Is Matthew 21:22 blatantly wrong?

[Justin108]

Matthew 21:22 - "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

[JLB32168]

So a loving mother who prays that her missing child returns home gets a call the next day that her daughter's raped corpse was found in a gutter. Is this summum bonum?

I was just speculating. The fact of the matter is that bad things happen. The Christian accepts that this is what happens. The world is fallen. I still don’t see how the fact that bad things happen is proof that God doesn’t exist. I’ve never seen the effectiveness of that argument.

I didn't establish this. I just allowed it to be assumed for a moment in order to progress the debate. I specifically said "despite no such indication in the text"

You allowed it as a possibility because it is the only reasonable option, namely, that request, “Kill my saintly mother� couldn’t possibly be an option that the writer intended to convey.

If Matthew didn't intend to say that "you will get what you ask for" then Matthew shouldn't have sad "you will get what you ask for". As it stands, Matthew is blatantly wrong.

It would seem that Matthew assumed common sense on the part of the reading audience, which is a reasonable way for any writer to think.

[Justin108]

So a loving mother who prays that her missing child returns home gets a call the next day that her daughter's raped corpse was found in a gutter. Is this summum bonum?

I was just speculating. The fact of the matter is that bad things happen. The Christian accepts that this is what happens. The world is fallen. I still don’t see how the fact that bad things happen is proof that God doesn’t exist. I’ve never seen the effectiveness of that argument.

When did I ever make that argument? My argument is that since God does not answer all prayers from believers, Matthew 21:22 is lying. Your rebuttal was that God may decide to not answer prayers in an attempt to uphold summum bonum. I then gave you an example of where your summum bonum argument fails. I never said "bad things happen, therefore God isn't real". I said "prayers from believers go unanswered, therefore Matthew 21:22 is lying". There is a massive difference between the two arguments.

You allowed it as a possibility because it is the only reasonable option, namely, that request, “Kill my saintly mother� couldn’t possibly be an option that the writer intended to convey.

Yes, but summum bonum is not the only reasonable option. Applying summum bonum to Matthew 21:22 would make the inclusion of Matthew 21:22 utterly pointless since every prayer would not matter since God would uphold summum bonum regardless of who prays for what

It would seem that Matthew assumed common sense on the part of the reading audience, which is a reasonable way for any writer to think.

Assuming summum bonum is not common sense since summum bonum would make the entirety of Matthew 21:22 pointless. If God will uphold summum bonum at all times, then why tell us we will get what we pray for?

[Realworldjack]

Matthew 21:22 - "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

It is amazing how there are those who will extract a sentence out of the Bible, and claim it proves the Bible to be false.

This sentence you have extracted, actually comes right after Jesus had cursed a fig tree, which was said to have "withered immediately." It then goes on to say, "And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither away so soon?�

At this point it says, "So Jesus answered and said to them." Now, who is "them"? It would be the disciples who are asking the question. Jesus goes on to say to them, "“Assuredly, I say to you." Now who is the "you?" Again the "you" would be the disciples. What does He tell the disciples? " if you have faith and do not doubt." Who is the you? Again the disciples.

you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ it will be done. 22 And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.�

So as we look at the whole passage we see the "you" refers to the disciples, and is not a promise to us.

There is a law of double reference, Meaning, Although Jesus, [Or God in the Old Testament], was talking to certain people, or to a certain person, He is talking to every believer.
A proof text for that is in Mk 9: 20--23, Where Jesus was speaking to one man, when He said, "If you can believe", Then Jesus said it's for everyone, As He said,
"All things are possible to those who believe".
And Jn 14:, and Mk 16L 17--18, Although Jesus was speaking to His disciples, He meant it for everyone who believes.
Jn 14: 12, "HE that believes shall do the same works that I do".
Mk 16: 17, These signs shall follow THEM that believe".

There is a law of double reference, Meaning, Although Jesus, [Or God in the Old Testament], was talking to certain people, or to a certain person, He is talking to every believer.

I have never in all my life heard of this so called, "law of double reference?" What I have heard of is the, "law of double standard", which is exactly what this type of theology produces. This type of reckless theology, has, and continues to do great damage, not to mention that it goes against, logic, reason, and good old common sense!

It is this type of theology, that cause many Christians to struggle when these things, that were never intended to be for us, do not turn out the way in which they were recklessly taught that it would! It has also caused many to outright reject the Faith, because they are at least honest enough to understand that these things do not occur in the way in which they were recklessly taught. Then it causes those who champion such reckless theology, to come up with all sorts of excuses as to why things do not turn out as promised, such as "you must not have enough faith" or, "you are not asking in Jesus name" or "what you ask for must be Scriptural", along with all sorts of other ridiculous excuses, to cover up why their reckless theology does not in fact turn out as it should.

As it turns out, it is not difficult at all to demonstrate that not everything that Jesus said, applies to us. As I have already pointed out in another post, Jesus tells two of his disciples, "Behold, when you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house which he enters."

Now, does this so called, "law of double reference" apply here? Should I enter the city, and look for a man, carrying a pitcher of water? Why not? Well because good old common sense tells us, "Jesus was not speaking to us, therefore it does not apply." So then, if we can use good old common sense to determine this does not apply, why would we not use it with the rest of what Jesus says?

So you see, what you refer to is not a "a law of double reference", rather it is clearly the, "law of double standards!" At any rate, lets get to where the rubber meets the road.

In Mark Chapter 16 it tells us, " Afterward He, (Jesus) appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table." Now who did Jesus appear too? The eleven, right? It goes on to say, "And He said to them." Now who is, "them?" Well, it is the eleven just referred too, right?" What does Jesus go on to tell, "them?"

Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Now, does this apply to all of us as Christians? If so, are you traveling around the world, preaching the Gospel? I can't wait for this explanation! At any rate, let us continue.

The passage in Mark 16 we are referring too, goes on to tell us that, "Jesus was received up into Heaven?" Immediately, the next sentence begins, "And they." Now, who is the "they" here? It is clearly the eleven! Well what did the eleven do? It tells us,

And they (the eleven) went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, (the eleven) and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.

Now again, are you traveling around the world preaching the Gospel? Are there signs following you? Lets continue on in Scripture to see if we can find out what occurred to these eleven men, that eventually turned into twelve, as opposed to those that were saved by the message they were preaching?

In Acts, after Peter had preached his sermon, Luke tells us that many were saved through this message. Luke then is extremely careful to tell us what the Apostles were doing, as opposed to the ordinary believer.

and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.

Now, who was performing these, "signs?" The Apostles! So this is what the Apostles were doing. What was the ordinary believer doing?

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

So, Luke here seems to be careful to distinguish between what the Apostles were doing, (many signs and wonders) as opposed to what the ordinary believer was doing, (devoting themselves to the Apostles teaching).

Now one may be tempted to simply look over this, by thinking this sort of thing is only mentioned this one time, by lets see what we encounter, as we move on. Everything cited above, comes from Chapter 2 in Acts, however, when we arrive to chapter 4, we read,

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

This is what the believers were doing, but in the very next verse we read,

With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

So again, we can see the careful distinction between what the ordinary believer was doing, as opposed to what the Apostles were doing, according to Luke. But we are not done yet. As we move on to the very next chapter, which would be chapter 5, here is what we read,

The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people.

So again, who was performing the "signs and wonders?" Then in the very next sentence we read.

And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade.

So then, what we have here beginning in Mark, Jesus addressing the eleven disciples, who go on to be Apostles, and commanding them to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." Jesus then, goes on to give the "signs that will follow them." At this point the last verse in Mark tells us,

Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

Next we have Luke, who is careful, not once, not twice, but 3 different times, distinguishing between what the Apostles were doing, as opposed to the ordinary believer. The Apostles were preaching the word, and performing "many signs and wonders." The ordinary believer was "devoting themselves to the Apostles teaching, to fellowship, and having everything in common.

So again, does the command by Jesus to, "go into all the world and preach the Gospel" spoken to the "eleven" apply to all of us as Christians? And again, if so, are you traveling around the world preaching the Gospel?

If this command applies to all of us it also causes me to wonder about something else. You see, Paul was added to the Apostleship, and he certainly went around preaching the Gospel and planting Churches as he went. We have a number of Paul's letters to these Churches, and in them he gives many instructions. But not one time do I remember Paul scolding, or asking these Church members, "why they are still in their hometown, and not traveling around the world, preaching the Gospel?" If this command applies to us all, then surely Paul would not have allowed these Church members, to stay in their hometown, but for some reason, Paul neglected to say anything at all about it.

At any rate, as we can clearly see, not everything in the Bible, nor everything that Jesus said, applies to us. Rather, a careful reading of the Scripture will reveal those things that apply to us, as opposed to those that would not.

So, there really is no such thing as what you call "a law of double reference", but we all know there is a such thing as a "double standard" and this is exactly what this type of theology produces, because on the one hand it tells us, "everything in the Bible, and everything that Jesus said, applies to us today." But then on the other hand, it gives us, reasons, excuses, and explanations, as to why things do not turn out as promised. That my friend, is a "double standard!"

This type of theology, is reckless, and it is also lazy, in that it does not carefully read the text, and has cause a tremendous amount of damage! In fact, there is a member here on this site, who held this same theology, to the point he gave up what he had, to go out to the mission field, because he believe the command to, "go into all the world and preach the Gospel" applied to us all. It is a tragic story, and here it is, if you would like to read it. https://sites.google.com/site/hapticsyn ... of-my-life

So, if you are comfortable with this type of theology, then I am certainly comfortable with exposing it for exactly what it is, which is, lazy, reckless, dangerous, and has, and continues to cause a tremendous amount of damage to people's lives, as well as their eternity!

[Realworldjack]

So as we look at the whole passage we see the "you" refers to the disciples, and is not a promise to us.

I have noticed arguments like this on a regular basis being used to justify bible lies and errors. Oh it was only meant to apply to the people at the time." But when it comes to scriptures like when Jesus says "This generation shall not pass away before my return", then conveniently that applies to people 2000 years or more into the future.

The 10 commandments for instance are all directed at the people of Moses time. "THOU" (YOU) shall worship no other god but me. If we apply your logic, Jack, then all those 10 commandments only applied to Moses's people and no one else.

What about the golden rule? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I guess that only applied to the people Jesus was talking to.

It really does seem as though Christians are making excuses for bible lies and errors.

Seriously. How many scriptures do we use today and claim for this day and age that were directed at people at the time. Should we take them all as only being relevant to the people they were spoken to? Surely we have to, to maintain consistency?

How about all these? If we go by what you're saying these things said by Jesus don't apply to us today but only to those he was speaking to at the time:

-Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you
-Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me
- But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
- So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you
- Love the lord your god with all your heart
- My grace is sufficient for you

I could go on, but won't. I could do the same for Paul too, whose letters were written to SPECIFIC people and churches. We should ignore all those letters because they weren't written to us today, but only to those people in his churches at the time.

Pretty much if we go by your logic, then most of the New Testament is not relevent to us in this day and age. Most of it is directed at specific people at the time.

Oh it was only meant to apply to the people at the time.

This is not the argument at all! Rather, the argument is that, you read the Bible just as you would any other written material, and in doing so, you can determine by the context, which parts apply to all people, people in the future, people at the time, only people who were being spoken too, etc., which would include the passage you refer too, concerning the "generation that will not pass away."

