Looking for a little help here from my friends who know the bible better than I do. I was reading recently and came across a reference to those who get to heaven will be the ones whose names are written in the "Book of Life" since the beginning of time (or something to that effect.

What is this Book of Life and why i it that I (who had a "normal" christian upbringing - all the way through confirmation class etc) have never heard of this before?

Thanks

WOW - it would appear that none of the christians here have any idea what the book of life is. That is astounding given how important it is to their very salvation.

OK David, I'll give it a shot! That isn't to say that I know the meaning of what was meant for the phrase but I can tell you what it means to me.

The Holy bible is " The Word Of God". Those of us who have entered into the knowledge of that word, have entered into the book of life, because the word becomes alive to us and we see ourselves through the word. We are a part of the tree of life and continue to spread out our branches, hoping to bring fruit to God!
Who, in his or her right mind wouldn't want to take part in feasting on such marvelous fruit!

@Linda

Linda - appreciate the effort but I am not sure you understood the reference correctly. The bible says that only those whose names are written in the book of life "from the foundation of the world" are going to get into heaven.

As far as I can tell the phrase appears in Psalms once, in Philippians once, and in Revelations it is there 7 times and the basic message is that there is this book full of names that have been in that book since the beginning of time (foundation of the world) and if your name is there - you go to heaven and it appears that if your name is not there then you are judged (this is the judgement at the end of time right) "according to your works".

Now I am no expert but I thought salvation was through grace, not through works. This says the contrary. Further - why do christians not even talk about the book of life and how is it that one has their name written in that book before one is even born?

I appreciate you taking a shot at this one - but I think the real reason that those who have read the bible are avoiding the question is that this is very problematic - don't you think?

David Shank wrote:
It is strange, isn't it? A long time ago, my best friend (we were children then - his father was a minister and they were very religious) told me there are only three things needed to get into heaven:

1. Believe in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior
2. Be baptized, and
3. Have your name written in the Book of Life.

But I never understood it to mean, it was written in advance. I thought it was something "earned" by the process of how you lived your life. If your name is written in this book before you were conceived, then, like you say... there are problems.

@David
The Book of Life is referred to multiple times in the bible and I don't know that every reference is to the same concept. Therefore a specific bible verse would be helpful.

From your context given my best guess is: This may be a metaphorical or literal list of names of those who will inherit eternal life. The book of life literal or metaphorical is written by God. This is a phrase that considers God's omniscience makes it his nature to know in advance who will turn and follow God. Apparently this book considered as a literal thing would be a document of God's dealings with you. Some passages seem to indicate that all names are listed on this book at birth and blotted out at death in some cases.

Some commentary Revelation 13:8 NKJV "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

The world as referenced here is founded when Christ is slain so it represents the beginning of the world under the new covenant not the beginning of time itself. Keep in mind revelation is an account of a Vision specific to John so we would take it in that context that it is probably metaphoric. Also, in revelation you will see references to people being judged according to their works and their faith. The belief is that your rewards in heaven are based on what you do in life. Your salvation however is not based on works but by grace. Its also written similarly to revelation vision accounts in Daniel and Ezekiel.

David if you wouldn't mind giving a specific verse so I can comment more thoroughly.

@Shawn

So you must have some apologist handbook you use to discuss specific passages but you are unable to discuss the underlying ideas or issues? I said above that the reference occurs 9 times: once in psalms (69:28), once in philippians (4:3), and 7 in revelations (3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, 22:19).

And PLEASE share with us all how it is that you know when a reference is metaphorical and when it is literal. My bible does not have any color-coding or footnotes or otherwise any way to mark text as designed to be read as literal or metaphorical.

It does not say the names are listed at birth. It says they have been there since the "foundation of the world." AKA - the beginning - aka - genesis.

Once again, please share with us where you get information that tells you a reference to the foundation of the world is a reference to NT? Are you making this stuff up? It sure seems like you are as the phrase "Book of life" exists in the OT as well as the NT. Are you seriously contending that an OT use of that phrase is really intended to refer to a time that had not even happened yet? Again, where do you get this information - or is it really (as it truly seems) that you just make up whatever you need to keep your story consistent and believable in our own mind.

>>And PLEASE share with us all how it is that you know when a reference is metaphorical and when it is literal.
In revelation John says it was a vision/dream he explains what some of the symbols in his vision mean. Daniel does the same thing. I have to go Ill get back here soon and answer more.

@DavidWell, it's impossible to say why. I'm sure it's not possible that you weren't paying attention. But perhaps it's because it's not mentioned [relatively] frequently, and almost all are in Revelations - which is is probably the most difficult book in the Bible to interpret.
So, let me get this straight: you didn't know what it was, had only recently heard of it, but you do know that it is critical to salvation. How very interesting.

