (and why they had to be copied and re-copied) in comparison to newemodern "Bibles" due to worn out use for the former and little to no use for the latter (with "wear and tear" for "older" texts being due most notably to the passage of time, not use).
When confronted with the reality of these facts, I get told:
"Well it's not like any important doctrine is being affected here, it's fine. You're just being silly and overzealous."
Actually, core doctrine is indeed being put in danger by all these modern "Bibles." Don't believe me? Look at the staggering number of "Bibles" that strip a key verse in Acts. Specifically, Acts 8:37. Want to know what that verse is? I'll give the verses right before and after it so as to give it some context:
"[36] And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? [37] And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."-Acts 8:36-38
Just look at what this looks like when you remove this passage of verse 37. This is where you get all your Catholics believing that baptism comes before salvation, effectively making your salvation dependent on works. The crazy thing is, these Alexandrian manuscripts aren't even consistent in their heretical theology! They not only strip and add to God's word flippantly, but they make doctrinal statements that contradict each other all over the place and support a wide variety of heretical beliefs which include (but are not limited to): Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witness theology, Eastern Orthodox, arianism, annihilationism, universalism, gnosticism, “humanism,” and so much more.
Another example would be even the most popular verse of the entire Bible not being immune to this treatment. John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Go ahead and look for yourself how many modern "Bibles" omit the word "begotten" here, effectively making Jesus look like a son (small s) of God (as if a created being like an angel or human) and not the only begotten Son (big S) of God (Who is, obviously, not created)...
It's subtle things like this that you'll find sprinkled everywhere throughout modern versions. The first recorded words of the serpent were “Yea, hath God said [...?]” (Gen. 3:1). This question was designed to instill doubt and uncertainty about the trustworthiness and authority of God’s words. God had spoken clearly to our first parents; they were obliged to believe and obey. Then the serpent appeared, and the authority of God’s Word was his first target. The enemy has never stopped attacking that target; indeed, he continues to this day. He wants to undermine our trust in the authority of God’s Word. Once we understand this strategy, we realize the battle for the Bible isn’t a modern phenomenon. It’s part of a battle stretching back to Eden.
Among the many differences between the King James Version and most modern translations of the Bible, one of the most significant is in 1 John 5:7. The KJV contains a longer reading called the "Comma Johanneum" which is not present in almost any modern translations. The verse in reference, in the KJV, reads:
"[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."-1 John 5:7-8
[Note, I include verse 8 for reasons that I am about to make clear by way of quoting another translation's reading of both verses 7 and 8.]
Obviously, this a clear proclamation of the Triune nature of God. It is the clearest we've ever gotten and scholars still see to it to remove it any chance they get for dependence on Alexandrian manuscripts. Let's look at a modern "Bible's" reading of the verse. The NIV:
"[7] For there are three that testify: [8] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."-1 John 5:7-8
This modern "Bible" not only omits pretty much the entirety of verse 7, but also the words "there are three that bear witness in earth" in verse 8 so as to try and make the two frankensteined verses make any sense. It even says "these three are in agreement" rather than "these three agree in one" in verse 8.
This is a deliberate attack on the Trinity.
I am not being "overzealous." I do not believe you need to read the KJV to be saved. I just believe that, if there is a perfect version out there, believers should obviously take advantage of that, no? Reading a corrupted Bible, then, would be like reading God's Word with the lamp off versus simply turning the light on (KJV). Not only this, but if there is a perfect Bible, it'll certainly make it easier to shut down Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and other heretical beliefs with ease if we could all simply agree upon there being one sole, perfect, inerrant, and authoritative Bible/Word of God. It could very well lead many others who are lost to the aforementioned heresies to being saved, in fact. So, this is awfully important to get right.
With all that being said, there is one, (and only one), decent point raised by critics of KJVO. The point in reference being:
"If the 1611 AV is in fact the preserved word of God, why do contemporary re-printings of it omit the apocryphal texts it first included?"
The answer to this oft raised question is actually pretty easy. Before giving that answer, however, we need to address some things first concerning the Apocrypha and give some background information on both it and the KJV, so that the final answer I give to this question will have fuller effect.
Apocrypha are a set of texts included in the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. While Catholic tradition considers some of these texts to be deuterocanonical, Protestants consider them, well, apocryphal. The main reason as to why Roman Catholics receive the apocryphal books as Scripture is because the Roman Catholic Church says so. Since they believe that the church is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice, whatever it says is final. Therefore, the matter is not up for debate (for them, at least). There are other reasons why they regard Apocrypha as canon, but I am not going to cover all of them due to the fact that the KJV already does not include the Apocrypha. (Yes, I know the 1611 KJV once did, but I'm getting to that. Hold your horses.).
The Apocrypha include added books and texts such as: Tobit, Judith, Baruch including the "Letter of Jeremiah" as the 6th chapter or standalone book, Sirach, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Additional verses to Esther, Additional verses to Daniel: Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90) Susanna and the Elders (Vulgate Daniel 13) Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
In these books is essentially the doctrines of purgatory and salvation by works (through the practices of praying for the dead and tithes/almsgiving for both). This is woefully wrong. However, for the sake of the argument (and time), I'm going to simply establish some of the reasons why we as Protestants do not include the Apocrypha within our Bibles, rather than go into finer detail as to why the Apocrypha does, in fact, contradict the rest of Scripture (though, if one is interested in finding out said contradictions for themselves, they can click here for more information):
  1. The Apocrypha is never cited in the New Testament as Scripture. Though the New Testament cites directly, or alludes to, almost every book of the Old Testament as Scripture, it never cites the Apocrypha as being God's Word. The Apocrypha was not the Bible of Jesus or His apostles. While Jesus and His apostles often quoted the Masoretic Text, they never quoted the Apocrypha. While there may be some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers, there is no direct quote from them. An allusion is not the same as a direct quote.
In addition, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, "It is written," or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way. Furthermore, no book of the Apocrypha is mentioned by name in the New Testament.
If the writers of the New Testament considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture, we would certainly expect them to refer to it in some way. However, we find no direct quotations. This is in contrast to over 250 quotations from the authoritative Old Testament Scriptures.
The fact that the present canon was repeatedly quoted as being divinely authoritative as well as the absence of any direct quote is an indication of the extent of the canon - it did not include the Apocrypha. [Note, I'm well aware some believe that the book of Enoch, a book considered by both Protesants and Catholics to be apocryphal, was quoted by Jude. However, there is evidence suggesting Jude wasn't actually citing 1 Enoch, but that it was/is the other way around instead. Some of that evidence can be found and expounded upon here.]
  1. The Apocrypha has always been rejected by the Jews as Scripture and, therefore, could not have been part of the Jewish canon at the time of Christ's life. The Jews have never considered these works to be divinely inspired. They explicitly denied their authority. At the time of Christ we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that there were only twenty-two books divinely inspired by God. These books are the same as our thirty-nine in the Old Testament. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these. The same testimony is found in Second Esdras - the Ezra legend. This work was written in A.D. 100. Therefore, these books were never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.
  2. The books of the Apocrypha were written during the four hundred silent years between the Book of Malachi and the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist. Jewish and New Testament sources both agree that no divinely inspired prophetic utterance of extra-revelation occurred during this time.
The common argument I hear against this line of reasoning would be:
"Why would the Jews, who denied Christ, know anything about what should be in the Old Testament anyway?"
Another argument against my position (that position being that the KJV doesn't include the Apocrypha and, therefore, the Apocrypha should not be considered as inspired), would be:
"Well the original 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha. It wasn't removed until much later in 1885. If the original KJV is supposed to be the Holy Word of God, removing the Apocrypha negates that statement and begs the question: 'Is the current KJV sans the Apocrypha the Holy Word of God?'"
Well, here's the kicker. Lo and behold, the Apocrypha are found within the Septuagint which was made for a Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. I've already established in my previous defenses why you shouldn't trust any of the Coptic, Alexandrian, and Papyrus manuscripts. So, the Septuagint translation proves nothing. The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything in the slightest. In fact, all it does is merely testify that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.
The Apocrypha were even labeled as non-canonical by Saint Jerome, a 4th century monk and scholar who made the original translation from the original languages in Latin that is still, to this day even, used by the Roman Catholic church. Even at the time of Saint Jerome's translation, (the only scholar around his time who knew Hebrew), the Apocrypha could only be found in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish Canon finished during the silent years, which, we've already established as a problem considering both Jewish and New Testament sources agreeing that no new and divinely inspired revelation occurred during this time. Because of these reasons, (amongst many others), Jerome felt the Apocrypha didn't belong and held no value (the meaning of apocryphal is "these don't belong"). He only kept them at the behest of his friend Saint Augustine. Saint Jerome, mind you, is yet another early Church father amongst the many (including Origen, as I previously stated) that testify to the fallibility of the heretical Alexandrian manuscripts.
Another typical argument against what's been said here, (and one in support of the validity of the Septuagint), would be the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, which, are Papyrus manuscripts that included some of the apocrypha and are dated to being written at around 3 B.C. to first century A.D. Again, this argument already falls flat on its face considering I have already shown you just how "dependable" these manuscripts are in my defense for the KJV as well as the impossibility of anything coming from the silent years. If you're a Protestant reading this, you should seriously reconsider which manuscripts you put your trust in, considering literally no Apocrypha are found in the Masoretic Text, versus the Septuagint in contrast. I say this because I see modern day Protestants everywhere scoff at the mere mention of KJVO due to the KJV translating from the Masoretic Text instead of the obviously corrupted Septuagint, which, many Protestants will quickly consider the latter more trustworthy than the former, despite everything I've said. It's just something I find strange and, quite honestly, ironic.
Furthermore, I want to finally address the argument that suggests the KJV is fallible due to firstly including the Apocrypha and later removing it. Let's go to 1560 where the Reformation was, by this time, in full swing.
By this time, there are already several available translations of the Bible in English (the Wycliffe's Bible from the 14th century, William Tyndale's work from the early 1520's, the Coverdale Bible which used Tyndale's translations of translations of the Vulgate [the Vulgate being Jerome's translation, mind you], the Matthew's Bible which was the first from the original languages, and the Great Bible which was a rework of Matthew's). The Reformers in Geneva decided to translate their own Bible as better texts became available (both for translation and instruction/reference) and they created the Geneva Bible. The first Bible with verse markings (the chapters we still use today were invented in 1412 at the University of Paris), the first with comprehensive text notes, translational notes, and chapter headings. This was a joint venture by some of the best scholars and translators of the Reformation and is still recognized in academic and theological circles as one of the best translations ever done as far as accuracy and readability. The 1560 Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha, but it was separated from the rest of Scripture and contained almost no marginal notes. Many later editions of the Geneva Bible did not even contain the Apocrypha. Fast forward to 1611 and we've got a retranslation based on the Geneva Bible.
This is the King James Bible.
The King James Bible was authorized by King James 1st of England and was translated against the Vatican's wishes. It took 7 years to complete, (hence why it's titled the 1611 KJV). The Apocrypha were still included in the KJV at this time for historical reference, not doctrine. Seeing the treatment of the Apocrypha by the creators of the Geneva Bible only attests to that fact even further. It was neither holy nor inspired and its translators understood this. It just wasted space in the Bible. Not only this, but it too was separated from the rest of Scripture, just like in the Geneva Bible. This is in stark contrast to Catholic "Bibles" today that not only include but also integrate the Apocrypha with the rest of Scripture.
Fast forward even further to 1885 and we see the removal of the Apocrypha in the KJV. The reasons are as follows:
  1. It was around 1885 when the masses learned how to read instead of a privileged few (wealthy and educated).
  2. The printing press made everything easier making the KJV available to everyone versus the few copies handwritten by scribes.
  3. More people started seeing the contradictions within Scripture. Namely in the Apocrypha versus the rest of Scripture. Considering the treatment of the Apocrypha by those who created the Geneva Bible and those, at this time, being made aware of the history and origins of it, it's unsurprising why there's a removal of the fallible texts in the KJV. The absolute best argument against this act of "heretical removal" (as the Catholics like to put it) was the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls which includes some of (not even all) the Apocrypha. That argument, however, no longer works after having already established as such.
The reason we see this removal of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible is because God never wanted it there in the first place. The only reason the Apocrypha was even included in the original 1611 KJV was for historical reference purposes. Not doctrinal. People saw it somewhat valuable for the former but disregarded it when it came to the latter. When, as I said, the masses began to learn how to read instead of only a very privileged few, everyone saw it a waste of space in their Bibles and recognized its uninspired nature due to not only the history and origins behind it, (despite not yet knowing about the very obviously corrupted Dead Sea scrolls at this time), but also its wealth of stark contradictions to the rest of Scripture. The only reason it was easy for people to pick and point out the contradictions was because it was separated from the rest of Scripture by being placed smack in the middle between the Old Testament and the New. If it weren't for this, you'd have an incredibly corrupted KJV as well as every other Protestant Bible probably including and integrating the Apocrypha too.
Knowing everyone and everything the Bible had to go through just for this to happen, this removal should be considered a miracle. This is one of those “God had to be at play here" moments. I know this to be the case due to what I'm about to say. The final nail in the coffin:
God’s Word(s), based upon Psalm 12:6-7, has gone through a seven-fold purification process in the English language. Beginning with Wycliffe's Lollard translations (not yet purified), then Tyndale's Bible (purified once), Coverdale's Bible (purified twice), Matthew's Bible (purified 3 times), the Great Bible (purified 4 times), the Geneva Bible (purified 5 times), and then the King James Bible, (or Authorized Version; purified a 6th and 7th time).
This providentially guided process certified the purity of God’s Word as He divinely guided the translators to burn off any dross by their continual translation. Therefore, the King James Bible represents the culmination of purity.
This is the hand of God.
"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."-Psalm 118:8
submitted by God_Is_Good123 to u/God_Is_Good123 [link] [comments]


