« first day (1101 days earlier)   

12:26 AM
> The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. — 1 Corinthians 2:14 NET
^^^ What do you think about this verse?
1 hour later…
1:44 AM
@PaulVargas It doesn't say the believer is guaranteed to receive them either.
Here's where the mind games come in. "Well, I am a believer, I think. Is my faith not good enough. I don't know. I wish God would just talk to me."
1 hour later…
2:56 AM
@fredsbend When you were a Christian, did you belonged to a particular denomination?
2 hours later…
5:02 AM
@PaulVargas That's probably not a good verse to give to someone with honest questions and doubts. It seems to be saying if they don't believe, it's their own fault. The blame game is not likely to change anyone's mind.
5 hours later…
10:08 AM
@PaulVargas Reconciling the God of Job and the God of the NT has been puzzling the greatest theological minds for literally centuries. I don't think you can just throw up 1 Cor 2:14 as the explanation.
Not to mention that this is taking 1 Cor 2:14 terribly out of context. That verse is talking specifically about the coming of the Messiah, and how the "rulers of the age" did not discern that Jesus was the Messiah. To therefore blindly apply that same verse about spiritual wisdom to any mystery is, in my opinion, at best sloppy.
11:09 AM
@PaulVargas fredsbend said: "Did some formal study at a Bible school in the US about 8 years ago. Find enjoyment from reading books like the Moody Handbook of Theology. Raised Catholic until 14. Followed the typical non-denominational dogma until about 23. Now I pick what I like from the various opinions on topics rather than the whole."
11:42 AM
@BruceAlderman Perhaps, the best way to minister to new Christians is to start Christian ministries that support charity work in God's name. Then, people would see the good that so-and-so Christians do, and join the Christian community. As a matter of fact, that's very close to how Barack Obama converted to Christianity.
11:57 AM
@Anonymous There are many organizations that do exactly that. But really, that's kind of missing the point of Christianity.
Christianity is a new way of life, which is charitable. You don't need a formal "charity organization" to live that way.
12:56 PM
@Flimzy Agreed 101%
@Zoe Only 101%? LOL
@Flimzy That's more than enough to not overflow!
Humm ... @BruceAlderman I will meditate on your opinions.
@Flimzy Do you really think that's the context of the verse?
@PaulVargas: Yes.
1 Cor 2:8 is the main clue
1:13 PM
@Flimzy I never would have thought.
The last part of 1 cor 1 is also about the crucifiction
1 Cor 2 follows from that
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God
@Flimzy Okay. What do you think the point of Christianity is?
@Anonymous The point of Christianity is that the world is broken, and God is working to fix it. Christianity is our response to the invitation to join God's reparation work.
@PaulVargas This two months, I have come to the realisation that 99% of scripture can be read in two ways that yield different meanings with similar context. Not as in literal or metaphorical way, but in 1) What they mean and 2) What they also denote.
1:26 PM
@Zoe Or many more than two ways.
Most verses, especially the ones mentioning unbelievers, we need to start seeing it as a "FYI this is the reason..." and not as "This is the evidence! Go prove to them!"
For example, regarding: 1 Corinthians 2:14New King James Version (NKJV)