I hate to say it, but I have detected a pattern in your posts of disingenuous questions. Either you know about it, or you don't. It's possible you took the time to research this between posts, but if that's the case, then it would seem that the results of this research would have been of interest. If you don't know, stop pretending you know that it is critical to salvation. If you do, stop pretending you're asking a question to understand something you didn't previously. Oh, and next time there is a delay in response, it is entirely possible that others simply didn't catch the post.

The bottom line is that not much is known about it - at least not in the Christian tradition - which easily explains the fact that you had never heard of it, although I am still surprised that you hadn't if you were raised in a Christian home. Revelations is hardly a book to be taken literally, and neither is Psalms (it is poetry). That doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality, of course. It does mean that we should consider the genre, author, intent, etc. and proceed judiciously.

Exodus 32:31-33


Psalm 139:16:


Psalm 69:27-28:


Daniel 12:1


Revelations 13:8***there is an important footnote here:
Alternate translation: "recorded from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb that was slain [in sacrifice]."

Revelations 20:12-15


These aren't all of the references, but they seemed the most helpful/interesting to me. Given the way the book is casually mentioned in the OT, it seems clear to me (although I admit I am drawing an inference here) that knowledge of this book was common in Jewish lore, and that the reader at the time would have understood the reference. This inference would seem to hold up under some investigation. As far as I can tell, Jewish tradition dictates that God writes the fates of everyone in the Book of Life on Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur finalizes this fate for the year. I'm not Jewish, so i don't pretend to understand it all, of course. I'm pretty sure that Jewish tradition allowed for atonement. Thus, the Book of Life would seem to be a fairly fluid book.

What we "know", according the scant references I have looked at, is that if your name is in it, well... you're "in". It would appear that everyone's name is in it at some point (sounds like from the very beginning), and at some other point it gets "blotted out" if you don't measure up.

>>So you must have some apologist handbook you use to discuss specific passages but you are unable to discuss the underlying ideas or issues?

I'm afraid I don't. I also don't have a specific "apologetic method" or anything of that sort. Normally I just read the entire KJV chapter because I find it close to the original non-Alexandrian text and think about what it probably means. I read commentary often from scholars usually 3 scholars unless they disagree then Ill read all I can find. Though I don't see them disagree much.

Essentially though anyone who reads it honestly without creating contradictions should be able to understand most of scripture on their own once they read at a high school level. With help I think formal education isn't required to understand scripture in context.

Why accuse me of throwing responses out form a book or a set formula anyway? Isn't that a personal attack? I'm fairly offended because your statement attacks the sincerity of my faith and my response with no grounds to do so.

The fact is the book of life is mentioned several times and possibly in more than one specific context though essentially its the same idea of a book connected to judgment of faith and salvation throughout the bible.

I don't think, " The Book of Life" is an actual book. I think it represents the story of every individual life that ever lived, who God breathed life into. We are considered dead until we are given life through Christ. So, anyone who has never received Christ or denies him, is still dead in their sins and are not even alive in the eyes of God. So the phrase of "Book of life" shouldn't even concern the dead. Everyone who knows God and has died in their sins, are the ones who would have their names written. But if after knowing him, if we chose to live unworthy, will be blotted out of his presence. God is only concerned with the living. If you are not one of His, then you are dead to Him.

@Linda
Correct I suppose I was referring to the actual image of the Book in John's vision. If its a real book or not seems inconsequential to me but I agree it probably isn't.

Nice try at classic christian spinning to get the result you are after from the start. YOur bottom line is that it is a book that has everyone's name in it and those names have been there since before the universe was created - of course. And that if you do not live correctly - follow all the right rules int he right way - then your name gets blotted out and you are done for when you loving god casts you into the lake of fire.

Only problem with your theory is that it is inconsistent with the very citations you have quoted. The passage from Revelations that says "everyone whose name has not been recorded in the Book of Life" would, obviously, just be nonsense if everyone's name is written in the book from the beginning. If your reading is correct then you would expect to see this saying "everyone whose name has been removed from the Book of Life...." instead.

Don't you think it strange that the Book of Life is not regularly referenced as a key aspect of the christian belief system. I mean really, it does appear critical that you get your name in there and keep it there. The passage from Revelations says that the book not only has your name in it but recorded next to your name are the works and acts you performed while alive that god intends to use to judge you. As you can see - salvation is most definitely determined by your works and those works are recorded in this book. Critical information don't you think?

Silly me, I thought that salvation came by faith alone. Not sure where I got that idea for it is clearly wrong. It would appear that if my works, recorded in the Book of Life next to my name, are found wanting I am headed for the lake of fire. I guess I will have lots of company though - god appears particularly peeved with people who worship someone other than him - which puts all catholics in the hot seat as they worship a panoply of saints that rival the ancient pagan gods. In fact - the catholic appear to have replaced every one of those pagan gods with a saint who you know pray to instead. Trouble, trouble, trouble.

