I may live to regret this, but I’ve decided to extend this never-ending conversation once again.
Kathy, this time, it would be a nice change of pace if you would actually address what William has repeatedly been saying to you:
I have. Not saying i’m perfect at it or that I’m right, but the “evidences” you listed arent real evidences. And since you refuse to look at things that are counter to your current beliefs, how can you honestly speak to me about evidences?
here’s all I’ve seen you provide:
1) martyrs, even though every religion and many non-religions have them.
2) our very existence – which no one knows how that started, but even if you must land on god(s), you must go back to that book of claims to get to jesus.
3) there were miracles, but as it turns out, those dont happen today, and end up being more claims by the same men who claim they speak for god.
4) the fulfilled prophecies we’ve discussed weren’t really prophecies at all, or had to be viewed so figuratively that it’s difficult to show anything precise about them other than location (maybe) in order to claim they’re actually fulfilled.
5) 40 authors taking 1500 years to write the bible. But there’s nothing miraculous about men writing books, editing books, and being inspired to write a book or letter after reading an older book.
About that last point, if the Bible had been written by 1500 people scattered across the globe, who didn’t know one another, and they did it in 40 days, then you’d really have something incredible. But 40-ish people, all familiar with the Jewish god, and writing over a long period of time with the previous writings as reference, is not that impressive.
Finding Truth 
“Its not on, its off, I’m done”
QUITTER!
LikeLike
“If God’s not real arch, then why does it matter of he’s really one, or really three?” – It really doesn’t, Laurie, and if you have something else, significant, to do, then you definitely do not belong here, but out doing it, as arguing with Kathy is a total waste of everyone’s time. Go, and Shalom —
LikeLike
“Or is it because we must have the last word in every single argument?” – Yeah, that one!
LikeLike
Actually, Laurie, I’ve read Nan’ s book, and you and she might agree more on Paul than you realize.
LikeLike
Laurie: “Stop commenting to me, I am trying to leave, and that isn’t helping!” = TOLDYA she was crazy about me!
LikeLike
“I thought you were making dinner arch?” – Exactly what you were supposed to think – I said it was dinnertime, I never said I was making dinner – don’t you know an excuse when you see one?
LikeLike
Laurie,
I haven’t read all the new comments yet but I wanted to address this..
“In Greek, anomia is a feminine noun, related to the adjective a-nomos. Nomos is the Greek word to identify the Law or Torah, i.e., the Five Books of Moses. (Strong’s #3551.) The prefix a is a negative particle in Greek. Putting the parts together, it should mean negation of the Law (Torah). Do the lexicons agree? What does anomia precisely mean in Matthew 7:23? The best lexicon of the ancient Greek (which is free online) is Henry George Liddell’s and Robert Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon. It defines anomia as one of two meanings:
* “the negation of the law:
* “lawlessness, lawless conduct.”
Ok, so first, I need to understand, is “anomia” the word in Greek that was translated to “iniquity”?
Please don’t make this harder than it already is… I’m gettin’ old.. my brain is slowin dowwwwnn..
LikeLike
So, my next question is.. why was it translated into “iniquity” if that’s not what it means?
Is there contention over what you are explaining to me? It seems so. It seems that the accepted Christian translation is not in agreement with what you are telling me. If that’s the case, then we have to look at the surrounding text.. and that’s where my question comes in.. where in those verses does it support your translation.. that their evil is due to attempting to negate the law?
LikeLike
“I’m gettin’ old.. my brain is slowin dowwwwnn..” Where does it go from a dead stop, backward? Laurie’s gone, like a breath of fresh air.
LikeLike
Kathy, you’re arguing this point the wrong way.
“Iniquity” and “lawlessness” are the same thing. What you should be saying is that any violation of God’s law is iniquity, but the definition of “God’s law” changes in the NT, because the OT has served its purpose. That would be a better way of arguing your position, if you believe that Paul was inspired. But the current avenue you’re taking just isn’t going to pan out for you.
Do you see what I’m saying?
LikeLike
Laurie,
Quick question. Since you believe Paul was a false prophet, what other NT books do you think are false? It seems to me that (at a minimum), you’d have to reject 2 Peter since the 3rd chapter talks about Paul’s writings as though they’re scripture, Hebrews since it also teaches that the Old Law’s purpose has been served, and Jude, since it refers to the Book of Enoch as though it was actually written by Enoch.
Am I right in that assumption? And are there other books you’d add to the list?
And Kathy, you might also find that point about Jude and Enoch interesting…
LikeLike
Enoch, as many know, was apocryphal. Look it up, Kathy —
LikeLike
Yep. And “apocryphal” means it’s not legit. It’s also pseudepigraphal, which means it wasn’t written by the person it was attributed to (Enoch, in this case).
LikeLike
Nate,
“iniquity – Absence of moral or spiritual values or an unjust act, it is a combination of in-, “not,” and aequus, “equal, just,” from Latin.
See also related terms for moral.
. pl. in·iq·ui·ty
1. Gross immorality or injustice; wickedness.
2. A grossly immoral act; a sin.”
I suppose if you tweak the definition, it can mean “lawlessness”.. but that’s not the
primary definition according to what I just posted.