14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1) It means the Spirit of God is absurd to the unbeliever. 2) It also means that using scripture is counter productive, when dealing with unbelievers, whether in mission or trying to convert.
@Flimzy Well, Christianity does give a motivation why some people choose to be charitable.
It also denotes that we need to have tact and not pull scripture out. Scripture is a double-edged sword, you see. Now, when I read verses about unbelievers, I treat them as a FYI thing, so I would have more tact and not wrongly use scripture to convert someone or tell someone they are wrong etc
@Flimzy It seems that human free will is more powerful than God. God somehow can't stop Adam and Eve from sinning. Similarly, God can't stop human beings from sinning. On the other hand, the nature of free will is a complicated theological matter by itself. :P
@Anonymous It's not that God can't stop people from sinning, but he chooses not to.
1:35 PM
@All Perhaps I was not clear enough. Well, there's not much to say.
@Anonymous If God stops everyone from doing bad things, there will be no free will, then people might start complaining, and then God would have to make all of them feel joy. Then why create us in the first place?
@Flimzy I think that's a plausible explanation why God can be perceived to be cold, aloof, and heartless.
Like I said, the nature of free will is a very extensive topic. It'd take bookloads to understand every Christian concept of free will. :P
It does seem that the "choose to freely love Him" argument is not strong. I don't think it ever has been. It looks good in theory only, like the Law :)
@Zoe There are strengths and weaknesses to almost every Christian doctrine I've read about.
@Anonymous The only doctrines I know, but still not completely agree is the Trinity and Apostles' Creed. I don't dwell in the teachings of man.
Most creeds and doctrines are like summaries, which I think takes away the essence and context of the scripture. I don't like them
Because, I think, that when self-proclaimed religious people stumble in their hearts, they stumble because of that doctrine made by that council and not because God.
Which, in my opinion, is absurd. Most people forget about the God behind that doctrine or the God behind that Christian school. It's sad.
1:44 PM
@Anonymous Anyone can be perceived to be cold, aloof, and heartless, if we choose to so perceive them--even if they are the warmest, most intimate, and caring people in the world.
Zoe: Most creeds exist to distill complex beliefs into something easier to discuss, so that we have a starting point for a discussion.
Zoe: If you say you have faith in God,and I say I have faith in God, how do we know we mean the same thing?
Zoe: We could spend hours discussing what we each mean... and then when a third person comes along, we'd spend hours discussing it with them, too
Zoe: Or we can write a summary statement, which we think about for hours, to make sure it's as clear as possible, then we can share that summary statement with each other and know in seconds or minutes what we mean
Zoe: That's the fundamental reason that creeds and statements of faith exist.
I need to learn to read faster!
I know creeds are like confessions/statements of belief. From the Bible, I could also say about everything that I believe, yet would not feel the need to label it as something creed, yet still convey the same thing as the creed.
From the Bible, would people not know that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate?
That Christ is the Son of God?
That Mary is a virgin who gave birth?
I think creeds are fine except for some churches reciting them or people justifying their belief because the creed says so. But I would not dwell in them because I can't agree with every line it has.
OR people substantiating their belief by adding, "Oh that creed says it also." like is the Bible not enough ._.
I guess I'm just strange
I don't think you're strange
I think you may only be over-reacting to a legitimate complaint against creeds
Why thank you
1:59 PM
If people use creeds in place of the bible, that's a problem. But if people use creeds properly, that's not a problem.
It's also important not to elevate the Bible too far, as many do.
Many people tend to focus too much on the bible, and they forget that the Bible is only useful insofar as it reveals God to us, and they forget that the true object of our worship is God
Well I certainly dont worship the Bible and also admit that the Bible we have now are copies of copies. I put that in one of my answers. The thing is, because the Bible is the only written word of God that we have, it should be placed higher than doctrines, and need no other to substantiate it.
From the Bible, I do know that it is possible for God to honour our faith if we believe wrongly the commands or things of Him, but I have no idea, what happens when we believe wrongly the things of man.
@Zoe Jesus barely even talks about beliefs at all. And Paul only a bit more.
Howdy @warren
@Flimzy I got that teaching from Psalms, not from NT.
@Zoe: The OT talks very little about beliefs, too.
@Zoe: I'm not saying it doesn't mention it... just that modern Christians put an over-emphasis on beliefs relative to the biblical texts
@Flimzy It talks about God honouring our faith and pulling us out of trouble, whether if it comes from being obedient to the wrong teacher or hearing wrongly a certain command of God's.
2:09 PM
@Zoe: Indeed. I think "faith" has very little to do with belief :)
@Flimzy I don't think people would make good comparisons for God. Some people may be warm and friendly on the outside, but back-stabbing and slanderous on the inside.
@Flimzy They are similar, modern Christians blur them, that's also why I think that creeds and doctrines are dangerous waters to tread in. I think I would stumble all the time if I subscribed to a denomination are read their doctrines.
@Anonymous Like Satan.
@Zoe But Satan is a fallen angel, not a human being.
@Anonymous spirit of the adversary exists in everyone. Why do you think Jesus called Paul Satan.
@warren: I'm curious to understand in what way you believe a denial of Adam and Eve is a denial of the gospel.
2:15 PM
@Zoe I think there are two definitions.
Satan (Hebrew: שָּׂטָן satan, meaning "adversary") is a term, as well as the name of a figure appearing in the texts of the Abrahamic religions who brings evil and temptation, and is known as the deceiver that leads humanity astray. Some religious groups teach that he originated as an angel who fell out of favor with God, seducing humanity into the ways of sin, and who now rules over the fallen world. In the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, Satan is primarily an accuser and adversary, a decidedly malevolent entity (a.k.a. the devil) who possesses demonic qualities. In Theistic Satanism, Satan...
I probably went by the first definition. The definition of the fallen angel from heaven. But I went by that definition because I got that information from watching a documentary.
I can definitely see how those definitions overlap.
People who admire Satan as the embodiment of certain human qualities or worship Satan like a deity are labelled "Satanists".
I am not sure what this Satan-as-a-deity is supposed to represent.
In any case, I doubt it is pure evil.
Worshiping the embodiment of evil isn't evil?
That's a pretty strange thing to say.
@Flimzy No, I meant a cultural appropriation might have occurred so that the deity that Satanists worship is not really the same Satan that Christians are afraid of.
@Flimzy - based on Romans 5, denying a literal Adam (and therefore literal Eve) gives no reason for sin to have entered the world, and therefore the reasoning for Christ being th perfect second Adam falls on its face
@warren: That's one view.
likewise, in the geneological account of Jesus' birth in Luke, if Adam isn't literal, it falls on its face
2:27 PM
@warren: Is it important to have a precise, literal understanding of how sin entered the world for us to recognize that it has, and that we are each guilty, and that we each need a savior?
and 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy, and Jude ...
@warren Wow. I have exactly two questions on that topic on the Christianity.SE.
is it necessary *for salvation* ? no

