Liberal Forum

jerrab » 25 Jun 2026, 3:12 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 3:12 pm

///They change the meaning into something else./////

Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.//////.    His teachings will conflict with the old wine skins and they will burst and the new wine--his teachings-- will spill out and be ruined  --: ===else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out,---===

Explain the meaning of the following passage from the Bible. Is it meant to be taken literally or is their a metaphorical meaning behind it: "Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.//////. His teachings will conflict with the old wine skins and they will burst and the new wine--his teachings-- will spill out and be ruined --: ===else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out,---==="

The passage is not mainly meant as a literal teaching about wine storage, though it uses a real-life image from Jesus’ time. In the KJV, “bottles” means wineskins, not glass bottles. New wine was still fermenting, so it expanded. A new wineskin could stretch with it. An old wineskin had already become stiff and brittle, so the pressure of new wine could split it open.Jesus uses that as a metaphor.

The “new wine” represents the new thing Jesus is bringing: his teaching, the kingdom of God, the new covenant, and the new way of life centered on him.The “old wineskins” represent old, rigid religious structures or expectations that cannot contain what Jesus is doing — especially the legalistic forms of religion represented by some of the Pharisees. In context, Jesus says this while answering questions about why his disciples do not fast in the same way others do. See Matthew 9:14–17, Mark 2:18–22, and Luke 5:33–39.So when the passage says:“else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish”it means something like:If Jesus’ new teaching is forced into old, rigid religious categories, both are harmed. The old structure breaks, and the new life Jesus brings is not properly received or preserved.

Your phrasing — “His teachings will conflict with the old wineskins and they will burst” — captures the main idea well. I would slightly adjust “the new wine — his teachings — will spill out and be ruined” to this: His teachings themselves are not ruined, but they are wasted or lost when people try to contain them inside a framework too rigid to receive them.Jesus is not simply saying, “Everything old is bad.” He is not rejecting the Old Testament. Rather, he is saying that what he brings cannot be reduced to the old forms of religious habit, rule-keeping, or expectation. The new covenant needs a renewed heart, renewed people, and renewed forms of life.In plain language:

You cannot receive the living, expanding message of Christ while refusing to be changed by it.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Vegas » 25 Jun 2026, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 2:42 pm

A commandment? Nothing about wine is in the 10 commandments. Also I doubt any serious Christian theologian would claim that Christ never meant what he said.

jerrab » 25 Jun 2026, 3:36 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 3:36 pm

now I can show plenty instances in the old testament where God says to kill children like in Jericho. And Christ said he and the father are the same. Now do you think Jesus would say to kill children? Because that is going on right now.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Vegas » 25 Jun 2026, 3:38 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 3:38 pm

Go ahead. I will put into AI to see what was really meant by it.

Vegas » 25 Jun 2026, 3:38 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 3:38 pm

Go ahead. I will put into AI to see what was really meant by it.

Vegas » 25 Jun 2026, 3:38 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 3:38 pm

Go ahead. I will put into AI to see what was really meant by it.

jerrab » 25 Jun 2026, 3:49 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 3:49 pm

//////According to the biblical narrative in the Book of Joshua, yes. God instructed the Israelites to utterly destroy the city of Jericho, which included killing all the men, women, children, and animals, while burning the city and its contents.//////

That passage is hard, and it should feel hard. A faithful reading does not need to pretend it sounds gentle. In Joshua 6, Jericho is placed under ḥerem — often translated “devoted to destruction” or “the ban.” That means the city was treated not as normal military plunder, but as something placed under divine judgment. Joshua 6:21 says Israel destroyed “men and women, young and old” and the animals, while Rahab and her family were spared.The meaning in the Joshua narrative is roughly this: Jericho represents a judged order standing in opposition to God’s covenant purposes, and Israel is forbidden to profit from it.

They are not supposed to conquer Jericho for wealth, revenge, or empire. The city is “devoted” to God, which is why the valuables are not private spoils but set apart for the Lord’s treasury.But your deeper question is the important one: why does this seem so different from Christ?There are a few major ways Christians have wrestled with this.One view says: God’s character has not changed, but the historical moment has. In Joshua, God’s judgment is shown through a temporary, national, covenantal event tied to Israel entering the land.

In Christ, God’s kingdom is no longer advanced by ethnic conquest, land possession, or the sword. Jesus rebukes violent retaliation, tells Peter to put away the sword, commands love of enemies, and says His kingdom is “not of this world” in the sense that His servants do not fight to establish it by force.A second view says: Jesus does not erase divine judgment; He redirects how we understand it. Christ teaches mercy, forgiveness, and enemy-love, but He also speaks seriously about judgment. The difference is that in Jesus, judgment is not entrusted to His followers as holy war. Judgment belongs to God. Christians are not authorized to imitate Joshua by destroying enemies.

The cross becomes the central revelation: God’s wrath against evil and God’s mercy toward sinners meet in Christ.A third view says: some of the conquest language may use ancient war rhetoric. Ancient Near Eastern battle accounts often used totalizing language like “destroyed all” even when survivors clearly remained. Joshua itself later shows many Canaanites still living in the land. So some scholars argue that “utterly destroyed” may function as conventional victory language, not necessarily a modern literal census of every civilian death.