This sort of thing is practiced by most people every day, when reading other written material, but all of the sudden, when the Bible is concerned, we seem to lose our ability to determine what might apply to us, as opposed to those things that would not apply to us. For some reason, when the Bible is concerned, everything that is said, must apply to all, or it is not true, when this is not the way in which other written material is treated.

The 10 commandments for instance are all directed at the people of Moses time. "THOU" (YOU) shall worship no other god but me. If we apply your logic, Jack, then all those 10 commandments only applied to Moses's people and no one else.

You are exactly right! You see, the Law was given to the Israelites, and they demonstrated their inability to uphold their end of the bargain. Therefore, when we arrive to the New Testament, we are told to let go of our efforts of keeping the Law in order to demonstrate our righteousness, because righteousness cannot be obtain by the keeping of the Law. So you see, it is not that difficult to determine who is being communicated too, and which parts apply to whom.

Therefore, when I read the giving of the Law in the Old Testament, I read it in the context that I am now in, which is the fact that "I have been set free form the Law."

The law was given to the Israelites thousands of years before Christ. After Christ, Paul tells us in Romans chapter 7, verses 4-6,

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also DIED TO THE LAW through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the LAW were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us (the law), WE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM THE LAW so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the WRITTEN CODE."

Paul refers to the "law" here 3 times, and ends by referring to "the written code" which is the "law", and what he is saying is, "the law is powerless to save us, because it is weakened by our inability to keep the law. Therefore, we are no longer enslaved to the law, but have rather been set free from it, so that we now can bear fruit to God, not out of obligation to the law, which can only condemn, by rather out of love for what has been done for us."

So again, "you are exactly right!" Now, you may think this make no sense, and that is fine, but your argument is not with me, rather it is with Paul. Our argument is over, whether everything in the Bible, must to apply to everyone.

Everything I have referred too thus far comes from Romans, but in Galatians, Paul actually is extremely harsh with this Church, because they actually were desiring to return to the law. Galatians is only five chapters long, so I suggest you read it, however allow me to give you some examples from Galatians, of what Paul had to say about the law.

1. by the works of the law no one will be justified.

2. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God

3. if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

4. For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse

5. Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God

6. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us

7. Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law

8. God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law

9. Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

10. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ

Now the question becomes. Am I attempting to make excuses for "Biblical, lies, and errors?" Or, have I simply cited exactly what is contained in the Bible?

The next question would be. Have I attempted to force a meaning upon the Bible? Or, is it you, and others who insist that everything contained in the Bible, must apply to all people throughout all time, when this is clearly not the case?

What about the golden rule? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I guess that only applied to the people Jesus was talking to.

Again, common sense! Jesus was certainly speaking to the people at the time, but as I read this, I asked myself, "would this be good advice for me?" Of course the answer is yes, therefore I attempt to practice this, although I fail many times.

It really does seem as though Christians are making excuses for bible lies and errors.

You are correct. There are many Christians who teach that all things in the Bible apply to us all, and then when things do not work out, they attempt to cover up these failings with excuses. Many people have been exposed to this type of theology, and have rejected Christianity because of it.

But my main point here is, it seems to me that many unbelievers, treat the Bible differently than they would other written material, and insist that everything in the Bible must apply to all, when they do not do this with other written material, in an attempt to cause the Bible to seem to be erroneous.

Seriously. How many scriptures do we use today and claim for this day and age that were directed at people at the time. Should we take them all as only being relevant to the people they were spoken to? Surely we have to, to maintain consistency?

You are certainly right, we must maintain, "consistency." So lets see how, "consistent" you are.

Are you "SERIOUSLY" suggesting that, "if there is one passage at all in the Bible, that is said to apply to all of us, then this therefore means that, everything in the Bible must apply to all of us?" Is this how you treat all other written material? Lets see if this is the case, in order to determine how "consistent" you are.

If you were to pick up a letter that was addressed to your close friend that lived next door, and in it you read, "the weather in your hometown will be extremely bad on, August 19th. However, no matter the weather, you are expected to be at work."

Now, would you read this letter and say, "well since the bad weather will certainly apply to me, then the whole letter must apply to me, therefore I guess I will have to show up at work, no matter the weather?" Or, would you understand the weather would certainly apply to you, but, since you do not work at the same place as your friend, "being expected to show up for work, despite the weather" would not apply to you?

So now the question is, "who is being consistent?" The one who reads all written material in the same way? Or, is it the one who says, "if there is one thing in the Bible at all, that is said to apply to us today, then it all must apply, or else it is false?" Who is being consistent?

How about all these? If we go by what you're saying these things said by Jesus don't apply to us today but only to those he was speaking to at the time:

-Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you
-Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me
- But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
- So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you
- Love the lord your god with all your heart
- My grace is sufficient for you

Well, I am certainly not going to take each and every one of these and go through each one, so let us take just one, to see if we can determine if it applies to me, which would be,

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me

This passage is taken from Matthew chapter 5, which is referred too, as the "Sermon on the Mount." Lets take a closer look. Matthew chapter 5 begins by saying,

Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them.

Now, who was it that Jesus, "began to teach?" It was His disciples, right? So, what you have cited above, is contained in this "teaching to His disciples." Jesus begins, "Blessed are you." Now, who is the "YOU?" Well, it would be those He is teaching, right? But, does this apply to me? Well, lets see if it does?

I can never think of any time where I have been, "insulted" because of Jesus. "Insulted" is a pretty strong word, and carries with it, way more than simply being made fun of, which if ever occurred to me has been very mild to say the least.

