These two facts from the text, when translated mechanically and without changing the words around, are directly opposite what Christians teach themselves, and explain most of the evil that befalls the Christian world. We do not understand that we are COMMANDED to give or lend (at zero interest) our excess money to relieve poverty, but that we are FORBIDDEN from enforcing our civil laws with deadly force. That "charity" is compelled but that obedience to human law is voluntary is what God actually says - or the implication of it - and it is the diametric opposite of what humans want.

I think you take this farther than scripture. The bible is full of kings and magistrates using force. Because that is what it takes to stop bandits, scofflaws, and criminal elements.

It's very hard to believe that ancient Israel just suggested that people should follow their laws. They used force to keep the criminal element down. Look at how they dealt with their enemies, over and over. They were not shy about using violence to enforce the civil order, conquer the land, etc.

And Israel under Rome in the time of Jesus certainly did not lack enforcement by Roman troops nor did the governor or the Sanhedrin shy away from using them at will.

You prefer this as policy. That doesn't mean there was no law enforcement.

Without armed enforcement, there is no rule of law. Because people don't obey the laws otherwise. The Jews in particular had to fear lawlessness as a serious threat to them historically. Major cities had thousands of crucified criminals along the roads leading to them, generally with the cooperation of the Sanhedrin and Jewish civilians.

Thus, in Israel there would be no scarcity, because all land and all produce and all people were accounted for under the laws of God, including who must be given to by whom in the event of misfortune. And there would be no abuse of law because men were completely stripped of their ability to make any law whatever. They could only execute the laws God set, without changing them. No place was left to human opinion, and there was, effectively, no source of human voluntary power in the system. Thus did God create a system that would lake poverty or abuse, by eliminating the human ego from the governance of men.

The poor in modern Western countries have more opportunity and more actual wealth than most ancient kings. The bible does not give much sympathy to those who refuse to help themselves or who refuse to work at all and prefer to spend their days drinking and doing drugs and leading immoral lives.

So before you tell us all to sell all that we have to give to the poor, can you tell us finally just what "poor" means? What income level does that mean? Do we have to give them all houses and cars? Because we do do that with most of them. We scour the world and bring millions more poor people here and give them a lot of stuff too.

If we can be faulted, it is that we neglect the native citizens in favor of constantly importing hordes of foreigners, something the Bible never commanded Israel to do.

I spoke there only of what God said, out of his mouth, as far as law goes. I consider well what he promised, and the effects of it. I consider the “Don’t shed man’s blood” commandment given to the Ark people, the legal interplay in the Torah, the fact of Urim and Thummin, such that Israel never HAD to get a judgment wrong, the urging of the prophets, Jesus’ words and conduct from “Render unto Caesar...”, through his “Enough!” at the last supper at the eagerness of tge Apostles to take up the swordshe said they would now need, to his admonition of ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’. I then look past him to the gross errors of Paul and Israel, wielding death to stop the progress of God, until Jesus himself blinded him and made him dependent on the people he was headed to Damascus to persecute. I look at the only two people who offended God enough in the new testament for God to kill outright in a pair of unambiguous open miracles (Ananias and Sapphira); then I look forward to the fatal sin of the Church, circa 381 AD, when it fired itself up with the wrongheaded zeal of “Error has no rights!” Augustine and started to use the state it dominated to execute people for heresy. And I conclude that, no, it’s not a question of what I “prefer”. It never was that.

Let's cut to the chase:

Does God allow men to kill other men?

If Scripture is our reference, YES.

Jesus said that killers were consigned to the Lake of Fire at final judgment.

(Is there not a difference between "killing" and "murder"? You're also familiar with Ecclesiastes, right?)

Who has to worry about that? Do murderers? What about people who order murder but don't commit it themselves? What about those who aid and abet murder? Does Paul have anything to worry about?

Judgement Day and the blood of Jesus will sort all that and all other sins out. (Why would Paul have anything to worry about??)

What about soldiers who kill? What about cops? What about people who kill an innocent by accident? What about people who kill in self defense?

What about people who torture animals?

Discuss.

(Again, please reference Ecclesiastes and Jesus' Gift of Grace & Salvation. He knows our heart.)

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 KJV

3 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

I consider well what he promised, and the effects of it. I consider the “Don’t shed man’s blood” commandment given to the Ark people, the legal interplay in the Torah, the fact of Urim and Thummin, such that Israel never HAD to get a judgment wrong, the urging of the prophets, Jesus’ words and conduct from “Render unto Caesar...”, through his “Enough!” at the last supper at the eagerness of tge Apostles to take up the swordshe said they would now need, to his admonition of ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’.

