Sola Scriptura, Gradation of Sin, and Zeal for Truth

[WolfandShadow]

I am a close friend of rapture forums user Grape on the Vine. I followed many of the posts regarding alleged heretic Rob Bell, and was deeply disturbed by much of what I read. I don't know if many of the same users who posted on the thread concerning Mr. Bell have read this thread, but I wanted to try to offer some of my thoughts on what I took to be some very serious issues, and this seemed (given the tone of the afformentioned thread) to be the place.

The first issue I wish to address is that of sola scriptura (i.e., the idea that the bible alone is the sole repository of truth). I think many of the users were quite correct to say that the bible should be the ultimate authority. I would even agree that all other truth claims must be tested in light of God's inspired word. That having been said, I cannot agree that it is the only means by which one can know truth. First, if that were the case, we could not take with any sort of confidence many other truth claims that we know in fact to be true. It would mean we couldn't say that any other event recorded in history could be considerred believeable because the bible didn't say so. It would mean that knowledge of mathematics and science couldn't be accepted because the bible doesn't say so. This, I submit, is ludicrous.

The common proof text brandished here was 2 Timothy 3:16: "16(A)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;". Some translations even put it that the scriptures are usefull for training in ALL righteousness. Now I take this to true with every fiber of my being. But what I cannot accept is what the text does not say, viz., that scripture ALONE teaches truth. It may teach all truths (at least those relevant to correction, divinity, and moral/spiritual formation), but that it is the only thing that does this (even if we grant that all of it does this without error), is simply not in the text. It is a frightening analogue to pharasaical thinking to assert that it does.

Moreover, the scripture itself cites approvingly extra biblical sources. Jude (whom tradition tells us was a physical half-brother of Jesus) quotes the book of Enoch (Jude 9,14) as depicting truth about the spiritual realm. Yet both the Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches reject Enoch as divinely inspired; and they classify it as pseudapigraphical. If the human agents, just so many willing pens in the hand of the Holy Spirit, could assert spiritual truths from sources not found in their own cannon, why are we so leary about proclaiming truths found in other texts and religious movements outside of our own? None of this is to deny that Christian Theism is absolutely true, or that other religious views are true to. I believe in the absolute nature of truth, and that the opposite of true is false. As such, I agree that if a worldview is diametrically opposed to Christianity, it must be false. This, however, does not mean that there aren't grains of truth that we can take (and dare I say learn from) in other religious movements.

Secondly, I want to confront the oft repeated remark that all sin is the same in the eyes of God. To be modest, if that remark were transposed into a question (viz., is all sin the same?) the answer would have to be yes and no, depending on what you mean. Most of the commentors on the issue on the thread in question never bothered (at least that I noticed) to actually offer any scriptural support for their position. One possible hanger to rest their harmartiological coat on would be Paul's quotation of Deut.27:26 in Gal 3:10. Here, Paul affirms that those who do not abide by all that is written in the law are cursed. A stretch, but possible. Perhaps more clearly, we could've quoted James (another half-brother of the Lord) in the tenth and eleventh verse of the second chapter of his book. There, James clearly states, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultrey,' said also, 'Do not kill.' If you do not commit adultrey but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law."

Now I strongly believe that scripture, rightly understood, does not contradict itself. As such, proponents of the "all sin the same" view must deal with verses which talk about greater punishments for certain evils, greater sins, weightier matters of the law, etc. (cf. Ezek 8:6,13,15; Matt 5:19; 23:23; John 19:11). Moreover, I would agree that the idea that shoplifting a stick of gum is morally equitable to the rape of a two year old girl is an absolue afront to our moral intuitions.

So how do we unravel this apparent contradiction? the yes-or-no-depending on what you mean answer may be found in the second half the quotation from James. As grape on the vine pointed out, all sin is the same IN THE SENSE THAT it all is a transgression of the law. It is all a shape of disobedience to God. That does not mean, however, that all sin is disobedience to God IN THE SAME WAY. There are number of ways to kill a man. Perhaps you slip him a simple drug that lulls him into a terminal coma. Fairly painless. But, you may torture him to death while convincing him with psychological tactics that his family never really loved him. It is a depraved logic indeed that asserts both modes of murder are the same. True, if you killed a man, you killed a man. But one shape is much more insidious than the other. This seems to me, at least, to be painfully clear.

