How do we know a sinner when we see one?

[Argenta]

A sinner is one who transgresses God’s law. But what is God’s law? Would any two Christians agree on exactly what this law is? Presumably, the Ten Commandments are included but what about the laws set out in Deuteronomy et al? Is wearing a garment made of two fibres a sin? Am I a sinner if I refuse to stone my unruly child? If we could agree what God’s law is we may be able to establish if all humans really are sinners.

Christianity teaches that all humans are sinners as a principle when in fact it is a question that admits of an empirical answer. Does Christianity say this because those who are free of sin do not need Jesus Christ?

If only the Ten Commandments are included it may be that some people are free of sin. The truth is we cannot know until we define god’s laws explicitly. Can we compile a comprehensive list of sins? And if we can, I wonder if anyone would truly wish to be sin-free?

Argenta

[micatala]

I would just like to reply to gegraptai here, because the other thread was closed. And what I wish to discuss relates perfectly to this thread.

Darias. I wasn't cheering because of the name-calling. I cheered because I find "pied piper of death" to be a perfectly fitting analogy. Here is why. If one takes the Bible literally, then homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. You encourage homosexuals to continue in their sin unrepentant, telling them essentially that the Bible is wrong and Darias is right. If a homosexual was on the fence about this, then stumbled accross your many posts harmonizing homosexuality and Christianity, and they decided because of this validation that they would continue committing homosexual acts the rest of their life, thus forfeitting their salvation, then guess who would be partially accountable for this before God? You would. That is why it is a fitting analogy, and I cheered because Adstar had the guts to say what needed to be said. It wasn't because it was name-calling. That would be petty and childish, and I am neither.

It is not a loving act to lead people to eternal destruction, whether it is intentional or not. The loving comes into play when the truth is spoken, warning others that their actions are condemned. This love is concerned with eternal consequences rather than temporal pleasure.

If you didn't claim to be a Christian, your words would be harmless. But since you do claim to be a Christian, it is my firm belief that your words have the potential to lead many to destruction. And that makes you dangerous.
_____
SOURCE

1.) The "Pied Piper" analogy was simply a way of saying "you're going to hell and you're willingly taking others with you."

It was made in the attempts to shut down an argument. It was made because Adstar either refused or could not provide a sufficient rebuttal to my many points regarding orientation in relation to other "sins" including having women uncovered and speaking in church. The NT clearly says that all sins are equally punishable, except for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (exactly what that entails is for another debate; I don't have time to discuss it here). Given this fact, I find it un-Biblical, never mind unreasonable, to suggest that gay people are going to hell, either because they are in a relationship or because they have feelings for the same sex which cannot be ignored or suppressed.

I find it un-Biblical to claim that this is the worst of all sins, or that it can void God's grace and Christ's blood, thus damning one's soul.

While by fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, homosexual sex is a sin, I find it perplexing as to why so many Christians love to condemn it specifically, whilst allowing their women to sing/preach/testify/speak in church, dress as skimpy/glamorously as they please in church, and wear their hair as short as they want it in church. All those things being a clear violation of Paul's command for all the churches of the saints -- one of many commands that Paul claimed came from God himself.

Yet, apologists claim that this was just cultural, and or temporary for that time; they shout Context Context, and claim that Paul was just speaking his mind/ it was just a cultural custom at that time. The same argument is used when Paul speaks well of slavery/refuses to condemn it/declares that a good master|slave relationship was a good witnessing tool for Christianity.

Not many Christians today are accepting those commands and words, as is, much less treating them as if they were God's holy utterances.

But, when it comes to homosexuality -- context no longer becomes an issue. The fact that Paul or Moses were the authors of their books matters not -- for it was God who "spoke through them." It doesn't matter what time or place. Christians will often quote key phrases in the OT whenever it refers to homosexuality, but never will they treat the other laws in an equal light. They will quote English translations of Paul condemning it -- direct quotes. Yet they don't care about the fact that the sexual behavior he was condemning was either prostitutional pedophilia or orgies within churches themselves. Those facts become irrelevant. All of a sudden context doesn't matter anymore; for these are "God's perfect words."

