05 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiThey were not in a city at the time - nor does it say they asked him to take them to a city. He just told them he knew where they should go.
<excerpts in bold>
Easily refuted. 2 Kings 6:13-14 says:
"13 And he said, Go and spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan. 14 Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about. 14 Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about."
To paraphrase: They got a tip that Elisha was in Dothan, and they surrounded the city to trap him. It is irrelevant whether they were around the city or in the city. Elisha lied to them when he said Dothan wasn't the right city.
Do you think they were literally blind.
Again, this is completely irrelevant. It does not matter whether the blindness was literal or not. His intent was to deceive them, or else he would not have asked for god to blind them.
You've excused Elisha's behavior by saying it was 'trickery' or 'deception', which is pretty much the same thing as lying. It sounds like a bad lawyer's argument: "No, no, my client didn't lie! He just, well, deceived a few people! They were just harmless tricks, honest!"
The whole story is a small illustration of God's power and grace. You are missing some good stuff by getting all caught up on one insignificant detail that you have misread.
You're so enamored with the parts of the Bible that you do like that you have ceased reading with a critical eye.
05 May 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThere's a difference between having a reading with a critical eye and reading with an eye for negative criticism.
[b]They were not in a city at the time - nor does it say they asked him to take them to a city. He just told them he knew where they should go.
Easily refuted. 2 Kings 6:13-14 says:
"13 And he said, Go and spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan. 14 Therefore sent he thither hors ...[text shortened]... the parts of the Bible that you do like that you have ceased reading with a critical eye.[/b]
05 May 05
Originally posted by RBHILLStill you persist to evade! The continual way that you dodge answering the question is no better than the white lies that you mentioned earlier. Why are you trying to mislead us? Why will you not give us an honest answer to the question ?. Are you afraid that your god will forsake you?.
I told you I would not have anyone in my house who I do not know.
And that is in the past something that I do not have to worry about.
But as a Christian I do not worry.
05 May 05
Originally posted by Jay PeateaNow you are baiting. Why bother? Clearly you trying to set a trap and RHB sees it a mile away. I think he gave a decent answer, and he has not lied or mislead you. Your badgering is getting old.
Still you persist to evade! The continual way that you dodge answering the question is no better than the white lies that you mentioned earlier. Why are you trying to mislead us? Why will you not give us an honest answer to the question ?. Are you afraid that your god will forsake you?.
05 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiYes I agree it is tiresome, however if RHB had the decency to answer the question properly in the first place it would be unnecessary.
Now you are baiting. Why bother? Clearly you trying to set a trap and RHB sees it a mile away. I think he gave a decent answer, and he has not lied or mislead you. Your badgering is getting old.
Still maybe I should ask the same question to you. Come on tell me what is the right thing to do in this situation, to lie or tell the truth?
05 May 05
Originally posted by joseph1986True. I think he might have look more Arabic if anything. But how he looked is irrelevant. Picturing him only distracts from what he taught and his divinity.
only one thing to say on this. and that is to spread the truth to many naive christians, that despite your pictures of jesus as a white man with flowing blonde hair, he was almost certainly black, or very dark skinned, and would definately not have been blonde
05 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Jay PeateaI answered that several times. It would be better to lie than allow them to be murdered. I'd choose to do a small bad, to prevent a terrible bad.
Yes I agree it is tiresome, however if RHB had the decency to answer the question properly in the first place it would be unnecessary.
Still maybe I should ask the same question to you. Come on tell me what is the right thing to do in this situation, to lie or tell the truth?
05 May 05
Originally posted by Colettilol .. i never seen a picture of Christ with blonde hair , flowing or otherwise. He would look , as you have said, like the semitic person he was.
True. I think he might have look more Arabic if anything. But how he looked is irrelevant. Picturing him only distracts from what he taught and his divinity.
06 May 05
4 edits
Originally posted by ChristisKingYou really do not want to be going down that road ...
If Jesus is false...there is no hope in this world, but if He is true, then woe to those who believe not. For a little bit more proof: the ressurection was documented by at least 4 different people, if that doesn't make a historic document...what does?
The three Synoptic Gospels appear to have used a common source (an earlier version of Mark, maybe?) for the events in Jesus's life (although the last chapter in Mark might have a different origin). John seems to use a different tradition altogether. In any case, it is unlikely that the authors of the Gospels actually witnessed most of the events they talk about (though they might have been around for one or two of Jesus's public events); more likely, they compiled together the word-of-mouth accounts of those who did or the traditions established by them.
Have I got the basics right?
EDIT: I basically agree with you that these Gospels should be approached in a manner similar to other historical documents, but they're not exactly at the same level of historical accuracy as a front page article of the NY Times.
Then again, maybe they are. 😉
06 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiI don't think that anything that I can say would make you believe that that small lie was in fact good. Perhaps if you were to look apon language like it was tool, and "lying" being a specific kind of variety of that tool. Like a knife that can be used to chop up vegetables or to slit a throat. It is not the knife that is good or evil, but its usuage.
I answered that several times. It would be better to lie than allow them to be murdered. I'd choose to do a small bad, to prevent a terrible bad.
Still at least we can agree that it is not always possible to follow the teachings in the bible strictly.
06 May 05
Originally posted by Jay PeateaI think the Biblical teaching is clear on this issue too. It is impossible to follow the teaching in the Bible strictly. Everyone fails to keep the commands perfectly. And I think you can also infer from scripture that we are to place the needs of others above ours - such that we should feed the hungry even on the Sabbath.
I don't think that anything that I can say would make you believe that that small lie was in fact good. Perhaps if you were to look apon language like it was tool, and "lying" being a specific kind of variety of that tool. Like a knife that can be used to chop up vegetables or to slit a throat. It is not the knife that is good or evil, but its usuage. ...[text shortened]... east we can agree that it is not always possible to follow the teachings in the bible strictly.
06 May 05
Originally posted by RBHILLI'm new to this thread... who is jesus?
Jesus = The Truth
John 8:32 - and you will know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH will make you free."
Ironically Jesus said he was the Truth. So that means he can set you free of all your problems if you come to him, but you must believe in your heart that he will do it.
John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the TRUTH, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.