I think you have conflict with others over the extent to which you value the relevance of Old Testament teachings to Christians. Just because Jesus and his disciples were Torah-observant Jews does not mean they absolutely forbade many matters of Jewish law to Christians. Abandoning circumcision for Gentile converts and even for newborns in Christian families. What is more fundamental to ancient Jewish law and culture than the absolute requirement that all males in that cult be circumcised? Yet there are no such requirements in Christianity. One of the most fundamental breaks between Christianity, the new vine grafted to the ancient vine of Israel, was the matter of tribal membership based on circumcision. That was the first and only significant attribute of any Jew, observant or not. Nothing that any ancient person could do would make them part of the Old Covenant with the God of Israel unless they were circumsized. Period, end of story. And dismiss entirely the notion that the God of Israel was the god of any other nation. He was not. Jewish scripture describes the god of Israel and the laws of circumsized observant Jews of the ancient era, not the god of all mankind and a universal set of laws applicable to all the ages of mankind on the earth.

So I think you over-value the laws of Israel and would impose many Old Testament laws upon Christians that are not valid. I'm speaking in general terms, of reading the thrusts of your posts over the years. There is always a dividing line in theology over what elements, if any, are carried over from Judaism to Christianity. What elements of actual ancient Jewish law and religion still applied in the era of Jesus and how the New Covenant was established for Christians (non-observant Jews and Gentile converts). And many obscure Jewish customs were abolished for Gentile converts, among them circumcision, that most basic element of Jewish identity and subjection to the strictures of Jewish religion and custom.

Now of course, you must recognize that I am implying that you are a Judaizer, that you seek to impose irrelevant Jewish laws on modern Christians for psychological or theological or philosophical or cultic reasons. But I don't think that is true. I think there is just a difference in where we place the dividing line between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

One of the key distinctions in this kind of disagreement is fully illustrated in Paul's victory over Peter before the council of Jerusalem, the ruling body of early Christianity, the pre-Vatican, over the issue of whether Gentiles or even Jewish Christians were required to be circumcised to become Christians.

Bible.org: The Jerusalem Council: The Gospel Defined and Defended (Acts 15:1-35)

