Is the Holy Spirit Misleading You?

[SteveII]

That verse does not mean what you think it means. 



It is clearer in context with the surrounding chapters (5-7) and has a different meaning to a person raised in Judaism (the original audience) than to one that was not.  In light of the previous verses, Jesus was assuring them their sacred Law still had value. The word 'fulfill' in verse 17 does not mean perpetuate, it means complete. But to understand what that means, you then have to understand the purpose of the Law. Jesus was teaching in these three chapters that the law was impossible to fully follow so in fact, no one was righteous. To illustrate that even more, he went on to expand the laws throughout the rest of the chapter 5--further illustrating that it is impossible to live up to the spirit of the law, let alone the letter of it--and therefore cannot ever be the means of salvation. This fits in perfectly with the message that Jesus claimed to be the only means of salvation.

We have to understand that:

1. No one (except for Jesus) has ever succeeded in keeping the law (Acts 15:10)!
   
2. The law was delivered to Israel - One nation of people (Exodus 20:1-2; Deuteronomy 4:1-2).
   
3. It is One Law containing the whole package of rituals and sacrifices as well as the Ten Commandments (Galatians 3:10-11; Galatians 5:3)
   
4. The law cannot bring salvation (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:8-10, 16; Galatians 3:1-5).
   
5. As Paul makes clear, the law's job was to act as a schoolmaster in order to bring us to Christ (Galatians 4:1-7).
   

You also have to ask the meaning of the phrase at the end of verse 18. It is clear in the larger context that this as the purpose for which Jesus came--the sacrifice was made to make it possible to bridge the gap back to God--providing a new (and better) way to God and the only means of salvation--which the law failed to do. 

Here is a good (thorough) article on this issue: http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html

How do you know though, that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one? There are literally over 30,000 denominations of Christianity today, which means every ''church'' is interpreting things its own way, right down to the followers, all interpreting Scripture their own way. Including you. Including me. Including anyone who is a theist or not. I left faith, was an atheist, and returned to faith, and now don't consider myself a Christian per se, anymore. But, I'm at a cross roads with it all, I guess you could say. That said, I've never liked that the Bible creates this chaos and confusion in the mind of its reader. An atheist should be able to read the Bible, and grasp its meaning, and the truth is...most atheists do. (Thus, the need came along for ''apologetics'') The Bible isn't a hard book to understand. The problem is, it's a very straight forward book that many theists feel the need to ''explain'' with ''you're not understanding that passage the right way.'' No, the truth is, there are many horrible passages in the Bible, whereby depraved men wanted to convince the masses, that a god is ordaining all of their own depravity. There are of course beautiful verses and passages too that coexist with those horrible ones, but it's funny...those never need ''explaining.''

First, the fact that there are many different protestant denominations (certainly not 30,000) in no way indicates a doctrinal disagreement. The reasons for denominations include culture, geography, service structure, music, minor doctrinal differences and major doctrinal differences. I would say there are only 3-4 divisions along major doctrinal differences in a narrow band of topics. 

Second, you assume that people can interpret the Bible any way they want and go on your merry way. That is simply not the case. Systematic theology is the study of putting all the doctrines together into cohesive whole. There are only a couple of versions that will stay together (none of which have earth shattering differences). If you personally ignore some doctrine because you disagree, it most likely will affect many other things and your own personal theology is shot full of holes.

Every chapter and verse should be read in the context of the surrounding passage, the purpose of the book, the original audience, the author, the culture, the historical context, etc. To fail to do so is to not understand what the text means. Pulling a couple of verses out of the middle of all of that and say "it's very clear" is simply wrong more often than not. No need to 'explain', just a need to examine it correctly. 

Third, 'apologetics' does not mean what you think it means. It simply means "to give an answer". 

Fourth, difficult passages can be understood in context and with a systematic theology that takes the entirety of scripture and makes sense of the passages. Taking them in isolation is not adequate to a full understanding.