And that is hypocritical. If homosexuality, either the relationship or orientation, is a damnable lifestyle, then how is uncovered, sexily dressed, talkative, short haired females in church not an unrepentant lifestyle? How is that any less worthy of damnation than homosexuality?

I submit to you again, that the acceptance of both are cultural issues. They are not soul issues. They are not salvation issues.

To say otherwise, to hold fast to the claim that "gays will burn but we won't, our lifestyles aren't sinful at all." This is not only unBiblical, it's a double standard by even fundamentalist standards. This is all very subjective.

I largely agree with the analysis here.

I would also note that, while geraptai has somewhat of a point, his position is ignoring risk on the other side. Sure, one could say that by "tolerating" homosexuality we might be contributing to a person not repenting when they should be.

However, it is also possible that by being very negative or condemning of homosexuality, we drive a person who would otherwise be a believer into rejecting CHristianity altogether because, in his or her view, too many Christians are condemning him or her and arguably are acting in an un-CHristian way.

I will point to Romans chapter 14 which says that we are not to judge other believers with respect to their relationship with Christ. "It is to their own master that they stand or fall." This includes allowing other believers to interpret scripture, in their own conscience, as they see fit. The only caveat I see is that, in doing so, one believer does not unnecessarily put a stumbling block in front of another.

It seems to me that that chapter at least strongly suggests that actions that are sinful for one person may not be sinful for another. "Each should be convinced in his own mind" as Paul says. What is important is whether these actions proceed from faith and are engaged in with a clear conscience.

2.) In light of that, the analogy is absurd. It assumes that I'm leading people to hell because I've got a pretty solid, reasonable argument against a traditional doctrinal assumption.

Many may view the Bible as infallible and inpsired and inerrant, but know this -- interpretation of the Bible is none of those things, and doctrine is just an assemblage of interpretations.

I would just add that one can believe that the Bible is inspired or "God-breathed" without considering it inerrant or infallible. That is my view.

[gegraptai]

If you can show me where in the New Testament Jesus commands His followers to commit murder or condones the act of murder by His followers prior to His second coming, then you will have a point. If you cannot, then the "other" person's view is invalid irrespective of his opinion, and your argument falls apart.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

That would be a parable, with fictional characters. But even if it were skewed to be taken literally, notice I qualified it with, "prior to His second coming." In order for modern believers to kill them in front of Him, He has to be present.

Next?

Yes, it's a parable. Parables are lessons. The lesson here is a summation of the parable. It is a specific statement. Show how it means something other than what it says, using the words of the parable. Can you do it? I have challenged many people to that, and no one has been able to come up with 'It is a parable'. Some of come up with alternate reasons for it to be other than what it says, but they have not been able to justify their claims in context with the rest of the parable.

You didn't address the rest of my defense. What I originally said is that if he could produce a passage of Scripture in the New Testament where Jesus commands His followers to commit murder or condones the act of murder by His followers, prior to His second coming, then he would have a point. I then said, in answer to the parable you posted, that this doesn't apply, because in order for modern believers to "kill them," as the passage says, in front of Him, He has to be present, and His second coming hasn't yet occurred. Thus, due to my original qualifier, your parable is not applicable to my argument.

[gegraptai]

You do realize that anyone can read what is posted in any forum? So it's not like you should be embarrassed by your remarks here, because people already saw them in the other forum.

Of course I realize they can read it, but now they can opine, and there's no point in debating theology with unbelievers. Defending the Bible, yes. Debating theology, no.

My arguments regarding homosexuality are made using the reasoning of Biblical inerrancy. I use Biblical passages to illustrate clearly how things Christians are doing today are against the commands of the Bible, by the same standards which you condemn homosexuality.

There's a big difference between that kind of argument and your characterization of my argument, which looks like this: "Homosexuality is okay and the Bible is wrong, cause Darias says so."

Exactly. You find the Bible to be errant. Christianity is based on the Bible. Without the Bible, there would be no Christianity. So irrespective on any clever argument you could devise, the end result is that Darias is right and the Bible is wrong.

It doesn't matter what other Christians are doing when it comes to your argument in favor of homosexuality. What matters is what the Bible says. You can't say that since Christians ignore head coverings and women talking in Church, that this somehow makes homosexuality okay. I'm not going to go down that road with you. You can have that conversation with someone else.