Finally, I want to challenge the claim that Rob Bell does not believe in the virgin birth as a road to get us to his salient point. In the immediately preceeding passage from which that Bell quote is taken, Bell AFFIRMS every jot and tittle of the Nicene Creed. Bell is offering what philosphers call a thought experiment. He is appealing to carefull analysis of what history could show, along with what a carefull analysis of what scripture could actually be saying when considerred in it's native language and context. Would we have the guts to go where the truth led us? Martin Luther did. The other Reformers did. So what is our problem?
Have we fallen so in love with our traditions that when someone carefully reading both the bible and nature even suggests that they might be wrong, we can't give up on it? Is not the replacement of Gods truth with our traditions really just a type of idolatry? As Martin Luther said, "Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your god." I would prefer to follow the truth wherever it led me. As Luther also said to the tradition idolaters of his day, " Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me." And finally, to quote contemporary Christian poet Aaron Weiss, "...we hunger, though all that we eat brings no relief. We don't know quite what else to do! We have all our beliefs, but we don't want our beliefs! God of peace, we want you."

[Sing4Him]

I think many of the users were quite correct to say that the bible should be the ultimate authority. I would even agree that all other truth claims must be tested in light of God's inspired word. That having been said, I cannot agree that it is the only means by which one can know truth. First, if that were the case, we could not take with any sort of confidence many other truth claims that we know in fact to be true

Right here lies the big ERROR.

What is it?
God's word, The Bible is inerrant. Man's writings are ERRANT--faulty. They can not be relied on.

Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. "Notice that Jesus speaks about what is written regarding him in the Old Testament. Then John the apostle writes that Jesus opened their mind to understand the Scriptures. What Scriptures? The Law (Moses), the prophets, and the Psalms. This was a common designation for the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus says that the written form of the Old Testament is Scripture. Jesus goes on to deal with the religious leaders who would violate these scriptures which he called "the word of God."

Matt 15:6, "he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."
Mark 7:13, "thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
John 10:35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)."
Jesus never said the scriptures contain the word of God. He said they were the word of God.
-Christian Research and Apologetics Ministry

[Sing4Him]

Finally, I want to challenge the claim that Rob Bell does not believe in the virgin birth as a road to get us to his salient point

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?

But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?
What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart? (026,027)

“But if the whole faith fails apart when we reexamine it and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?"

Dick Van Dale of Reformation 21 said in his own review of VE:

In other words, Bell advocates a faith that can embrace heterodoxy. This faith can “go on jumping” even if it were shown that Jesus was born of Larry and the gospel writers knowingly “threw in” myth...
The issue of orthodoxy, however, is not simply what one personally chooses to believe concerning Christ, but what he considers is necessary to believe concerning Christ. The church has historically understood the creeds to be a summary of what is necessary to believe in order to be an orthodox Christian.
The Apostles and Nicene creeds both clearly profess that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit as a necessary component of true faith. A literal, virgin birth, as a necessary doctrine, is not simply a hang-up of modernistic evangelicalism. It has been a part of the universal church’s profession throughout the ages. By failing to insist on a literal virgin birth as part of what it is necessary to believe, Bell has taken the well-traveled road of liberalism.Let me show you what is at stake in this issue of the Virgin Birth of Christ. First, our Creator God had to come into this cursed creation because of our blatant sin and rebellion in order to provide the way of salvation for His Own. So yeah Rob, the true Christian will exhibit righteous indignation at you suggesting that Christ Jesus of Nazareth – the only Son from the Father (monogenes para Patros [John 1:14]) and God; the only God (Theon monogenes theos [John 1:18])–try a little Greek for a change Rob–is simply dismissed in your feeble attempt to illustrate your heavily anthropocentric leanings.

You see, the absolute truth is that the text of the Bible is fully inspired in all its parts e.g. right down to the very tenses of the Greek verbs God the Holy Spirit moved His chosen vessels to use. The New Testament wasn’t written in Hebrew, so while “Rabbi” Rob wows those who don’t know any better, the Virgin Birth is critical to the Christian faith. If Jesus of Nazareth is not fully God and fully Man by means of Mary being found to be with child from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, Greek) then we simply have a human man with a sinful human nature the same as anyone else.