is actively denying it consistent with belief once you have learned? no
@warren: I'll grant you that it's not consistent with your belief. But that's a far cry from calling it "denying the gospel"
Q: In which denominations do people consider Mary, mother of Jesus, to be the "Second Eve"?

AnonymousI was reading DK Publishing's The Illustrated Bible Story By Story. The authors claim to be biblical scholars, historians, and pastors, which may give a Christian slant to the Bible, even though the audience, as they claim in the book, is for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike. The autho...

2:29 PM
it's not merely my belief
it's inconsistent with the bible
@warren: I realize others share your belief. And yes, it is consistent with a particular interpretation of the Bible.
@warren: But it's by no means the only interpretation.
@warren: It's inconsistent only with your interpretation of the Bible.
you're right - you can interpret the bible in a manner inconsistent with itelf to ignore the ramifications of believing what it says
but that's very dangerous ground to be on
@warren: I believe that a literal genesis account requires a Biblical interpretation that is inconsistent with itself.
@warren: A literal Genesis interpretation requires a god who is a liar. (in my view)
Q: From a "traditional", Trinitarian perspective, what is the effect of the doctrine of sin in the doctrine of creation?

AnonymousReally, I am looking for an answer from a "Trinitarian" perspective, but specifically whoever that Joy Ann McDougall is citing. Source: McDougall, Joy Ann. "A Trinitarian Grammar Of Sin." Modern Theology 27.1 (2011): 55-71. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Aug. 2013. Cited Source: David Kelsey,...