2020.08.16 15:57 deverbovitae Works of the Flesh: Drunkenness

The Apostle Paul understood the conflict between the desires of the flesh and the ways of God in the Spirit, and exhorted the Galatian Christians to manifest the fruit of the Spirit and resist the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-24). He listed these “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21:
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Many of the first “works of the flesh” centered on challenges and temptations which would prove especially acute for Christians who had recently come out of the Greco-Roman pagan milieu: sexual temptations like sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, and lasciviousness; idolatry; and sorcery. Paul then established the “works of the flesh” which prove especially pernicious in relationships: enmities, strife, jealousy, wrath, rivalries, divisions, sects, and envy. Paul concluded the “works of the flesh” with sins of excess, beginning with drunkenness.
The word here translated as “drunkenness” is the Greek word methe, defined by Thayer as “intoxication, drunkenness.” In theory, a person can become intoxicated or made drunk by all sorts of substances and desires; to this end John is told the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk by the “wine” of the “sexually deviant behavior” of “whore Babylon” in Revelation 17:1-2, an indictment of the idolatry of the age. Yet we notice how the drunkenness is spoken of in terms of “wine,” for the core concept of drunkenness remains “to be made intoxicated by alcoholic substances.” Thus Jesus warned His disciples to not be overcharged with drunkenness and to be found unprepared for the day of His return (Luke 21:34); Paul likewise warned the Roman Christians to walk as if in the day, not in drunkenness in Romans 13:12-13, since those who get drunk tend to do so at night (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:7).
Wine and beer were very common beverages in the Greco-Roman world. Most sources of water were polluted and infested with parasites, and the alcoholic content in wine would help reduce some of these challenges; wine and beer were also a means by which to obtain some calories for survival. Knowledge of distillation was unknown in the ancient world; “strong drink” (Hebrew shekar) in the Old Testament referred to “beer,” not the distilled spirits of much higher alcoholic content now known to man. By the time of the New Testament it was considered barbaric and uncultured to drink “unmixed” wine which maintained its full ~12% alcoholic strength (thus the indictment and the strength of judgment found in the unmixed cup of the wrath of God in Revelation 14:10); wine was cut with water, three or four parts water to one part wine, reducing alcoholic content to around 3-4%. Paul commended such wine for Timothy on account of his stomach ailments (1 Timothy 5:23). Almost everyone in the ancient world, the poor or enslaved as well as the rich, would drink some kind of this mixed wine with their meals.
And yet Paul’s warning against drunkenness remained appropriate: many would drink themselves to drunkenness, even with unmixed wine. In this way human nature has changed little over the centuries: then, as now, many consumed a lot of alcohol at parties or in other social settings as a “social lubricant,” to loosen inhibitions and revel with one’s fellow man: to “make merry,” according to the Hebrew idiom (e.g. Ruth 3:7, 1 Samuel 25:36, 2 Kings 4:20, Ecclesiastes 9:7, Isaiah 24:7, Jeremiah 15:17). Drunkenness, then as now, would often lead to unwise sexual liaisons or arguments and fights (cf. Proverbs 20:1, 23:31-35). For many drunkenness represented a coping mechanism for the distress and pain of life, a tranquilizer to numb from the misery of life (cf. Proverbs 31:6-7). Drunkenness, therefore, represents the attempt to escape from reality to pursue greater social acceptance, the loosening of inhibitions, the warmth and the “buzz,” and/or the numbness from pain. Christians are called upon to clearly recognize reality and to find hope and confidence in Jesus, giving no quarter to the passions of the flesh but in sober-mindedness fully devoted to the purposes of God in Christ until He returns (cf. Colossians 3:1-10). Thus, any who would profess Jesus yet prove to be an unrepentant drunkard must be cast out from among the people of God, for no drunkard will inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:10).
The culture of alcohol in America today gravitates toward the extremes: excessive consumption of alcohol in revelry and/or addiction, or teetotaling abstinence. Christians do well to condemn the culture of excessive consumption of alcohol and to resist any form of participation in it. Few sins prove as self-defeating as drunkenness: much of it is consumed without regard to taste; all kinds of bad decisions are made while drunk; excessive consumption all too easily leads to a hangover; and despite it all people will return and do it over and over again. Such is the definition of folly, and we do well to observe the lessons of Proverbs 23:31-35. In truth no one is at their best or healthiest while drinking unto drunkenness. Nothing good comes from it.
We can see that Christians must condemn the excessive consumption of alcohol and firmly resist participation in drunkenness and revelry. Yet we must also make sure we do not go beyond what is written in our condemnations and denunciations. There are some who would suggest any kind of alcoholic consumption is sinful and condemned. Many such persons attempt to argue for a “non-alcoholic” definition of Greek oinos as used in the New Testament; some suggest the condemnation of drunkenness in Ephesians 5:18 is not just the end result but the entire process based upon the form of the verb (methuskesthe, argued to be an inchoate/inceptive form), and thus to drink one alcoholic drink is in the process of getting drunk, and thus is as drunkenness. Neither argument can be sustained in light of what is made known in the New Testament. Greek oinos, by definition, is alcoholic wine; contextual evidence would be necessary to suggest anything to the contrary. It would be odd for the Jewish people to condemn Jesus as one who drank a lot of grape juice in Matthew 11:19; Paul’s exhortation for deacons to “not be given to much wine” makes no sense if the “wine” involved was really only grape juice (1 Timothy 3:8). In terms of Ephesians 5:18, not every verb with the inchoate/inceptive form -sk- is necessarily inchoate/inceptive; by the first century, methuskesthe just meant to get drunk, not the whole process. One could argue that the sin of drunkenness includes drinking with the intent to get drunk, and thus with the very first drink; yet even then, if there were no intention to get drunk, and one did not get drunk, there is no means by which to condemn such a one as a drunkard.
What shall we say to such things? No excuse or quarter is to be given for drunkenness: all Christians must condemn excessive consumption of alcohol as dangerous and sinful, a “work of the flesh” (1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:10, Galatians 5:22). The Bible does not condemn all forms of alcoholic consumption, however: the condemnation is in excess consumption, and the Scriptures testify to the people of God drinking wine and beer in Old and New Testament times (Deuteronomy 7:3, 14:26, Proverbs 31:6, Ecclesiastes 9:7, 10:19, Matthew 11:19, 1 Timothy 5:23). The Apostle Paul declared it was good to not drink wine if it caused a fellow Christian to stumble, and that remains excellent counsel (Romans 14:21). And yet the Kingdom is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit according to Romans 14:17: there is no ground to condemn consumption of alcohol that does not lead to excess. Thus, Christians do well to avoid sin in terms of alcohol and drinking: none should get drunk. Those who elect to avoid all alcoholic beverages ought to be respected for that decision, and none should seek to cause them to stumble. Yet those who abstain have no ground or right to judge or condemn those who would consume alcohol but not to excess (Romans 14:3-22). May we glorify God in all we do, avoid drunkenness, and strive to live in peace to edify one another in Christ!
Ethan
submitted by deverbovitae to u/deverbovitae [link] [comments]


2020.07.12 15:51 deverbovitae I Am Not Fine; Neither Are You.

How are you doing today? You’re fine? How am I doing? Oh, I’m fine, too.
How many times have you had such a conversation in your life? How many times have you really, fully, honestly meant it, and were really and completely fine? How many times did you walk away really thinking the other person really, fully, honestly meant it, and were really and completely fine?
Are we fine?
I am not fine; neither are you.
The “How are you? I’m fine” routine involves play-acting, a manifestation of our public personae. We tell people we are fine even though we are not because we understand the “rules of the game,” and we project an air of calmness and strength no matter what may be going on inside. We want to be seen as “having our act together.” We intuitively understand the question is generally an attempt to make the basic acknowledgement of the presence and existence of one another, and we should not press the matter any farther.
Yet I am not fine; neither are you.
So why do we persist with this charade?
We understand it is a convention we maintain. We want to appear to have concern for the welfare of others. We want to acknowledge the people in our lives. In turn we want others to have concern for our welfare and to acknowledge our presence in their lives.
And yet we also do not want to be a bother. We have been taught, in a thousand different ways, that we ought to be able to manage the trials of life on our own. We are supposed to put on our “big boy” or “big girl” pants and “deal with it.” For us to need support and strength from others would be an admission of insufficiency and weakness. We might lose face, become ashamed, and suffer humiliation.
We are also deeply concerned about awkwardness and rejection. Why don’t we tell other people how we feel? Is it not because if we started telling others how we were really feeling, we fear they would no longer want to ask, no longer want to acknowledge our presence in their lives, and thus reject us? Are we not concerned that we would be further hurt in rejection? Or perhaps we have little confidence in the person to be able to provide the support we would need. Maybe we are a bit too anxious about that; sadly, we also have many good reasons to believe it to be true. If we are honest with ourselves, we would not want to be thus burdened by everyone. We are afraid that if we empathize with everyone and bear everyone’s burdens, we will be spent and wasted and have nothing left. In this situation we all confess our love for humanity; but specific people we find difficult to truly love and support. We are comfortable in generalities; we prove anxious and fearful in specifics.
I am not fine; neither are you.
Richard Beck has summarized the situation well: “A church where everyone is ‘fine’ is a group of humans refusing to be human beings and pretending to be gods” (italics original; The Slavery of Death, 111). When a church environment has become like the American culture surrounding it, everyone feels as if they must prove invulnerable, put on the holy appearance, presume as if they have their act together. There does not seem to be a needy person among us, but only because we deeply fear humiliation, rejection, and shame if we proved to be needy. This fear need not be purely abstract: how many have experienced that patronizing “less holy” and insufficient attitude from fellow Christians when expressing a need for support, strength, or resources? How many Christians prove perfectly willing to look down upon their fellow servants of Jesus in order to justify and prop up their own projections of competence and strength? Whenever Christians put on this air of invulnerability and sufficiency they are hypocrites in the true sense of the term: they are putting on an act. They are trying, however consciously, to reflect what they imagine the impassibility of God requires: a Stoic sense of suffering without expressing any of it, the delusion that as long as we project strength and positivity, we will cultivate strength and positivity, and the persistent Greek pretense that vulnerability and the expression of feeling is weakness and thus contemptible. What is going on inside proves less important than maintaining the façade of competence and strength. Such is literally the definition of an idol.
I am not fine; neither are you.
Beck follows Arthur McGill in suggesting that the love of God in Christ cannot be manifest among the people of God until Christians reflect a “community of neediness” (ibid. 110). In the early church there were no needy among them not because none ever had need, but because Christians provided for one another’s needs (Acts 4:34-35). In Christ the projection of strength is not true strength; in embracing weakness we are made strong (2 Corinthians 12:9-10). We have come to understand much regarding the character of God through the Lord Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3): Jesus took on flesh, greatly humbling Himself, developed strong relationships with His twelve disciples, expended Himself in serving others, and displayed anguish, distress, and pain regarding His own condition as well as that of others (e.g. Matthew 26:36-46, John 11:35-36, 13:1-15). The Apostle Paul spoke forthrightly of his anguish and distress (e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:3-11). We do not find in the Gospel or from the writings of the Apostles any expectation that we must come together and act as if we have everything figured out and project strength and competence. Instead, the Gospel teaches us we are weak, utterly dependent on God, insufficient in and of ourselves, and strengthened and sustained only through the power of God in Christ by the Spirit (Ephesians 2:1-3:22).
Thus, according to what God has made known in Christ, I am not fine; neither are you.
Any church environment in which the members project invulnerability and strength is a dead environment. Those outside all too often perceive the group at worst as cold and distant and at best as beyond their ability to join. If some of those with whom we have shared the Gospel have come to the conclusion they must get their lives sorted out before they get baptized, from whence have they obtained that impression? They have perceived a group of people who seem to have their lives sorted out, and think they must sort out their lives before they can join. Such a group is as Laodicea: they presume to need nothing, but prove in need of everything (Revelation 3:12-21).
It is only when we decide to drop the pretense and begin to prove honestly vulnerable and in need among one another that we can grow in love and faith toward relational unity with God and with one another (1 John 3:16-4:21). Many will find this to be a relief; they were being crushed by the expectation that everything is fine when it is not fine. Others may prove more reticent, and might well find themselves on the margins, unable or unwilling to break through the anxiety and the fear to more accurately embody Christ toward one another. There will be rejection, humiliation, shame, and pain; yet, in truth, we have signed up for such things when we committed ourselves to the Christ who bore the cross, rejection, humiliation, and shame (1 Peter 2:18-25).
But guess what happens when we grow in that relational unity with one another? When we ask how each other is doing, we do not have to pretend. We can be honest.
I am not fine; neither are you. When we learn to accept that, and learn to need one another, support one another, and depend on one another in Christ, we will be able to grow in the grace, knowledge, and strength of the Lord Jesus together!
Ethan
submitted by deverbovitae to u/deverbovitae [link] [comments]


2020.06.24 22:41 PoBoMoEnglish [Letter]

Dr. Peterson,
In a recent podcast you contrast the God of the OT with the God of the NT. As you know, this is a fairly common approach and dates almost as far back as Christianity itself (Marcionism). I believe the real solution to understanding the differences is understanding the multiple covenants of the Bible (creation, Noah, Abrahamic, Mosaic, David and New Covenant established by Jesus). The idea is summarized in Romans 4:15: "For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression." Basically, under the Mosaic Law the people of God were accountable and in danger of incurring God's wrath. This was not true before the law was given (e.g., Abraham gets away with scandalous behavior without incurring God's wrath) or after Jesus fulfilled the law by His substitutionary death on the cross.