[Astonished]

How do you know though, that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one? There are literally over 30,000 denominations of Christianity today, which means every ''church'' is interpreting things its own way, right down to the followers, all interpreting Scripture their own way. Including you. Including me. Including anyone who is a theist or not. I left faith, was an atheist, and returned to faith, and now don't consider myself a Christian per se, anymore. But, I'm at a cross roads with it all, I guess you could say. That said, I've never liked that the Bible creates this chaos and confusion in the mind of its reader. An atheist should be able to read the Bible, and grasp its meaning, and the truth is...most atheists do. (Thus, the need came along for ''apologetics'') The Bible isn't a hard book to understand. The problem is, it's a very straight forward book that many theists feel the need to ''explain'' with ''you're not understanding that passage the right way.'' No, the truth is, there are many horrible passages in the Bible, whereby depraved men wanted to convince the masses, that a god is ordaining all of their own depravity. There are of course beautiful verses and passages too that coexist with those horrible ones, but it's funny...those never need ''explaining.''

First, the fact that there are many different protestant denominations (certainly not 30,000) in no way indicates a doctrinal disagreement. The reasons for denominations include culture, geography, service structure, music, minor doctrinal differences and major doctrinal differences. I would say there are only 3-4 divisions along major doctrinal differences in a narrow band of topics. 

Second, you assume that people can interpret the Bible any way they want and go on your merry way. That is simply not the case. Systematic theology is the study of putting all the doctrines together into cohesive whole. There are only a couple of versions that will stay together (none of which have earth shattering differences). If you personally ignore some doctrine because you disagree, it most likely will affect many other things and your own personal theology is shot full of holes.

Every chapter and verse should be read in the context of the surrounding passage, the purpose of the book, the original audience, the author, the culture, the historical context, etc. To fail to do so is to not understand what the text means. Pulling a couple of verses out of the middle of all of that and say "it's very clear" is simply wrong more often than not. No need to 'explain', just a need to examine it correctly. 

Third, 'apologetics' does not mean what you think it means. It simply means "to give an answer". 

Fourth, difficult passages can be understood in context and with a systematic theology that takes the entirety of scripture and makes sense of the passages. Taking them in isolation is not adequate to a full understanding.

You have heard of the No True Scotsmen fallacy, right? Besides, you dodged the fucking question with a load of shit. Not one of your assertions about a book that's not even good enough to be toilet paper is true, let alone 'good'. You are a serious ignoramus not just about your own theology, but how could you not understand the term 'apologetics' which is derived from giving a DEFENSE, not an answer (the difference between answering what 2+2 is and answering WHY 2+2 =4)? There are no answers in religion, only excuses, and you sublimely demonstrate this. Yog-Sottoth would be proud.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If you're not a Jew what makes you think their ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern religious fairy tale applies to you when it plainly says that it doesn't?

[*Deidre*]

How do you know though, that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one? There are literally over 30,000 denominations of Christianity today, which means every ''church'' is interpreting things its own way, right down to the followers, all interpreting Scripture their own way. Including you. Including me. Including anyone who is a theist or not. I left faith, was an atheist, and returned to faith, and now don't consider myself a Christian per se, anymore. But, I'm at a cross roads with it all, I guess you could say. That said, I've never liked that the Bible creates this chaos and confusion in the mind of its reader. An atheist should be able to read the Bible, and grasp its meaning, and the truth is...most atheists do. (Thus, the need came along for ''apologetics'') The Bible isn't a hard book to understand. The problem is, it's a very straight forward book that many theists feel the need to ''explain'' with ''you're not understanding that passage the right way.'' No, the truth is, there are many horrible passages in the Bible, whereby depraved men wanted to convince the masses, that a god is ordaining all of their own depravity. There are of course beautiful verses and passages too that coexist with those horrible ones, but it's funny...those never need ''explaining.''

First, the fact that there are many different protestant denominations (certainly not 30,000) in no way indicates a doctrinal disagreement. The reasons for denominations include culture, geography, service structure, music, minor doctrinal differences and major doctrinal differences. I would say there are only 3-4 divisions along major doctrinal differences in a narrow band of topics. 

Second, you assume that people can interpret the Bible any way they want and go on your merry way. That is simply not the case. Systematic theology is the study of putting all the doctrines together into cohesive whole. There are only a couple of versions that will stay together (none of which have earth shattering differences). If you personally ignore some doctrine because you disagree, it most likely will affect many other things and your own personal theology is shot full of holes.

Every chapter and verse should be read in the context of the surrounding passage, the purpose of the book, the original audience, the author, the culture, the historical context, etc. To fail to do so is to not understand what the text means. Pulling a couple of verses out of the middle of all of that and say "it's very clear" is simply wrong more often than not. No need to 'explain', just a need to examine it correctly. 