Introduction While there is a time to fight, there are many times when a fight is simply not worth it. I can remember Vance Havner once saying something like this: “Shucks, a hound dog can lick a skunk any day, but it just isn’t worth it.” A friend of mine used to say, “There are some things I would go to the wall for, but this isn’t one of them.” We should strive to avoid conflict, but there are those few times when we must engage in conflict in order to stand for what is essential and true. Acts 15 contains Luke’s account of two such instances, where conflict was necessary and where the gospel was advanced as a result of both disagreements. The first 35 verses describe the conflict which Paul and Barnabas had with certain men who had come to Antioch from Judea. The issue at hand was whether Gentile converts had to become Jewish proselytes in order to be saved. The outgrowth of this conflict was the first church council, which included some heated words but resulted in a very wise decision on the part of the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem. The remaining verses in Acts 15 describe the disagreement which arose between Paul and Barnabas. This was a matter which was settled privately and into which the church leaders were not drawn. We will concentrate in this lesson on the first conflict between Paul and Barnabas and some overly Jewish Christians, and the Jerusalem Council which met to settle the dispute. We will take note of the way in which the problem was handled and of the basis for the decision, as well as the decision of the Council and its impact. We will then seek to discern those principles which are inherent in our text and ponder their implications for the church today. The Issue, Its Advocates and Its Assumptions The issue is that of the gospel itself. What did the gospel require of those who were Gentiles and who were converted to faith in Christ? The answer of Paul and Barnabas can be summed up in these words: The gospel requires nothing more than a personal faith in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah, in the sinner’s place, resulting in the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and the certainty of eternal life. There were certain unnamed men who had come down to Antioch from Judea who held to a very different “gospel,” a “gospel” which, in reality, was a false one.323Their “gospel” might be summed up in this fashion: Christianity is Jewish. To be saved, one must believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, but in order to be a part of this covenant community, Israel, one must become a proselyte, which is entered into by circumcision, which obligates the individual to keep the Law of Moses. Put differently, to these “Judaisers” salvation meant identifying not only with Christ but with the nation Israel. It meant placing oneself under the Mosaic Covenant and keeping the Laws of Moses, as defined by Judaism. We know for certain that these men who opposed Paul and Barnabas were from Judea. We can be sure they were Jews and that they had been and continued to be Pharisees (15:5). We are also told that these men were believers (15:5). We can infer, with some confidence, that these men either claimed or implied that their position represented the viewpoint of the apostles and the church in Jerusalem.324 It is probably safe to say that they taught with great confidence and an air of authority. When Paul and Barnabas opposed them, the sparks began to fly. Neither party was willing to budge. As wrong as these “Judaisers” were, they believed their position was biblical. A brief look at some Old Testament passages will show us the basis for their error, as well as an explanation of the error. Tracking the concept of circumcision through the Old Testament provides us with the reasons these Pharisees believed as they did and the reason they were wrong. Consider these two passages, the first found in Genesis 17 and the second in Exodus 12: 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.” 9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” … 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him. 23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen (Genesis 17:5-14, 22-25, NIV). 43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: “No foreigner is to eat of it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, 45 but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. 46 “It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. 47 The whole community of Israel must celebrate it. 48 “An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. 49 The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you” (Exodus 12:43-49, NIV). Circumcision was no mere ritual—it was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. By being circumcised men bore witness to their faith in the God of Abraham and in His covenant with him and his descendants. Failure to circumcise his son nearly cost Moses his life (cf. Exodus 4:24-26). Failure or refusal to be circumcised placed one outside the covenant community. In order for one to participate in the Passover meal, one had to be circumcised. Aliens (Gentiles, for all practical purposes) could participate, but only after being circumcised. How easy it would be for a Jew to reason that these circumcision passages applied equally to those who wished salvation in Christ. Jesus was a Jew, the Jewish Messiah. If men wished to benefit in the blessings which God promised in and through the Messiah, they must identify themselves with Israel, with their covenants, and with the Mosaic commands. The fallacy of this Pharisaical position was that one did not have to identify with Israel to be saved, but only with Christ. Indeed, the baptism of John and later that of our Lord and His apostles was a public renouncing of Judaism as a system of works and an identification with Christ, on the basis of faith alone. Men turned their backs on legalistic Judaism and turned to Christ, who alone kept the law and bore its (death) penalty for sinners. The law could not save anyone; it could only condemn all men as sinners. Christ alone can save, and thus men had to choose between self-righteousness, based upon perfect obedience of the law, or Christ’s righteousness, a gift of God’s grace, through faith in the person and work of His Son, Jesus. The Judaisers viewed circumcision from these early texts in the Old Testament, but not from the other texts which showed the “true circumcision” to be an act of God, performed on men’s hearts and not on their physical flesh.325 Notice how this “spiritual” circumcision becomes more and more clear as the Old Testament progresses: 6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live (Deuteronomy 30:6, NIV). 1 “If you will return, O Israel, return to me,” declares the Lord. “If you put your detestable idols out of my sight and no longer go astray, 2 and if in a truthful, just and righteous way you swear, ‘As surely as the Lord lives,’ then the nations will be blessed by him and in him they will glory.” 3 This is what the Lord says to the men of Judah and to Jerusalem: “Break up your unplowed ground and do not sow among thorns. 4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it (Jeremiah 4:1-4, NIV). 23 This is what the Lord says: “Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the Lord. 25 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh—26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the desert in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (Jeremiah 9:23-26, NIV). Though the term “circumcision” is not used, God’s promise of a new covenant and a new heart is surely referring to the “spiritual circumcision” which God will perform on men’s hearts, by faith, under a new covenant: “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:31-33, NASB). So the differences between us probably amount more to differences on how we lay down the dividing lines between the Old Covenant for Israel and the New Covenant which led to non-observant Jews forming churches of their own and abandoning entirely the system of priestly sacrifices and the other strictures of the Jewish state, keeping in mind this was very much the era in which the Sandhedrin, a religious court, ruled in conjunction with a Roman governor (instead of a Jewish king). But, you say, what of the fundamentals, the Ten Commandments? Thou shall not kill, thou shall not take the name of the Lord in vain, etc.? Do we then wish to enforce the Ten Commandments with the full force of the modern state? Should we punish those who fail to make the God of Israel their primary god and never take his name in vain? Should we forbid the use of all imagery as idolatry, the creation of graven images? How do we enforce the prohibition on coveting the property of your neighbor or his wife? The truth is that we are modern people and you have to have good reasons to insist absolutely on certain particulars of Old Testament laws as being applicable to modern Christians. If you don't enforce them all, why are you enforcing any of them? I think you have a lawyerly craving for underlying and consistent principles within an organized system of law. Otherwise, despite any contradictions or failures of the system, there is no underlying systemic principles to dispense justice. Without fundamental principles, there is no concept of real justice. I do find your insistence that it is forbidden to kill those who are breaking the laws. What do you think is actually required if dealing with a Las Vegas massacre situation? The police are supposed to knock at the door and request politely that the gunman stop shooting? Or they just wait until he runs out of bullets and needs more snacks? It is only the law if the modern state is willing to kill you or imprison you and pay your institutional upkeep if you break those laws. Some people don't stop shooting or harming others until the police just kill them. It surprises me that you don't understand this. I think you just don't like it. And it is an easy way to condemn the entire system on moral grounds. Not that the American justice system and its policing don't deserve to be condemned; they absolutely do. But not on the grounds that you argue repeatedly, like some mythical refusal to kill because the ancient laws of Israel forbids it. Anyway, that seems to me to be the fundamental difference in our positions. A lot of times, people disagree on the particulars but don't look at the fundamental positions that others hold, different views of the most important features of a policing and justice system. Trying to apply the laws of small nation of homogenous religious and cultural tribe, a society like ancient Israel, to modern America and to any modern Christian nation is an exercise in futility, doomed to fail before you even start. And even if we granted you the power to impose such a system, it is readily apparent it would fail when faced with hardened criminal gangs and those who refuse to obey authority when push comes to shove in the matter of police encountering a lawbreaker. I flagged a few others who might be interested. Sometimes we argue endlessly the particulars when the real issue is the unspoken fundamentals. At least it seems that way to me. There is often a fundamental disagreement in opinion that works out to a wider range of conflicts in opinion.