I'm pasting a paper I wrote as part of my master's degree that expands this idea for your consideration:

Wrath and Salvation:
God’s Interaction with Israel
According to Two Covenants
with Two Mediators
Darrell W. Six
HT501: The Church’s Understanding of God
and Christ in Its Theological Reflection
Spring 2020
Dr. Jennifer M. Rosner
Fuller Theological Seminary
Due June 12, 2020
Submitted June 11, 2020
2,628 words
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
The Context of Gods Warning:Lest the LORD Break Out Against Them”……………. 3
The Covenant Mediated by Moses …………………………………………….………….…. 5
The Connection Between Shavuot and Pentecost ………………………………..………… 6
The Covenant Mediated by Jesus ……..….…………………………………………………. 8
Conclusion ………….………………………………………………………………….……. 10
Works Cited …….…………………………………………………………………………… 11
Introduction
This paper contrasts God’s warning that He would “break out” (יִפְרֹ֥ץ) against the people of Israel at the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai, with the lack of this danger surrounding the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. I attempt to answer the question: Why would God’s people be in danger in His presence at the giving of the Torah, but not at the giving of His Spirit? The thesis of this paper is that Moses mediated a covenant that exposed Israel to God’s wrath while the Son of God mediates a covenant that saves Israel from God’s wrath.
First, I examine the context of God’s warning in Ex. 19:18-24. Then, I argue the covenant that Moses mediated was a covenant that exposed Israel to God’s wrath and examine potential objections to this postulation. Next, I explore the relationship between the giving of the Torah and the giving of the Holy Spirit (Shavuot and Pentecost). Finally, I examine why at Pentecost Israel was safe from God’s “breaking out” under the covenant mediated by Jesus.
The Context of God’s Warning: “Lest the LORD Break Out Against Them”
Exodus chapter 19 sets the stage for one of the most important moments in all of human history. “Exodus 19 is a highly complex chapter, almost certainly a composite, to which all the major pentateuchal sources have made a contribution” (Fretheim 2010, 208). A heavily edited chapter explains the fragmentary nature of the narrative, nevertheless we are left with the LORD’s stark warning to Moses for the priests and the people. Twice in Ex. 19:22-24 God warns Moses of the danger of the LORD “breaking out” against the people.
The Hebrew (יִפְרֹ֥ץ) (Qal imperfect) is “to break out in judgement (or punishment) against” (Koehler, Baumgartner and Richardon, eds.). “‘[B]reak out against’ [is] an idiomatic way of connoting ‘attack,’ cf. 2 Sam 5:20; 6:8; 1 Chr 15:13; Jer 4:4; 21:2. Naturally, if God attacks someone, it is not likely that he will fail to inflict whatever punishment is inherent in the attack, including death. V. 21 uses the euphemism ‘fall’ (NIV, interpretively, ‘perish’), and this verse uses the euphemism ‘break out against,’ but both rather clearly connote ‘put to death’ in the context” (Stuart 2006, 542). Fretheim posits that the “breaking out” is the community death penalty of verses 12 and 13 (2010, 217). Janzen, on the other hand, argues the Hebrew suggests an act of violence of a supernatural nature, e.g., a divinely ordered plague (2000, 245).
Regardless of the human or divine nature of the penalty, the reader must ask the very question the people of Israel asked: “Why would God supernaturally deliver the people only to destroy them?” (Ex. 14:11; Dt. 1:27) Fretheim offers one insightful possibility:
Why, then, is the penalty so severe for the people as a whole? The issue is not a concern for God, as if the divine transcendence or sovereignty would be compromised or violated. The concern is explicitly for the sake of the people, to preserve them alive. Not seeing God has reference to a structure of creation for the purpose of preserving human freedom and life. For God to be fully present would be coercive; too direct a divine presence would annul human existence, as a flame kills a butterfly. God must set people at a certain distance from himself. The vision of God must be of such a nature that disbelief remains possible (2010, 217).
Donald Gowan succinctly captures this sentiment: “this is not a danger to be escaped from, but to be approached as nearly as possible” (1994, 27). This is congruent with the language of Ex. 19:4-6. “God has continuously cared for his people and like a great bird watched over his fledglings until he brought them safely to his dwelling” (Childs 2004, 394). Yet how much consolation is tender language in the face of a threat of capital punishment?
The warning of the LORD that He might “break out” against the people is nothing less than a stark reminder of God’s perfect holiness. Moses is not able to protect the people from God’s holiness (or their sinfulness). The people know it, are terrified and beg for God not to speak to them lest they all die (Dt. 5:25-27). Rather than comforting and reassuring the people, God agrees with their assessment of the situation (Dt. 5:28). The great fault of the covenant mediated by Moses (Heb. 8:7) is not the Torah, but the weakness of people (Heb. 8:8; Ro. 8:3).
The Covenant Mediated by Moses
“One of the most distinctive characteristics of Old Testament law is that it is enclosed by narrative” (Fretheim 2010, 201). The narrative is as significant as the laws it surrounds. In Exodus 19 the narrative serves a very intentional function: “This seemingly disjointed sequence results from an awkward combination of multiple texts or traditions. Nevertheless, a profound and unified idea is communicated through the final redaction: Moses is the mediator between God and the people of Israel” (White 2016, 175). Fretheim confirms, “These verses are thus in the service of the twofold purpose of this section as a whole: to center the people on the reality of the divine presence and to clarify the role of Moses as intermediary” (2010, 219). Janzen likewise writes, “God draws near to Israel by way of this grand theophany; that action has as its immediate purpose the authentication of Moses as mediator between God and people” (2000, 243-244). It is no wonder then that the Torah is synonymously known as “the Law of Moses”: he is the intermediary of this covenant (Ga. 3:19).
(It is interesting to note that Moses did not seem to relish his role as covenant mediator (Nu. 11:12). “Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” Moses tells Joshua (Nu. 11:29). Prophetically, his desire is fulfilled at Pentecost: “All of God’s people would now be priests and prophets, for the idea, stated when the law was given but never achieved, would now become actual” (Graybill 1960, 296).)
Moses receives “partial exceptions” to the danger of the LORD’s “breaking out” “because of [his] mediatorial capacity, for the sake of communicating the word of God to the people” (Fretheim 2010, 217). However, the covenant he mediates exposes Israel to God’s wrath. This is highlighted in the LORD’s responses before and after the giving of the Torah: before the law is given, egregious behavior by the people of Israel brings no punishment from God (Ex. 15:22-26; 16:1-15; 27-30 and 17:1-7); after the law is given, misbehavior on the part of the people of Israel leads to death by natural, supernatural and communal (stoning) means (Nu. 11:1-3, 33-34; 15:32-36; 21:4-6). Ro. 4:15 describes this phenomena: “For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression” (ESV) (see also Ga. 3:22 and 2 Cor. 3:7). The people of Israel are in danger on Mt. Sinai because God is counting their sin against them.
This, however, may not be a completely satisfactory answer to the question this paper proposes to solve for two reasons. Firstly, the LORD’s warning comes before the Torah is actually given (though one might describe what is happening at Mt. Sinai as the process of receiving the law). Secondly, it is possible to find remarkable examples of individuals protected from God’s wrath even when violating Torah (2 Chr. 30:18-20; 1 Sam. 21:1-6; 2 Sam. 12:13). Even so, it is far easier to cite many examples of Israel continually exposed to God’s wrath (Jos. 22:19-20; 2 Ki. 22:13; Jer. 6:11; Hos. 5:10; Zeph. 3:8; Ezk. 7:8, Mt. 23:35-38; Rev. 15:1; etc.). Once again, this is not a failure of the Torah, but of the people (Ro. 7:7, 14). Even with the aforementioned exceptions, it is apparent that the Mosaic Covenant imputes sin to those living under the covenant (Dt. 24:16).
The Connection Between Shavuot and Pentecost
Today Shavuot commemorates the receiving the Torah (Shendelman and Davis 1998, 60). However, it is unknown if this harvest celebration commemorated the giving of the Torah at the time of the events of Pentecost in Acts (Pervo 2009, 60). Likewise, “[i]t is uncertain whether this is in the minds of Peter and company on this day or of Luke in recoding the story” (Faw 1993, 41). Nevertheless, “[t]he pyrotechnic, acoustical manifestations of God’s descent onto Sinai are matched in Scripture only by similar remarkable phenomena on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2” (Hamilton 2011, 310). The parallels between the two events are undeniable even if this was not a connection that Luke was intending to make.
God’s encounter with His people on Mt. Sinai and at Pentecost serve as the “fulcrum” in their respective narratives (Bock 2007, 92). In Ex. 19-20 “Israel is bound to God in covenant and sent on a mission” (Janzen 2000, 234). In Ac. 2 Israel is eternally bound to the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17) and empowered to fulfill God’s mission (Ac. 1:8). Just as “[t]he story of this day set the stage for the events and themes of the entire book” in Ac. 2 (Faw 1993, 40), likewise a “new beginning [is] initiated with [Ex.] chapter 19 . . . a redeemed Israel is now commissioned to a special task among the nations of the world” (Janzen 2000, 232).
Not only is the imagery of these two accounts similar, as well as their function in their respective narratives, their practical application for the people of Israel are also connected. Under the covenant mediated by Moses, the Torah was the “very life” of Israel (Dt. 32:47; see also Dt. 30:19; Lev. 18:5; Jos. 1:8; Ps. 119:25; Ro. 10:5). Under the covenant mediate by the Son of God, God Himself animates His covenant partners (Jn. 3:5; 6:63; Ro. 8:11; 2 Cor. 3:6; Ga. 5:25) and His word is engraved upon their hearts (Jer. 31:33). Under the Mosaic Covenant, individuals were “not indwelt by the Spirit in the sense of Romans 8:9; I Corinthians 3:16; 6:19, etc.; for this indwelling is the additional means of grace for spiritual life provided under the New Covenant” (Rea 1984, 10). “Possession of the Spirit and access to God are hallmarks of the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old” (Stuart 2006, 542).
How did this radical shift happen? Why would God threaten the people of Israel with death if they came too close to Him on Mt. Sinai and yet take up habitation within their bodies in Ac. 2? This radical difference is facilitated by a new covenant with a new mediator: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17).
The Covenant Jesus Mediates
Under the covenant mediated by the Son of God, Israel is finally and forever saved from the wrath of God (Ro. 5:9). How is Jesus able to provide the refuge Moses could not (Ps. 2:12; Heb. 4:8-9)? Through the sacrifice of Himself He ransoms His people and makes them holy (Heb. 10:10, 14; Mk. 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6). “Under normal conditions even specially sanctified people ([Ex.]19:10–11,14–15) can come only somewhat near his presence, but with God's own permission, some can more closely enter his presence. For God to be willing to enter their presence, dwelling within them, would be extraordinary under the terms of the Old Covenant relationship of God with his people but, mirabile dictu, is routine in the New Covenant” (Stuart 2006, 498). By serving as mediator and High Priest, Jesus opens a way for Israel “serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days” (Lk. 1:74-75; Heb. 4:14-16).
Tokunboh Adeyemo writes:
The idea of God’s sacredness is reinforced when Moses again warns the people not to force their way up to see God or they will perish (19:21, 24). Approaching God is a serious matter that cannot be taken lightly. When Isaiah was privileged to see something of the Lord’s holiness, all he could do was cry “woe to me” (Is. 6:5a). This is why believers need an advocate before the Father, in the person of the one who died for them (1 John 2:2). It is only “in Christ” that anyone can approach God’s throne (Heb. 10:19-22) (2006).
Why is Israel safe at Pentecost in Acts 2? Because the “substitute, Jesus Christ, does not just cancel the wrath; he absorbs it and diverts it from us to himself” (Piper 2006, 21).
Fear never again need torment Israel (1 Jn. 4:18) for “through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses” (Ac. 13:38-39). Heb. 12:18-24 contrasts the experience of Israel at Sinai with the experience of Israel under Messiah’s New Covenant: it is one of fear versus rejoicing. Jesus justifies, sanctifies and secures peace for Israel in a way Moses never could (Ga. 2:11; Heb. 3:3; 8:6). Moreover, the New Covenant depends on Jesus’ faithfulness whereas the covenant mediated by Moses was dependent upon Israel’s faithfulness (2 Tim. 2:13; Dt. 15:5).
One could argue that the wrath of God is not absent from the ministry of Jesus. The death of Ananias and Sapphira (Ac. 5:1-11), the death of Herod (Ac. 12:23), the unbelievers taking communion who were getting sick and dying (1 Cor. 11:19, 27, 30), the judgement parables (e.g. Lk. 13:27-28; 19:27; Mt. 22:13) and Revelation (e.g. Rev. 6:16; 16:1) could all be considered demonstrations of God’s wrath under the New Covenant. However, in each of these passages the case can be made that these individuals were not “in Christ” and thus were not protected from God’s wrath (Heb. 10:29-31). Even so, the counter argument could be made that if God is not counting the sins of the world against them (2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Jn. 2:2) why are there these instances of judgement? These two perspectives can be reconciled if one accepts that God is extending mercy to everyone (not counting their sins against them) while also reserving the right of final judgement for those who refuse His kindness (Jn. 5:27).
Conclusion
In this paper I have attempted to demonstrate why God’s people are in danger in His presence at the giving of the Torah, but not at the giving of His Spirit. The answer lies in the covenantal terms according to which God was interacting with Israel. While the covenant Moses mediated exposed Israel to God’s wrath, the New Covenant—mediated by Jesus, made in Messiah’s blood (Lk. 22:20) poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (Mt. 26:28)—saves Israel from God’s wrath. Thus Jesus is “the guarantor of a better covenant” (Heb. 7:22). Therefore “Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses” (Heb. 3:3). He is the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29) and makes Israel His eternal dwelling place (Jn. 14:23; 2 Cor. 6:16)!