@warren: But I'm not so arrogant as to say that anyone who believes in such a worldview, and can somehow reconcile that God is not a liar in that world view, is denying the gospel.
@warren: I believe a literal Genesis interpretation is the "dangerous" ground.
2:32 PM
@Flimzy: while I personally hold to a fully-literal view of the creation account (for a host of reasons which I've enumerated elsewhere) .. at the very least understanding Day 6 to be literal (from the perspective of the special, intentional creation of Adam and Eve), the rest of scripture falls on its face
@warren: Well, I can respect that you believe Day 6 to be literal, while at the same time disagreeing.
@warren: Let me be clear: I have no intention of convincing you of a non-literal Day 6.
how can it NOT be, @Flimzy? If Adam and Eve aren't literal, why bother believing the rest of the Bible?
@warren: I would, however, be delighted if you would dismount your high-horse.
@Flimzy Are you saying there are many pathways to God? :)
@warren: They said the same thing about the shape of the Earth 500 years ago. When you build your theology on such shaky ground as the specific interpretation of any verse, you're bound for eventual failure.
@warren: People were executed for suggesting the earth wasn't flat, because a round earth would cause the entire gospel to "fall flat". Obviously the gospel survived.
And I suggest that the gospel survives with a metaphorical creation account, too. In fact, I say it thrives all the more.
2:36 PM
the strawman of fla earthism is not at all similar to denying the literal existence of Adam & Eve
It's not a straw man, it's an analogy.
And quite an applicable one. But an analogy is only useful as an analogy. It's not a proof.
If you think I was trying to "prove" something with that analogy, that might be an indication that you're not thinking very critically.
@warren Your nickname reminds me of an author of several books: Warren W. Wiersbe
@PaulVargas: Not Rick Warren? :P
not familiar with him, @Flimzy. (and, ftr, it's not merely a nickname - it's also my real name :) )
Rick Warren is the author of The Purpose Driven Life
2:39 PM
there was another Warren Myers (with the Navigators) who wrote a host of devotionals ... but he died a few years ago
Anyone who says "The entire gospel falls apart if you believe ___" has very little faith in the gospel.
Rather, I suggest, they have faith in a particular interpretation or superstition about the gospel, which is not the gospel itself.
I have my own concepts of what the gospel means, naturally.... But I also recognize that some of my beliefs are wrong (I just don't know which ones, or I would change them!)
But that doesn't prevent me from putting faith in something that I don't fully understand, to the letter, in every detail.
As soon as I say that only my concept of the gospel is correct, my faith has moved from the true gospel (about which I have ideas, some of which are not be correct), and my faith has moved instead to a concept (which certainly is NOT correct).
I am sure some of what I believe is incorrect, too, @Flimzy - doesn't change the fact that denying core, clear teaching from the scriptures is, by definition, unbiblical

there areas I'm sure I have some error are in far less clearly-taught and -expounded doctrinal areas (likely there are aspects of my eschatology, for example, which are erroneous)

on simple, clear things, though, if I'm in error, then the scriptures are in error - because I'm merely believing the straightforward and obvious application of the test
@warren: Whether Adam and Eve exist, however, is not by any stretch, the "core" of the gospel
@warren: Denying the existence of Christ would cause the gospel to fall flat... I'll call that "core"
@Flimzy How do you define the gospel?
@warren Where are you from? What do you do?
@warren: Whether Adam and Eve are literal or metaphorical in no way affects the validity of Christ's sacrifice
@PaulVargas: The story of God's redemption of a broken world.
2:47 PM
I think "gospel" in this sense means "spiritual truth or wisdom".
@Anonymous: That's not what Christians mean by "gospel"
@PaulVargas - I live in KY (though have liveed several other places, too). I'm a software consultant in data center management and automation
Gospel, literally, means "good news"
@Flimzy It has many definitions.
@Flimzy Literal meanings may not be accurate in certain contexts.
@Anonymous: I think it's accurate, it's just too broad to be meaningful.
@Anonymous: In any case, "spiritual truth or wisdom" is also too broad to be meaningful :)
2:50 PM
@Flimzy I think good news should really be old news. The "good news" was proclaimed in Paul's time, and many people in the world already know the basic Christian narrative about sin and redemption.
If not, they can look it up on the Internet.
I'm not sure what point you're making. Most people don't have access to the Internet...
@Flimzy @warren Did the people of the Old Testament understood the gospel? How did they understand it?
@PaulVargas: That depends on your definition of "gospel."
@Flimzy If they don't have access to the Internet, then they may be already culturally affiliated with a local church, and the theological tradition got passed down the generations.
@PaulVargas Most of them by prophecy and promise of God.
2:53 PM
@PaulVargas: The understood the larger sense... that they lived in a broken world which God was going to redeem.
@Anonymous: You think tribal Africans who don't have Internet are affiliated with a local church?
@Flimzy No, I was thinking about the Church of Ethiopia.
@Anonymous: How is that "most people"?
@Anonymous: Your off-handle comments really confuse me sometimes :P
@Flimzy Where did I say "most" people?
@Anonymous: I said "most people don't have access to the Internet" to which you replied "If they don't..."
@Flimzy Do you remember a verse to support that idea?
2:56 PM
@PaulVargas The entire old testament?
@PaulVargas: Genesis 3:15 is the first instance of the promise of God's redemption for the broken world.
@PaulVargas: But if I were to give you an exhaustive list of all OT verses along those lines, I'd be quoting most of the OT :
The story of Noah is a type for the redemption brought by the Christ
The Battle of Jericho also.
The exodus, obviously...
animal sacrifice
@Flimzy Interesting verse. Why should it be interpreted as a promise?
@PaulVargas: Because it speaks in the future tense :P
@Flimzy OK. What else?
"he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" is usually interpreted as referring to the Crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.
@Flimzy Do you think that is the correct interpretation?
3:01 PM
@PaulVargas: I think it makes sense.
@Flimzy However, you said that the account must be interpreted allegorically. Right?
@PaulVargas: yes, I believe it's allegory.
@PaulVargas: I don't think God had a literal, poetic conversation with a snake.
@PaulVargas: But I think the promise of redemption is "real"
@PaulVargas - the chosen people of God in the OT understood that there would be a redeemer, and that they needed to follow God

