Does god change his mind to say an eye for an eye in the old and then no eye for an eye in the new?
“First of all, the "eye for eye" was Moses' law, not God's Commandment, and if we compare it to the "love thy neighbor as you do yourself" commandment, nobody would be taking out anyone's eyes, so I don't see any discrepancy (Matt 22.37-38). Furthermore, the "eye for eye" concept is in direct contradiction with the 50th psalm (51st in the KJV, etc), because King/Prophet David wrote that one to seek forgiveness from God for committing adultery and murder. Therefore, if the "eye for eye" was God's law and not Moses' law, adultery and murder would have been punished by automatic death, right? This is not an attempt to disregard or diminish Moses, but we quickly forget what Christ came on earth for. There is ample mention in the epistles about Moses' Law and it's relevancy to salvation, so anyone can feel free to read those sections. In any event, this is what happens when people think they can go off and interpret things on their own, and ignore the teachings of the church Fathers.�

------------------
"The title of "Father" for the priests. This is completely against what
Jesus stated at Matthew 23:9"
“Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.�

“If you fail to combine Romans 9:5 & 9: 8 with Matthew 23:9, it is easy to get confused about what "father" (lower case), "Father" (upper case) and "child" (spiritual and carnal) mean. Romans 9:5 points out that Christ had an accepted lineage of "human" fathers, and Romans 9:8 clearly indicates that some effort is required to be considered a child of God, and natural birth may not be enough...They are also forgetting the mention of the lineage of Abraham, Aaron, David, and others as "Fathers" (John 7:22-23). If you take the legalistic Protestant interpretation of Matthew 23:9, then you would be saying that the Apostle Paul was being blasphemous by violating what Christ said when he wrote the epistle to the Romans, and this is not possible, of course.
Matthew 23:9 continues to 23:10-11, and the whole section is a lesson in humility. The Protestants are hung up over the legalistic word "father", without examining the role. If I substitute the role of a church "father", with the word "preacher", or "reverend", and this person is just as haughty and proud as the Pharisees, where is the spiritual benefit? Christ is trying to point out that someone with a title (father, preacher, reverend, etc) can not substitute the Father (uppercase) in the ROLE, and must remain humbler than his spiritual children as an example. To call our parent "dad" instead of "father" or our preacher "reverend" instead of "father" does not replace the ROLE that is there. Legalism does not work in this interpretation, but Protestants are by nature legalists, following their Northern European traditional roots. There is no spiritual contradiction between Matt 23:9 and the other passages I pointed out, but the Protestants will scratch their heads for a while trying to figure it out, because they interpret in a legalistic framework.�
---------------------- - -
Someone said “"The belief that Mother Mary was pure and sinless is unscriptural, for all have been sinners, sin is what causes death (Romans 6:23 ), and obviously Mary is dead now."

“Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.�

“That's ridiculous...First of all, even Mary carried the hereditary curse of Adam and Eve by default, and we know that this is absolved only by baptism, so we need to be careful of the term "sinless". Only Christ was born and lived sinless. By being put in the temple from the age of 3, when was protected from Satan, and thus did not perpetrate additional sins...very simple concept, so I don't know where the confusion is. Also, we know that Moses sinned (at least once) by shattering the tablets and was punished by God by not being allowed to see the Promised Land, AND YET if you corner a Protestant by asking them if Moses was dead or alive when the Apostles saw him appear and talk to Christ on the Mount, they will be in a very difficult position. If they answer "yes he was dead", they will contradict the "obviously Mary is dead now" statement above, and simultaneously prove that "dead saints" can appear in real life. If they say "no he was not dead", then they will contradict the old Testament that states Moses died at the age of 120, and simultaneously disprove their theory that "dead" saints can not communicate with us (even appearing in visual sight is a form of communication). Furthermore, how can we ignore Matthew 22: 32-33, where Christ points out that God is a God of the living, not of the dead? Finally, in the prodigal son parable, the Father says "he was dead, and now he is alive". Certainly, this refers to spiritual death, because the Prodigal son had not died in a carnal sense in that parable, right? This is where whoever wrote the above statement you supplied does not understand what "spiritual death" vs. "carnal death" means. Another sad case of someone living in deception.�

------------------
Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it; unless the LORD keeps the city, the watchman stays awake in vain. - Psalms 127:1

And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. - Isa 32:17

quote:

---

Originally posted by warsong:
Someone said that everyone that has the bible can interpret it well.

---

Warsong, please don't allow one persons view to imply they are speaking for all protestants. The above quoted isn't a protestant belief, and is just not true. You could be a new believer, a minister or priest for 50 years or even(especially) the pope and there will always be something new to learn from the bible. I find this true and other's have said the same as well: Sometimes a verse or a passage, even if I read it before many times, will suddenly be revealed or have meaning to me. I have to attribute this to the Holy Spirt revealing the word to me at the time I need to hear it most.