Works Cited
Adeyemo, Tokunboh. Africa Bible Commentary. Nairobi, Kenya: WordAlive, 2006.
Bock, Darrell L. Acts: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster Press, 2004.
Faw, Chalmer Ernest. Acts: Believers Church Bible Commentary. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1993.
Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus (version Pbk. ed.). Pbk.ed. Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.
Gowan, Donald E. Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary. 1st ed. Louisville, KY: WestminsteJohn Knox Press, 1994.
Graybill, John B. “Joel” in The Biblical Expositor. Carl F.H. Henry, ed.. Philadelphia, PA: Holman, 1960.
Hamilton, Victor P. Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.
Janzen, Waldemar. Exodus. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2000.
Johnstone, William. Exodus 1-19. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary, 2. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing Incorporated, 2014.
Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and M. E. J. Richardon, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Accordance electronic ed., version 3.0. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2000.
Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Harold W Attridge, ed.. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009.
Piper, John. Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die. Wheaton, IL.: Crossway Books, 2006.
Rea, John. “Old Testament Antecedents of Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Key to the Understanding of God's Governance of His People.” Society for Pentecostal Studies Papers, Sps-8403, 1984.
Shendelman, Sara, and Avram Davis. Traditions: The Complete Book of Prayers, Rituals, and Blessings for Every Jewish Home. 1st ed. New York, NY: Hyperion, 1998.
Stuart, Douglas K.. Exodus: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006.
White, Thomas Joseph. Exodus. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2016.
submitted by PoBoMoEnglish to JordanPeterson [link] [comments]


2020.06.22 20:59 Cars_Forza_fan "Disney's Motorama" - car list ideas

This post is based on the car list to my own game idea. You can check out the main post of 'Disney's Motorama' via this link - https://www.reddit.com/gameideas/comments/giby06/disneys_motorama_a_crossover_of_the_forza_horizon/
Cars characters
Abarth
Acura
Alfa Romeo
Alpine
Alumi Craft
AMC
AMG Transport Dynamics
Apollo
Ariel
Ascari
Aston Martin
ATS
Audi
Austin
Austin-Healey
Auto Union
BAC
Baldwin Motorsports
Bentley
Bertone
BMW
Bowler
Bugatti
Buick
Cadillac
Can-Am
Caterham
Chevrolet
Chrysler
Citroën
DAF
Datsun
De Tomaso
DeLorean
Devon
Dodge
Donkervoort
Eagle
Exomotive
Ferrari
FIAT
Ford
Formula Drift
Funco Motorsports
GMC
Gumpert
HDT
Hennessey
Hillman
Holden
Honda
Hoonigan
Hot Wheels
HSV
Hudson
HUMMER
Hyundai
Infiniti
International
Italdesign
Jaguar
Jeep
Joss
Kia
Koenigsegg
KTM
Lamborghini
Lancia
Land Rover
Lexus
Lincoln
Local Motors
Lola
Lotus
Maserati
Mazda
McLaren
Mercedes-AMG
Mercedes-Benz
Mercury
Meyers
MG
MINI
Mitsubishi
Morgan
Morris
Mosler
Napier
Nissan
Noble
Oldsmobile
Opel
Pagani
Panoz
Peel
Penhall
Peugeot
Plymouth
Polaris
Pontiac
Porsche
Quartz
Radical
RAESR
Reliant
Renault
Rimac
RJ Anderson
Robby Gordon
Rolls-Royce
Rossion
Rover
Saleen
Savage Rivale
Scion
SEAT
Shelby
Spada Vetture Sport
Spania GTA
Spyker
SSC
Subaru
Sunbeam
Talbot
Tamo
Terradyne
Tesla
Toyota
Triumph
TVR
Ultima
Vauxhall
Volkswagen
Volvo
VUHL
W Motors
Wiesmann
Zenvo
Feedback is always appreciated!
submitted by Cars_Forza_fan to gameideas [link] [comments]


2020.05.09 23:20 jamesmith452116 Please elucidate your thoughts on Matthew 16:28 which states "And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom". Did the historical Jesus believe this world-changing event was happening soon?

Take Up Your Cross (Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:23-27)
24Then Jesus told His disciples, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. 25For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of Man will come in His Father’s glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.
28Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Matthew 16:24-28
The Return of the Son of Man (Matthew 24:26-31; Luke 21:25-28)
24But in those days, after that tribulation:
‘The sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25the stars will fall from the sky,
and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.’c
26At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.d 27And He will send out the angels to gather His elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
The Lesson of the Fig Tree (Matthew 24:32-35; Luke 21:29-33)
28Now learn this lessone from the fig tree: As soon as its branches become tender and sprout leaves, you know that summer is near. 29So also, when you see these things happening, know that He is near,f right at the door. 30Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened. 31Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.
Mark 13:24-31
Take Up Your Cross (Matthew 16:24-28; Mark 8:34-38)
23Then Jesus said to all of them, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. 24For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.
25What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet lose or forfeit his very self? 26If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
But I tell you truthfully, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”
Luke 9:23-27

Many scholars argue that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was imminent. It should be noted that the Gospel of Mark (and similarly in Matthew) describes that Jesus repeatedly saying “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand;[a] repent and believe in the gospel.”


I've seen Christians point to the fact that the story of the Transfiguration follows this saying in all three synoptic gospels.
The problem, of course, was the Messiah was supposed to descend from heaven with an army of angels to overthrow the kingdoms of the earth and restore an eternal Kingdom of God governed from the throne of David in Jerusalem.

Rather than descending from the heavens in a fiery apocalypse witnessed by all mankind, Jesus is “transfigured” only in the eyes of his three closest disciples, who then tell no one what they saw.
Matthew:
“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
Mark:
And he said unto them, “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
Luke:
“But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.” And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

So basically I've heard Christians say that Jesus frequently overturns those expectations in the gospels, arguing that the Kingdom of God was already present on earth for those who were able to see it but that seems like a stretch to me and an attempt at avoid a theologically problematic interpretation.

gMatt seems to have been written when the references to “this generation” seeing the apocalypse was still valid. gLuke seems to tone down that stuff precisely because by the time it was written it was becoming awkward. But keep in mind that when you question Christians today about those passages, they have various ways to explain them away – the argument that Jesus’ transfiguration or his resurrection were fulfilments of that prophecy are typical tactics here. So once the traditions started to become awkward that kind of exegesis would kick in.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/12/jesus-apocalyptic-prophet/
submitted by jamesmith452116 to AskBibleScholars [link] [comments]


2019.12.27 07:19 RJ-Hamster Focus on Love This Christmas

Focus on Love This Christmas

📷ZondervanDecember 24, 2019
📷
Let all that you do be done in love. —1 Corinthians 16:14 ESV
My friend from law school, Diana, pulled into the snow-covered drive. I put on boots and went out to greet her.
“Merry Christmas,” I said, embracing her.
“Thanks for inviting me to your family Christmas,” she said. “I thought I’d have to spend Christmas alone after my flight home was canceled.”
“I wouldn’t let that happen,” I said, leading her down the walkway to the house. “Here’s a heads-up before we get inside. My parents are getting the house ready to sell, so there are a lot of projects going on.”
“I won’t mind,” she said.
Yet, despite her reassurance, I was self-conscious. The entryway’s trim was half removed and power tools were pushed against the walls. My uneasiness didn’t settle as I introduced Diana to my family. Conversation was smooth, but I wondered if Diana was comparing my family’s home to hers. I imagined that her family lived in a trendy home full of sleek appliances — a far cry from this messy Victorian.
On the way to the dinner table, Diana pulled me aside. “It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen,” she said.
I surveyed paint buckets and drop cloths, trying to determine what she was talking about.
“Your family loves each other so much,” she said. “I can see it in the way they look and talk to each other. And I feel so loved being here.” She was right. Regardless of the mess, we loved each other. And that was more important than the painting and patching that still needed to be done.
“So does that mean you’re coming back to help us retile the kitchen next week?” I asked.
She laughed, and we joined the rest of my family in the dining room.
Lord, help me to focus on the things that matter and the people I love.
—Logan Eliasen
Digging Deeper: John 13:34-35; 1 John 4:7
Excerpted with permission from Daily Guideposts 2020, copyright Guideposts.
* * *

Your Turn

Today doesn’t have to be perfect. Tomorrow doesn’t have to be perfect. It’s all about love! God poured out His love for us and we have the privilege to share it with others. Let’s love! Come share your thoughts with us on our blog. We want to hear from you! Merry Christmas, friends! ~ Laurie McClure, Faith.Full
submitted by RJ-Hamster to u/RJ-Hamster [link] [comments]


2019.12.06 20:49 InvisibleElves Biblical Human Sacrifice

Biblical human sacrifice
Biblical human sacrifice. In Leviticus 27:28-29, slaves are listed among the things to be sacrificed to Yahweh. This verse seems unbelievable to some, that there couldn't be this sort of human sacrifice in the Torah.
So here I have put together some verses which demonstrate that human sacrifice had not been totally abolished or seen as abhorrent by the time of the writing of the Torah. It was still seen as mystical and not completely abhorrent by the rest of the Hebrew Bible. And Christianity is an extension of this. These verses are ordered as they appear in the Bible, and not in order of severity.
  In Genesis 22:1-19, there is the famous story of Abraham and his firstborn son Isaac. Yahweh calls Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and nothing indicates that Abraham thinks this is out of character for Yahweh, or unacceptable. He knew how to prepare just such a burnt offering and did so. God stops him right before he slays his child (but not before he is bound and laying on an altar for burning), but he doesn't say because it is wrong. If anything, he is rewarding Abraham doing the right thing. Even today, Abraham is called righteous for this. The whole religion is founded as a reward for obedience. God provides an animal instead, suggesting some kind of blood sacrifice was necessary, and a goat is a substitute for a human. No condemnation of human sacrifice. At the very least, this shows that human sacrifice was still a thing, but at most it's a really good thing.
  Leviticus 27:28-29 lists slaves (men who are owned) as one of the possible sacrifices "dedicated for destruction," along with animals and vegetation. "He shall surely be put to death." Throughout the rest of Leviticus and Exodus, that phrase is referring to death penalties (many times). It means kill.
This stands in linguistic contrast to Exodus 13:12-13, where firstborn animals have their necks broken, but redeemed human firstborn do not (but humans still had to be redeemed by blood first). Clearly, the slaves of Leviticus 27 fall into the category of not being redeemed:
No one devoted, who is to be devoted for destruction from mankind, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.
  2 Kings 3:27. God promised the Israelites they'd destroy every Moabite city, but when they are clearly on the verge of victory, the Moabite king sacrificed his firstborn son to Chemosh, God of Moab. The Bible says a great wrath (qetsef) came upon Israel and they fled back home. Qetsef almost always means "divine wrath or fury." That shows that whoever wrote 2 Kings, and the Israelites it was about, believed that human sacrifice was effective. If anyone wants to translate qetsef to something else, it should take into account that the Moabites actually shared this local belief and recorded it in the Mesha Stele. This is an incredibly rare corroboration. This demonstrates the Israelites' respect for human sacrifice, even to other gods, as an effective tool for change, especially on that god's territory (these are tribal, territorial gods). We can see the particular respect for sacrificing firstborn sons. It was simply an understood belief of theirs that this sort of blood held power over the gods.
  Judges 11:29-40. Jepthah promised God, as his spirit was physically present and upon Jephthah, that if he helped them to victory, he would sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house to Yahweh. The thing that came out next was his daughter. Both she and her father agreed she had to be killed, but she asked for a short time to mourn her virginity. He granted it, and then sacrificed her to Yahweh. Yahweh must have known what he was bargaining for. This shows that human sacrifice may have still been practiced as acceptable, although rarer and sad by this time (women made a holiday of mourning her).
Hebrews 11:32 lists Jephthah (and Samuel) among the heroes of the faith. It says he obtained promises and enforced justice by faith. This is a confirmation that Jephthah did the right thing in the eyes of God.
  2 Chronicles 34:5, Josiah burns human remains on an altar to cleanse Judah and Jerusalem. At the very least, this shows some kind of magical association with burning humans on altars, and it's backed by the next verse.
1 Kings 13:2, a man of God prophecies Josiah will sacrifice priests and burn remains on altars.
Exodus 22:29, Numbers 31:40-41, Exodus 13:15, and maybe Nehemiah 10:36 seem to indicate God's desire for firstborn human sacrifices, along with the way he targets even firstborn infants of slaves in Exodus 11.
There's Isaiah 53:10-12 where God willfully uses a human being as a guilt sacrifice.
Then obviously there's John 3:16, John 6:52-58, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 2:10, Romans 5:8, and such pertaining to Jesus as a sacrifice.
1 Corinthians 11:27-30 says that doing the symbolic sacrifice improperly will make you sick or dead. This shows that the magical, ritualistic quality of human sacrifice still hasn't totally been eliminated from the religion.
  There are many verses that appear to forbid human sacrifice (like Jeremiah 32:34-35), but actually only explicitly state not to sacrifice to other gods, like Baal or Molech. Deuteronomy 12:31 is the first example I found that seems to clearly forbid human sacrifice, and even that can be argued.
  So overall, this religion evolved out of the local cultures and did not remove all references to human sacrifice before their holy books were established. Though there was an effort to purge this sort of thing, it wasn't successful, and the Bible is full of senseless animal sacrifice anyway. This actually gets picked up as a theme by a prophet and becomes a significant part of Christianity. Christianity is based on the idea that a blood sacrifice has value against God’s wrath. To this day, the symbol of their religion is a dying man on an executioner's device.
submitted by InvisibleElves to InvisibleElves [link] [comments]


2019.10.24 01:04 PhotogenicEwok What is your opinion on additions to the text being printed in modern translations (e.g., the ending of Mark, John 8)?