Next, I have absolutely, never even come close to being "persecuted" because of Jesus. I live in a place where I am free to worship as I please, so I have never once experienced "persecution", by any means whatsoever!

Finally, I have never had anyone say anything "falsely against me", or accuse me of "all kinds of evil" because of Jesus.

Now, does this Scripture apply to me? Apparently not, since I have never experienced such things. Would it apply to the disciples He was teaching at the time? Well according to the Bible, they all experienced these things.

So then, we have Christians who proclaim, just as you do, "if there is one passage at all in the Bible that applies to all, then everything in the Bible must apply to all, or there is inconsistency", which causes them to claim, they have experienced such things, when they have not. Then there are those such as myself, who are able to distinguish between those things that would apply to me, as opposed to those things that would not apply, just as I do with all written material. So now the question is, who is more consistent?

I could go on, but won't. I could do the same for Paul too, whose letters were written to SPECIFIC people and churches.

You are right! So lets see if you can tell us if these instructions from Paul would apply to me.

Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments. Do your best to get here before winter.

Would these things apply to me? Lets be consistent now! If this does not apply to me, then how in the world do you determine this, since "if there are things that apply to all of us in the Bible, then this therefore means, everything in the Bible must apply to all?"

Pretty much if we go by your logic, then most of the New Testament is not relevent to us in this day and age. Most of it is directed at specific people at the time.

Is this really the case? If I argue that there are certain things in the Bible that would not apply to us today, does this really necessarily mean, that none of what is said, "would be relevant today?" If so, why would this not apply to everything that is written, and not just the Bible?

[OnceConvinced]

This is not the argument at all! Rather, the argument is that, you read the Bible just as you would any other written material, and in doing so, you can determine by the context, which parts apply to all people, people in the future, people at the time, only people who were being spoken too, etc., which would include the passage you refer too, concerning the "generation that will not pass away."

This sort of thing is practiced by most people every day, when reading other written material, but all of the sudden, when the Bible is concerned, we seem to lose our ability to determine what might apply to us, as opposed to those things that would not apply to us. For some reason, when the Bible is concerned, everything that is said, must apply to all

A lot of this would come down to personal opinion. It would also be influenced on one's beliefs too and what they imagine or want. How much of "it applied to the people at the time" is said because it just can't be shown to be true in reality today?

When can we ever get to the point where we just say "the bible is wrong"? Will there ever be a point where we can say that?

The 10 commandments for instance are all directed at the people of Moses time. "THOU" (YOU) shall worship no other god but me. If we apply your logic, Jack, then all those 10 commandments only applied to Moses's people and no one else.

You are exactly right! You see, the Law was given to the Israelites, and they demonstrated their inability to uphold their end of the bargain. Therefore, when we arrive to the New Testament, we are told to let go of our efforts of keeping the Law in order to demonstrate our righteousness, because righteousness cannot be obtain by the keeping of the Law. So you see, it is not that difficult to determine who is being communicated too, and which parts apply to whom.

Yet there are many Christians who will insist it all applies to us today. (and no I'm not talking about specific instructions given to specific people to perform specific acts). Who do we turn to, to confirm whether a scripture is mean for today or for yesterday? How do we ensure that our own biases do not creep in... our own desire to make our beliefs the right ones.

Therefore, when I read the giving of the Law in the Old Testament, I read it in the context that I am now in, which is the fact that "I have been set free form the Law."

Ok, so when it comes to the first commandment that no longer applies to you now? You can go around worshipping other gods now?

You're allowed to take the lord's name in vain now too? You can even kill, steal, lie and commit adultery... because you are no longer bound by those rules?

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also DIED TO THE LAW through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the LAW were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us (the law), WE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM THE LAW so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the WRITTEN CODE."

Paul refers to the "law" here 3 times, and ends by referring to "the written code" which is the "law", and what he is saying is, "the law is powerless to save us, because it is weakened by our inability to keep the law. Therefore, we are no longer enslaved to the law, but have rather been set free from it, so that we now can bear fruit to God, not out of obligation to the law, which can only condemn, by rather out of love for what has been done for us."

Did Paul say it was ok to start worshipping other gods? Did he say you are now allowed to lie, steal, kill, commit adultery... erect graven images?

So again, "you are exactly right!" Now, you may think this make no sense, and that is fine, but your argument is not with me, rather it is with Paul. Our argument is over, whether everything in the Bible, must to apply to everyone.

Who says Paul's letters are directed at us today? They were written to specific churches back in those days. Specific people. Perhaps it is only those Christians from way back then who were not bound by the law? These letters weren't written to you, you know?

What I see here is double standards.

Everything I have referred too thus far comes from Romans, but in Galatians, Paul actually is extremely harsh with this Church, because they actually were desiring to return to the law. Galatians is only five chapters long, so I suggest you read it, however allow me to give you some examples from Galatians, of what Paul had to say about the law.

Are you a Galatian? Are you are Roman? Why would you ever think this letter was aimed at you and not simply the Galatians and the Romans?

See what I am getting at? You are quite happy to take letters written to specific people and claim they apply to us today.

Now the question becomes. Am I attempting to make excuses for "Biblical, lies, and errors?" Or, have I simply cited exactly what is contained in the Bible?

It seems to me you have applied blatant double standards. Take some parts of the bible as being relevant to you, while others are not. Letters to specific people groups or persons would seem to be the most likely things we should take as not being relevant to us today, 2000 years later in completely different countries.

However I am doing what you said you are doing. Taking Matthew 21:22 and citing exactly what it says. Jesus own words. If Jesus's own words are not meant for us today why on earth would you think Paul's words would be?

The next question would be. Have I attempted to force a meaning upon the Bible?

