Something about not suffering a witch to live. Sodom and Gommorah.

YOU would know these things better than I. I know your book mostly by the thing people have fetched out of it and thrown at me.

The proof here should come from the accuser. Because they are pointing to the scripture. Not the accusee

And Ive read a few of the back posts and don't see anything reffering to witch craft.
"Suffer a witch not to live" reffers to those practicing the craft

And sodom and ghommorah were extreemly evil. According to the story, some of the men wanted to screw the angels who came into town. When the man (Whome they were visting) gave his daughter she was raped to death.

I don't see how this fits in on the thread. But that's just me. And I'm just a passing observer. Pay be no mind.

one of two concepts consistently come to mind in these threads/debates



CONTEXT , and COMPREHENSION


I think this thread usually revolves around an interpretation of CONTEXT


there are some places in the bible where SPECIFIC people in a specific situation were addressed (Corinthinas, for example, was Paul addressing his church of Corinth which was becoming increasingly amoral/hypocritical, and he did warn them against such hypocrisy of calling themself 'brother' but continuing to engage in sin and how other 'brothers' should not condone such behavior)


I would guess he was concerned they would suffer similar fate to other sexually immoral culture(such as sodom or babylon)

AB,

I don't expect you to understand the Bible, but if you don't understand something, how can you condemn it?

The verse you are talking about is part of the civil laws given to the nation of Israel. That nation hasn't existed since 70 AD and regardless, Jesus did away with the civil and ceremonial laws and left only the moral laws.

In the New Testament, which describes the new covenant between mankind and God, we are told to follow Jesus. Jesus ate with sinners of all sorts, why wouldn't we do the same thing? What CreativeSoul posted applies to a nation that died nearly 2000 years ago, maybe it's time to let it go.

Ab's saying that you would know these things better than he was referring to which Bible verses I was alluding to, not whether or not he understood. Do you believe that one must be a Christian in order to understand what the Bible says Spider?



Jesus did away with what laws? Where would you find that in the NT? More importantly, in order to hold this view that Jesus "did away" with these kinds of laws, you would also have to ignore the verse in the NT which clearly claim otherwise.



What makes any part of the NT apply to today's day and age any more than the OT? Again, what about the verses which contradict one another? I think that is part of what underwrites the OP.

Are we to hold that the OT no longer applies because Jesus said otherwise?

Actually, what creative posted applied to some of the implied ground upon which the OP rests it's confusion. I'm not sure how you've arrived at the above.

If someone believes that "Something about not suffering a witch to live." apply to Christians, that person obviously doesn't understand Christianity.



Yes.



Yes. You would be hard pressed to find a Christian who doesn't agree with me.



Matthew 5:17-19



What verses would those be?



Jesus.



Which verses are those?



The Old Testament still "applies", nobody said it doesn't. But Christians are not under the civil or ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. And yes, when God said we don't have to follow those laws anymore, then we don't have to follow those laws anymore.

Actually...



...is not true. The only Christians who believe that crap are the Fred Phelps type, who are universally repudiated. But surprisingly, many non-Christians gladly ascribe a belief to Christians, which Christians find abhorrent. That's called a vicious lie when the person knows better, but I don't think you know better. I think you and Dragoness and James all read so many hate rants against Christianity that none of you actually know what a Christian believes. The fact that you would question if a Christian should believe something just because Jesus said it reveals how very little you know about the foundations of our faith. I strongly suggest you read Mere Christianity, it's available online for free and you can listen to the audio version on YouTube. It's not very long and it is a great introduction into what Christians believe.

They very well may still understand whatr that particular passage means though - which is the point here. That particular passage was once held as a prominent part of Christian belief. Witch hunts were once held by those who called themselves believers and Christians alike.

Are you denying this?



Need I remind you that the Bible is not/was not based upon modern day Christian belief, but rather that Christian belief is based upon a Bible which began long before Christians were even around? It would follow from what you say here that the authors of the OT did not understan what it was that they were writing.



"Yes" does not answer the question put forth. What laws?

I'll grant the above. It does not follow from the fact that most Christians would agree with what you've said that what is being agreed upon is true, or what actually happened.



I put forth that The Ten Commandments are civil/ceremonial laws, and therefore the above is clearly false.



How do you know that God said that? Does God talk to you directly? Must one be a Christian to know what that means as well? If a law is subject to change Spider, it never satisfied the criterion of being a law to begin with.



Apparently it is true, because there are some who call themselves Christians who believe and act that way and they are not just of the Fred Phelps type. Perhaps Dragoness has met some of those Christians?



Apparantly not all Christians.



Again it seems rather apparent that some Christians do believe these things Spider, and your abhorrence has no bearing on that fact. Your admitting that but not endorsing those Christian views, does not make them go away, nor does it make anything here a 'vicious lie'. To quite the contrary, for you to say that it is "not true" and continue on to admit that some Christians do believe these things is the lie.