Third, 'apologetics' does not mean what you think it means. It simply means "to give an answer". 

Fourth, difficult passages can be understood in context and with a systematic theology that takes the entirety of scripture and makes sense of the passages. Taking them in isolation is not adequate to a full understanding.

Thanks for the response. Do you believe that the entire Bible is literal?

[SteveII]

First, the fact that there are many different protestant denominations (certainly not 30,000) in no way indicates a doctrinal disagreement. The reasons for denominations include culture, geography, service structure, music, minor doctrinal differences and major doctrinal differences. I would say there are only 3-4 divisions along major doctrinal differences in a narrow band of topics. 

Second, you assume that people can interpret the Bible any way they want and go on your merry way. That is simply not the case. Systematic theology is the study of putting all the doctrines together into cohesive whole. There are only a couple of versions that will stay together (none of which have earth shattering differences). If you personally ignore some doctrine because you disagree, it most likely will affect many other things and your own personal theology is shot full of holes.

Every chapter and verse should be read in the context of the surrounding passage, the purpose of the book, the original audience, the author, the culture, the historical context, etc. To fail to do so is to not understand what the text means. Pulling a couple of verses out of the middle of all of that and say "it's very clear" is simply wrong more often than not. No need to 'explain', just a need to examine it correctly. 

Third, 'apologetics' does not mean what you think it means. It simply means "to give an answer". 

Fourth, difficult passages can be understood in context and with a systematic theology that takes the entirety of scripture and makes sense of the passages. Taking them in isolation is not adequate to a full understanding.

Thanks for the response. Do you believe that the entire Bible is literal?

You're welcome.

No I do not. It is foolish and wrong to read everything 'literal'. One would be determining meaning without critical thought, source, context, style, or any other number of inputs that go into the writing of anything. For example, Genesis was never intended to be a science book. It was intended to teach the truths that needed to be understood to the Jewish people for whom it was written in the time it was written. Whatever truths we can glean from it today must be understood in that context.

Hermeneutics and the complete exegesis of passages should be employed when studying the Bible. 

Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analyses include classification of the type of literary genres present in the text and analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis

[Astonished]

How the fuck does that not render the entire fucking thing utterly irrelevant today, I ask in all seriousness.

[Inkfeather132]

If the Bible can't be taken literally, then it is worth no more than any other mythology. Which isn't all that bad. I personally really love mythology and fairy tales. I just don't take them as literal history.

[Minimalist]

1. No one (except for Jesus) has ever succeeded in keeping the law (Acts 15:10)!
   
2. The law was delivered to Israel - One nation of people (Exodus 20:1-2; Deuteronomy 4:1-2).
   

The first thing you really need to understand Stevie is that the OT is as big a pile of bullshit as the NT. 

The iron age goatherders' manual needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history so morons like you can join the 21st century.

Your god never existed.  At least that means he is not dead.

[The Grand Nudger]

First, the fact that there are many different protestant denominations (certainly not 30,000) in no way indicates a doctrinal disagreement. The reasons for denominations include culture, geography, service structure, music, minor doctrinal differences and major doctrinal differences. I would say there are only 3-4 divisions along major doctrinal differences in a narrow band of topics. 

Then you would be wrong... and we've have had this discussion before.  Fall and hit your head on a bible since then?  Or is it more an issue of your christian faith being determined by whatever piece of christer merch you've most recently read? The latter, I suppose....has precedent........

Second, you assume that people can interpret the Bible any way they want and go on your merry way. That is simply not the case. Systematic theology is the study of putting all the doctrines together into cohesive whole. There are only a couple of versions that will stay together (none of which have earth shattering differences). If you personally ignore some doctrine because you disagree, it most likely will affect many other things and your own personal theology is shot full of holes.

Not that this has ever so much as slowed down any given believer with any number of disparate systematic theologies, such as yourself.  It's almost as if you guys can't even agree on the proper system, let alone points of doctrinal authority.  



What's the point of bullshitting people about something that, itself, gets shot full of holes as soon a someone googles the fucking term? What's the point of bullshitting yourself?

[SteveII]

If the Bible can't be taken literally, then it is worth no more than any other mythology. Which isn't all that bad. I personally really love mythology and fairy tales. I just don't take them as literal history.

That is not what I said. Read my 2 posts again.