Nate, instead of thinking about how I “should” be debating.. MY point.. how about an answer to my question/ point?
I don’t see, in those passages that Laurie posted, where Jesus is condemning them for abolishing the law.. it seems pretty clear to me that in spite of what they are doing on the outside, in their hearts, they are wicked.
“24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:”
They are not following JESUS’ teachings.. this isn’t about “the law”. And what Jesus taught surpassed the law.. HE surpassed the law. His message was not about the law.. it was about God’s grace because humans could never live up to the law.
LikeLike
Bottom line, what Paul teaches amplifies Jesus’ teachings.. he’s not contradicting them in any way.
LikeLike
Laurie,
” According to Torah ( the first 5 books in your bible as well as mine) you could not participate in Passover vBulletin if you were not circumcised. If you didn’t participate in Passover, you were cut off from your people. Something to think about… if messiah is your Passover, how can you partake in that without keeping God’s law, in this example circumcision? You can not. So for Paul to say you need not be circumcised, makes him a false apostle according to Deuteronomy 4,13, and 18.”
Laurie, Jesus is not our “Passover”.. He’s our Savior. The liberals like to call Jesus a liberal because His ideas were new.. and now I have the opposite.. you are insisting that Jesus didn’t change anything.
Jewish laws don’t apply anymore. The fulfillment of Jesus’ plan brought changes. But you/ your religion wants to keep things the same. You are rejecting anything in the NT that does not uphold Jewish teachings. And you’re trying to equate ANY change with heresy/ false prophets. Well, then that would make Jesus a false prophet. I still don’t understand what you believe. What was the purpose of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross? Why did He need to become a Man? What does your religion say about all of that?
“Those last verses were related to your comment about not following God out of fear.”
The context is “reverential” fear. Fear out of respect, not fear of being punished.
LikeLike
“The fulfillment of Jesus’ plan brought changes. But you/ your religion wants to keep things the same. You are rejecting anything in the NT that does not uphold Jewish teachings. And you’re trying to equate ANY change with heresy/ false prophets.” – Guess that makes YOU the Liberal now, doesn’t it? The flip-flop is on the other foot!
LikeLike
Kathy, in your worldview, doesn’t God decide what’s moral and what’s wicked? That’s why iniquity is a violation of God’s law. In fact, several translations even use the term ‘lawlessness’ in that passage.
LikeLike
“The context is ‘reverential’ fear. Fear out of respect, not fear of being punished.” – Do I need to add “respect” to that list too, Kathy? I have the greatest respect for Neil Degrasse Tyson – I have no fear of him whatsoever. I do not tell little children to be good, or Neil Degrasse Tyson will get them.
LikeLike
RE: “I still don’t understand what you believe.” – Laurie was trying to help you, not to become an atheist, but to see that “Big Picture” that you came on the board touting, but realized that some people are beyond help. She left the board in frustration. You’ve been told what to think for so long, Kathy, that you’ve lost all capacity to think for yourself, and you have no alternative but to raise your daughter the same way, because you know no other. The United Negro College Fund was right – a mind IS a terrible thing to waste.
LikeLike
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell.” Luke 12:4-5
I don’t know about anyone else but this doesn’t sound like the “revering” kind of fear. This sounds like emotional blackmail.
LikeLike
That last post was in reference to this:
“Those last verses were related to your comment about not following God out of fear.”
The context is “reverential” fear. Fear out of respect, not fear of being punished.
LikeLike
Bottom line, what Paul teaches amplifies Jesus’ teachings.. he’s not contradicting them in any way.
Kathy, you have said several times that others here have studied these things far more in-depth than you have, yet you have the gumption to believe you know more about it than anyone else?
Also:
So, my next question is.. why was it translated into “iniquity” if that’s not what it means?
Did Kathy really just use that argument? That same one that many of us used early but was dismissed as unlearned? Wow!
LikeLike
kathy,
you said,
“Understand WHAT William? I don’t deny that it would be good to know as much as possible about the TRUTH of the Bible.. but all I *need* to understand, I already DO!
As I said recently, Jesus simplified it perfectly. So EVERYONE could understand and be saved.. there is no need to know about the “fulfillment of the feasts” etc. That’s not what saves us. And this is THE whole point of the Bible.. God’s grace.. not God’s rules. We follow His rules out of love, not fear.”
come on, this is silly. How would you know that you know all you need to know, when you have only scratched the surface?
It’s like seeing an iceberg in the water and someone trying to tell you something about it, but you stop them and say, “all i need to know is that there is ice right there in water.” If all you know is what you have seen on the surface, you may be in danger of hitting what’s below the surface and presently not visible.
You’re acting as if you’re an expert, criticizing everyone here for pride and ignorance, etc, but you are clearly the one who hasnt done your studying. There are several things that have been brought up that i would have thought were basic, yet you seem unaware of.
Even so, the bible is a big book. Why is it so big, if the only important thing is “jesus will save you with or without working for it, and whether or not you know anything else?”
I am very curious, how old are you and what type of education did you receive?
LikeLike
“I still don’t understand what you believe.” – I’m guessing, mid-twenties and home-schooled by idiots.
LikeLike