The fact is that you must first believe that the NT is an accurate account of what Jesus said in order to later believe that you're following Jesus' words. Your primary belief is in the veracity of the text, which is/was penned by human hands - not Jesus.



Some 'Christians' apparently believe otherwise Spider. I strongly suggest that if another book is required in order to understand the 'Christian' version, then something else is amiss. Words have/hold a shared meaning Spider, there are no private languages. The meaning is derived from how the words were used at that time.

Actually a witch was anyone who denounced the lord or acted in a manner that was considered unholy by those church members in high standing in the community.

Innocents were killed.

Personal interpretation deemed to be correct for all

People were superstious back then, that's what superstious people do. They still burn "witches" all over the 3rd world and the people doing it aren't Christians. Do you have any proof that the witch burnings were justified through the Bible? And even if it were, it wouldn't reflect on the actual beliefs that Jesus taught us to follow.



Sometimes they may not have, but more often they did. As I have said, Jesus did away with the civil and ceremonial laws, nothing else was changed.



The civil and ceremonial laws.



Okay, that's very big of you. It's so nice when a non-Christian grants me the respect to say "Okay, maybe you know what you believe".





I put forth that you don't have the right to decide that. I put forth that the 10 commandments are moral laws, because they don't include a punishment and they don't instruct the reader on what ceremonies they must perform.



Jesus is quoted as saying that. Jesus is God. Ipso Facto, God said that we don't have to obey the civil or ceremonial laws.



Not talk, per say.



No, you just have to be open minded and not bigoted against Christianity.



This is a laughably weak argument, I hope you are ashamed of yourself for typing it. Laws are changed every day, by the legal authority that created them. That's the purpose of legislatures. God is the authority who wrote the laws in question, so God can change the laws. Beyond that, the civil and ceremonial laws were abolished by Jesus, so they exist for educational and historical purposes only and are not to be enforced.



Objection! Hearsay! So now you are revoking my right to know what Christians believe? Darn!



No, not all Christians. So the majority should be judged for the sins of the minority. You guys are so generous and fair in your judgments.



Here is a shocker for you: Words have meanings. There is a difference between "Christians believe" and "Some Christians believe". The ones who believe that are in the minority.



So? You say that like it should shatter my reality. "Jesus didn't write the bible! WHAT!!!! That's it, I'm an atheist!"



Mere Christianity is shorter than the Bible and simplifies many of the concepts and glosses over the ones that aren't so important to the Christian belief system and the concepts that don't compose "Mere Christianity". In other words, "Mere Christianity" is crib notes for Christianity. If you aren't willing to do the effort to read and study the Bible and search out the original intent of the authors, but you still want to understand Christianity, then Mere Christianity is the book for you.

Oh, I wish this forum had a search function. I think it's so funny that you now say "The meaning is derived from how the words were used at that time. " because as I remember it, you used to vociferously fight against me using dictionaries and concordances to show the original meaning of verses that people were arguing over. Something like "It should say what it means" and "But Spider, it doesn't say that, it says this!".

Pardon me for thinking that the interpretations of thousands of years of Christian scholars trumps those of some neo-pagans, pop-spirituality types on an internet forum.

Another round of ad homs and avoidance.

You lie Spider.

Do you realize that I answered every question you posed and I didn't insult you once? Your response is the only ad hominem that has been posted.

Oh but that is not what we have here. We have Spiders interpretation of what he sees as the interpretation of Christian scholars (who by the way if they are Christian they are limited in their scope of interpretation because their beliefs limit their scope)against those Spider deems less than him on the internet.

Oh please Spider...

Evidently we have very different ideas of what constitutes being an answer... at least what constitutes offering one in good faith. It looks more like petty games to me. That can change of course. If you care to continue, please continue with this... because it grounded my continued interest in this discussion.

You clearly endorsed the claim that one cannot understand the Bible unless they are Christians.

Are you changing this position now, because I certainly cannot tell?

There is nobody less than me. The ground at the foot of the cross is level. We all answer to the same master, even if we don't all call him master.

And no, I'm sorry, but what I've said is agreed upon by most Christians. It's what the Bible says after all. I know that Miles and PP would probably disagree with me, but they don't belong to major denominations. For me to be right, only 51% of Christians have to believe that Jesus did away with the civil and ceremonial laws and I can promise you that it's more than 51% who believe that.

But right is subjective for all right?

You can be right for you but you cannot be right for 51 percent of Christians.

Most Christians interpretation of the bible and what is meant by it are so different there is no way that your views can be right except for you.

So you are right for you.

Which is completely acceptable.

It is arrogant and fraudulent to answer for others who do not have a voice in the mix I would think.