Thank you Paul for your long reply and I do accept it in the spirit it is written in. I asked for some help and you are kindly providing me with your thoughts. I'll do some copying a pasting and see where we go. I am using the term "you say" only as a means of identifying your comments. Please don't take it as disrespect, Ok?
You say: "All scripture Old Testament and New Testament carry the sme value for instruction as to how to live."
I'm sorry, but I don't read it that way. There is a distinct line between the Old and New Testament. Jer 31:31-32 says: "Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a ** new covenant ** with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, ** not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers ** in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke". "Not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers" shows a whole different ball of wax. This New covenant is not built upon the old, but is a new, seperate covenant.
Jesus says: Luk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it". Note "Since John" something is different. MAT 11:13-19 says it again: "until John". This isn't a continuation, but an ending and a beginning. The Old Testament is like a play bill telling of a play (Jesus) that is coming and the New is the actual play (Jesus)itself. Notice again: Heb 8:13 "In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away". Again, a replacement of, not a continuation of the same.
You say: Therefore II Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. vs 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works.
I agree, but do note the "good works" clause. The Old is a history of a people filled with interactions between God and humans over thousands of years, but the point of this document is to point to and validate whom the Saviour would be and then to be replaced by a New agreement brought by the Saviour. With the coming of Jesus, all attention should be focused on His message and teachings, not a agreement "which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away". Jesus tells us "I AM THE WAY", not "these guys have it right continue as before". In fact, if you look at why the Jews killed Him (aside from fulfilling Gods plan) in human terms it was because Jesus spoke against the hypocrisy of the times.
Here is a good example of the difference between the Old and New agreement with God. Jesus says in Mat 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist evil. But whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also".
So, these are opposing views. Whose words carry more weight? Those of the old "which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away" or the words of Jesus who brings us the New Agreement? I choose Jesus.
You say: "The word slew in the Hebrew means, "to smite with deadly intent:-destroy, out of hand, kill murder". In Ex. 20:13 (part of the ten commandments) Thou shalt not kill. Now the word used here in the Hebrew means "to dash into pieces".
Well now, there seems to be some confusion in Pop Christianity regarding Exo 20:13 "Thou shall not kill".
Given the fact Jesus tells us: Mat 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist evil. But whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also".
And yet many who subscribe to Pop "Christianity" think nothing of sending the loved children to war against the teachings of the Christ. War is NOT FOR CHRISTIANS. War is for those of the world. There is not a single example in the New Testament that tells us to take up arms. Instead we have the example of Stephen, Paul and all the others who didn't advocate rising up in arms against their oppressors, but instead were martyred rather than stand against the teachings of their Master. That faith, willing to die for their beliefs is what instilled respect and spread Christianity far and wide, not the sword.
You mention "slay". Get out your Strong's. We're going to look up the exact meaning of these words. I noted you started to give the Strong's definition, but limited your definition for some reason. Let's start with the original commandment "Thou shall not kill" in Exo. 20:13. Everyone look it up. This way we can all agree on the definition.
Here it is: 7523. "to dash to pieces" is what you said in your post but you didn't go far enough. You don't get to believe what you want to believe. If you are going to define words, do it right and don't just stop where it is convienent to your beliefs. The proper definition according to Strong's is: A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder.
Let me post that again. The original commandment "Thou shall not kill" in Exo. 20:13 reads: "A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder".
Are we all reading this the same? DO NOT KILL A HUMAN BEING. The murder thing is a side note. The thrust of this law is DO NOT KILL A HUMAN BEING.
Now, many read this commandment as "Do not Murder". But as you pointed out, a person who slays, and I can tell you looked it up means one thing, but Exo. 20:13 means another.
What? In your example the correct definition is 2026 "A primitive root; to smite with deadly intent: - destroy, out of hand, kill, murder (-er), put to [death], make [slaughter], slay (-er)" This is different than 7523 in the original commandment "Thou shall not kill" in Exo. 20:13 which reads: "A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder".