(Is there not a difference between "killing" and "murder"? You're also familiar with Ecclesiastes, right?)

There is an issue of literalism here. When the armies of Israel were commanded to fight and conquer other nations like Canaan, there was no such prohibition against killing. Killing the enemies of the nation of Israel or those who resisted armed conquest of their lands by the nation of Israel was allowed and even praised and rewarded by God.

So is the prohibition, "Thou shalt not kill" so absolute and literal that it should be read as "Thou shalt not kill unless you are an ancient Jew and the God of Israel has commanded your leader/king to conquer and kill the inhabitants of land that God promised to the Jews". Because God did order a lot of killing in the Old Testament, much of it for conquest, much of it for ritual deviation or profaning the sacred or for forbidden sexual relations, just to name a few of the things that God commanded ancient Israel to kill for. Jews were ordered to stone to death a lot of different people committing various offenses under Old Testament (therefore Old Covenant) laws.

Circumcision was given to Abraham and his heirs, and the to the Hebrews of Sinai and theirs. So it never applied to you and me. (Note: the uncircumcised heir lost his right to inherit land in Israel, which was the only promise given to Abraham, and givennat Sinai. “Eternal life” is not part of the package offered either.

The prohibition on shedding blood was given to Noah and his heirs, which is everybody on earth. Jesus said that killers earn the lake of fire at final judgment.

As far as the invasion of Canaan goes, God gave that order to the Hebrews, only, conquering Canaan, only. It was not a permanent grant of authority for Jews to make war on whomever. They had a permanent right to defend the land God gave them, and were commanded to kill the Canaanites who did not flee (this was explicitly part of the divine judgment against the Canaanites. The exception to the “don’t kill” rule was limited in time and place, not an authorizatuion for Gentiles to wage wars of conquest.

To insist on the Ten Commanments, even, is JudaiIzing. Jesus listed SOME of the ten in his lists of mortal sins, added sins that aren’t there. And of course the law against killing doesn’t come from the Ten Commandments, but from the Ark. it is merely repeated at Sinai. Moreover, the Law of Moses, if followed perfectly by a Hebrew in Israel, doesn’t promise eternal life - that’s not the deal. It only promises a secure farm in Israel in this life. On the other hand, it’s Jesus, not Moses, whose law says that those who do not provide for the poor will be left in outer darkness for Christ does not know them. Don’t kill was a law before Sinai, and is a law of Jesus. It’s not a Jewish Law as such, and not Judaizing to insist on it.

Don’t kill is an absolute, except for self defense (in which case it’s enforcing don’t kill on the would- be killers. All of those other cases under the Jewish law are specific exceptions for Israel, for God ruled Israel directly. Ancient Israel is gone, but Jesus says that killers today go into the lake of fire. So, trying to drag in Jewish Law that allowed killing is Judaizing.

but Jesus says that killers today go into the lake of fire

A little help, please. What verse are you referring to?

Look on the last couple of pages of the Bible. In Revelation, Jesus gives two similar (not identical) lists of mortal sins - sins for which people are cast into the lake of fire: liars, killers, the sexually immoral, etc. Killers appear on both lists. Sabbath breakers, the covetous and thieves appear on neither. Idolators do, and, curiously, curs and are he filthy appear on at least one list, but the uncircumcised and shrimp eaters appear on neither (unless one interprets “filthy” as being “unclean”.

liars, killers, the sexually immoral, etc. Killers appear on both lists.

Are murderers un-redeemable?

Vic isn't a bible believer. I also notice he is adding to scripture adding the word mortal. Vic is a bit of a fool.

Vic isn't a bible believer.

Sad news! He does seem to believe certain parts of the Bible...and mixes in something like Catholicism?

He says he only trusts the red writing.

He says he only trusts the red writing.

Well, that's a good start.

Here's a Bible that will appeal to Vic...an OT red letter edition

https://kjver.com/redletter.aspx

I'll keep looking until I find an entire Bible printed in red.

That Sword Bible with the direct words of God in Red certainly is a useful addition.

I had to do that work myself, with a highlighter, and it bled through the page a lot.

Also, in the NT, distinguishing who is speaking - the Father, Jesus, angels, YHWH from the OT, Jesus quoting the OT - it took a lot of different color fonts. Having had someone already do that is a good thing.