Also, I've read passages in the Old Testiment that didn't mean much to me, and I found not rememberable, but might come alive and be inspiring when delivered by a minister during an sermon.

quote:

---

The title of "Father" for the priests. This is completely against what Jesus stated at Matthew 23:9

---

This is not a protestant belief either. Are you referring to a particular denomination? I've been to several protestant churches and I've never been told use of the world 'father' for anything other than our heavenly Father was forbidden and against the will of God and what Jesus commanded of us. As you've noticed, Jesus himself and the Apostles use the word father for the following:
1) referring to earthly father(s)
2) referring to ancestrial (Jewish) forefathers
3) referring to our heavenly Father.

Curiously they don't appear to use the word to refer to any 'human spiritual fathers' or each other at the time. Nor did any give each other this title.

Why protestants decided not to use this title? Why should they? I don't know, but maybe the church 'fathers' at the time the church split were behaving like the Pharisees of Jesus's time. Puffed up with ego and self pompousness. The title seems a strange title for a teacher of the Gospel. If you are claiming to be a father, exactly what are you the father of? Something other than 1, 2, or 3 above.

Just like the the preceding verse:

(Matthew 23:8) But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

If you are calling yourself Rabbi (or master), exactly what are you saying you are the master of?

quote:

---

The belief that Mother Mary was pure and sinless is unscriptural, for all have been sinners, sin is what causes death (Romans 6:23 ), and obviously Mary is dead now.

---

I also agree with you, but so do most or all protestant groups - that Mary was not sinless (Romans 3:23)

I also agree with you that Mary is not spiritually dead now. Where is she? It's a very good question. And I *think* protestants are divide on this. I have to confess that not everyone agrees on where our spirit resides after our physical death and before the resurrection. The bible does refer to a type of spiritual sleep on many occasions:

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
(1 Thessalonians 4:14-18)

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
(1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
(Daniel 12:2)

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
(1 Corinthians 15:22-24)

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
(Revelation 20:6)

Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.
(2 Corinthians 4:14)

As far as what was happening on the mountain when Elias and Moses appeared with Jesus transfigured, this seems like a special instance were Jesus was allowing Peter, James, and John to see something very special. I'm not saying Elias and Moses aren't in Heaven right now along with some notable others (maybe Enoch and the thief on the cross), but I don't know if we can conclude this would be all of us. Nothing in the Bible claims that people who have died can come down and hang out with us. Wouldn't you think there would be other instances of people in heaven hanging out with the apostles?

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
(Mark 9:1-4)

quote:

---

Someone said that everyone that has the bible can interpret it well.

---

Well, I think that God himself, through his word, can interpret scripture. Rant, rave, scream, yell as much as you want, but that's what I believe. Other people can try to interpret scripture, but if they have not been inspired by God himself, it is possible they could be in error. The teachings of various leaders and teachers can help, but I would never place them above God himself.

Myself included, BTW. I do not believe I have a perfect understanding of God's word, nor do I pretend to have a perfect undertanding. I can be mistaken.

Please, do not misunderstand Sola Scriptura. It is not about placing one's self first! It is about placing God first! If we create our own interpretations, rather than relying on God, we are violating the very principle we claim to hold!

quote:

---

Does god change his mind to say an eye for an eye in the old and then no eye for an eye in the new?

---

Methinks Warsong needs to learn a little word called "context."

The first time the term appears is in Exedous 21:22, and refers to injury to an unborn child. It appears in a larger context of establishing the boundaries of justice, as well as other rules and regulations, which extend from Chapter 20 to the end of the book.

The second time is Deuteronomy 19:21, and is a general principle for justice. Again, it appears in a much larger context of various rules and regulations for the Israelites.

Both passages are in the context of crime and justice.

In the New Testament, Jesus himself refers to the eye for eye issue in Matthew 5:38, which is part of the semon on the mount passage. Again, it's establishing the boundaries. The punishment is to fit the crime - do not give too harsh a punishment, for that would be cruel. Do not be too lenient, for that would not accomplish anything. To this day, the principle still holds - the punishment should fit the crime.

And what about Psalm 51?
Well, Psalm 51 is about repentence. The author knows he has sinned, and wants God's forgiveness. Where is the supposed "contradiction?"

quote:

---

The Protestants are hung up over the legalistic word "father", without examining the role.

---

As coolj stated, I think you are misrepresenting many Protestants.

quote:

---

There is no spiritual contradiction between Matt 23:9 and the other passages I pointed out, but the Protestants will scratch their heads for a while trying to figure it out, because they interpret in a legalistic framework.

---

I do not know who you are talking about. I had no trouble at all with the passages. I suppose not all protestants are as legalistic as you claim.

