Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    RE: .4
    
    Another question that has bothered me, is, *why* did Jesus have to
    be tempted?
    
    Marc H.

re: Note 575.1 by Marc "I'm the NRA" 

>    Another question that has bothered me, is, *why* did Jesus have to
>    be tempted?
    
Hi Marc,

One reason I've heard is that to be fully human, Jesus had to be tempted in 
every way we are.  

I've also heard there are different aspects to the types of temptations he 
overcame, but I don't remember the details.  Anyone able to elucidate?

Peace,

Jim

    
    
    		I believe that the Bible teaches *TWO* different forms of
    salvation for Gods justice to be perfect.  The first one was one of
    being "sinless" or some would call this works.  That ended in the
    garden when they both ate of the tree of life.  Jesus came along and
    thru his death gave us "grace".  This is why Jesus is called the
    "second Adam".  This is also why, in Revelation, when at the Great White
    throne Judgement, two seperate books are opened....the book (singular)
    of works and the books (plural) of life.  
    
    
    Dave

Note 574.3

Any particular reason why Mark and Luke left out the quote you cite?

>Note:  "Law or the Prophets" technically referred to a number of books in the
>       Bible that are part of the Old Testament.

Specifically, which ones?

Richard

Note 574.4

>How does Jesus respond to temptation?  Three times the devil tempted Him in
>this narrative.  Three times Jesus quotes Scripture.  Is Scripture true?
>Is it reliable?  Can we really believe that God wrote it?  Jesus' response
>to His temptation gives us some help in answering these questions.

But no one here is claiming that no portion of the Bible is worth quoting.
No one here claims that the Bible doesn't contain truth.

Richard

  >But no one here is claiming that no portion of the Bible is
  >worth quoting.  No one here claims that the Bible doesn't 
  >contain truth.

Just adding up those little pieces of known truth.  Who knows?
At some point, someone may come to the conclusion that so
much is known to be true and there are so many claims that
it is true (never with any caveats) that they'll actually
believe that it's not just referring to  a little piece here
and a little piece there.

Collis

    .6
    
    It's a possibility.
    
    Richard
    

re Note 574.5 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Is this just a happenstance (that Jesus only discusses Old Testament
> Scriptures which are true)?  Or is this a principle (that all Old
> Testament Scriptures are true) which Jesus uses during His teaching?
> 
> Well, every other author in both the Old Testament and the New
> Testament follow the exact same pattern - every Scripture quoted
> is either stated or assumed to be true.  More examples and other
> related information later.
  
        I've even observed that the above is true for me -- whenever
        I quote a Scripture, I either state or assume it to be true.

        (I'm not one of those who goes around with a long list of
        "errors in Scripture" -- or in fact cites any such errors.)

        I can state without reservation that it is possible to quote
        Scripture, and state or assume that those quotes are true,
        without intending, implying, or believing that this is any
        evidence that all Scripture is God's inerrant word.

        So I can easily imagine that Jesus and the biblical writers
        might have felt the same.


        I've been doing a lot of thinking about your recommendation,
        Collis, that one "confront the claims" of Scripture.  I'm
        realizing that I agree with that.  However, where I disagree
        with you is your apparent position that one can simply
        confront a few (or even many) prophecies and verify the ones
        that can be verified and from that conclude ANYTHING about
        the rest of the text.

        I believe that one must "confront the claims" of ALL of
        Scripture, not just specific things that are easily checked. 

        (It may turn out that "picking and choosing" from Scripture
        is the intellectually honest thing to do -- as long as one
        carefully chooses anything used from Scripture rather than
        carefully choosing only some verses and blindly assuming
        the verity of the rest.)

        I don't assume that any of it is true just because some other
        part seems to be true.  (I certainly might be predisposed to
        believe that a new (to me) verse is true, but that is very
        different than certainty.)

        Bob

Bob,

Indeed, there came a point in my life where it was time
to make a choice.  I needed to look at the evidence both
for and against the inerrancy of Scripture.  Was the
evidence all one way?  Definately not.  There are
(apparent) contradictions in Scripture that I expect I
will never resolve.  Does this mean that Scripture is
not inerrant?  Not necessarily.  There were a lot more
(apparent) contradictions in Scripture a hundred years
ago and some have been satisfactorily resolved.

But, on the whole, the evidence was, in my opinion,
overwhelming.  And I believe that a "natural" reading
of many verses in the Bible does indicate that *all*
Scripture is true, not just parts of Scripture.  So,
what I added up all the little pieces of evidence with
all the medium-sized pieces of evidence with all the
big pieces of evidence and compared it will the
contradictions, the choice was hardly a choice at all -
there was only one reasonable conclusion based on the
evidence.

That's the process I went through.  I started from a
point of believing that there was no way the Scriptures
could be considered inerrant and, through study and an
honest weighing of the evidence (fortified by prayer,
counsel of Christians on both sides of the issue, etc.)
came to the place where I am now.  I honestly believe
that if the evidence is known, that many would take the
same position I have taken.  Certainly not all because
there is definately an element of faith involved - it
is *scary* to submit your beliefs to commandments of the
Bible.

I disagreed with the Bible on a number of important issues.
Abortion.  The role of women (admittedly what the Bible says
on this issue is debatable, but I had a different stand
before I submitted to my best understanding of what the
Bible says).  Free will.  Psychics.  The change in my views
did not come overnight; some changes took years.  But I
was and am convinced that the Bible is truth and so have
aligned my beliefs with what the prophets of God taught
(although not always my actions :-( ).

Collis