You have indeed. You have taken Paul's words to add different messages to what earlier scriptures tell us. To try to say that the law was a curse. Jesus never said that the law was a curse. At least not that I can recall. In fact he said he'd come to fulfill the law.

Or, is it you, and others who insist that everything contained in the Bible, must apply to all people throughout all time, when this is clearly not the case?

Actually I would say that little of it at all is relevant to us today. I would just like to see some consistency when Christians attempt to pull out scripture and try to claim it's either for us today or not for us. Quoting Paul is not helping your argument at all as his words were clearly directed at specific people groups.

What about the golden rule? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I guess that only applied to the people Jesus was talking to.

Again, common sense! Jesus was certainly speaking to the people at the time, but as I read this, I asked myself, "would this be good advice for me?" Of course the answer is yes, therefore I attempt to practice this, although I fail many times.

There is a discussion about this somewhere on the site and many disagree that it's good advice. There are major problems with it. But whether it's common sense or not is irrelevant. Just because Jesus said it to the people at the time did not mean he intended it to be a rule that we all follow today. At least not that anyone can say for sure.

Perhaps we need to differentiate between intended and relevent? When Jesus made the golden rule we might say it's relevent for us today, but we cannot prove that Jesus intended this rule to apply to us today. In fact I seriously doubt he expected the world to be around 2000 years later.

It really does seem as though Christians are making excuses for bible lies and errors.

You are correct. There are many Christians who teach that all things in the Bible apply to us all, and then when things do not work out, they attempt to cover up these failings with excuses.

Yes. One common ruse is redefine or retranslate the words to something else or to take scriptures from other parts of the bible to change the meaning of another verse somewhere else. Or to claim they are metaphors.

There are other Christians though who use a different strategy and that's to say certain scriptures DON'T actually apply to us today.

But my main point here is, it seems to me that many unbelievers, treat the Bible differently than they would other written material, and insist that everything in the Bible must apply to all, when they do not do this with other written material, in an attempt to cause the Bible to seem to be erroneous.

But it's not us made that claim originally.. It was Christians who originally made those claims, Particularly the fundamentalists. They are the ones saying we should take ALL of it as God's word to us. We are simply pointing out the fundamentalist belief. Sure, there are Christians who aren't fundamentalists, but it seems that the argument that the bible is the infallible word of god and it applies to us today, seems to be the claim we hear the most. So we tend to take that argument and go with it.

Are you "SERIOUSLY" suggesting that, "if there is one passage at all in the Bible, that is said to apply to all of us,

Nope, not me but there are many Christians that claim it's God's infallible word to us and it all applies to us. They just come up with a lot of apologetics for the bits that can't be shown to be true at face value.

then this therefore means that, everything in the Bible must apply to all of us?" Is this how you treat all other written material? Lets see if this is the case, in order to determine how "consistent" you are.

I see the bible as nothing but man's fallible opinion. I don't see it as any thing God would want to tell us. However Christians seem to insist we should be taking it seriously and that if we don't we will go to Hell.

If you were to pick up a letter that was addressed to your close friend that lived next door, and in it you read, "the weather in your hometown will be extremely bad on, August 19th. However, no matter the weather, you are expected to be at work."

Now, would you read this letter and say, "well since the bad weather will certainly apply to me, then the whole letter must apply to me, therefore I guess I will have to show up at work, no matter the weather?" Or, would you understand the weather would certainly apply to you, but, since you do not work at the same place as your friend, "being expected to show up for work, despite the weather" would not apply to you?

We are talking letters here? No, I would not take that letter as being relevent to me. Same applies to Paul's letters to the churches. If you are going to use this analogy, why are you taking Paul's letters seriously? They weren't written to you. They were written to groups of Christians 2000 years ago.

So perhaps the law does still apply to you today?

So now the question is, "who is being consistent?"

Certainly not you. LOL. You were the one quoting from Paul's letters as though they were written to you.

The one who reads all written material in the same way? Or, is it the one who says, "if there is one thing in the Bible at all, that is said to apply to us today, then it all must apply, or else it is false?" Who is being consistent?

How about we use this consistency? None of the bible was intended for us today. It was all intended for people 2000 years ago, including the rules of salvation and including the promise of Jesus's return. I'm sure the preterists will back me up about that last bit anyway. Some may be relevant still... like the golden rule, but I think we can't go wrong if we say none of it was intended for us today. I think that would be a very sensible path to take.

How about all these? If we go by what you're saying these things said by Jesus don't apply to us today but only to those he was speaking to at the time:

-Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you
-Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me
- But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
- So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you
- Love the lord your god with all your heart
- My grace is sufficient for you

Well, I am certainly not going to take each and every one of these and go through each one, so let us take just one, to see if we can determine if it applies to me, which would be,

One that you feel you can defend? I will note that you MAY not be able to defend the others.

You are right! So lets see if you can tell us if these instructions from Paul would apply to me.

I don't see how any of Paul's instructions can apply to you today. The letter was not written to you. Just as that letter addressed to my friend was not written to me.

Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments. Do your best to get here before winter.

Would these things apply to me?

This is hardly comparing apples to apples. This is a specific command to a specific person that is to take place at a specific time. I'm sure we can all agree that such a specific command does not apply to us today. Matthew 21:22 was not that specific.

Lets be consistent now! If this does not apply to me, then how in the world do you determine this, since "if there are things that apply to all of us in the Bible, then this therefore means, everything in the Bible must apply to all?"

How about we just say that none of the bible applies to you? After all that would be my stance. Can we apply that consistency?

Pretty much if we go by your logic, then most of the New Testament is not relevent to us in this day and age. Most of it is directed at specific people at the time.

Is this really the case? If I argue that there are certain things in the Bible that would not apply to us today, does this really necessarily mean, that none of what is said, "would be relevant today?" If so, why would this not apply to everything that is written, and not just the Bible?