of course, as further revelation came, more details surrounding that were provided
3:25 PM
@PaulVargas: How do you interpret Genesis 3:15?
3:53 PM
@TRiG although this comes late I'll say thanks anyway.
@BruceAlderman Is that not the convention? "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." I personally call BS on this verse. Witnessing the resurrected Christ worked for Paul, and it would work for me too.
@PaulVargas Raised Catholic. I have personal attachments to the hierarchy and organization to the Church, but I did not agree with a lot of their doctrines. Was was typical nondenominational for a long while after that. Then I had some personal stuff happen in my life that made me seriously consider the bigger questions about Christianity and question its validity. I've come to a point of rejecting its claimed validity.
4:11 PM
@PaulVargas Very well, thank you.
@laovultai You're welcome.
@Flimzy I suppose if you want to just ignore reality, yes, you could do that. In God's case though, I think there's a good argument against His supposed benevolence for all people.
@fredsbend That's kind of my point... one can ignore someone's true nature, and view them as cold/aloof/heartless.
@warren This
@Flimzy Yes, you've said that, but haven't given any evidence for why God is not that.
@fredsbend Why is that relevant?
4:23 PM
@Flimzy That's what the conversation was about. Anon said, "That's why people perceive God as cold ... Then you basically said they are perceiving Him incorrectly.
@fredsbend I'm saying that one's perception isn't necessarily indicative of reality.
Okay, we can agree with that. But can we agree that we should base our perceptions off of our observations?
@Flimzy It is, however, all we've got.
@TRiG In a manner of speaking.
@Flimzy Well, we could discuss Plato's Cave, I suppose.
4:31 PM
@TRiG: Most people trust other peoples' experiences as well (to varying degrees),which is why any form of study of history or science is of any value
@Flimzy ... their perceptions of other people's experiences. ;)
@TRiG Granted.
Modulated by how well the other people in question are able to explain their experiences; how well we understand them; and how much we trust them.
@TRiG: Naturally. But there are often times when any reasonable person puts a greater faith in the experiences of another person than in their own perception.
@TRiG: So to speak about "personal experience" as though it therefore made the reality inaccessible is not meaningful.
(except perhaps in very specific situations)
@Flimzy Yes. (The idea that I cannot always trust my own perceptions scares me. I've never yet experienced major hallucinations (I do get minor ones when I'm very tired).)
4:38 PM
Recognizing our own bias is very important, and a sign of a certain type of maturity. But having bias does not mean that our experiences (or perceptions of them) are automatically invalid. It only means that we have a bias which we ought to account for to whatever extent possible.
@TRiG I hear nutmeg will give you horrific hallucinations ... and violent vomiting too. Worth it?
@warren "Chosen people of God"? - What kind of election you are referring?
@fredsbend Well, it tastes good.
@TRiG Especially with a little rum and some cream... (do you guys drink egg nog there?)
@Flimzy I don't personally, but I don't think it's unknown here. It's a Christmastide drink, is it not?
4:45 PM
@TRiG Indeed. It's popular in the US, but I'm pretty sure its origin is from somewhere within the UK... just not sure which part.
@PaulVargas - those who believed God. Obviously, not all Israelites were "chosen" in the sense of being eternally saved. And some non-Israelites were "chosen" in the sense of being saved.
@warren Of course the distinction is something that would never even have occurred to the Jews at the time.
@warren: "Salvation" to an ancient Jew was not an "individual" thing, it was a corporate thing.
(And I'm not entirely sure that our modern/western focus on individual salvation isn't a huge disservice to the gospel)
@Flimzy In that vein, is it a purely Catholic thing to refer to the church as "The People of God"? It seems like it shouldn't be.
@MattGutting I'm not sure what you're asking.
@Flimzy I might be completely off here, but when you talked about corporate salvation, as opposed to individual, the first thing I thought of was a view of the Church as the Chosen People - the People of God. That is a common Catholic view (at least since the second half of the 20th century) - is it shared outside Catholicism?
5:00 PM
@MattGutting: I think Jews have a similar view :) Within Christianity, I'm not sure.
@Flimzy - it certainly would have ocurred to them at the time: how else can you explain the welcoming of Ruth, Rahab, Naaman, and others into the fold? They weren't Israelites.