By "disparage" do you mean contextualize and critically examine? Of course I use satire sometimes, but how is viewing the Bible as not "God-breathed" disparaging?

By disparage, I mean that you have come to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong in many many areas. What defines our Christianity if it isn't defined by the Bible? If it is defined in the Bible, and large portions of the Bible cannot be trusted as true, than what is the point of believing any of it? It's not for the good morals; many ideologies teach good morals. Most atheists I know have good morals, for that matter. If the Bible cannot be trusted as accurate and true, then what sets Christianity apart from any other belief system? What makes for a compelling reason to believe in a religion that is derived from an untrustworthy source? I do not devote my entire being to a belief system that originates from an untrustworthy source. If I found the Bible to be untrustworthy, I would discard Christianity like a piece of worthless garbage. That is exactly what it would be if the Bible were found to be spurious...garbage.

(To those who may be champing at the bit to enlighten me regarding the handful of copyist errors, primarily in Kings and Chronicles, you can save your breath. I am well aware of them.)

You are basically saying that because we don't agree, we can't have a fruitful debate. If we agreed, we'd have no reason to debate now would we? Debate is about two different points of view about a topic being discussed.

No, I am saying that it you found the Bible to be true and accurate, then we would have a foundation on which to begin. If you do not, then any theological debate we might have would be a fruitless dialogue that would result in absolutely nothing in the end but two people's opinion who aren't any closer to agreeing with each other then when they first began.

We could have a beneficial discussion about many things, but not theology.

If you would like, we can start a debate in the Holy Huddle sub-forum, to discuss the "sin" of homosexuality. I will only go there to debate; that means that there must be a civil argument. I will not join so I can be personally attacked, whilst you "cheer" with joy.

Whilst I cheer with joy? I thought I explained that. I didn't cheer because it was name-calling. I cheered because it is a very fitting analogy of your positions, and it needed to be said.

As for the offer to debate, I'll pass. We cannot debate theology if you do not consider the Bible to be true. That would be like a surgeon debating an intricate medical procedure with a homeopathic chiropractor who found the peer-reviewed medical journals to be non-authoritative. I don't see the point.

[Adstar]

I will state again that I believe homosexuality is sin. That was my position from the beggining. Darias then went on to clearly state that holding that position leads to the worst kind of evil. He states and i copy his own quote.

My whole point is that homosexuality isn't a sin -- anymore than uncovered, talking women in church are sins. Far too many homosexual individuals have been shunned and treated as if they were diseased. Far too many Christians have not shown love to the LGBT community whatsoever. They have been made to feel as if they are the worst of sinners, when we ourselves are also disobeying the commands of Paul; it's hypocrisy of the worst degree. And it's wrong.

Such thinking has produced the worst institutions known to man, chiefly, the Westboro Baptist Church, who's entire platform is "Gays doom nations." They picket the funerals of fallen soldiers. they tried to picket the funeral of the girl who died in Arizona. They believe that gays are "beasts" and that our nation is under God's wrath for tolerating homosexuals.

Here Darias that His position is that homosexuality is not sin and then goes on a rant revealing what comes from people who hold the opposing view. That Homosexuality is sin. That is my position. So without any doubt here Darias is saying that I one who believe homosexuality is sin is part of evils such as the Westboro Baptist Church. Remember Darias was clearly in a back and forth debate with me at the time. He was using the old guilt by association ploy to position me with the Westboro Baptist Church and like radicals. There can be no other interpretation.

So Darias can duck and weave all he wants but he has said what he has said and it was projected onto me.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Argenta]

You can't say that since Christians ignore head coverings and women talking in Church, that this somehow makes homosexuality okay. [snip]

I do not want to get embroiled in your discussion with Darias but, from an observer's POV, you do seem to be misrepresenting him.

Darias has not said that Christians ignore head coverings and women talking in Church, so that makes homosexuality okay. He is asking you, and now I too am asking you, on what basis do you selectively accept some Biblical morality but not all?

If you do accept all Biblical morality then that is your answer. But if you are selective, just please explain which rules you think do not apply to us today and why. Simple.

Argenta

[Darias]

[font=Impact]1.[/font]

You do realize that anyone can read what is posted in any forum? So it's not like you should be embarrassed by your remarks here, because people already saw them in the other forum.