Perhaps the most sensible thing is to take the stance that none of the bible writers were intending people 2000 years into the future to be reading and living by what they said? Paul certainly wasn't. He was expecting the end to come in his life time.

We can take certain pieces of common sense (like the golden rule) and apply it today yes, but that does not mean that the writers intended it to apply to us personally today. For instance, Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. Why should we take that as being for us today? Where is the common sense in that?

[Realworldjack]

This is not the argument at all! Rather, the argument is that, you read the Bible just as you would any other written material, and in doing so, you can determine by the context, which parts apply to all people, people in the future, people at the time, only people who were being spoken too, etc., which would include the passage you refer too, concerning the "generation that will not pass away."

This sort of thing is practiced by most people every day, when reading other written material, but all of the sudden, when the Bible is concerned, we seem to lose our ability to determine what might apply to us, as opposed to those things that would not apply to us. For some reason, when the Bible is concerned, everything that is said, must apply to all

A lot of this would come down to personal opinion. It would also be influenced on one's beliefs too and what they imagine or want. How much of "it applied to the people at the time" is said because it just can't be shown to be true in reality today?

When can we ever get to the point where we just say "the bible is wrong"? Will there ever be a point where we can say that?

The 10 commandments for instance are all directed at the people of Moses time. "THOU" (YOU) shall worship no other god but me. If we apply your logic, Jack, then all those 10 commandments only applied to Moses's people and no one else.

You are exactly right! You see, the Law was given to the Israelites, and they demonstrated their inability to uphold their end of the bargain. Therefore, when we arrive to the New Testament, we are told to let go of our efforts of keeping the Law in order to demonstrate our righteousness, because righteousness cannot be obtain by the keeping of the Law. So you see, it is not that difficult to determine who is being communicated too, and which parts apply to whom.

Yet there are many Christians who will insist it all applies to us today. (and no I'm not talking about specific instructions given to specific people to perform specific acts). Who do we turn to, to confirm whether a scripture is mean for today or for yesterday? How do we ensure that our own biases do not creep in... our own desire to make our beliefs the right ones.

Therefore, when I read the giving of the Law in the Old Testament, I read it in the context that I am now in, which is the fact that "I have been set free form the Law."

Ok, so when it comes to the first commandment that no longer applies to you now? You can go around worshipping other gods now?

You're allowed to take the lord's name in vain now too? You can even kill, steal, lie and commit adultery... because you are no longer bound by those rules?

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also DIED TO THE LAW through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the LAW were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us (the law), WE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM THE LAW so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the WRITTEN CODE."

Paul refers to the "law" here 3 times, and ends by referring to "the written code" which is the "law", and what he is saying is, "the law is powerless to save us, because it is weakened by our inability to keep the law. Therefore, we are no longer enslaved to the law, but have rather been set free from it, so that we now can bear fruit to God, not out of obligation to the law, which can only condemn, by rather out of love for what has been done for us."

Did Paul say it was ok to start worshipping other gods? Did he say you are now allowed to lie, steal, kill, commit adultery... erect graven images?

So again, "you are exactly right!" Now, you may think this make no sense, and that is fine, but your argument is not with me, rather it is with Paul. Our argument is over, whether everything in the Bible, must to apply to everyone.

Who says Paul's letters are directed at us today? They were written to specific churches back in those days. Specific people. Perhaps it is only those Christians from way back then who were not bound by the law? These letters weren't written to you, you know?

What I see here is double standards.

Everything I have referred too thus far comes from Romans, but in Galatians, Paul actually is extremely harsh with this Church, because they actually were desiring to return to the law. Galatians is only five chapters long, so I suggest you read it, however allow me to give you some examples from Galatians, of what Paul had to say about the law.

Are you a Galatian? Are you are Roman? Why would you ever think this letter was aimed at you and not simply the Galatians and the Romans?

See what I am getting at? You are quite happy to take letters written to specific people and claim they apply to us today.

Now the question becomes. Am I attempting to make excuses for "Biblical, lies, and errors?" Or, have I simply cited exactly what is contained in the Bible?

It seems to me you have applied blatant double standards. Take some parts of the bible as being relevant to you, while others are not. Letters to specific people groups or persons would seem to be the most likely things we should take as not being relevant to us today, 2000 years later in completely different countries.

However I am doing what you said you are doing. Taking Matthew 21:22 and citing exactly what it says. Jesus own words. If Jesus's own words are not meant for us today why on earth would you think Paul's words would be?

The next question would be. Have I attempted to force a meaning upon the Bible?

You have indeed. You have taken Paul's words to add different messages to what earlier scriptures tell us. To try to say that the law was a curse. Jesus never said that the law was a curse. At least not that I can recall. In fact he said he'd come to fulfill the law.

Or, is it you, and others who insist that everything contained in the Bible, must apply to all people throughout all time, when this is clearly not the case?

Actually I would say that little of it at all is relevant to us today. I would just like to see some consistency when Christians attempt to pull out scripture and try to claim it's either for us today or not for us. Quoting Paul is not helping your argument at all as his words were clearly directed at specific people groups.

What about the golden rule? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I guess that only applied to the people Jesus was talking to.

Again, common sense! Jesus was certainly speaking to the people at the time, but as I read this, I asked myself, "would this be good advice for me?" Of course the answer is yes, therefore I attempt to practice this, although I fail many times.

There is a discussion about this somewhere on the site and many disagree that it's good advice. There are major problems with it. But whether it's common sense or not is irrelevant. Just because Jesus said it to the people at the time did not mean he intended it to be a rule that we all follow today. At least not that anyone can say for sure.