Not only that, but Jesus would not have been able to die for anyone else’s sins because this Jesus would have been a sinner himself. And on top of that a human man could not die for the sins for another because sin is committed against God, so only God Himself could die for the forgiveness of sins committed against Him. Take away the Virgin Birth and we only have a mortal man with a sin nature who could never have saved anybody. So how could a real pastor-teacher sent by our Lord demean Christ in such a way...answer: He couldn’t.

http://www.apprising.org/archives/20...ll_atramp.html

[Sing4Him]

He is appealing to carefull analysis of what history could show, along with what a carefull analysis of what scripture could actually be saying when considerred in it's native language and context. Would we have the guts to go where the truth led us?

He is appealing to Men using Bell-Methodogy and perversion of scripture. Blasphemy of God's word.

There is only ONE way to eternal life.
We are sinners. We need to REPENT and ask Jesus to be our Lord and Savior.

There is only ONE way.. not surmised and varient methods of man coming to the cross.
The Son of God, Jesus was sinless as He is God.
He took our sins upon Himself. That is why God sent Him.. the Savior. He gives us eternal life upon confession of our sins and asking Him to be our Savior.

There are no variances and man's new interpretations on how to receive eternal life.

The Kingdom of God will not be upon this earth unto Jesus Christ reigns in the millenium.

Bell perverts scripture. He is an apostate preacher.

[BuzzardHut]

We don't promote Bell and the Emergent cult heretics here.

[Sing4Him]

We don't promote Bell and the Emergent cult heretics here.

Thank you Buzz and praise Jesus, Son of God, Savior.

[Ruth]

Moreover, the scripture itself cites approvingly extra biblical sources. Jude (whom tradition tells us was a physical half-brother of Jesus) quotes the book of Enoch (Jude 9,14) as depicting truth about the spiritual realm. Yet both the Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches reject Enoch as divinely inspired; and they classify it as pseudapigraphical. If the human agents, just so many willing pens in the hand of the Holy Spirit, could assert spiritual truths from sources not found in their own cannon, why are we so leary about proclaiming truths found in other texts and religious movements outside of our own? None of this is to deny that Christian Theism is absolutely true, or that other religious views are true to. I believe in the absolute nature of truth, and that the opposite of true is false. As such, I agree that if a worldview is diametrically opposed to Christianity, it must be false. This, however, does not mean that there aren't grains of truth that we can take (and dare I say learn from) in other religious movements.

The scripture you are referring to here is:

Jude: 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.

11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

This is not quoting from the book of Enoch perse - as the one which was not adopted by the catholic religion or the protestant denominations. It is quoting Enoch. There are other passages that describe words spoken by the greats of the old testament that do not actually appear in scripture but it is accepted as fact because the scriptures are inspired by God and God knows all that was said by everyone and it didn't have to be written down for it to be quoted later. God can confidently quote what was said from His memory.

If the 'book of Enoch' was developed that contained these words but contained other words not fully inspired by God but instead a work of the enemy weaving the words in to give it an appearance of authenticity as all heretical writings have enough truth to pass by the ones who do not discern with their heart - then you cannot possibly say this is scripture is referring to 'the book of Enoch' as we know it today.

[Ort]

Right here lies the big ERROR.

What is it?
God's word, The Bible is inerrant. Man's writings are ERRANT--faulty. They can not be relied on.

Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. "Notice that Jesus speaks about what is written regarding him in the Old Testament. Then John the apostle writes that Jesus opened their mind to understand the Scriptures. What Scriptures? The Law (Moses), the prophets, and the Psalms. This was a common designation for the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus says that the written form of the Old Testament is Scripture. Jesus goes on to deal with the religious leaders who would violate these scriptures which he called "the word of God."

Matt 15:6, "he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."
Mark 7:13, "thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
John 10:35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)."
Jesus never said the scriptures contain the word of God. He said they were the word of God.
-Christian Research and Apologetics Ministry

Amen! Preach it sister! Of course we can use the Word of God to rightly discern. It's God breathed and 100% perfect in all its ways. Why would I use a book written by a mere man in an attempt to rightly discern the Word of God? That's not logical Wolf.

[LindaLee]

The Bible is God's inspired, inerrant Word!
Like Ort said:

Why would I use a book written by a mere man in an attempt to rightly discern the Word of God?

If the Bible was NOT the divinely written word of God, there would be no reason to even be concerned with Truth, Scripture, Sin, or Traditions.

But because it is the Divinely written Word of God, and always has been, the world has constantly been trying to disprove it, change it, or at best try to cast out scripture to make it more "appealing" to those groups who find certain scriptures "offensive" to them. (The Bible is the ground work, the basic framework for all knowledge as we know it, whether man wants to admit it or not).