------------------
6 "This is what the LORD says --
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.

8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." -- Isaiah 44:6-8, NIV

What next people not calling their parents mother and father and call them sister and brother or maybe by first name? I can see it now a child telling his dad “you are not my dad” Jesus is my dad. LOL

As for eye for an eye you are still interpreting it wrong in the general context, and your point does not stick well. Like I said you have to look at the entire book and not just one part which shows distinctions which even Christ indicates. Even Christ said to stick with the new and not the old. Also that the New Testament views are not mostly based off the People of Israel but and based off the Ancient Greeks (Romi; no correlations to Roman) philosophers. Obviously some will disagree but some history books explain it, if you look at some ancient saying you will see many correlations to the New Testament. But if some persist the opposite maybe I should have a post about circumcision, or what next polygamy being justified as Christians actions?

I did not write it as I stated but I guess people “interpret” how they see it. LOL As for protestant I would generally say officially what it stands for not the people since some people can be more or less into what the sect says.

Anyway whatever the case there is always a disagreement which is why people can not interpret the bible the same way, especially the protestant church which does a 180 on what Christ wants.

Do most people understand how the protestant religion started? Does killing 2, divorce 4, adultery, editing bible read any bells? The foundation goes against what Christ, and seems like a night mare. Ever hear if the foundation is not good then the rest is not good? Don’t build your castle on sand. It sounds like a logical saying right? Well again that is what the bible says which has been echoed in the ancient world. Talk about father, the “father” of this sect does seem to act like the “real father” Christ and the Church Christ sand his apostles started. But People want new founding father with Christ just to be a figure head it seems, but whatever floats people’s boat just like how the king killed his wife’s. But he also killed one of his wife former fiancé but killing was natural to him.

“7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have.“
You know the rest, but some interpret the bible even though they do not know it well or have the authority and change the meaning. One time a person told me that a part of the bible means the opposite of what it means. If I made my own club and made my own rules and then have someone else say that I am interpreting my own rules wrong is just silly. And it is even more silly that they would make their own club and name it the same as mine and for them to say they are the originators since they can interpret what I said and they put and take out things which I did not.

Just like how the Muslim religion is backwards so are many Christian sects in how they view religion and what they present. But just because the religion is backwards does not mean most people are which some are trying their best to do good and ignore the bad. Some people attack the Catholic Church as bad as it is but the protestant religion is just as bad, or even worse. But it is not talked about as much since it bends over backwards to please non Christians who help hurt Christianity. But that is another topic. The Muslim religion is another night mare of contradiction which they scream for peace but their profit was a murdering war monger.

The best way to destroy something is within and many Christian sects are encouraging bad things. People should learn the history because we will be doomed to repeat it.

quote:

---

LOL As for protestant I would generally say officially what it stands for not the people since some people can be more or less into what the sect says.

---

There is no "official" protestant "sect" . . .

quote:

---

Do most people understand how the protestant religion started?

---

I believe with a man named "Martin Luther" and his 95 theses, in an attempt to reform the Catholic Churh (which unfortunately failed, and the split in the church eventually led to bloodshed ). He also translated the Bible into German, so the common man could read it.

quote:

---

As for eye for an eye you are still interpreting it wrong in the general context, and your point does not stick well. Like I said you have to look at the entire book and not just one part which shows distinctions which even Christ indicates. Even Christ said to stick with the new and not the old. Also that the New Testament views are not mostly based off the People of Israel but and based off the Ancient Greeks (Romi; no correlations to Roman) philosophers. Obviously some will disagree but some history books explain it, if you look at some ancient saying you will see many correlations to the New Testament.

---

I haven't done a full study of the passages yet, but seriously I doubt it's beyond my understanding. If you can tell me where I have erred, feel free to inform me and I will try to study it some more.

Yes, I acknowledge that Christ said stick with the new, not the old - Peter's vision, Acts 10, I think? That, plus 2 Corinthians 2-3, so yeah,I know and agree with the old & new stuff. I probably agree with the Orthodox on a lot of stuff.

If you want to discuss this with somebody who's read the history books, I suggest you go to http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ - Glenn Miller's studies on the Bible are quite comprehensive.

------------------
6 "This is what the LORD says --
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.

8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." -- Isaiah 44:6-8, NIV

A paraphrase of that verse is "Do not punish someone more excessively than their crime deserves. Let their sentence be in proportion to their crime"

In that day, you were killed for pretty much everything. God didn't want that, so set out "an eye for an eye" as a guage to measure crime and punishment against.

----------
Love your neighbour as yourself is taking things every further along the same path.

OT law was all about Actions and what you did.
Christ's command in the NT are everything the OT had, adding on intentions and motives. So really Christ's Commandments are even harder to live up to than the OT!

------------------
His talent, Hisart, His way.