How do you feel about these additions which were clearly not a part of the original manuscripts? Using the ESV for example, it keeps some of them in without any markings but maybe a footnote, it keeps some in but marks them off with brackets and a footnote, and some it removes entirely with our without a footnote.
This would include things like Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, Matthew 6:13, 1 John 5:7-8, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
Do you consider these verses to be inspired despite their later origins? Why, or why not?
submitted by PhotogenicEwok to Reformed [link] [comments]


2019.07.04 18:06 firefighter1811 Confessing Jesus is lord is the only way to heaven

The bible spells it out clearly in the new testament (ROMANS 10:9-10) that if you confess Jesus is lord and you believe it in your heart Jesus died and was raised from the dead by GOD. You are saved.
Romans 10:9-10 (ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

There is no other way into heaven. Most churches believe these days that works will get you into heaven. That is a lie of the devil. Since we are no longer under the law of the old testament. Jesus fulfilled that when he rose again. The only commandment we have to follow now is to love one another.
John 15:12 (ESV) 12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. John 13:34-35 (ESV) 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
submitted by firefighter1811 to Bible [link] [comments]


2019.03.27 00:34 of_skies_and_seas John 19:28-41 (Mar 26)

The Death of Jesus
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” 29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Jesus' Side Is Pierced
31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”
Jesus Is Buried
38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. 39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus[e] by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds[f] in weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.
Footnotes:
[e] John 19:39 Greek him [f] John 19:39 Greek one hundred litras; a litra (or Roman pound) was equal to about 11 1/2 ounces or 327 grams
Discussion Suggestions
  1. Consider Is 53. What connections do you see to this account of the death and burial of Christ, what prophecies fulfilled?
  2. (v. 29) Is there any meaning to the sour wine given on a hyssop branch? Do you think it is related to the hyssop dipped in lamb's blood to paint the doors on the first Passover (Ex 13:22)?
  3. (v.30) When Jesus said, It is finished, what was he talking about? Why did Jesus have to die?
  4. (v.30) Why is it important that Jesus gave up his spirit?
  5. (v. 32, 33) What was the significance of the blood and water that came when the soldier pierced Jesus's side?
  6. Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin (Lk 23) and Nicodemus, the Pharisee we last met in chapters 3 and 7 in John, help to bury Jesus. Why do you think they did this, considering their fears?
Please leave your own comments and questions.
submitted by of_skies_and_seas to biblereading [link] [comments]


2019.03.14 01:54 Joelblaze The Christian God shares many characteristics of common domestic abusers.

From the article 12 Traits of An Abuser, published by the Christian Broadcasting Network.
http://www1.cbn.com/marriage/12-traits-of-an-abuser

An abuser is typically:

  1. Charming:
    1. I don't think I have to prove that God is appealing, so I'll move on.
  2. Jealous:
    1. Exodus 34:14 "Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
    2. Exodus 20:5 " You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me "
    3. Deuteronomy 4:23 " "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. "
    4. Deuteronomy 32:16 " hey made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger. "
    5. Deuteronomy 6:15 " for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; "
    6. Psalm 78:58 " For they provoked Him with their high places And aroused His jealousy with their graven images. "
  3. Manipulative:
    1. Exodus 7:3-4 " “But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt he will not listen to you "
    2. Exodus 9:12 " But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses. "
    3. 1 Samuel 16:14 " Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. "- (This was so he'd bring David to his palace.)]
    4. Joshua 11:20 "For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses. "
    5. Deuteronomy 2:30 " But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the LORD your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done. "
    6. Ezra 1:1 " In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lordspoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing: "
    7. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 " And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: "
  4. Controlling
    1. Deuteronomy 11: " Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always."
    2. 2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. "
    3. John 14:15 " If you love me, keep my commands. "
    4. Colossians 3:22 " Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. "
    5. Romans 13:1 " Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. "
  5. A Victim ("He is never at fault. “You make me hit you.”-From the passage)
    1. Deuteronomy 8:5 " "Thus you are to know in your heart that the LORD your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his son.".
    2. Colossians 3:6 "For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience"
    3. John 3:36 " "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." "
    4. Leviticus 26:27-28 "'Yet if in spite of this you do not obey Me, but act with hostility against Me, then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I, even I, will punish you seven times for your sins."
    5. 2 Chronicles 36:16 " but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, until there was no remedy. "
    6. Zechariah 7:12 " "They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts. "
    7. Proverbs 1:24-26 " "Because I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention; And you neglected all my counsel And did not want my reproof; I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes, "
  6. Narcissistic
    1. Deuteronomy 10:17 " For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. "
    2. Exodus 4:11 " The LORD said to him, "Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD? "
    3. Deuteronomy 32:4 “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he."
    4. Deuteronomy 7:21 "You shall not be in dread of them, for the Lord your God is in your midst, a great and awesome God."
  7. Inconsistent (Oh boy, here we go)
    1. Numbers 23:19 States that " God is not human, that he should lie,not a human being, that he should change his mind " But at the same point in time Genesis 6:6 states "The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. "
    2. John 13:34, Jesus says " Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. " but at the same point in time in Luke 14:26, he says " "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. "
    3. Matthew 19:19 says " Honour thy father and [thy] mother:" but previously in Matthew 10:35, Jesus stated " For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother"
    4. In Matthew 10:34 Jesus said, " Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. " and in Luke 22:36 he said " He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. " but in Matthew 26:52, Jesus states :" Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. "
    5. In Matthew 5:44 Jesus states " But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, " but in Luke 19:27, he states " But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. "
    6. Ephesians 2:8-9 states " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. " but at the same point in James 2:24 it's written " 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."
    7. Genesis 32:30 says " And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. " but John 1:18 states " No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a]is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. "
    8. Romans 3:23 says " 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" but Job 1:1 states " There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. "
    9. Proverbs 26:4 states " Do not answer a fool according to his folly,or you yourself will be just like him. " but right after that in Proverbs 26:5 it states " Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. "
  8. Critical
    1. Romans 3:23 says " 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
    2. Jeremiah 10:14 " Every man is stupid, devoid of knowledge; Every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; For his molten images are deceitful, And there is no breath in them. "
    3. Ecclesiastes 7:20 "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."
    4. John 3:19 " "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. "
    5. Galatians 5:19 " Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,"
  9. Disconnected
    1. Luke 14:26 " "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. "
    2. Leviticus 21:18 " No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; "
    3. Exodus 32:29 :" Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Today you have earned a blessing."

  1. Hypersensitive
    1. 2 Kings 2:23-24 " He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, che cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. "
  2. Vicious and Cruel
    1. Numbers 31:17 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
    2. Numbers 11:33 " But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague. "
    3. Exodus 11: 5 " and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; all the firstborn of the cattle as well "
    4. Genesis 38:9 " But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also. "
    5. Hosea 13:16 " The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,because they have rebelled against their God.They will fall by the sword;their little ones will be dashed to the ground,their pregnant women ripped open.” "
    6. Leviticus 26:27-29 " And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat."
    7. 1 Samuel 6:19 " But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them. "
    8. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. "
  3. Insincerely Repentant
    1. John 3:17 " For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him", but still has a "Judgement Day" where the World gets judged.

As someone who has personally spent years under the boot of an abuser, and as someone who helped others worked through it while volunteering at a domestic violence shelter, how can an benevolent god possibly have so many similarities?
submitted by Joelblaze to DebateReligion [link] [comments]


2019.03.13 23:26 Joelblaze God shares many similarities with Domestic Abusers.

From the article 12 Traits of An Abuser, published by the Christian Broadcasting Network.
http://www1.cbn.com/marriage/12-traits-of-an-abuser

An abuser is typically:

  1. Charming:
    1. I don't think anyone here would dispute the fact that God is appealing, so I'll move on.
  2. Jealous:
    1. Exodus 34:14 "Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
    2. Exodus 20:5 " You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me "
    3. Deuteronomy 4:23 " "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. "
    4. Deuteronomy 32:16 " hey made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger. "
    5. Deuteronomy 6:15 " for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; "
    6. Psalm 78:58 " For they provoked Him with their high places And aroused His jealousy with their graven images. "
  3. Manipulative:
    1. Exodus 7:3-4 " “But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt he will not listen to you "
    2. Exodus 9:12 " But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses. "
    3. 1 Samuel 16:14 " Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. "- (This was so he'd bring David to his palace.)]
    4. Joshua 11:20 "For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses. "
    5. Deuteronomy 2:30 " But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the LORD your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done. "
    6. Ezra 1:1 " In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lordspoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing: "
    7. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 " And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: "
  4. Controlling
    1. Deuteronomy 11: " Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always."
    2. 2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. "
    3. John 14:15 " If you love me, keep my commands. "
    4. Colossians 3:22 " Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. "
    5. Romans 13:1 " Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. "
  5. A Victim ("He is never at fault. “You make me hit you.”-From the passage)
    1. Deuteronomy 8:5 " "Thus you are to know in your heart that the LORD your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his son.".
    2. Colossians 3:6 "For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience"
    3. John 3:36 " "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." "
    4. Leviticus 26:27-28 "'Yet if in spite of this you do not obey Me, but act with hostility against Me, then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I, even I, will punish you seven times for your sins."
    5. 2 Chronicles 36:16 " but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, until there was no remedy. "
    6. Zechariah 7:12 " "They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts. "
    7. Proverbs 1:24-26 " "Because I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention; And you neglected all my counsel And did not want my reproof; I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes, "
  6. Narcissistic
    1. Deuteronomy 10:17 " For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. "
    2. Exodus 4:11 " The LORD said to him, "Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD? "
    3. Deuteronomy 32:4 “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he."
    4. Deuteronomy 7:21 "You shall not be in dread of them, for the Lord your God is in your midst, a great and awesome God."
  7. Inconsistent (Oh boy, here we go)
    1. Numbers 23:19 States that " God is not human, that he should lie,not a human being, that he should change his mind " But at the same point in time Genesis 6:6 states "The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. "
    2. John 13:34, Jesus says " Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. " but at the same point in time in Luke 14:26, he says " "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. "
    3. Matthew 19:19 says " Honour thy father and [thy] mother:" but previously in Matthew 10:35, Jesus stated " For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother"
    4. In Matthew 10:34 Jesus said, " Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. " and in Luke 22:36 he said " He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. " but in Matthew 26:52, Jesus states :" Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. "
    5. In Matthew 5:44 Jesus states " But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, " but in Luke 19:27, he states " But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. "
    6. Ephesians 2:8-9 states " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. " but at the same point in James 2:24 it's written " 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."
    7. Genesis 32:30 says " And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. " but John 1:18 states " No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a]is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. "
    8. Romans 3:23 says " 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" but Job 1:1 states " There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. "
    9. Proverbs 26:4 states " Do not answer a fool according to his folly,or you yourself will be just like him. " but right after that in Proverbs 26:5 it states " Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. "
  8. Critical
    1. Romans 3:23 says " 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
    2. Jeremiah 10:14 " Every man is stupid, devoid of knowledge; Every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; For his molten images are deceitful, And there is no breath in them. "
    3. Ecclesiastes 7:20 "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."
    4. John 3:19 " "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. "
    5. Galatians 5:19 " Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,"
  9. Disconnected
    1. Luke 14:26 " "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. "
    2. Leviticus 21:18 " No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; "
    3. Exodus 32:29 :" Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Today you have earned a blessing."

  1. Hypersensitive
    1. 2 Kings 2:23-24 " He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, che cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. "
  2. Vicious and Cruel
    1. Numbers 31:17 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
    2. Numbers 11:33 " But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague. "
    3. Exodus 11: 5 " and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; all the firstborn of the cattle as well "
    4. Genesis 38:9 " But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also. "
    5. Hosea 13:16 " The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,because they have rebelled against their God.They will fall by the sword;their little ones will be dashed to the ground,their pregnant women ripped open.” "
    6. Leviticus 26:27-29 " And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat."
    7. 1 Samuel 6:19 " But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them. "
    8. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. "
  3. Insincerely Repentant
    1. John 3:17 " For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him", but still has a "Judgement Day" where the World gets judged.

As someone who has personally spent years under the boot of an abuser, and as someone who helped others worked through it while volunteering at a domestic violence shelter, how can an benevolent god possibly have so many similarities?
submitted by Joelblaze to DebateAChristian [link] [comments]


2019.02.08 04:27 GallagherMaccini [Letter] For your future Biblical Lectures JESUS' TORAH QUOTATIONS

Efficiently use your time and energy by focusing on the Old Testament books that Jesus quoted from most:
Psalms (11x), Deuteronomy (10x), Isaiah (8x) and Exodus (7x), in that order.
Chronologically? That's just this list reversed.