In fact, if you take the time to look it up you'll find that 2026 has two sides to the coin. Someone in fear of being murdered is 2026 and those who do murder are defined as 2026.
The bottom line of this is those supporting war are in error and following the traditions of man rather than Jesus.
Let's go on. You say: "Although it may not come through well in the english in Psalm 139:15-16 ect..." Rote learning won't save your soul Paul, and that is what you are quoting: rote learning right out of a preachers bible. I've seen it and the bit about John in his mothers womb. That bible is a case of generational blind leading the blind.
Let's jump to the forth to last line in The Revelation: Rev 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book".
You're reading from an addition to the Bible. Throw that thing away, get a King James and start thinking for yourself. How a poem about the omniscience of God became the rallying call against abortion is outragious. Read the whole Psalm.
Omniscience means "knowing all" and PSA 139:1-6 fully asserts this fact. Wouldn't this include who will live a long time and who will live a short time. Abortion is not a "Christian" issue. The Christ didn't mention it and neither does this Psalm. You're quoting a one liner that is not even in context.
Read the whole Psalm. It says NOTHING about God's desire for you to stand against abortion. Rather it is considered the most beautiful Psalm asserting God controls everything and a deep desire to conform to His will. The part you are quoting is basically saying since you made me and CONTROL EVERYTHING you know everything about me. Nothing else.
You say: "From the scrptures cited here we can see that God (that includes Jesus) is opposed to murder and that a baby in is a person before the moment of conception and abortion is murder of an innocent person".
Let's look at why a girl might want an abortion. Better yet, can we just say that the child is unwanted for whatever reason. Why is that unwanted child more important than those who are wanted and sent off to war. Look how many replies this post generated and not one of you (so far that I have read) has made the leap that our troops are killing innocent people over in Iraq? How many families have been destroyed both here and there as a result. There is no longer any dispute. Iraq never attacked us. We are the agressor against innocent people. There is nothing "Christian" about that, just hypocrisy.
Let me remind you again, Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
This is actual scripture not something someone reads into something totally out of context. These are the actions of people you DON'T want to support. Seems a little backwards to me. You support issues that can't be supported by scripture and ignore hard and fast scripture that leaves no doubt between right and wrong. But I digress.
Does God control everything or not? Psalms 139 says so. Jesus tells us not a sparrow falls without his approval. Time and time again in both Old and New Testament we are told God is in charge and yet you and others seem to think it is your place to save the unwanted using a few lines of scripture out of context to justify your belief. That's not your job. Let God run the show. There's where free choice comes in.
Christianity is not pick and choose what you want to believe nor is it make it up as you go and so far, your scriptual references don't hold water concerning the abortion issue.
I don't disagree as far as an unborn baby may be a human based on the information you provided, but you haven't convenced me that it is my concern as a follower of Jesus. He doesn't address it, but he does speak about casting stones in glass houses. That's my concern, Paul. I see this as nothing more that christian sucide. Just what the enemy of your soul wants you to do.
Further, if you ignore the slaughter of the children who are wanted in a war entered into with lies and deceit, which is now historical record, you are cherry picking the teaching. Either you stand against killing or you don't. Killing is killing.
You say: "God gave his creation over to man to manage. That includes dealing with murder, which he gave guidlines on dealing with it to man and man should be dealing with it".
I can't recall where I have ever read "God gave his creation over to man to manage". Jesus tells us God is in control. But lets talk about the guidlines you mention. I know what it says in the Old Testament, but can you tell me where it is addressed in the New Testament which replaces the Old?
You say: "By your logic then we should step aside for all sin and unrighteousnes."
At last! You get it! Tell me Paul, where you do find in the New Testament anywhere that it tells us we should get involved in issues of the world. Anywhere Paul. Don't give me a one liner that goes against everything else that is written, give me three references in scripture. My bible tells me involvement in issues of the world are the very thing that can cost us our salvation.
I'm watching all this sin and unrighteousness going on all around me and inside of me for none are without sin. Yet, your logic doesn't compute. You want to pick and choose what you consider to be right and wrong. If you are willing to stand up for the unwanted and unborn based on out of context scripture, why don't you stand against those who do the very things we are told God considers an abomination?