Now we have so-called Christian churches who want to water-down the Truth with doctrines that aren't supported by the Bible. God plainly states in:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

If He Hebrews 13:8 is true, and I fully believe it is, then any other teaching outside of what the Bible teaches is FALSE!

Also in Malachi 3:6 it says:

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

God changes not, therefore, not only physcial sons of Jacob are not consumed, but the spiritual sons of Jacob are not consumed.

God does not changed. In Galatians 1:6-9 is a warning given for those whom preach a different Gospel than what was preached. It should be heeded.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Galatians 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Jesus Christ is the only True Son of the Living God. And at present He sits at the right hand of the Heavenly Father. And He is coming back soon to take His Bride, the Church home.

As Buzzardhut clearly said:

We don't promote Bell and the Emergent cult heretics here.

Thats because we think with the Spirit of God...with a clear mind...a willing heart and a deep love to truly know the mind of our Lord and Savior.

And you can only know Christ and the Father when you truly yield to HIM on His terms...not ours.

[walksbyf8h]

I am a close friend of rapture forums user Grape on the Vine. I followed many of the posts regarding alleged heretic Rob Bell, and was deeply disturbed by much of what I read. I don't know if many of the same users who posted on the thread concerning Mr. Bell have read this thread, but I wanted to try to offer some of my thoughts on what I took to be some very serious issues, and this seemed (given the tone of the afformentioned thread) to be the place.

The first issue I wish to address is that of sola scriptura (i.e., the idea that the bible alone is the sole repository of truth). I think many of the users were quite correct to say that the bible should be the ultimate authority. I would even agree that all other truth claims must be tested in light of God's inspired word. That having been said, I cannot agree that it is the only means by which one can know truth. First, if that were the case, we could not take with any sort of confidence many other truth claims that we know in fact to be true. It would mean we couldn't say that any other event recorded in history could be considerred believeable because the bible didn't say so. It would mean that knowledge of mathematics and science couldn't be accepted because the bible doesn't say so. This, I submit, is ludicrous.

The common proof text brandished here was 2 Timothy 3:16: "16(A)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;". Some translations even put it that the scriptures are usefull for training in ALL righteousness. Now I take this to true with every fiber of my being. But what I cannot accept is what the text does not say, viz., that scripture ALONE teaches truth. It may teach all truths (at least those relevant to correction, divinity, and moral/spiritual formation), but that it is the only thing that does this (even if we grant that all of it does this without error), is simply not in the text. It is a frightening analogue to pharasaical thinking to assert that it does.

Moreover, the scripture itself cites approvingly extra biblical sources. Jude (whom tradition tells us was a physical half-brother of Jesus) quotes the book of Enoch (Jude 9,14) as depicting truth about the spiritual realm. Yet both the Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches reject Enoch as divinely inspired; and they classify it as pseudapigraphical. If the human agents, just so many willing pens in the hand of the Holy Spirit, could assert spiritual truths from sources not found in their own cannon, why are we so leary about proclaiming truths found in other texts and religious movements outside of our own? None of this is to deny that Christian Theism is absolutely true, or that other religious views are true to. I believe in the absolute nature of truth, and that the opposite of true is false. As such, I agree that if a worldview is diametrically opposed to Christianity, it must be false. This, however, does not mean that there aren't grains of truth that we can take (and dare I say learn from) in other religious movements.

Secondly, I want to confront the oft repeated remark that all sin is the same in the eyes of God. To be modest, if that remark were transposed into a question (viz., is all sin the same?) the answer would have to be yes and no, depending on what you mean. Most of the commentors on the issue on the thread in question never bothered (at least that I noticed) to actually offer any scriptural support for their position. One possible hanger to rest their harmartiological coat on would be Paul's quotation of Deut.27:26 in Gal 3:10. Here, Paul affirms that those who do not abide by all that is written in the law are cursed. A stretch, but possible. Perhaps more clearly, we could've quoted James (another half-brother of the Lord) in the tenth and eleventh verse of the second chapter of his book. There, James clearly states, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultrey,' said also, 'Do not kill.' If you do not commit adultrey but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law."

Now I strongly believe that scripture, rightly understood, does not contradict itself. As such, proponents of the "all sin the same" view must deal with verses which talk about greater punishments for certain evils, greater sins, weightier matters of the law, etc. (cf. Ezek 8:6,13,15; Matt 5:19; 23:23; John 19:11). Moreover, I would agree that the idea that shoplifting a stick of gum is morally equitable to the rape of a two year old girl is an absolue afront to our moral intuitions.