Of course I realize they can read it, but now they can opine, and there's no point in debating theology with unbelievers. Defending the Bible, yes. Debating theology, no.

Okay, that's an interesting perspective. Even at my church my former youth pastor was always eager to defend doctrine and belief by debate, etc.

Still, the only person who has weighed in on our discussion here so far, is also a Christian.

The thing is, I didn't want to debate with you about Biblical inerrancy, per se; I wanted to discuss the "sin" of homosexuality in light of other commands in the New Testament.



[font=Impact]2.[/font]

My arguments regarding homosexuality are made using the reasoning of Biblical inerrancy. I use Biblical passages to illustrate clearly how things Christians are doing today are against the commands of the Bible, by the same standards which you condemn homosexuality.

There's a big difference between that kind of argument and your characterization of my argument, which looks like this: "Homosexuality is okay and the Bible is wrong, cause Darias says so."

Exactly. You find the Bible to be errant. Christianity is based on the Bible. Without the Bible, there would be no Christianity. So irrespective on any clever argument you could devise, the end result is that Darias is right and the Bible is wrong.

It doesn't matter what other Christians are doing when it comes to your argument in favor of homosexuality. What matters is what the Bible says. You can't say that since Christians ignore head coverings and women talking in Church, that this somehow makes homosexuality okay. I'm not going to go down that road with you. You can have that conversation with someone else.

1.) Yes, in my opinion Biblical errancy is self-evident.

2.) Christianity is based upon Judaism, the teachings of Jesus, Paul, etc. Christianity is not based upon Biblical inerrancy, because even the earliest Christians did not have a New Testament.

3.) Just because I don't find the Bible to be perfectly moral or correct, that does not make me inerrant, infallible, or whathaveyou. I might be wrong sometimes. I'm not asking people to take my word for it. All I'm asking is for a discussion -- an honest discussion, and for people to think for themselves, pray about it even.

4.) I disagree strongly. It matters a great deal. If Christians are not obeying God's commands as preached by Paul under the New Covenant, and many are unrepentantly, than Christians have absolutely no right at all to condemn others for their "lifestyle" when they themselves live in unrepentant sin. And if eternal hell is the fate of all who live in unrepentant sin, you better believe that it matters a great deal.

Otherwise, you are making light of Biblical inerrancy, and of the sins of Christians, usury, allowing women to speak, uncovered, with short hair (some of it braided) in church, allowing women to preach, etc. All, all violations of God's commands (Usury not being discontinued by Paul). Yes indeed it matters greatly what the Bible says if you believe in Biblical inerrancy.

5.) My argument assumes Biblical inerrancy is true. It points out a double standard concerning the, almost obsessive, condemnation of homosexuality. Whereas, Paul's divine commands regarding women are passed off as a dead culturally misogynistic custom. How can that be? In order for supporters of Biblical inerrancy to be consistent in their views about homosexuality, they should also be faithful regarding the commands of Paul -- but what we find is the opposite.

This is because women's rights are culturally accepted today. Sure Paul said all are spiritually equal in Christ, but as I've explained before, he clearly did not mean all are socially equal.

If indeed it is not only forgivable but accepted as un-sinful for Christians to disobey Paul's divine commands regarding women, by what standard exactly would it be "not okay" to allow gays the same tolerance, equal rights, and love (without threat of eternal damnation) -- also against Paul's divine commands?

Are you, a proponent of Biblical inerrancy, willing to tell me that some of Paul's commands are divine, and others are not? Would that not be a subjective position which undermines the very doctrinal belief you unquestionably support?

This is why I argue that gays are not sinners, either by orientation or relationship. This is why I argue that homosexuality is okay. It is because this is the only logically consistent position other than the alternative solution, which would be a few steps backwards for women's rights -- needless to say.

6.) If you do not wish to discuss this matter further or provide a defense for your position on homosexuality, that is okay by me. I just wanted to make sure you knew exactly what my argument was and why I arrived at the conclusion that I have. If you still think I'm a pied piper, that's alright by me. I will leave the others to decide for themselves.




[font=Impact]3.[/font]

By "disparage" do you mean contextualize and critically examine? Of course I use satire sometimes, but how is viewing the Bible as not "God-breathed" disparaging?