#1 - Psalms

11 quotations:

#2 - Deuteronomy

10 quotations (the only OT book Jesus quotes when he speaks to the devil):

#3 - Isaiah

8 quotations:
These messages aren’t always well-received, but that shouldn’t be a surprise—they weren’t very popular back when Isaiah wrote them, either.
Jesus quotes Isaiah to highlight the disconnect between God and the people, but he also quotes Isaiah to remind people of the comfort God will bring through him.

#4 - Exodus

7 quotations:

Also quotes:

Genesis 1:27, 2:24, Leviticus 19:12, 19:18, Hosea 6:6, Micah 7:6, Malachi 3:1, Jeremiah 7:11, Daniel 9:27 (cf. 11:31, 12:11), and Zechariah 13:7.
submitted by GallagherMaccini to JordanPeterson [link] [comments]


2019.02.03 00:09 jw_mentions Possible Discussion on /r/Bible in post "Bibles that Uses God’s name?"

I am a bot! Please send me a private message with any comments or feedback on how I work.
EDIT: As of Fri Mar 01 10:49:29 EST 2019, the post is at [10pts23c]

About Post:

--- --- Notes
Submission Bibles that Uses God’s name?
Comments Bibles that Uses God’s name?
Author yoyo01323
Subreddit /Bible
Posted On Sat Feb 02 16:54:05 EST 2019
Score 10 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:29 EST 2019
Total Comments 131

Post Body:

The only bible I’m familiar with that uses Gods name is The New World Translation. The Jehovah’s Witness or Watchtowers have replaced the name lord with Jehovah.
And I’m used to this. I’m not a witness, and have never even been to a meeting. But the new world translation is the only bible I’m familiar with. And have always thought it right to Use Gods name, as he wishes for people to call him that.
I’m trying to research other bibles to use. As I’m on a journey to read the Bible more and actually know it’s contents.
I’m wondering if there’s any other bible versions that use gods name whether it’s YHWH or Jehovah. I’m very curious. Thank you.
Edit: Thank you for those giving gold or silver. I’m just here to learn. I don’t know how to use reddit much so thanks

Related Comments (23):

--- --- Notes
Author Tekmantwo
Posted On Sun Feb 03 02:30:15 EST 2019
Score 2 as of Fri Mar 01 10:48:58 EST 2019
Conversation Size 1
Body link
You said you are familiar with the NWT, look in the back sections and find the sections A4 and A5. They explain very well why the personal Name of God, Jehovah, is rightfully restored to His Holy Word.
All these people that are misleading you are not doing you any favors.
If you don't have your own personal copy of the Bible you can visit JW.ORG. and download one for free.
You can even request a paper copy to be sent to you, also, you can check out the free Bible study guides found on the site. You can study online at a rate that is comfortable to you, for free, no obligation.
Then, you can compare it to any other Bible you wish. If you want to, download the JW Library app, then you can do tons of research and discover for yourself what the Truth is.
The most important thing is to approach God in prayer with sincerity and ask Him to help you find the Truth. He can read your heart so if you can't seem to find the right words, no problem, He will still understand what your heart wants and He will help you. He promises us that, and, He can not lie....
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/
--- --- Notes
Author proxyflex
Posted On Thu Feb 21 04:55:30 EST 2019
Score 1 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:15 EST 2019
Conversation Size 2
Body link
I already gave OP my recommendation and warned against the NWT for reasons stated here.
From what I’ve garnered from this conversation my assumption is that you have a background as or simply are a Jehovah’s Witness due to your usage of the term “God’s name” referring only to “Jehovah” despite problems with that term (especially if you are serious about using the Name) and referring to the NT as the “Christian Greek Scriptures” which is itself extremely uncommon.
So this isn’t so much helpful to OP as much as it is reflecting a sectarian perspective.
I don’t have an issue with Jehovah’s Witnesses or you being a Jehovah’s Witness; I accept them as equally Christian (albeit within the larger Nontrinitarian family in which I myself also identify with) as more “mainstream” sects, but you have to understand why making a sectarian argument isn’t helpful.
Using the Name in the Bible is one thing and there are plenty of translations that do so without forcing it in there. Bibles that force it in where it is not is entirely different from what OP is asking and that needs to be made clear.
Anyway, I’m going to bed, so have a good night. God bless.
--- --- Notes
Author Quixotism95
Posted On Sun Feb 03 10:11:37 EST 2019
Score 0 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:15 EST 2019
Conversation Size 2
Body link
Thank you for the article. I will complain, though, that a good percentage of this article engages in mudslinging, such as in the exaggerated statement that the New World Translation has "no hard textual grounds" for its translation. I have already demonstrated otherwise in my previous comment.
--- --- Notes
Author Chatterboxj
Posted On Sat Feb 02 18:41:00 EST 2019
Score 5 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:15 EST 2019
Conversation Size 0
Body link
Literally almost any other translation other then the “New World Translation” would be a better translation. That one is exclusively used by the Jehovahs Witness group and was deliberately altered or mistranslated to fit their heresy that Jesus is not God. Any decent study Bible will point out which honorific, title or name of God is used when he is named specifically. He has many titles.
For easier or more beginning reading try a thought for thought translation like the NIV or NLT. For more word for word studies or literal translation, the ESV, NASB NKJV and others are great. All are great modern translations from the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available. For the beauty and poetry of the older English, the KJV is always a nice choice. It is older translation that was well done but was limited by the manuscripts they had available at the time. ANY and ALL of these would be better then the NWT.
--- --- Notes
Author Quixotism95
Posted On Sun Feb 03 17:19:00 EST 2019
Score 2 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 13
Body link
no new testament text contains a greek transliteration of יהוה.
Yes, and for this reason, every instance of the name "Jehovah" in the New Testament is marked with an asterisk in the 2013 revision of the New World Translation. The Divine Name King James Bible handles the usage of "Jehovah" similarly in its Christian texts.
In section A5 of its appendix (The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures), the translation committee for the New World Translation states its reasons for using the name in the Greek Scriptures.
--- --- Notes
Author dvc214
Posted On Sat Feb 02 17:34:21 EST 2019
Score 14 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 35
Body link
You need to be aware that the New world translation biases it’s translation based on the beliefs of Jehovahs witnesses. The technical translation in many significant passages are not faithful or credible, nor accepted by most experts.
--- --- Notes
Author wthit56
Posted On Thu Feb 21 02:46:02 EST 2019
Score 1 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 5
Body link
I am aware (and it's mentioned in the article) that most Bible translators do not use God's name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. But I think the article explains their decision well.
Here's the correct link: A5. (Sorry for the link mix up. It's now fixed.)
--- --- Notes
Author wthit56
Posted On Thu Feb 21 05:09:03 EST 2019
Score 0 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 1
Body link
Okay. I wasn't really looking to argue a point or make an academic case. I thought all the more academic discussion went in /AcademicBiblical. It's interesting how different view the Bible, though.
I am a Jehovah's Witness, yes. But I wasn't trying to push my beliefs or anything. Just curious.
G'night.
--- --- Notes
Author dvc214
Posted On Sun Feb 03 03:12:35 EST 2019
Score 2 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 3
Body link
Rather than write reams of text in this thread, the work has already been done here - https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html
--- --- Notes
Author Double-Portion
Posted On Sun Feb 03 00:13:07 EST 2019
Score 5 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 0
Body link
Fun fact: Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for modifying their beliefs when their prophecies fail like they did in 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918, 1925, and 1975. They are known for strict hierarchy, and shunning anyone who disagrees with them.
Anecdotally I was hanging out with some friends in Oakland when some JWs called us over and started trying to evangelize us when we started quoting scripture back at them, and the conversation ended with us being denounced as “Trinitarians!” And being told to leave them alone
Edit: they’re to their
--- --- Notes
Author Tekmantwo
Posted On Sat Feb 02 20:09:25 EST 2019
Score 0 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 5
Body link
It definitely matters. JW.ORG
--- --- Notes
Author BERBWIRE_ORDER
Posted On Sun Feb 03 01:16:36 EST 2019
Score 2 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 0
Body link
Many experts praise The New World Translation of the Bible. It just happens that most experts are connected to rival religious groups, and they have more of a problem with Jehovah's Witnesses than their translation. People felt the same way about Luther's Bible for pointing out the shortcomings of traditional religion in his day. So obviously the larger groups have an interest in saying it's not credible.
It's also of interest to note that Jehovah's Witnesses taught people for almost a century using traditional translations, and some in other countries with limited Bibles still do. So they don't need their own translation to push their ideas because their ideas were always in the Bible.
If anyone wants to find out more about The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures then check out: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1991167#h=3:0-3:233
--- --- Notes
Author BERBWIRE_ORDER
Posted On Tue Feb 05 23:21:41 EST 2019
Score 1 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 5
Body link
There is evidence that the divine name was originally in the NT. There are also many other Bible translations that have made the decision to put the divine name in the NT. So Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only people that believe that God's name was removed from the NT. Here is a link to the appendix of the New World Translation that explains why they included God's name: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/divine-name-christian-greek-scriptures/
--- --- Notes
Author dvc214
Posted On Sun Feb 03 03:14:08 EST 2019
Score 1 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 0
Body link
https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html
See this link I posted in another comment thread
--- --- Notes
Author Quixotism95
Posted On Sun Feb 03 16:09:13 EST 2019
Score 2 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 0
Body link
Not really mud slinging when it's the truth.
When an article has a clear agenda and begins by painting a negative image of another party to push said agenda: it's mudslinging.
The above comment has made the claim that the New World Translation is biased, and yet this same assertion is being backed up using a source that is itself clearly biased.
--- --- Notes
Author tempkem
Posted On Sat Feb 02 20:07:56 EST 2019
Score 4 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 8
Body link
Just so you know: the New World Translation inserts the name "Jehovah" in places where "YHWH" is not found in the source texts. "YHWH" occurs about 6800 times in the Old Testament and zero times in the New Testament, yet in NWT it occurs about 7200 times (I think). Most of the additions are in the New Testament.
If you want to read a reasonable translation that uses the name, the New Jerusalem Bible would probably be my recommendation.
--- --- Notes
Author Tekmantwo
Posted On Sat Feb 02 19:38:44 EST 2019
Score -8 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 2
Body link
Completely wrong info....in fact, just about the opposite of the truth.
The NWT is the most accurate translation available today. The translation team went to extraordinary lenghths to ensure the accuracy of this Bible.
Fun fact: Jehovahs Witnesses are known for modifying their beliefs if a more accurate understanding of something is discovered. We don't stand on tradition, we follow Gods Word as closely as we can, as best as we know how....if that means changing, then, so be it...
--- --- Notes
Author proxyflex
Posted On Thu Feb 21 04:19:05 EST 2019
Score 1 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:25 EST 2019
Conversation Size 4
Body link
Um, the article is not exactly an objective source on this. So, there’s no argument here from an objective, non-sectarian position which is problematic all on its own and I hope you understand why I can’t accept that. Even if you believe their position to be justified, you can’t expect others to accept these arguments unless you have objective, academic sources that can corroborate them.
Unless you yourself are a Jehovah’s Witness whose Christianity emphasizes use of the Name (an archaic variation btw), then there’s no objective or academic argument that I am aware of for the use of the Name in the NT especially when the most ancient manuscripts (and almost certainly the authors themselves) did not use the Name or intend to since casual use of the Name was considered irreverant and, potentially, blasphemous going back at least 300 years before Jesus’ birth.
Furthermore, as I mentioned above, the dated use of the name “Jehovah” itself is problematic since more recent scholarship generally suggests “Yahweh” as a more accurate (albeit still hypothetical) articulation.
So, objectively, there little if any reason to include the Name in the NT, and even if we forced its way into it, “Jehovah” is outdated and less accurate a translation of the OT Name.
--- --- Notes
Author IsaacCG
Posted On Sun Feb 03 11:56:27 EST 2019
Score 5 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:29 EST 2019
Conversation Size 12
Body link
The new world translation is one of (if not) the most corrupt “translations” of scripture currently available. I’d advise against using it. The Holman Christian Bible renders YHWH when it appears in the OT as Yahweh in the stead of the LORD (as most translations do).
Jehovah is not God’s name, it’s a transliteration error based on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.
--- --- Notes
Author Quixotism95
Posted On Sun Feb 03 14:39:52 EST 2019
Score 2 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:29 EST 2019
Conversation Size 0
Body link
I challenge you to find a Greek grammar (secular or religious) that agrees with the NWT considering this verse.
I haven't read it yet myself, but I'm aware that Jason David BeDuhn of Northern Arizona University calls the New World Translation a "remarkably good" translation in his published study: Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.
--- --- Notes
Author Quixotism95
Posted On Sat Feb 02 20:58:04 EST 2019
Score -1 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:29 EST 2019
Conversation Size 28
Body link
Besides John 1:1 (which was translated as it is in the NWT due to scholarly outputs from early Sahidic Coptic manuscripts of the New Testament) what are some of these verses you consider to be mistranslated?
--- --- Notes
Author wthit56
Posted On Wed Feb 20 16:23:56 EST 2019
Score 1 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:29 EST 2019
Conversation Size 7
Body link
There's quite an interesting article on this subject in an appendix of the New World Translation. I would paraphrase from it, but there are so many good points made I thought it would make more sense to just link you to it online. [link]
--- --- Notes
Author proxyflex
Posted On Wed Feb 20 17:09:58 EST 2019
Score 1 as of Fri Mar 01 10:49:29 EST 2019
Conversation Size 6
Body link
The New World Translation is notoriously problematic among Bible scholars and is considered more a sectarian revision than a accurate translation.
Also, that link is for video game stuff lol
submitted by jw_mentions to jw_mentions [link] [comments]