So how do we unravel this apparent contradiction? the yes-or-no-depending on what you mean answer may be found in the second half the quotation from James. As grape on the vine pointed out, all sin is the same IN THE SENSE THAT it all is a transgression of the law. It is all a shape of disobedience to God. That does not mean, however, that all sin is disobedience to God IN THE SAME WAY. There are number of ways to kill a man. Perhaps you slip him a simple drug that lulls him into a terminal coma. Fairly painless. But, you may torture him to death while convincing him with psychological tactics that his family never really loved him. It is a depraved logic indeed that asserts both modes of murder are the same. True, if you killed a man, you killed a man. But one shape is much more insidious than the other. This seems to me, at least, to be painfully clear.

Finally, I want to challenge the claim that Rob Bell does not believe in the virgin birth as a road to get us to his salient point. In the immediately preceeding passage from which that Bell quote is taken, Bell AFFIRMS every jot and tittle of the Nicene Creed. Bell is offering what philosphers call a thought experiment. He is appealing to carefull analysis of what history could show, along with what a carefull analysis of what scripture could actually be saying when considerred in it's native language and context. Would we have the guts to go where the truth led us? Martin Luther did. The other Reformers did. So what is our problem?
Have we fallen so in love with our traditions that when someone carefully reading both the bible and nature even suggests that they might be wrong, we can't give up on it? Is not the replacement of Gods truth with our traditions really just a type of idolatry? As Martin Luther said, "Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your god." I would prefer to follow the truth wherever it led me. As Luther also said to the tradition idolaters of his day, " Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me." And finally, to quote contemporary Christian poet Aaron Weiss, "...we hunger, though all that we eat brings no relief. We don't know quite what else to do! We have all our beliefs, but we don't want our beliefs! God of peace, we want you."

I fail to understand what, exactly, the point of this post is. If it is to cast doubt upon the veracity and purity of the Word of G-D, you've come to the wrong forum. If it is to promote the heresy of the Emergent Church and its adherents, particularly the gentleman that you've mentioned; again, you've come to the wrong forum. If you want the G-D of Peace you must accept the G-D of Truth - His Word is TRUTH.


.

[Kristine]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above posts. God does impress Himself on every heart and He makes his truth available to all. BUT, it is much more difficult if one doesn't read HIS WORD. When reading the writings of other authors, one will find some truth but will also be easily deceived. If a writer doesn't fully base his words with Scripture, it leaves a lot of room for untruths. Also, a writer can and often does take scripture out of context and twists it to meet the sinful desires of man.

Many books have been written, through the years, trying to explain the Bible but it cannot come close to the ingenious way God's Word is written ---- ingenious, because it was truly inspired by God.

Take the Ten Commandments, for example. If EVERY man would obey each and every Commandment, we would be living in a world full of peace and perfection. Read each Commandment, carefully, and you will clearly see that it could not possibly be written by an ordinary man. It had to come from God!!! Other faiths have their own commandments that are similar to our Lord's, but something is always missing in them. You have a little bit of truth but not the entire picture.

What amazes me about the Ten Commandments is that they overlap into each other. If you break one, it can quickly (and often does) lead to the breaking of the others. For example, adultry can and has led to killing because of anger. Adultry is a form of idolatry which is the worship of another God. It is stealing ---- stealing one's marital partner. It is coveting. I could go on and on. Who but God could come up with this?

God's Word is very clear and to the point. We may not be able to understand every word but the lessons it holds are repeated in many ways throughout, so that we may better understand His laws.

In summary, it is ALWAYS best to stick to God's Word (Bible) and His Word, alone. It's just too easy to stumble and be seduced by false doctrines if you don't.

Like you, when I was young, I studied other beliefs and thought they were virtually the same as ours but, over time, I began to see their flaws and deceptions. The Bible has everything we need to know about our Lord.

As for the virgin birth ------ how could Jesus possibly be the true, only begotten son of God if he was from the seed of Joseph? What would separate Him from other ordinary prophets? Why would so many write about Him throughout the course of the Bible's timeline if He was going to be or was just another holy man? It just doesn't make sense.

One sin being greater than another ----- I will save that question for someone else to address.

[BuzzardHut]

WolfandShadow is not here anymore