Perhaps we need to differentiate between intended and relevent? When Jesus made the golden rule we might say it's relevent for us today, but we cannot prove that Jesus intended this rule to apply to us today. In fact I seriously doubt he expected the world to be around 2000 years later.

It really does seem as though Christians are making excuses for bible lies and errors.

You are correct. There are many Christians who teach that all things in the Bible apply to us all, and then when things do not work out, they attempt to cover up these failings with excuses.

Yes. One common ruse is redefine or retranslate the words to something else or to take scriptures from other parts of the bible to change the meaning of another verse somewhere else. Or to claim they are metaphors.

There are other Christians though who use a different strategy and that's to say certain scriptures DON'T actually apply to us today.

But my main point here is, it seems to me that many unbelievers, treat the Bible differently than they would other written material, and insist that everything in the Bible must apply to all, when they do not do this with other written material, in an attempt to cause the Bible to seem to be erroneous.

But it's not us made that claim originally.. It was Christians who originally made those claims, Particularly the fundamentalists. They are the ones saying we should take ALL of it as God's word to us. We are simply pointing out the fundamentalist belief. Sure, there are Christians who aren't fundamentalists, but it seems that the argument that the bible is the infallible word of god and it applies to us today, seems to be the claim we hear the most. So we tend to take that argument and go with it.

Are you "SERIOUSLY" suggesting that, "if there is one passage at all in the Bible, that is said to apply to all of us,

Nope, not me but there are many Christians that claim it's God's infallible word to us and it all applies to us. They just come up with a lot of apologetics for the bits that can't be shown to be true at face value.

then this therefore means that, everything in the Bible must apply to all of us?" Is this how you treat all other written material? Lets see if this is the case, in order to determine how "consistent" you are.

I see the bible as nothing but man's fallible opinion. I don't see it as any thing God would want to tell us. However Christians seem to insist we should be taking it seriously and that if we don't we will go to Hell.

If you were to pick up a letter that was addressed to your close friend that lived next door, and in it you read, "the weather in your hometown will be extremely bad on, August 19th. However, no matter the weather, you are expected to be at work."

Now, would you read this letter and say, "well since the bad weather will certainly apply to me, then the whole letter must apply to me, therefore I guess I will have to show up at work, no matter the weather?" Or, would you understand the weather would certainly apply to you, but, since you do not work at the same place as your friend, "being expected to show up for work, despite the weather" would not apply to you?

We are talking letters here? No, I would not take that letter as being relevent to me. Same applies to Paul's letters to the churches. If you are going to use this analogy, why are you taking Paul's letters seriously? They weren't written to you. They were written to groups of Christians 2000 years ago.

So perhaps the law does still apply to you today?

So now the question is, "who is being consistent?"

Certainly not you. LOL. You were the one quoting from Paul's letters as though they were written to you.

The one who reads all written material in the same way? Or, is it the one who says, "if there is one thing in the Bible at all, that is said to apply to us today, then it all must apply, or else it is false?" Who is being consistent?

How about we use this consistency? None of the bible was intended for us today. It was all intended for people 2000 years ago, including the rules of salvation and including the promise of Jesus's return. I'm sure the preterists will back me up about that last bit anyway. Some may be relevant still... like the golden rule, but I think we can't go wrong if we say none of it was intended for us today. I think that would be a very sensible path to take.

How about all these? If we go by what you're saying these things said by Jesus don't apply to us today but only to those he was speaking to at the time:

-Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you
-Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me
- But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
- So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you
- Love the lord your god with all your heart
- My grace is sufficient for you

Well, I am certainly not going to take each and every one of these and go through each one, so let us take just one, to see if we can determine if it applies to me, which would be,

One that you feel you can defend? I will note that you MAY not be able to defend the others.

You are right! So lets see if you can tell us if these instructions from Paul would apply to me.

I don't see how any of Paul's instructions can apply to you today. The letter was not written to you. Just as that letter addressed to my friend was not written to me.

Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments. Do your best to get here before winter.

Would these things apply to me?

This is hardly comparing apples to apples. This is a specific command to a specific person that is to take place at a specific time. I'm sure we can all agree that such a specific command does not apply to us today. Matthew 21:22 was not that specific.

Lets be consistent now! If this does not apply to me, then how in the world do you determine this, since "if there are things that apply to all of us in the Bible, then this therefore means, everything in the Bible must apply to all?"

How about we just say that none of the bible applies to you? After all that would be my stance. Can we apply that consistency?

Pretty much if we go by your logic, then most of the New Testament is not relevent to us in this day and age. Most of it is directed at specific people at the time.

Is this really the case? If I argue that there are certain things in the Bible that would not apply to us today, does this really necessarily mean, that none of what is said, "would be relevant today?" If so, why would this not apply to everything that is written, and not just the Bible?

Perhaps the most sensible thing is to take the stance that none of the bible writers were intending people 2000 years into the future to be reading and living by what they said? Paul certainly wasn't. He was expecting the end to come in his life time.

We can take certain pieces of common sense (like the golden rule) and apply it today yes, but that does not mean that the writers intended it to apply to us personally today. For instance, Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. Why should we take that as being for us today? Where is the common sense in that?

This is not the argument at all! Rather, the argument is that, you read the Bible just as you would any other written material, and in doing so, you can determine by the context, which parts apply to all people, people in the future, people at the time, only people who were being spoken too, etc., which would include the passage you refer too, concerning the "generation that will not pass away."

This sort of thing is practiced by most people every day, when reading other written material, but all of the sudden, when the Bible is concerned, we seem to lose our ability to determine what might apply to us, as opposed to those things that would not apply to us. For some reason, when the Bible is concerned, everything that is said, must apply to all

A lot of this would come down to personal opinion.