That does not remove the moral difficulty, but it may affect how we understand the genre.A fourth, more critical view says: the biblical authors may be portraying Israel’s understanding of God through their ancient context, and Christians should read Joshua through the fuller revelation of God in Christ. In this view, Jesus is the clearest picture of God, so any earlier violent text must be interpreted in light of Him, not the other way around.



The Bible itself moves from holy war under old covenant Israel to enemy-love under the crucified Messiah. Christians are not called to copy Joshua at Jericho. They are called to follow Jesus to the cross.The most important guardrail is this: whatever Joshua meant in its ancient setting, it cannot be used as a Christian model for violence today. Jesus closes that door.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Vegas » 25 Jun 2026, 3:55 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 3:55 pm

Are you going to read this? If not, then please let me know. I don't want to keep putting in prompts if you aren't going to read the perspectives anyway...also, you can do this. Why aren't you doing this? Christ said "seek and you shall find." So go seek and find.

Vegas » 25 Jun 2026, 3:55 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 3:55 pm

Are you going to read this? If not, then please let me know. I don't want to keep putting in prompts if you aren't going to read the perspectives anyway...also, you can do this. Why aren't you doing this? Christ said "seek and you shall find." So go seek and find.

jerrab » 25 Jun 2026, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 4:18 pm

Yes they justified the killing of children in Jericho the same way they justify the killing if of children in gaza, saying belongs to the jews only.

now Christ and the father are one, so I ask again would Christ say to kill every child in Jericho?

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Fuelman » 25 Jun 2026, 4:21 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 4:21 pm

Interesting read!

That puts Islamist in a precarious position, Mohammed has a hit out on your AI bot.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

*Roshambo » 25 Jun 2026, 5:48 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 5:48 am

To some, Israel is considered the Chosen People of God.
What is our status?  Are we not also the chosen people?

This misconception undermines Jesus and, within Christianity, it distorts the Christian faith. The current Netanyahu administration has motivated Christians to endorse acts of genocide. The very individuals whose forebears crucified Jesus are now utilizing him as a symbol for genocide.

Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah, yet they will assert to you, as a Christian, that the Messiah is Jewish. Indeed, but I respond, "your ancestors were responsible for his death."

MIKE HUCKABEE, I OWE NOTHING! Huckabee asserts that we possess an eternal moral obligation to the Jewish people.

What on earth?

An eternal moral obligation to the Jewish people?

Jesus has already paid my debt. As a Christian, I bear no debt to anyone, particularly not on ethical grounds.

This notion of an eternal moral obligation must cease IMMEDIATELY!

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Vegas » 25 Jun 2026, 4:32 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 4:32 pm

I remember when Ted Cruz was on Tucker. Cruz said something along the lines of how we have a moral obligation to defend Israel. Tucker of course challenged that. Ted got defensive and didn't really answer. He danced around it. 

When Christians defend Israel under a biblical and moral guise, I have to wonder what drives them to do so. They know that Jesus is the only way to God. Not Israel or any Jew. So what is their issue?

*Roshambo » 25 Jun 2026, 5:48 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 5:48 am

To some, Israel is considered the Chosen People of God.
What is our status?  Are we not also the chosen people?

This misconception undermines Jesus and, within Christianity, it distorts the Christian faith. The current Netanyahu administration has motivated Christians to endorse acts of genocide. The very individuals whose forebears crucified Jesus are now utilizing him as a symbol for genocide.

Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah, yet they will assert to you, as a Christian, that the Messiah is Jewish. Indeed, but I respond, "your ancestors were responsible for his death."

MIKE HUCKABEE, I OWE NOTHING! Huckabee asserts that we possess an eternal moral obligation to the Jewish people.

What on earth?

An eternal moral obligation to the Jewish people?

Jesus has already paid my debt. As a Christian, I bear no debt to anyone, particularly not on ethical grounds.

This notion of an eternal moral obligation must cease IMMEDIATELY!

nefarious101 » 25 Jun 2026, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 1:55 pm

it's no ones business what people's beliefs are...

the only one's that care are people who believe and those who have a hard time tolerating other people's beliefs

they can't accept the idea that there could be something greater and more important than they are

*Roshambo » 25 Jun 2026, 5:48 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 5:48 am

To some, Israel is considered the Chosen People of God.
What is our status?  Are we not also the chosen people?

This misconception undermines Jesus and, within Christianity, it distorts the Christian faith. The current Netanyahu administration has motivated Christians to endorse acts of genocide. The very individuals whose forebears crucified Jesus are now utilizing him as a symbol for genocide.

Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah, yet they will assert to you, as a Christian, that the Messiah is Jewish. Indeed, but I respond, "your ancestors were responsible for his death."

MIKE HUCKABEE, I OWE NOTHING! Huckabee asserts that we possess an eternal moral obligation to the Jewish people.

What on earth?

An eternal moral obligation to the Jewish people?

Jesus has already paid my debt. As a Christian, I bear no debt to anyone, particularly not on ethical grounds.

This notion of an eternal moral obligation must cease IMMEDIATELY!

jerrab » 25 Jun 2026, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 2:08 pm

You don't. Just like you can't reason with people that Christ is not pro genocide.

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

• No Human Warfare: The church is never instructed to take up arms or enact violence. Instead, believers are called to endure suffering and maintain a nonviolent witness. [1, 2, 3

ROG62 » 25 Jun 2026, 9:17 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2026, 9:17 pm

Au contraire….sweet cheeks…