The nice thing about the KJV is that it is from ONE main manuscript, of Bysantine Orthodox text type, the original version has all of the books later excluded by some Protestants, and it has such a rich research apparatus supporting it (of concordances, word-counts, "Strongs", etc. that one can really delve down into many aspects of it better than in any other version.

The translation also has the virtue of "thee" and "you", so one can see the distinction between second person singular and plural, which no longer exists in contemporary English.

So, I'll be pleased to get myself a "Sword Bible" as it will make my task easier.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether they will properly put the words of Jesus in Revelation.

(And no, every word in the Bible did not "proceed forth from the mouth of God". The writers did a good job of pointing THOSE words out, and they're important because of who said them.

If you want to believe that EVERY word proceeded forth out of the mouth again, you can follow your tradition and believe that, but the original writers were inspired by God to make the distinction, so God apparently intended for there to be such a distinction.

Of course, what one DOES with the information is more important than sitting around thinking about it, in any case.

An entire Bible printed in red would be useless, therefore. The red would be distracting and hard on the eyes.

Murderers unredeemable?

Jesus promised that God forgives those who forgive, and that he will not forgive those who do not.

I also notice he is adding to scripture adding the word mortal.

Well, Jesus gives a list of sins that earn the lake of fire at final judgment. He gives two overlapping lists.

ALL sins are not on that list. Indeed, a great number of sins pointed out by God are not on the list. Half of the Ten Commandments are not on the list, while things not among the Ten Commandments are on that list.

So, how shall I describe the list of specific sins that earn one the lake of fire? I need a word. "Mortal" seems reasonable enough. These are the sins that result in the second death. Sounds pretty "mortal" to me.

By contrast, sins such as theft or dishonoring your father, or breaking the Sabbath, or coveting, are NOT on the list of "Lake of Fire" - second death - sins. "Mortal" is a nice short word that distinguishes between the lists of sin that earn one the fire, versus the ones that don't.

James says "Break one, break them all", but Jesus obviously disagrees.

Thank goodness, then, that James' ideas on the matter are not printed in red like Jesus's words are. In this way, given the conflict between two different parts of the Bible, we can decide whether we think that James is the final authority, or Jesus.

Likewise, we have Jesus sayin over and over again at the end of revelation that all of the souls will be called forth from Hades and Death, resurrected, and judged by their works. And of course we've got Paul disagreeing with that. Once again we've got red-letters conflicting with black-letters. "Bible" contains both, and the conflict. How does one resolve the conflict?

You resolve it by denying there is a conflict, even though there clearly is.

I resolve it by looking to the highest authority, which - to a Christian - is Jesus's Father, followed by Jesus himself.

All Jesus' father said that was pertinent to this was "listen to him" (Jesus). So what Jesus says, goes. Where James and Paul and John disagree with Jesus, Jesus trumps, obviously.

"But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." - Jesus

but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

You are pulling Matt 5:22 out of context, thereby missing the whole point Jesus is making...that (Matt 5:20) unless your righteousness EXCEEDS that of the most righteous scribes and Pharisees, you not qualified for heaven .

In other words, there is no one righteous, not even one (Rom 3:10). There is no one who at one point or another doesn't break The Law. You don't have to murder someone to break The Law, all you have to do is call them a fool and you are as deserving of hell as any murderer.

Backing up to Matt 5:17 we see the explanation of 5:22, and the reason Christ came into this world...to fulfill The Law (that we cannot keep!) He fulfills it for us. He keeps The Law that we cannot keep. And our faith in Him credits us with righteousness.

You're a good man, Vic. You have never murdered anyone. But if you have ever been the least bit angry, or told even a white lie, you are as guilty of hell as any killer.

And you REALLY believe that this is what Jesus meant by his teaching?

And you REALLY believe that this is what Jesus meant by his teaching?

Did you not just read Matt 5:20? Jesus said it, I believe it.

So, where Jesus said that men are judged by their works, do you believe that? Or do you go with Paul?

You will either be judged by your works (leading you to the Lake of Fire), or you will be judged by your faith in the atoning work of Christ (which will lead to eternal life with Christ). Still wanna go with your works, which are as filthy rags?

But if you have ever been the least bit angry, or told even a white lie, you are as guilty of hell as any killer.

So Jesus was a sinner? He was known to be angry.

So Jesus was a sinner?

If Jesus were a sinner, He wouldn't qualify as the One to redeem us from our sin. He had to be the perfect Lamb.

Not all anger is sin.

Okay I just asked because you told Vic if you've ever been the "least"...

Yes, showing that Jesus' anger was sinless is a needed clarification. Thank you.

But if you have ever been the least bit angry, or told even a white lie, you are as guilty of hell as any killer.

So Jesus was a sinner? He was known to be angry.

So was God. Right?

I know, I know.... That was "righteous" anger. That's somehow different from ordinary anger.

