Cygnus,
Hope everything is well with you. Are you getting around ok?
Joseph
JosephMalik
JoinedPosts by JosephMalik
-
12
Hourglass2 Outpost Archives 1996-2001
by Derrick inall credit and many thanks go to our dear brother osarsif for making the hourglass2 outpost archives 1996-2001 online internet resource a reality: .
http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/h2o.htm.
that's right, all 6 years!
-
-
-
31
An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error
by JosephAlward inmany months ago i offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance.
since that time many new people have joined this forum, so i present this bible "difficulty" once again:.
scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
-
-
JosephMalik
As I was trying to put to you - "inspired by God" and "error free literacy" are entirely different ways of thinking.
Paduan,
Well the point under discussion was neither. That is the point I was making. It is not necessary for the verses to be perfect in either case since all we have are copies of copies and translations of them at that. Many errors have crept into the text for such reasons. Yet despite all that the material is remarkable and protected somehow by its own complexity and the truth of matters is not lost. In fact there is much truth still hidden that has not been revealed. Joseph
-
29
The Sins of the Father: Bible Error
by JosephAlward injoe alward .
the bible contradicts itself in the matter of punishing children for the sins of their fathers.
in one place is says that it is strictly forbidden, but in another the lord speaks of slaughtering sons for the sins of their forefathers, and in yet another place the lord orders the murder of suckling babes.
-
-
JosephMalik
Anastasis,
That's fine Anastasis. Alward's claim for contradiction was completely unfounded. It goes towards his credibility as well. This is all I wanted to bring out. No need to try and answer all of it in such cases once the accusations are shown to have no substance but are just clever deceptive remarks.
Joseph
-
-
-
JosephMalik
Good for you avenger.
I am sure he had way over 1000 posts already. It has to do with the way the counter works on this board. I see two or three posts with the same count in many of my posts.
Joseph
Edited by - JosephMalik on 12 October 2002 4:14:31
-
31
An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error
by JosephAlward inmany months ago i offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance.
since that time many new people have joined this forum, so i present this bible "difficulty" once again:.
scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
-
-
JosephMalik
Thus, according to Matthew, Jesus is essentially saying that the law in Deuteronomy 19 should not be followed, that the person bearing false witness should not be punished, but instead should have good things done for him. This doesn't make sense, so either Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said, or else Jesus disavowed scriptural law, and that doesn't make sense.
JosephAlward,
Makes perfect sense. Christ knew that the Law Covenant would end with His death and was preparing His disciples for the New Covenant which put men under Grace not Law. Laws can be changed you know and since now there was a completely different approach to salvation apart from such law there needed to be a change in attitudes towards others as well.
Joseph
-
29
The Sins of the Father: Bible Error
by JosephAlward injoe alward .
the bible contradicts itself in the matter of punishing children for the sins of their fathers.
in one place is says that it is strictly forbidden, but in another the lord speaks of slaughtering sons for the sins of their forefathers, and in yet another place the lord orders the murder of suckling babes.
-
-
JosephMalik
The Bible contradicts itself in the matter of punishing children for the sins of their fathers. In one place is says that it is strictly forbidden, but in another the Lord speaks of slaughtering sons for the sins of their forefathers, and in yet another place the Lord orders the murder of suckling babes. Here is the evidence:
The Lords Rule: Dont Punish Children for the Sins of the Fathers
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)
Note: children are NOT to be put to death for the sins of their fathers. Compare this to the contradictory teaching below:
JOE ALWARD
This is not a contradiction. The Law given to Israel in Deut 24:16 had nothing to do with the punishment prophesied for Babylon in Isaiah 14:4 which would be administered by the Medes and Persians. Matthew Henrys commentary explains:
II. The utter ruin of the royal family is here foretold, together with the desolation of The royal city.
1. The royal family is to be wholly extirpated. The Medes and Persians, that are to be employed in this destroying work, are ordered, when they have slain Belshazzar, to prepare slaughter for his children (#Isa 14:21) and not to spare them. The little ones of Babylon must be dashed against the stones, # Ps 137:9. These orders sound very harshly; but,
(1.) They must suffer for the iniquity of their fathers, which is often visited upon the children, to show how much God hates sin and is displeased at it, and to deter sinners from it, which is the end of punishment. Nebuchadnezzar had slain Zedekiahs sons (#Jer 52:10), and, for that iniquity of his, his seed are paid in the same coin.