2018.12.31 22:34 BlowItUpForScience Biblical human sacrifice

Biblical human sacrifice. In Leviticus 27:28-29, slaves are listed among the things to be sacrificed to Yahweh. This verse seems unbelievable to some, that there couldn't be this sort of human sacrifice in the Torah.
So here I have put together some verses which demonstrate that human sacrifice had not been totally abolished or seen as abhorrent by the time of the writing of the Torah. It was still seen as mystical and not completely abhorrent by the rest of the Hebrew Bible. And Christianity is an extension of this. These verses are ordered as they appear in the Bible, and not in order of severity.
  In Genesis 22:1-19, there is the famous story of Abraham and his firstborn son Isaac. Yahweh calls Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and nothing indicates that Abraham thinks this is out of character for Yahweh, or unacceptable. He knew how to prepare just such a burnt offering and did so. God stops him right before he slays his child (but not before he is bound and laying on an altar for burning), but he doesn't say because it is wrong. If anything, he is rewarding Abraham doing the right thing. Even today, Abraham is called righteous for this. The whole religion is founded as a reward for obedience. God provides an animal instead, suggesting some kind of blood sacrifice was necessary, and a goat is a substitute for a human. No condemnation of human sacrifice. At the very least, this shows that human sacrifice was still a thing, but at most it's a really good thing.
  Leviticus 27:28-29 lists slaves (men who are owned) as one of the possible sacrifices "dedicated for destruction," along with animals and vegetation. "He shall surely be put to death." Throughout the rest of Leviticus and Exodus, that phrase is referring to death penalties (many times). It means kill.
This stands in linguistic contrast to Exodus 13:12-13, where firstborn animals have their necks broken, but redeemed human firstborn do not (but humans still had to be redeemed by blood first). Clearly, the slaves of Leviticus 27 fall into the category of not being redeemed:
No one devoted, who is to be devoted for destruction from mankind, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.
  2 Kings 3:27. God promised the Israelites they'd destroy every Moabite city, but when they are clearly on the verge of victory, the Moabite king sacrificed his firstborn son to Chemosh, God of Moab. The Bible says a great wrath (qetsef) came upon Israel and they fled back home. Qetsef almost always means "divine wrath or fury." That shows that whoever wrote 2 Kings, and the Israelites it was about, believed that human sacrifice was effective. If anyone wants to translate qetsef to something else, it should take into account that the Moabites actually shared this local belief and recorded it in the Mesha Stele. This is an incredibly rare corroboration. This demonstrates the Israelites' respect for human sacrifice, even to other gods, as an effective tool for change, especially on that god's territory (these are tribal, territorial gods). We can see the particular respect for sacrificing firstborn sons. It was simply an understood belief of theirs that this sort of blood held power over the gods.
  Judges 11:29-40. Jepthah promised God, as his spirit was physically present and upon Jephthah, that if he helped them to victory, he would sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house to Yahweh. The thing that came out next was his daughter. Both she and her father agreed she had to be killed, but she asked for a short time to mourn her virginity. He granted it, and then sacrificed her to Yahweh. Yahweh must have known what he was bargaining for. This shows that human sacrifice may have still been practiced as acceptable, although rarer and sad by this time (women made a holiday of mourning her).
Hebrews 11:32 lists Jephthah (and Samuel) among the heroes of the faith. It says he obtained promises and enforced justice by faith. This is a confirmation that Jephthah did the right thing in the eyes of God.
  2 Chronicles 34:5, Josiah burns human remains on an altar to cleanse Judah and Jerusalem. At the very least, this shows some kind of magical association with burning humans on altars, and it's backed by the next verse.
1 Kings 13:2, a man of God prophecies Josiah will sacrifice priests and burn remains on altars.
Exodus 22:29, Numbers 31:40-41, Exodus 13:15, and maybe Nehemiah 10:36 seem to indicate God's desire for firstborn human sacrifices, along with the way he targets even firstborn infants of slaves in Exodus 11.
There's Isaiah 53:10-12 where God willfully uses a human being as a guilt sacrifice.
Then obviously there's John 3:16, John 6:52-58, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 2:10, Romans 5:8, and such pertaining to Jesus as a sacrifice.
1 Corinthians 11:27-30 says that doing the symbolic sacrifice improperly will make you sick or dead. This shows that the magical, ritualistic quality of human sacrifice still hasn't totally been eliminated from the religion.
  There are many verses that appear to forbid human sacrifice (like Jeremiah 32:34-35), but actually only explicitly state not to sacrifice to other gods, like Baal or Molech. Deuteronomy 12:31 is the first example I found that seems to clearly forbid human sacrifice, and even that can be argued.
  So overall, this religion evolved out of the local cultures and did not remove all references to human sacrifice before their holy books were established. Though there was an effort to purge this sort of thing, it wasn't successful, and the Bible is full of senseless animal sacrifice anyway. This actually gets picked up as a theme by a prophet and becomes a significant part of Christianity. Christianity is based on the idea that a blood sacrifice has value against gods' wrath. To this day, the symbol of their religion is a dying man on an executioner's device.
submitted by BlowItUpForScience to BlowItUpForScience [link] [comments]


2018.10.04 04:36 sm0842 Who is Jesus Christ?

This is the truth: October 3, 2018


God wants to have a relationship with all of us and loves us so much that He wants us to be a part of His family. The problem is, is that we are sinners. God is a Holy God and wants to be with us, but because of sin we have a barrier between us and God. Our sin makes us unholy and imperfect and in order to be in heaven with God we must reach God's standard of perfection and be holy like He is to presently be with Him, except we all fail at this. No matter how much good you have done, we all fall short of God's standard! for the Bible says in Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

How do we know that we have sinned?
This first started with the Fall when God's first created humans, Adam and Eve. There was a time when God and humans were together in the Garden of Eden (or the first heaven). God has commanded Adam, "You are free to eat from any tree from the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die (Genesis 2:17). Though, after being deceived by the the serpent (Satan) Eve and Adam ate the fruit that God commanded Adam not to eat, and had rebelled against Him (sinned) and a as a result came death (eternal separation from God) --(Genesis 3), This sinful nature (or flesh) passed onto Adam's descendants and we all inherent this, thus death. "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—" (Romans 5:12).

So what is sin?
Ultimately sin is rebellion against God. God's Word (The Bible) tell us the things not to do, but in James 4:17, we are informed that anyone “who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins. Also, "all wrongdoing is sin..."(1 John 5:17) and "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). I am a sinner. I could've made the right choices, but chose to make choices that caused hurt to other people and ultimately hurting God. The Bible explicates the ambivalence between right and wrong. We need a guide and direction to how we ought to live our life. Since God created us; loves us; desires justice; is holy and forgiving, how would God not know what is best for us and what is for our good? Clarification of examples of sins --> Galatians 5:19-21

What happens after we die?
"Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment", (Hebrews 9:27) "so then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God" (Romans 14:12). Since, God is a just and loving God, He can't look at our sin and say that's okay. He has to judge it "for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Corinthians 5:12). We will have to give an account of our lives to God on judgement day. I don't know about you, but I sure have done a lot of shameful hurtful things in my life that I am guilty for against a Holy God. There are only two places we can go, heaven (eternity with God) or hell (eternity without God).
However, God is a merciful God! Psalm 86:5 " You, Lord are forgiving and good, abounding in love to all who call to you." God made a way when there was no way for us. We can be given another chance! We can be given a new heart , and a new life, not a life sometime, somewhere someday, but a life today, beginning in the moment you believe. He sent His Son for us.

v v v v v v
GOD SENT JESUS CHRIST HIS SON TO BE OUR SAVIOR!
Jesus Christ, the Son of God came down and lived a sinless life where He did no wrong to others, but suffered from all kinds of evil and was nailed on the cross and died. Though, with his death, he took on the punishment for all our sins, was buried and on the third day was brought back to life by God into Heaven, and if we were to put our faith in Him, we could have a life everlasting. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God's paths to follow our own. Yet the LORD laid on him the sins of us all" (Isaiah 53:6) "for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).
So Jesus' death on the cross paid the punishment that we deserved for our sins, so that we wouldn't have to. He died for God and with all our saved loved ones. "Yes, Adam's one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ's one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone" (Romans 5:18).
Can I be a part of God's family? Am I too far from God?
ANYONE can be a part of God's family. "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12) and you are never too far from God for "God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it (Ephesians 2:8-9). Jesus died for everyone so that they may turn to repentance and be saved for "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). God wants every one of us to be in His family and receive His Son as Our Savior.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn(judge) the world, but to save the world through Him." (John 3:16-17)

What do I have to do?
All you have to is ask. Ask God for what Jesus did on the cross to count for your sins, repent of sins and ask for this forgiveness. You can do this in your head. It only takes 30 seconds.
For the Bible says in Romans 10:9-10 "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."
The words are not important, what matters is your response to what God has offered you.
You can say, for example, something like this:

"Lord Jesus,
I know I'm a sinner, and I repent of my sins,
but thank you for dying on the cross for me.
I ask for forgiveness and a relationship with you.
So, come into my heart I'll make you my Lord and Savior.
Amen."

If you have made this prayer, I believe and declare that you have been saved and are a part of God's family. You have done the will of God. "May we call people to do the will of God so that they can obtain entrance into the kingdom of God for very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24) and will not come into judgment regarding their eternal destiny (John 3:18).
I promise you this will be the most important and best decision you will ever make in your life because this will determine where you go for eternity and you only have your lifetime to make this choice. You can either choose for God, or against Him. God respects whatever you choose because He loves us and He gave us free will to accept this gift or not. Remember: No one else can do this for you. This is only between you and God.

What happens to me if I don't accept Jesus Christ as my Savior?
Well one, you can't save yourself-- you can't turn to anything or anyone else, or even yourself to be saved for the Bible says that "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). If you don't receive Jesus Christ, your sins are still not covered for. "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:36).
To be more specific, "in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." (2 Thessalonians 8-9). Yes, this is scary and I fear the Lord of this. This is why I share this with all of you because I want all of you to be saved as well.
People who don't receive Jesus will be separated from God and the only other place they can go is in Hell. Hell was not created for humans, but for the evil spirits. Satan desires all of God's creation (us) to be destroyed and be eternally separated from God by never accepting Jesus Christ in their life. One of Satan's tactics is to make us not trust God. This what Satan did from the very beginning with Adam and Eve. 1 John 3:8 says "...the devil has been sinning from the very beginning. The reason the Son of God came was to destroy the Devil's work." Satan will do everything He can to keep you from knowing or believing in God. Don't let him, "Satan is a father of lies, for there is no truth in him" (John 8:44).

Warning to the family in Christ
"Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings." 1 Peter 5:8-9. As a believer and follower of Christ, although I am righteous through Jesus Christ, Satan will throw everything he's got at you, but you just got to take it to the next level.
Do not let Satan deceive you as he did with Eve. "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (1 John 4:2). Therefore, "in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes" (2 Corinthians 2:11).

How do I know that I am saved?
This is how we know we are saved, God gave us His Holy Spirit. This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit" (1 John 4:13) and he has identified us as his own by placing the Holy Spirit in our hearts as the first installment that guarantees everything he has promised us" 2 Corinthians 1:22. "We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 1 John 5:19. I encourage you all to stay strong in faith in Jesus. For in other religions, Muhammad.. Buddha... is dead, but Christ still lives and is seated at the right hand of God. "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, whereChrist is, seated at the right hand of God" (Colossians 3:1). "Set your mind on the things above, not on earthly things" (Colossians 3:2). You will be gloried in Heaven if you do work for God. This is fulfilling and the purpose of why you are here now.

If I have received Jesus christ as my Savior what should I do now?
If you haven't yet, find a bible- based church to go to so that you may be a part of God's family of believers. Also, grow in your relationship with God by learning more about Him through His Word in the Bible.
though, if you want to become a kingdom builder to God, tell others your friends, family, anyone, about the Good News of Christ, so that they may be saved and you can spend eternity altogether. In Heaven, it will be beyond what you can imagine. There is peace; no suffering and pain; "every tear will be wiped away;" "we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands" (2 Corinthians 5:1); and have "new heavenly bodies" 2 Corinthians 5

This was Jesus last command for His disciples which is also us too.
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and surely, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20)
Jesus also said, "If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:34-35).
Remember: You have the God of the Universe on your side. He is with you always and promises "to never leave or forsake you" (Deuteronomy 31:6). God abides in you and you have won victory, not just over death, but of Satan too for "Greater is He who is in me (Jesus) than he that is in the world (Satan)" 1 John 4:4.
Thank you Lord Jesus, for revealing your love and grace to me and for being with me-- guiding me in every step of my journey. I am a child of God now because of you. "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength" (Philippians 4:13)

I love you and God bless you all; I pray that I may see you all in God's heavenly kingdom. In Jesus Name. Amen.
- a student in Xenos Christian Fellowship Church and IFGF church.
submitted by sm0842 to Christianity [link] [comments]


2018.09.26 18:36 XM990 God is Pro-Life... and Pro-Choice

I think it goes without saying that God is pro-life but here is evidence anyways.
But God is also pro-choice
So why do I bring all this up?

