- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI told you that the Bible needs to be taken in context. I thought you would be able to deduce that Christians today are not involved in the slave trade, thus thus the laws on slavery are not directly applicable to them.
You're excellent at answering questions with questions, but not so good at giving answers.
How are ancient Jewish laws on slavery applicable in the context of your life today? Answer my question & I'll answer yours.
Christ said that he has come to fulfil the law and also said that he has come to set the captives free.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThank you for admitting that part of the Bible is of little relevance to Christians' lives today.
I told you that the Bible needs to be taken in context. I thought you would be able to deduce that Christians today are not involved in the slave trade, thus thus the laws on slavery are not directly applicable to them.
Christ also said that he has come to fulfil the law and also said that he has come to set the captives free.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIndeed, parts of the Bible that have become 'irrelevant' because a practice was defeated are applicably irrelevant to us today; except in the lessons we can glean from them.
The Bible, I take it, is a practical guide to conduct, morality & spirituality. Feel free to add to that description.
If parts of it are out of context--laws dealing with practices that are now defunct--why bother keeping them? Except for the historical interest, of course--but reading Leviticus is about as interesting as reading Roman law (very, very dry).
You've heard it before: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
If it weren't for the lessons about mankind, about God's nature and character, and about the truisms of life, one might argue that all of the OT and most of the new could be 'tossed out'. But nobody asks how David's battle with a Philistine giant could matter to me today. We are inspired and motivated by such examples.
As a race we save every scrap of history we find and build a museum to house it ever so carefully. (I just heard about a museum out west somewhere dedicated to the memory of the Pony Express. Talk about irrelevant, and yet we can be moved today by the dedication and fortitude of some of the people involved in that service.)
Originally posted by frogstompBut the book of Acts was written by Luke as most bible scholars attribute....and you still haven't commented on Jesus's words about tarrying in Jeruselem, and waiting for the promise of being filled with holy spirit....and the fact that they were in close communion with Christ.
So said Paul and Barnabas
1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaitorAnd Lukes source for "Acts " was Paul was it not?
But the book of Acts was written by Luke as most bible scholars attribute....and you still haven't commented on Jesus's words about tarrying in Jeruselem, and waiting for the promise of being filled with holy spirit....and the fact that they were in close communion with Christ.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe begining of Paul,, when he was Saul the Pharisee didn't come from any source other than Paul , nor did the story of his "conversion" on the road to Damascus.
The latter half (Paul's journeys) perhaps. The first half is almost certainly a translation from documents originally in Aramaic.
Originally posted by frogstompIf you contrast the story of Saul's conversion in ch 9 to accounts in Paul's "own" words in ch 22 and ch 26 you'll see that the latter correspond more closely to Paul's own words in his epistles. Luke was certainly working from other sources in the first conversion account.
The begining of Paul,, when he was Saul the Pharisee didn't come from any source other than Paul , nor did the story of his "conversion" on the road to Damascus.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow many people seen Christ on the road to Damascus that day?
If you contrast the story of Saul's conversion in ch 9 to accounts in Paul's "own" words in ch 22 and ch 26 you'll see that the latter correspond more closely to Paul's own words in his epistles. Luke was certainly working from other sources in the first conversion account.