I think it may be best for us to focus on one point at a time. Do you really believe it all, "would come down to personal opinion?" Lets see if you really believe this by using an analogy.

Lets just say you own a car dealership. Lets also imagine you send out a letter to all your salesmen which says, "anyone who sales more than 20 cars this month, will receive a $10,000 bonus."

Now lets say, a salesman from another dealership who has sold this number of cars for his dealership, happens to read this letter, comes to you, expecting to receive this same reward, and tells you, in his opinion, "this reward should apply to anyone who sold this amount of cars, no matter what dealership they work for."

Now, would you respect his opinion? Or, would you explain to him, "this reward only applied to those salesmen that you happen to employ?"

If you say you, "would not respect his opinion, and would not give him the reward", then you are admitting that, it does not, "come down to personal opinion", but would rather come down to the intent of the author!

With this being the case, why would you insist that, "everything in the Bible, must apply to everyone, or else it must be false?"

This is clearly not the case! Even if there are Christians who claim this is the case, does not mean in any way that you are not intelligent enough to understand that they are in error!

[OnceConvinced]

A lot of this would come down to personal opinion.

I think it may be best for us to focus on one point at a time. Do you really believe it all, "would come down to personal opinion?" Lets see if you really believe this by using an analogy.

Lets just say you own a car dealership. Lets also imagine you send out a letter to all your salesmen which says, "anyone who sales more than 20 cars this month, will receive a $10,000 bonus."

Now lets say, a salesman from another dealership who has sold this number of cars for his dealership, happens to read this letter, comes to you, expecting to receive this same reward, and tells you, in his opinion, "this reward should apply to anyone who sold this amount of cars, no matter what dealership they work for."

Now, would you respect his opinion? Or, would you explain to him, "this reward only applied to those salesmen that you happen to employ?"

If you say you, "would not respect his opinion, and would not give him the reward", then you are admitting that, it does not, "come down to personal opinion", but would rather come down to the intent of the author!

With this being the case, why would you insist that, "everything in the Bible, must apply to everyone, or else it must be false?"

You miss something important in this analogy. This is a letter that was sent out 2000 years ago. The person reading this letter doesn't even work for a car dealership. No can we communicate with the owner to clarify.

We are someone 2000 years later who has just picked up this letter and the letter isn't as clear as what you are making out.

The letter of course can no way be intended to relate to anyone 2000 years into the future. It was never intended for us to read or to apply to us today. But then neither are any of the other letters that were written to people 2000 years ago.

The example of Matt 21:22 is not as specific as the letter you have in your example anyway. It is not saying anything anywhere near as specific. So it's not really comparing apples to apples.

The main problem with your scenario is that you are already presuming that Matt 21:22 is intended for one car dealership only. That is where you are bringing your opinion into it. However Matt isn't a letter is it? The words from Jesus could be a sermon that is meant to apply to any Christian (Just like the Sermon on the Mount). But once again whether it is or isn't, is really a matter of opinion and nothing that can be verified by you or I. We can't know for sure as we can't speak to him about it. (unlike the car dealer owner which we can speak to)

This is clearly not the case! Even if there are Christians who claim this is the case, does not mean in any way that you are not intelligent enough to understand that they are in error!

So we can't consider that Jesus's assurance was actually the thing that was in error? Perhaps he was simply deluded when he made those proclamations and that they were just not true in reality? Do we even know that the people he spoke to got everything they asked for in prayer? We don't. For all we know they didn't. For all we know they DID sell 20 cars but still didn't get their bonus.

Seriously though. Let's get back to this whole letter issue. You are the one who wants to use the analogy of letters and how they are intended for the people they were written to. How about we apply the same logic to the letters of the New Testament? Paul's letters to specific churches. Letters to specific people. Why should we ever take anything that is written in those letters as intended for us today? Going by your logic we shouldn't. Going by what you say we should simply tear out all those letters from the bible as none of them were intended for us today. They were ALL intended for the people the were written to at the time.

[JehovahsWitness]

Matthew 21:22 - "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

That would depend on how one interprets the verse, ie

- to whom does the "you" apply? (those he was speaking to direcly are long dead and nobody alive today can claim to have been present when the wordss were allegedly spoken)

- is "whatever" used in absolute or relative terms?

jw

[Justin108]

Matthew 21:22 - "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

That would depend on how one interprets the verse, ie

- to whom does the "you" apply? (those he was speaking to direcly are long dead and nobody alive today can claim to have been present when the wordss were allegedly spoken)

- is "whatever" used in absolute or relative terms?

jw

While you may have a point regarding who the "you" applies to, the "whatever" suggests at the very least miraculous feats, considering how this verse follows Jesus' cursing of the fig tree

[JehovahsWitness]

Matthew 21:22 - "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

That would depend on how one interprets the verse, ie

- to whom does the "you" apply? (those he was speaking to direcly are long dead and nobody alive today can claim to have been present when the wordss were allegedly spoken)

- is "whatever" used in absolute or relative terms?

jw

While you may have a point regarding who the "you" applies to, the "whatever" suggests at the very least miraculous feats, considering how this verse follows Jesus' cursing of the fig tree

As I said, that would depend on if "whatever" is taken in absolute or relative terms. If absolute, whatever while still being subject to the self imposed limits of the asker could well include miracles. If "whatever" is relative the it may not.

To illustrate: A man vows to his lover "Whatever you want, I'll do for you!" if he was understood to be speaking in absolute terms, he is willing to rape his baby sister, kill the President, kill himself, gut and kill her. If in relative terms there would be implied limits to "whatever".

In a similar way, one has first to decide on what terms the promise was made; only then can a conclusion be drawn as to whether the words were true or not.


JW