I am of the mindset that we as humans have no right to take someone's free-will away. We cannot and should not dictate what a person can or can't do with their body. We as Christians are called to love unconditionally. UNCONDITIONALLY.
(Proverbs 10:12, Matthew 5:43-48, Luke 6:27, John 13:34-35, John 15:12, Romans 5:8, 1-Corinthians 13:4-7, 1-Corinthians 13:13, 1-Peter 4:8, 1-John 3:16, the list goes on and on.)
We are not told to judge unconditionally.
So here is where I land on this, if you hate abortionists, if you hate the person who defends abortion, if you force someone against their will to make a choice... you need a heart check. Alternatively, you should be at that clinic sharing the love of Christ to them. You should be there to help them. You should be first in line to adopt their unwanted baby.
Edit: I should have made known earlier my personal stance on the issue. I am a devout Christian. I think abortion is awful. It is, my opinion, an easy way out and often has long term negative impacts on the people involved. But I also believe in the freedom of choice. I am not defending abortion. I think that every baby should come to term but the fact of the matter is, we live in a fallen world with people who don’t know Jesus. With that in mind, I cannot personally reconcile how telling someone to live by my God’s rules is MORE loving than to show them support and compassion, and sharing the hope I have in Christ.
TL;DR I believe it is more important to share God’s Grace with un-believers than to enforce God’s rules upon them.
submitted by XM990 to DebateAChristian [link] [comments]


2018.09.24 11:54 theshenanigator Christian Pacifists: Origen

Origen

Intro

So far all of the authors we have encountered have emphasized the nonviolent teachings of the New Testament, particularly those of Jesus. They were convinced that followers of Jesus could not harm others (and they speak as though their contemporary Christians did well in following that path). However, there has not been a huge attempt to reconcile the violence of the Old Testament with the peaceful calling they speak of. Tertullian did some when he addressed Marcion, but it is Origen, as far I as know, who is the first to thoroughly tackle this problem.
 
Origen has been controversial from his own time all the way up through to today. Here is not the place to discuss these controversies, but it must be addressed in some form so the reader understands the relevance of including him in this series. How is including Origen in this series any different than someone such as Marcion, who is considered an ‘arch-heretic’?
 
Origen was widely read throughout the days of the early church, even centuries after his death. He led a powerfully pious life and was probably the most prolific writer in all of ancient times. His greatest accomplishment was the Hexapla: a critical edition of the Hebrew scriptures with a Hebrew translation and five different Greek translations side by side for easy comparisons. He also wrote hundreds of homilies on almost every book of the Bible. Near the end of his life, his patron Ambrose requested that he write a response to a treatise written by a pagan named Celsus about a hundred years earlier. The treatise by Celsus, called The True Word was a scathing attack on Christianity. Origen countered each point one at a time. For many, it was this work that brought Christianity from a folk religion to an authentic philosophy. Due to Celsus’ attack on Christians’ refusal to partake in the state, particularly the army, many of the quotes given in this post will reference Contra Celsum.
 
Origen is sometimes considered the first major Christian theologian and has influenced every Christian theologian who has come after him at least in some way, and was seen as a “bastion of Orthodoxy” for centuries after his death.1 So why was he never considered a saint? Why are some of views considered heretical? Well, it’s hard to say exactly. Many of the heretical views come from his followers, such as overemphasizing subordinationist views so much that they deny the trinity. There is controversy over what exactly was deemed heretical in Origen (and which of that was actually his teaching), but it basically comes down to his belief in the pre-existence of souls and a certain type of universalism. Since neither of those has any bearing on our subject, you can rest easy as we take a very brief look at the most brilliant theologians of the early church.
 
 

Biblical Hermeneutic

Origen read everything through the lens of a crucified Christ. He appealed to scripture for everything that he wrote. However, he believed that there were different levels of scripture.
He saw three levels, or layers, of scripture though he often didn’t distinguish much between the deeper two. The outermost layer was the literal meaning. Dig a bit deeper and you’ll get the moral meaning. The core of the scriptures were in the spiritual understandings of them. He likened these three levels to a wedding. The literal meaning is the actual wedding reception. The moral or emotional level was the form of a union of Christ within the church. The spiritual was the image of the soul’s union with the Logos. He did not explain each meaning for every passage, sometimes only one or two meanings were brought out. One of his supports for this method was Paul’s declaration that the “the letter kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6).
 
Origen did not see violence as being compatible with Christians, yet he held all of the scriptures as “inspired by the Holy Spirit”2. How did he approach the violent portions of the Old Testament then? He did not throw out the old violent scriptures like Marcion did, but instead let “Jesus read it” to him. 3
Joshua, Chapter 9
For we who are of the catholic (universal) Church do not reject the Law of Moses, but we accept it if Jesus reads it to us. For thus we shall be able to understand the Law correctly, if Jesus reads it to us.”
The literal reading of the scriptures was often not be be followed. It was the spiritual that followers of Jesus were supposed to take to heart.
 
 

Spiritual battles

Appealing to several verses in the New Testament, Origen makes it clear that we are not to follow suit in the wars waged in the Old Testament. We are not to harm anyone, not even for vengeance. What else would we expect from followers of Jesus who said that he was leaving his peace with us?
Joshua 15
Unless those physical wars bore the figure of spiritual wars, I do not think the books of Jewish history would ever have been handed down by the apostles to the disciples of Christ, who came to teach peace, so that they could be read in the churches. For what good was that description of wars to those to whom Jesus says, “My peace I give to you; my peace I leave to you” (John 14:27), and to whom it is commanded and said through the Apostle, “Not avenging your own selves” (Rom. 12:19), and, “Rather, you receive injury,” and, “You suffer offense” (cf. 1 Cor. 6:7)? In short, knowing that now we do not have to wage physical wars, but that the struggles of the soul have to be exerted against spiritual adversaries, the Apostle, just as a military leader, gives an order to the soldiers of Christ, saying, “Put on the armor of God, so that you may be able to stand firm against the cunning devices of the Devil” (Eph. 6:11). And in order for us to have examples of these spiritual wars from deeds of old, he wanted those narratives of exploits to be recited to us in church.
Joshua, Chapter 14
So what are we to do with these numerous passages of war we find in the Old Testament then? We are to see them as describing spiritual wars. This is not to say that they did not actually happen, but that Christians are not to follow suit.
When that Israel that is is according to the flesh read these same Scriptures before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, they understood nothing in them except wars and the shedding of blood… But after the presence of my Lord Jesus Christ poured the peaceful light of knowledge into human hearts, since, according to the Apostle, he himself is “our peace,” (Eph. 2:14) he teaches us peace from this very reading of wars. For peace is returned to the soul if its own enemies - sins and vices- are expelled from it. Therefore… when we indeed read these things, we also equip ourselves and are roused for battle, but against those enemies that “proceed from our heart”.
 
 

Views on (Physical) War

Origen believed that the wars were necessary for Israel, but never for a Christian.4
 
The following passage shows the classic brilliance of Origen. He finds meaning in every word and phrasing of scripture. So he doesn’t just say that all Christians were disarmed with Peter, but that we are to remain armed, just in a very different way.
Commentary on Matthew 26:52
Soon Jesus said to him who had used the sword and cut off the right ear of that servant, “put up your sword into its place”—not “take away your sword”; there is therefore a place for a sword from which it is not lawful for anyone to take it who does not wish to perish, especially by the sword. For Jesus wishes his disciples to be “pacific,” that putting down this warlike sword they should take up another pacific sword, which Scriptures call “the sword of the spirit.” (Eph. 6:17) In a similar way he says, “all who take the sword shall perish by the sword,”(Matt. 26:52) that is, all who are not pacific but inciters of wars, shall perish in that very war which they stir up. . . . But taking simply what He says, “those who take the sword shall perish by the sword,” we should beware lest because of warfare or the vindication of our rights or for any occasion we should take out the sword, for no such occasion is allowed by this evangelical teaching, which commands us to fulfill what is written, “with those who hated me I was pacific.” If therefore with those that hate peace we must be pacific, we must use the sword against no-one.
 
Against Celsus 3.7
The following passage shows that the Christians up to Origen’s time had not rebelled nor even acted in a way in which “savors” rebellion. Also note that he acknowledges that the Jews before Christ were permitted to fight and kill.
Neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savors of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defense of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies..
He continues with an explanation that Christians are forbidden “to offer violence to anyone”. What’s particularly interesting here is that he sees more than just teaching and example from Jesus. For him, Jesus ushered in a new age. Jesus’ laws came “from a divine source” and had Jesus or his followers achieved the numbers they had by Origen’s time by a violent rebellion, they would not have had the “exceedingly mild character” that they did. For Origen, Jesus’ entire nonviolent defeat of the forces of evil was setting the path for how his followers should live.
..the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of people to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to anyone, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their persecutors.
 
 

Views on Kings and Rulers

In The True Word, Celsus argued that if everyone was to reject military service like the Christians did, then the empire would fall to the barbarians. Origen’s reply to this is in Against Celsus book 8, chapters 65-75. He starts off by explaining that Christians “despise ingratiating ourselves with kings or any other men, not only if their favour is to be won by murders, licentiousness, or deeds of cruelty, but even if it involves impiety towards God, or any servile expressions of flattery and obsequiousness” (ch. 65). However, he continues on to say that “whilst we do nothing which is contrary to the law and word of God, we are not so mad as to 'stir up against us the wrath of kings and princes, which will bring upon us sufferings and tortures, or even death.” He supports this decision by referencing Romans 13:1-2. He explains further that Christians refuse to “swear by the fortune of the King” because that would either be swearing by nothing itself (if the term fortune is nothing but an empty saying) or by demons. According to Origen, Christians would sooner die than to swear by demons.
 
In claiming that barbarians would conquer Rome if everyone became a Christian, Celsus scoffed at the idea that God would save them and he used the Jews’ current subjection to the Romans as proof. Origen confirmed that he did believe God would protect them. “But if all the Romans.. embraced the Christian faith, they will, when they pray, overcome their enemies; They will not war at all, being guided by that divine power which promised to save five entire cities for the sake of fifty just persons.” God would do this, he continues, because “people of God are assuredly the salt of the earth; they preserve the order of the world.” (ch. 70)
 
He explains this further in chapter 69:
We say that "if two" of us "shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father”[Matt. 18:19] of the just, "which is in heaven;" for God rejoices in the agreement of rational beings, and turns away from discord. And what are we to expect, if not only a very few agree, as at present, but the whole of the empire of Rome? For they will pray to the Word, who of old said to the Hebrews, when they were pursued by the Egyptians, "The LORD shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace;”[Exod. 14:14] and if they all unite in prayer with one accord, they will be able to put to flight far more enemies than those who were discomfited by the prayer of Moses when he cried to the Lord, and of those who prayed with him.
 
So what about Celsus’ claim that God never protected the Jewish people? Origen claims that it was not due to God, but to the people not obeying God. If the Romans were to all obey God, which was essentially the claim, then God would protect them and they would not need to war(69). He also claimed:
Against Celsus 8.68
In these circumstances the king will not “be left in utter solitude and desertion,” neither will “the affairs of the world fall into the hands of the most impious and wild barbarians.” For if, in the words of Celsus, “they do as I do,” then it is evident that even the barbarians, when they yield obedience to the word of God, will become most obedient to the law, and most humane; and every form of worship will be destroyed except the religion of Christ, which will alone prevail. And indeed it will one day triumph, as its principles take possession of the minds of people more and more each day.
 
When criticized for not helping the King and empire maintain it’s safety and power, Origen simply claimed that Christians did support the King, and more effectively than soldiers. To Origen, Christians were priests to the one true God, “keeping their hands pure” to ensure God’s favor and support. So whereas a few centuries later fighting was seen as a way to enforce the favor of God, Origen taught that restraint from fighting was the way to do it. (ch. 73)
..We do, when occasion requires, give help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, "putting on the whole armour of God." And this we do in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, "I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority;”[1 Tim. 2:1-2] and the more any one excels in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more than is given by soldiers… And to those enemies of our faith who require us to bear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply: "Do not those who are priests at certain shrines… as you account them, keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods; and even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed!"
And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs, when along with righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures, and not to be led away by them. And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army--an army of piety--by offering our prayers to God.
 
 

Conclusion

Commentary on John: 20.292
And if the only way one becomes a son of the Father who is in heaven is by loving one’s enemies and praying for those who persecute one, it is clear that no one hears the words of God because he is of God by nature, but because he has received power to become a child of God and has made proper use of this power, and because he has loved his enemies and prayed for those who abuse him, and has become a son of the Father who is in heaven.
 

Verses

Exodus 14:14; Psalm 101:8; Matthew 5:39, 44-45, 10:29-30, 18:19 (Masses of Christians praying together is effective), 26:52;Luke 14:34-35, 24:27, 44-45; John 14:27, 16:33; Romans 12:19; 1 Corinthians 6:7; 2 Corinthians 3:6 (Used to interpret violent passages of the OT); Ephesians 2:14, 6:11; Philippians 4:13; 1 Timothy 2:1-2 (We should support Kings by prayer)

Notes

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#Influence_on_the_later_church
2 On First Principles, Book I Chapter 3
3 Luke 24:27, 44-45
4 Against Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 26

Further Reading

Early Christian Writings
Homilies on Joshua
Article on Origen’s Allegorical Method
On First Principles 4.18; Homilies on Joshua In particular 14, 15; Commentary on Matthew Commentary on 26:52; Against Celsus 1.1, 2.3, 3.7,3.8, 4.82, 4.83, 4.9, 5.33, 7.18-20, 7.22, 7.26, 7.58, 7.59. 7.61, 8.35, 8.55, 8.65-75; Commentary on John 20.290, 20.292

More in the Series

Intro
Justin Martyr
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
submitted by theshenanigator to christianpacifism [link] [comments]