By disparage, I mean that you have come to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong in many many areas. What defines our Christianity if it isn't defined by the Bible? If it is defined in the Bible, and large portions of the Bible cannot be trusted as true, than what is the point of believing any of it? It's not for the good morals; many ideologies teach good morals. Most atheists I know have good morals, for that matter. If the Bible cannot be trusted as accurate and true, then what sets Christianity apart from any other belief system? What makes for a compelling reason to believe in a religion that is derived from an untrustworthy source? I do not devote my entire being to a belief system that originates from an untrustworthy source. If I found the Bible to be untrustworthy, I would discard Christianity like a piece of worthless garbage. That is exactly what it would be if the Bible were found to be spurious...garbage.

(To those who may be champing at the bit to enlighten me regarding the handful of copyist errors, primarily in Kings and Chronicles, you can save your breath. I am well aware of them.)

1.) There are many many Christians in the world who don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, but you will be hard pressed to find any who think the Bible is garbage. That's not even my perspective, not in the least.

2.) To me it sounds like you're using a slippery slope argument. If the Bible isn't perfect, then it's rubbish? That's like saying if guns can kill people, then all guns are bad and should be illegal. To reach such a conclusion takes a skip, a leap, and a hyperjump through space.

3.) I'm certainly not telling you to abandon your faith; I wouldn't want you to view any debate we have as potentially threatening to your faith. I haven't abandoned Christianity, God, or the Bible -- and I've accepted the position which you claim would destroy your faith altogether. This is a position that many Christians accept around the world -- many of whom are not liberal at all. So I think your fears are just that -- fears.

I don't want to seem to harsh with you on this; when I first came to the forum, and when I first acknowledged the possibility that I cannot prove God and that He might not exist, I claimed that if I ever became an Atheist that I would despair and commit suicide. I can tell you today that I'm not even close to becoming an Atheist, but I wholeheartedly regret those comments because they were made largely out of my own fears -- not to mention they were seen as offensive by emotionally stable and morally upright atheists.




[font=Impact]4.[/font]

You are basically saying that because we don't agree, we can't have a fruitful debate. If we agreed, we'd have no reason to debate now would we? Debate is about two different points of view about a topic being discussed.

No, I am saying that it you found the Bible to be true and accurate, then we would have a foundation on which to begin. If you do not, then any theological debate we might have would be a fruitless dialogue that would result in absolutely nothing in the end but two people's opinion who aren't any closer to agreeing with each other then when they first began.

We could have a beneficial discussion about many things, but not theology.

1.) Well regardless of my opinion on the matter, my argument and reasoning operates under the assumption that Biblical inerrancy is true -- as I have illustrated above.

2.) If all I said was, "ignore the Bible, do what you want," there wouldn't be a debate at all. But this is not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is challenging you or anyone for that matter to either live according to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy without arbitration and subjective selection -- or re-examine Biblical inerrancy and take to heart and mind the plight the LGBT community faces, perhaps accept and even love them -- without threatening them to eternal torment.

So far, all I've been confronted with is "context, context!" and "homosexuality is an eternal sin and is worse than others" or "it doesn't matter what Christians do, gays are still going to hell!" -- moot arguments all. But I suppose a request to not engage in debate is better than repeating a weak argument.

3.) The whole point of debate is to discuss and learn and share ideas -- defend positions etc. If people come here to cling to priori assumptions about the world, then they're in the wrong place. This is a debate site; there can be many fruitful debates between you and I on anything.





[font=Impact]5.[/font]

If you would like, we can start a debate in the Holy Huddle sub-forum, to discuss the "sin" of homosexuality. I will only go there to debate; that means that there must be a civil argument. I will not join so I can be personally attacked, whilst you "cheer" with joy.

Whilst I cheer with joy? I thought I explained that. I didn't cheer because it was name-calling. I cheered because it is a very fitting analogy of your positions, and it needed to be said.

As for the offer to debate, I'll pass. We cannot debate theology if you do not consider the Bible to be true. That would be like a surgeon debating an intricate medical procedure with a homeopathic chiropractor who found the peer-reviewed medical journals to be non-authoritative. I don't see the point.