I'm saying it does not add up. Anger is a response to insecurity, whether "righteous" or not, therefore it does not have a place anywhere in God's resume. All this theology has been constructed around the premise that the Bible is the Word of God. It's quite reasonable in my view that much of it is simply man made. God has been ascribed being capable of anger just being a way for the leaders of the ancient world to control, through fear, the people. It's the same thing that goes on today in our modern world. Surrender your rights or else everyone in the USA will be killed in a mass shooting or by some Islamic jihadist suicide bomber.

Submit or terrible things will happen to you. Same story, different millennium.

I'm saying it does not add up. Anger is a response to insecurity, whether "righteous" or not, therefore it does not have a place anywhere in God's resume.

Uh you don't know God or his mind. You follow a suggestor hypnotist who is not God and knows nothing of God. Sorry I am not going to be PC and pretend I respect your beliefs. I don't just like I don't respect Muslims beliefs. Why would I they are wrong just like you. I'm not PC and I wont sugar coat.

It is not a sin to be angry at injustice. Say someone raped your daughter. Every normal person would be angry at that. It is not a sin and it is a natural human emotion. If you are angry at someone without just cause. Like say your angry at your mother because she didn't buy you an xbox for Christmas. That is not righteous anger.

You try to pretend you ar better than God because he got angry. That is a silly notion.

Anger is a response to insecurity

No it is not. How is someone whos daughter was raped getting angry insecure? That's just dumb.

Oh in your hypnotist model the rapist is really a good person who just had a moment of weakness. They need not ask forgiveness according to you. Well if they listen to your suggestor they end up in hell and think they are good and don't have to ask forgiveness. It's nonsense.

It is sad you abandoned your Christian faith that you don't seem able to explain how you were ever a Christian or why you rejected your previous beliefs.

e. God has been ascribed being capable of anger just being a way for the leaders of the ancient world to control, through fear, the people. It's the same thing that goes on today in our modern world. Surrender your rights or else everyone in the USA will be killed in a mass shooting or by some Islamic jihadist suicide bomber.

What a strange statement. Not true.

You will either be judged by your works (leading you to the Lake of Fire), or you will be judged by your faith in the atoning work of Christ

That's not what Jesus said.

I'm saying it does not add up.

You're right: it doesn't add up.

But it's really not worth arguing about.

(Ping): "I know, I know.... That [God's justification] was "righteous" anger. That's somehow different from ordinary anger.

I'm saying it does not add up.

(Stone): "It is not a sin to be angry at injustice. Say someone raped your daughter. Every normal person would be angry at that."

Yes Ping -- There is such a proper or divinely justifiable emotion as "righteous" anger. Stone articulated it as "anger" over "injustice"; His was an extreme but good example of "righteous anger (reaction to "rape.") In God's eyes, when The Godly or our "innocence" is violated, God reaction and anger is indeed "Righteous."

"Righteous anger" may be justified in cases of any malicious violations of the person -- be it physical, mental or emotional.

The "normal anger" you alluded to; Might examples of it include un-justifiableanger -- like, Jealousy, Hate of Self/Others, Contempt, etc.?

P.S.: Yes, God's righteous "anger" and justification for it *does* "add-up." Perfectly.

What absolutely does not "add up" is the claim (or theory) that there is some un-named, self-governing Universal Law and Authority independent of The Almighty, capable of bypassing, ignoring, thereby escaping God-the-Creator's Laws & Final Judgement.

This notion is not only irrational and illogical, but runs counter to man's hard-wired innate sense and knowledge within his heart.

We can run, but we can't hide from Judgement Day.

You're right: it doesn't add up.

But it's really not worth arguing about.

That's like saying the same of the process of Salvation.

If you consider yourself a Christian, BOTH those subjects are worthy of debate AND of strong consideration. (Especially because you may help someone else avoid a rather warm Eternity.)

God has been ascribed being capable of anger just being a way for the leaders of the ancient world to control, through fear, the people.

It's the same thing that goes on today in our modern world. Surrender your rights or else everyone in the USA will be killed in a mass shooting or by some Islamic jihadist suicide bomber.

Submit or terrible things will happen to you. Same story, different millennium.

Fear AND Love. (Just like any good parent.)

"DON'T TOUCH THE STOVE!!" "DON'T RUN IN THE STREET!!" "DON'T GET IN THE VAN!!"

Has the child "surrendered his rights" in these respective cases? Is the child "submitting" in these cases when he heeds the warnings of Daddy?

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." ~ Proverbs 9:10

That's not what Jesus said.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph. 2:8,9

How convenient that you have tossed out the Pauline epistles. Now you will tell me this verse from Ephesians is not the Word of God.

Question: are you trying to get into heaven by your works? So you can boast?

Yes Ping -- There is such a proper or divinely justifiable emotion as "righteous" anger. Stone articulated it as "anger" over "injustice"; His was an extreme but good example of "righteous anger (reaction to "rape.")