Law should not be confused with prophecy and the responsibility for the destruction goes to the Medes and Persians. That God knew they would do this or considered it justice in view of the circumstances does not make Him responsible for such acts.
Joseph Malik
-
22
Mormons ELECT their ELDERS
by refiners fire in"relief society study guide.
" 1989 version.
article: "by common consent".
-
-
JosephMalik
So, I started studying with the Elders (and yes, they'd be like JW pioneers, except they leave home to serve a mission),
RevMalk,
I know our Lord selected 12 apostles. And I know that he accepted disciples to follow him. But I never read where He appointed Elders or established an official position in the faith for any disciple that we can call Elder.
Now among Jews, elders were just that, respected older men to which others may look for guidance. So the position was natural and not official or a requirement. Apostles other than the 12 Christ selected could be made such by a congregation to carry out a mission such as Antioch did for Paul when they selected him and several others to speak for them. Such appointments were for specific purposes and not permanent official positions. This did not make them one of the 12 nor did it authorize them to appoint others to carry on after them. Only Christ could select them as He did personally with Paul.
But Elders that could appoint other Elders were only appointed by Paul, or those that Paul laid his hands on and appointed for the purpose of making further appointments. And the laying on of hands was essential to such an appointment. They conveyed the authority of Paul and were trained by him. When Paul died we lost the use of his hands. No other apostle appointed Elders to represent them. None. This was Paul's ministry and such appointments ended with him.
So how is it that we have such Elders today. Paul is dead. We no longer have use of his hands or any person authorized by him to do this work? What is going on here?
Joseph
Edited by - JosephMalik on 12 October 2002 0:8:47
Edited by - JosephMalik on 12 October 2002 0:16:38
-
-
-
JosephMalik
Well, the Bible clearly says that "there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a xxth day". So, according to the Bible, the days were literal 24 hour days.
Running Man,
I discussed this a long time ago on H2o or some other discussion group. The word Day in and of itself does not mean 24 hours and the expression evening/moring can bracket all six of them and combine them with other events to make them into one day. Or we can group all the 7 days of Passover together to make one event. Why not do some research on this yourself. It is a great study. It is all relative to the context, and great amounts of time can be compressed into such epoch's for simplification. Here let me start you off and show how all such days can be combined into one.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Do you see what I mean now?
Joseph
-
-
-
JosephMalik
I doubt it. They were simply epochs of sufficient length to accomplish the tasks indicated.
Joseph
-
10
heavenly kingdom = government in Bible?
by Preston inwhat's the difference betwen the kingdom that jesus mentioned and the government that is mentioned in daniel that will crush "all the other kingdoms".
is one a part of the other?
are they entirely different entities?
-
-
JosephMalik
This leader was not the Messiah, because the leader is made a sin offering for himself (cf. 45:22). If the leader" were Jesus Christ, then he, the Messiah, would need cleansing from sin.
BJC,
Are you saying that Christ never made a sin offering for himself? Of course he did. As long as he was under the Law Covenant he obeyed it and made sin offerings just as every other Jew did.
And he kept the Passover and other festivals as well just as stated in Ezekiel. Besides the sin we are concerned with is the condemnation man was under as a result of Adam's transgression not the things we consider as sin in our lives. Our Lord was free from such condemnation and this is what the sacrifice was based upon. While a child is it not true that Jesus avoid his parents and stayed behind causing them much grief?
:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a days journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
You can call this whatever you want but some would call it a sin on his part. This is not the kind of transgression of interest to us. And when he said to his mother:
John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
Was that respectful? The condemnation we inherited from Adam is the sin that counts not events such as this. Ezekiel introduced this Prince and all the realities that identified this Prince as stated earlier.
Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers money, and overthrew the tables; 16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Fathers house an house of merchandise. 17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
Our Lord took matters into his own hands in direct violation of the Law which defined sin. So despite the fact that this act was driven by the zeal he had for his Fathers house, it still demonstrated a loss of temper a sinful act, in that it broke this Law as shown above, cause them financial loss and denied the money changers the due process of the Law that our Lord expected to be enforced and even invoked in His own behalf on several occasions.
Without such reality, emotions and experience along with the tolerance it finally teaches no one would be saved.
Joseph
Edited by - JosephMalik on 9 October 2002 9:46:35