We are to be like rocks in a river watching the sins and unrighteousness of the world passing by while helping those crushed by the strivers of this world who have given themselves over to the corruption of the world.
You say: "so we can't know whether he did or did not speak specifically on the subject but it is already covered in other scrptures".
You still haven't shown me the other scriptures. But my question is, if "we can't know whether he did or did not speak specifically on the subject", should we just make up something and put words in His mouth and if so who gets to make up the words? The same people who made that bible you are reading that gave you scripture out of context? I submit a better approach might be to ignore the subject and concentrate on what we do know He said.
You say: "As the bible is clear, people are not condemned for their sins except one, not accepting Jesus as Lord and savior".
My friend, you are in error and it is an error that could cost you your soul. You (and all of us) will be held accountable for everything you say and do in this life whether it be good or evil whether you choose to stand with God or against Him, diligently seek understanding or follow the blind. This isn't a cake walk. We have an intercessor who will plead our case, not a get out of jail free card. Your statement is one from Pop "Christianity" just like that bible you are reading and it is very dangerous.
When Jesus says "I am the way" it is His example that is the way. Rom 2:13 tells us: "For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified". Anyone can say Jesus is my Lord and Savior, but if they don't walk the walk and follow fairy tails instead of scripture, Jesus tells us "I won't know you". In fact, Rom 2:21 goes on to say: "Therefore the one teaching another, do you not teach yourself? The one preaching not to steal, do you steal? The one saying not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? The one detesting idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in Law, do you dishonor God through breaking the Law? For the name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of you, as it is written. For circumcision truly profits if you keep the Law, but if you are a transgressor of the Law, circumcision becomes uncircumcision".
And just to be clear, the one sin that can't be forgiven is against the Holy Spirit.
You say: "Taking a position on abortion, infanticide and euthanasia is not a sin as can be clearly seen in the scriptures."
Show me anywhere, three examples in the New Testament where it tells you to take a position on these things. These issues are none of your business and when you make them your business, then your sins come up for judgement. You see, you are condemning yourself.
1Co 5:12-13 tells us: "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Do you note what you are being told here? Those who are outside the church, God judges. You worry about those inside the church.
So yes, taking a position with respect to those outside the church upstages God and that's something that is harmful to your soul.
You say: "Why are you so enamored of the New Testament? The Old Testament is valid also."
Paul, the New Testament is all about Christianity. Christianity didn't exist in the Old Testament. Not a word. Why are you so enamored with the Old Testament when both the Old Testament AND the New Testament tells us there is a reason it is called the "Old Testament". Yes, the Old is a great read, but you wouldn't buy a house with a 100 year old contract so why put aside a New contract to study something no longer valid and meant to fade away (see above HEB
? It doesn't make sense?
You say: "The only hate that I have seen is from the pro-deathers. That includes those people that blow up clinics and kill abortionists. How can someone be pro-life and kill or attempt to kill."
Love ya brother. My point exactly. As I mentioned earlier, you can't pick and choose. Either you follow the rules or you don't. We will all fall down sometimes and seek mercy from our Lord for our transgressions, but if people calling themselves "Christians" can't discern good from evil and right from wrong or put qualifications on those like it's ok to kill abortionists and terrorists and innocent people in other countries who didn't attack us but NOT the unwanted unborn then there is a problem. And that problem is Pop "Christianity" that has no foundation rooted in New Testament scripture and is leading followers to follow wrong teaching not confirmed in scripture, but in the traditions of man like that bible you are using. Get rid of it and get a King James and then seek to prove me wrong. I welcome correction when scriptually based and you haven't shown me any yet.
You say: "Your confontational challenges don't add up."
I've backed my assertions with hard and fast scripture. You do the same is all I ask. Otherwise, my duty to you and others is to call attention to the truth written in scripture. As the farmer said, I can only lead the horse to water, I can't make him drink.
Be well Paul. I know you ment well and I hope you know I do too.
M