I disagree. We'll have to put this in the same disagree category as flat earth theory.

While Stone's example may very well be about the best example one could come up with, it still doesn't cut it for explaining God getting angry. As bad as it is, the rape of a parent's daughter invokes anger primarily for human, carnal reasons. It's a violation of sovereignty of the human body and runs the extreme risk of pro-creation which has an everlasting impact on the woman. Parent's would quite naturally... naturally... be inflamed at such a thing.

But God isn't human. We *think* God would be justly angered simply because we imagine God wearing our own shoes. We think that because we are rightly offended, and we are, that our reaction to being rightly offended is always justified, and so we bring God down to our level and decide that He, like us, can get angry and it's okay.

But God is better than that, and there is nothing that one many can take away from another man -- or woman -- that God cannot completely undo. Am I saying I'm that good? Absolutely not. But God is.

Our tendency is to make God like us, ascribing to him many human attributes. And so it is with anger, and jealousy.

Yes Vic it does add up. Don't be dumb

I disagree. We'll have to put this in the same disagree category as flat earth theory.

You're entitled to disagree, but why mention Flat Earth? I didn't mention Newton, or his unverifiable, un-authorized, impossible theory ;-)

While Stone's example may very well be about the best example one could come up with, it still doesn't cut it for explaining God getting angry.

As bad as it is, the rape of a parent's daughter invokes anger primarily for human, carnal reasons. It's a violation of sovereignty of the human body and runs the extreme risk of pro-creation which has an everlasting impact on the woman. Parent's would quite naturally... naturally... be inflamed at such a thing.

You've touched on a few separate, overlapping issues.

1) YES, Stone's rape example absolutely helps articulates God's justifiable anger; You even help explain HIS reasons for justifiable anger: "violation of sovereignty of the human body" (by which can be claimed are in extreme "violation" of both God's Creation and a number of His Laws/Commandments.)

2) Yes, the Parents' anger is "natural," ergo justifiable; That is IF they and their sense of morality and paternal/maternal instinct (aka "hard-wire") is operating within the "normal" range, set by God Himself.

But God isn't human.

We *think* God would be justly angered simply because we imagine God wearing our own shoes. We think that because we are rightly offended, and we are, that our reaction to being rightly offended is always justified, and so we bring God down to our level and decide that He, like us, can get angry and it's okay.

Firstly, God-the-Creator made the Laws, hard-wired "good/bad & divine/evil" in our spirit. Can it be noted that to different degree we heed our hard-wired "default"? And beyond that, even attempt to "adjust" or tune it to "Human Standards"?

The issue of God's Anger vs. Man's Anger isn't a matter of divine standards being above that of mere human standards; Evil is evil at either level, by either standard. Reaction to rape is NOT in the "I'm-offended" range; It angers BOTH the Lord AND Man.

Why should any notion of "Divine" Anger be un-justifiable? ALL of the divine attributes and virtues ARE of God. They includes "anger" over "Evils," "Abominations," and Violations of God's Nature.

God is better than that, and there is nothing that one many can take away from another man -- or woman -- that God cannot completely undo. Am I saying I'm that good? Absolutely not. But God is....Our tendency is to make God like us, ascribing to him many human attributes. And so it is with anger, and jealousy.

I believe I am understanding your point (correct me if I'm wrong on your tangent) -- are you ascribing Divine Virtue as exclusive?; that you and I and Man are incapable of acting "Divinely?...because that conveys an "equality" of sorts with God?

What I really don't understand about such a position: That God is "better" than WHAT?? Would that be, demonstrating anger at Evil, -- at which must be noted is NOT "anger" based on vanity, on greed, on malice, or on hate. Now THAT again is a different anger altogether.

Question: are you trying to get into heaven by your works? So you can boast?

Why are you ignoring the direct and repeated words of Jesus, whom you claim to be your savior?

Obviously you don't believe HIM, or don't like what he said, so you go casting around to find somebody else who said something you like better.