@MattGutting: But an important distinction must be made as well, in that the ancient Jews didn't necessarily believe in an afterlife... so individual salvation would have been meaningless to them.
@Flimzy Good point.
@warren AT the time of those stories, the concept of heaven didn't really exist... so they clearly didn't adopt them into the nation of Israel for them to earn individual salvation.
@warren: Jews believed they were the chosen people of God, and that to fulfil God's (corporate) purpose, it was vital that they remain pure... This is why conversion was required before intermarriage was possible--to keep the people of God pure. Not for the converted to "receive salvation"
@Flimzy ... whether fully-fleshed-out concepts of heaven existed, they certainly understood that not following God was evil
5:02 PM
@warren: yes, but their concept of why it was evil was quite different than what I'd say most westerners would say today.
you can see from David that he understood at least something of a future after death when talking about his son he had with Bathsheba
@warren That's debatable.
Solomon understood that the spirit returns to God (at least in some aspect)
Moses knew a lot more than was written for us (based on only having a bulleted summary of his time on the mountain with God)
and much was conveyed that wasn't written down
assuming that if it wasn't written they didn't know is a bit egotistical
@warren: It may be fair to say there was a concept of "something more" but there certainly was not a doctrine of "heaven for the righteous and hell for the unrighteous"
There was some of that forming by the time Jesus was around
most of it borrowed from Greek mythology (with it's own added Jewish flavor, of course)
5:19 PM
@Flimzy - definitely by the time of Elijah it was known that heaven was a reward for the righteous (and probably before - but that may be open to debate)
1 hour later…
6:34 PM
@warren What makes you think "much was conveyed that wasn't written down"? Exodus 24:4 [emphasis mine] "And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord."
@BruceAlderman: That's clearly refering to a specific incident. It doesn't say that Moses wrote down every thing God ever said to him.
@BruceAlderman: And further does not say that we currently have everything Moses ever wrote.
@Flimzy Am I misreading? It looks like @warren is saying we only have a "bulleted summary" of Moses' time on the mountain; however Exodus says Moses "wrote down all the words of the Lord." I don't see how that could possibly be read as Moses wrote down just the highlights.
@BruceAlderman Maybe we need @warren to explain further. I thought he was making a general statement about Moses, including his time on the mountain
And I won't even get into the issue of who actually wrote the Torah.
6:55 PM
@BruceAlderman - @Flimzy is dead-on in how much of what Moses heard that was written
Can you elaborate?
@BruceAlderman - one also presumes that the history of the world Moses wrote which occurred prior to his birth was given in his time with god
@warren More likely, that history was derived from oral traditions.
@BruceAlderman - there's also the aspect that that statement comes not after but before time spent on the mountain (see Ex 24:12)
@BruceAlderman it may have been derived from oral tradition. Or it may have been declared by God to Moses. We don't know which :)
Actually, Exodus 24 comes in between trips up the mountain.
6:59 PM
@warren I'm not sure why those are exclusive of each other.
@BruceAlderman - so, recognizing that the verse you cited is between trips on the mountain .. it seems you agree with me :)
God can reveal himself through oral traditions, just as well as he can through written text.
@warren I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not. If you're saying that God revealed things to Moses at various times in his life that didn't end up in the legal code, I could agree with that. On the other hand, I don't agree that Exodus is merely a "bulleted summary of his time on the mountain with God."
@Flimzy I agree with that.
@BruceAlderman - I'm not convinced that it was merely the law and pattern of the temple that was given to Moses on the mountain. If it was, then we have it all (and the statement of 24:4 is comprehensive). If it wasn't, then it's only true for the period just passed prior to the statement.
/me needs to head out for the weekend
2 hours later…
9:20 PM
I have asked this previously, but I'd like to ask it again:
I would like to know major websites outside northern america, Finland, Vatican and Britain
Does anyone have knowledge about any website in this category?
I mean christian websites in this category.

« first day (1101 days earlier)