1.) But you cheered for joy at an ad hominem, which you strongly believed to be true. So in my eyes, that's worse than clapping at a name. Names don't hurt as much as being accused of leading everyone to hell. That hurts a lot. I don't want anyone to go to hell; and I hope to God that he doesn't sentence them to that fate simply because we didn't agree with a doctrine.

2.) As I said before my argument assumed Biblical inerrancy is true, and debates under that assumption. We wouldn't really be debating it so much as we would be debating the "sin" of homosexuality and the rejection of gays, etc. But that's okay with me if you just don't want to debate for personal reasons. You aren't the first to refuse or back away from my offer, so it's no big deal.

Also, there is a world of difference between authoritative and infallible inerrancy.

[Darias]

I will state again that I believe homosexuality is sin. That was my position from the beggining. Darias then went on to clearly state that holding that position leads to the worst kind of evil. He states and i copy his own quote.

My whole point is that homosexuality isn't a sin -- anymore than uncovered, talking women in church are sins. Far too many homosexual individuals have been shunned and treated as if they were diseased. Far too many Christians have not shown love to the LGBT community whatsoever. They have been made to feel as if they are the worst of sinners, when we ourselves are also disobeying the commands of Paul; it's hypocrisy of the worst degree. And it's wrong.

Such thinking has produced the worst institutions known to man, chiefly, the Westboro Baptist Church, who's entire platform is "Gays doom nations." They picket the funerals of fallen soldiers. they tried to picket the funeral of the girl who died in Arizona. They believe that gays are "beasts" and that our nation is under God's wrath for tolerating homosexuals.

Here Darias that His position is that homosexuality is not sin and then goes on a rant revealing what comes from people who hold the opposing view. That Homosexuality is sin. That is my position. So without any doubt here Darias is saying that I one who believe homosexuality is sin is part of evils such as the Westboro Baptist Church. Remember Darias was clearly in a back and forth debate with me at the time. He was using the old guilt by association ploy to position me with the Westboro Baptist Church and like radicals. There can be no other interpretation.

So Darias can duck and weave all he wants but he has said what he has said and it was projected onto me.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I would again invite you and others to check out my response to your claims and your misrepresentation of me and what I said in that post.

I'm not hiding, I was clear with what I said, and I in no way equated you to that of WBC, even though that is exactly what you did to me.

I did not claim that the idea that homosexuality is a sin = WBC, either. My own parents believe homosexuality is a sin; and I don't equate them with WBC.

I was quite clear, that the idea that homosexuality is the worst of sins, the idea that gays are diseased, cursed, beasts that doom nations -- that's exactly WBC's position on homosexuality. Even if you did believe all of those things I just listed, that still doesn't make you a WBC member. But it cannot be denied that those specific priori assumptions have lead to the creation of groups who profess that type of ideology, namely the WBC.

To take that, and say that I was calling you a WBC member, or that I somehow deserved your insults about me being equally as bad as WBC, a pied piper of death, etc. -- that's overstepping it a bit.

I think it's pretty clear to everyone what was said. But I will be the first to apologize for any misunderstanding/mis-communication that may have arisen from my postings. I certainly had neither the will nor intent to insult or hurt you.

[East of Eden]

I'm not confusing it, I'm simply wondering if people who condone the violence in the Bible because it was allegedly God-ordered or approved would apply that same standard to themselves and their families. Think about it, homosexual activity is condemned in the Bible and allowed in the USA, so by that rule of three we could argue that a country that invades the USA and kills a ton of innocents may very well have been led by God as punishment, correct?

That's pretty much the Jihadist agenda. It isn't our foreign policy they hate, it's our social policy.

God used other nations to punish OT Israel, I don't think He will spare us.

[East of Eden]

I'll do you one better... Hows about you show me where anything written in the New Testament regarding Jesus can be taken as fact. (Or anything in it for that matter)

Guess what... you can't.

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[East of Eden]

How might Jesus be a "Bible-believer", when the Bible was compose decades to centuries after his death?

Have you not heard of the Old Testament? Jesus was constantly rebuking the Pharisees for not knowing or acting on it. This is from Mark 12:

24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[d]? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!�


The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown our present-day Old Testament is the same as the one Jesus would have known.