You do not seem to even recognise how often Jesus said that at the resurrection men will be judged by their works. It's as though all those words he said were of no account, and only the words you like are. The difference between me and you is stark. There is a CLEAR dichotomy between the words of Paul, which you quote, and the words of Jesus regarding judgment by your works, which you don't seem to be familiar with (!). Faced with this dichotomy, you throw out Jesus and cling to Paul. I read BOTH, which is why I see the clear dichotomy (you don't seem to even KNOW that Jesus said men will be judged by their works, because the confected theology that some men will be while others are not is nowhere to be found in the Bible). And, faced with the clear contradiction, I - very reasonably - decide that Jesus is the highest authority. You don't even recognise what he said, but you are so desperate to lecture me about religion, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper. And you don't actually ANSWER what I say. I point out what Jesus SAID, and you simply sidestep it, ignore it, and challenge me about Paul. I will answer your challenge about Paul: Paul appears here to contradict Jesus. Therefore, Paul is wrong here, at least on the strong sense of what he seems to say, which you seem to believe. Faced with a clear conflict, I follow Jesus. I don't "throw out" the Pauline epistles, I simply recognise that Jesus outranks Paul in every way. It's YOUR tradition that elevated every word in the Bible to being the equal of every other word - thus when God speaks that's of the same strength as when a demon argues with Jesus (if you were consistent in your application, but you are not: your tradition cherry picks to find something comfortable). I don't do that. I read Jesus, first, and place him, first, and he's clear. Where Paul, John, James, etc. agree with him, that's great. Where they depart from what he said because of some belief of their own, I follow Jesus, which is the only rational thing to do if one believes that Jesus is the Son of God. You and your tradition don't do that. You follow your preachers and your preferences. That's fine, for you. I don't go out of my way to criticise the obviously unsound and really quite ridiculous decision to follow some man over the Son of God - but I also recognise that people are not going to change their minds about things they've become stubborn about. So I leave it be. Your type actually feels superior to Catholics, and you cannot restrain your tongues, and go into full-blown judgment mode. This, of course, severs any real communications, because the cut-and-paste religion you believe doesn't even hold together logically. You believe Paul over Jesus. That's your right, but it's such a fundamentally flawed way to look at God that there's really nothing more to say. But your ilk will not leave it alone. Like Jehovah's Witnesses you have to keep pounding on the door, spouting your sacrilegious nonsense. Jesus is King. Jesus is Lord. That means that the words of Jesus stand ABOVE the rest of the words in the New Testament and are the norms. God said that: This is my beloved son, listen to HIM." Pretty simple. He said you're judged by your works. Paul said you're not. Jesus trumps. End of discussion. But you're still arguing it. All I can do is shake my head and walk away from such bibliolatry.

I - very reasonably - decide that Jesus is the highest authority.

Listen to you, going on and on.

You accept the authority of Jesus? Hear Him...Jesus speaking to Ananias about Paul...

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel... Acts 9:15

Paul appears here to contradict Jesus.

Show me some exact verses you are talking about. Then we can discuss it. Only one or two examples please. I don't have all day, you know.

Your type actually feels superior to Catholics, and you cannot restrain your tongues, and go into full-blown judgment mode.

Oh, you better believe I do. I've watched a multitude of friends struggle with that catholic stuff. Even after they have been reborn they continue to suffer from the insidious, ingrained stronghold of their catholic upbringing. I won't hold back any longer. Speaking of Jehovah Witnesses, have you ever tried to win them to Christ...it's impossible. Not so with catholics. I have led many catholics to Christ, even though they struggle as I mentioned. (Just like you are struggling right now, Vic)

I also recognise that people are not going to change their minds about things they've become stubborn about.

I'm as stubborn as a mule and kick like one, too.

But your ilk will not leave it alone.

That's right. But this is all I have time for right now. I'll be back soon to see what verses you have come up with as to those contradictions you speak of.

Oh, you better believe I do. I've watched a multitude of friends struggle with that catholic stuff. Even after they have been reborn they continue to suffer from the insidious, ingrained stronghold of their catholic upbringing. I won't hold back any longer. Speaking of Jehovah Witnesses, have you ever tried to win them to Christ...it's impossible. Not so with catholics. I have led many catholics to Christ, even though they struggle as I mentioned. (Just like you are struggling right now, Vic)

I'm not struggling with God. At all.

I'm struggling to remain polite with you.

You should already know every word Jesus said, practically by heart, before you presume to preach to anybody.

But you don't. You don't know the passages in which Jesus says, to Churches, and to people in general, that in the resurrection men are judged by their works. You don't know - and you should, because you presume to teach.

But you don't, so that's that. You're flailing around in ignorance, espousing an inferior religion. I'm uninterested.

I'll be back soon to see what verses you have come up with as to those contradictions you speak of.

I'll not be engaging in that game. You want to lecture me. If you don't know what Jesus said, front and back, then you have nothing to teach me. I'll stick with him.

I'm struggling to remain polite with you.

And you have been coming to this forum for how long?

Better men than me have reasoned with you and you've thrown it all back in their faces.

No wonder Stone uses the word dumb or whatever when replying to you.

You come here because you know Christians care about your soul and will tell you the truth.

I'll not be engaging in that game. You want to lecture me.

Just put the verses up.

I don't want to lecture you. I simply want to clear up any discrepancies.

You're making wild accusations that need to be looked at.

You come here because you know Christians care about your soul and will tell you the truth.

I come here to see if the hard right, as your ranks dwindle and you lose on battlefield after battlefield, is ready to rethink. You're not.

Just put the verses up.

Gladly.

That will be my next 10, or 50, messages to you - as long as it takes, to put up all of the relevant verses.

I'm not even going to bother with explanation. Jesus is usually clear.