Finally, I am honored that you have noticed "a pattern" in the posts I make here - it is nice that you take the time to try to understand me so thoroughly. I tried the same and also noticed a "pattern" in your posts. You seem to have a pattern/practice of just making stuff up to support your views. Not a bad thing - in fact science has shown this to be a quite common practice. People decide what they want to believe, what they want to be true and then go looking for things that support that pre-determined viewpoint. Christians have mastered this practice. When they find biblical support for some proposition what they are really doing is finding something that supports their already held beliefs and prejudices.

The debate about homosexuality as abhorrent to god is a great example. Christians do not come out and say that they have a deep seated fear and prejudice against the entire group of people. INstead they look for something in the bible they can use to back up their existing prejudices and then rely on that as if it came from god so they get a pass on it. Their inability to be honest is the key to this ruse. Specifically, they like to point to the passage in Leviticus that calls homosexulatiy an abomination. Fair enough - but why then ignore the other parts of leviticus that say you can sell your children into slavery or that it is a sin to charge interest on a loan?

Explain that one to me and you will have my undying respect and devotion.

@David
Sorry I didn't write this 5 minutes ago its about a month old I barely remember it. So most of your post doesn't make sense. You are asserting that I have a theory that I don't think I have and that somehow its inconsistant with biblical citations. When I asked where you got the information you claim is a christian assertion you didn't give it.Thanks for asserting my bottom line for me. God knows I hate forming my own positions they would be WAY too hard for you to attack if I made you address my actual positions huh? I never asserted the book of life was a literal book it certainly wasn't my bottom line.
Yeah, thats why I cite the stuff I "just made up" with sources including book chapter and verse and version as well as commentary and the biblical scholar who wrote the commentary.

Sorry if I don't fully address your thoughtless post but I have to go and I really think you didn't make your points clear.

@ David
How could I turn down such a generous offer?
So why do Christians follow some of the Old Testament rules and not others, and how do they decide? The answer is quite simple actually. This is all based on Acts 15. New “gentiles” were being converted to Christianity and they wanted to know which of the 613 rules of the Old Testament where still necessary to follow . The founding church fathers came up with this:(Acts15:28-29) ” It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things”…. Thank you for your undying respect and devotion!

@chruch27, you do see the obvious problem with ambiguity here, do you not? What is "sexual immorality"? Asking my wife to dress up like Wilma Flintstone while I pretend I am Fred? Who decides what is immoral? And what about the 10 commandments? Do we still have to follow all those, or only part of them -- that is, the punishments God commanded are no longer valid (death) but the rules are (because we still like the rules but not the punishments?)

And "You will do well to avoid these things" does not sound like a confident statement of what is law and what is not -- that is more like something an uncle would tell you. Does Paul really have veto power over God direct word in the Old Testament?

@ Bo
What matters is whether or not I answered his question... not all questions concerning christian regulations. I believe he pledged his undying devotion to anyone who could explain how a christian could claim homosexuality is wrong, and yet not have to abide by all the laws of the torah without being a total hypocrite. I believe I did this.

Now is the term sexual immorality ambiguous to us? Sure, but I’m sure you would agree that someone could easily look at the word and conclude homosexuality is included in its meaning without being a hypocrite. I believe the original greek word used did include homosexuality in its meaning according to what I have read, but I don’t read greek so I have no way to be sure. But it doesn’t matter either way, if homosexuality shouldn’t be included in the meaning then that make Christians ignorant, not hypocrites.

@Bo
There are lots of passages outlining what sexual immorality is so its not ambiguous in full context. The ten commandments also apply because Jesus said they do.

Does Paul really have veto power over God direct word in the Old Testament?

Paul is given authority by the resurrected Christ himself. He exibits the gift of the holy spirit in the form of tongues and interpretation of tongues as well as

Paul, an apostle —sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead — 2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me, Galacians 1:1-2

And God did special miracles by the hands of Paul: Acts 19:11
Acts 13:6-11 - Paul blinds Elymas who was a false prophet.
Acts 14:8-10 - Paul heals a lame man in Lystra.
Acts 19:11-12 - Paul performed many miracles including healings and casting out demons.
Acts 20:9-12 - Paul raised Eutychus from the dead.
Acts 28:8-9 - Paul healed diseases

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ Galatians 1:11-12

@DavidYou have not addressed this to anyone specific. But since you seem to be directly responding to what I wrote in th elatter part of your post, I will simply assume the rest is in reference to me as well. If that is not the case, then oh well... In any case, I am not interested in any results on this particular issue "from the start". In fact, the Book of Life is uninteresting to me. It's quite clear that references to the Book of Life are obscure ones, and pretty much everyone takes it figuratively. Even if it is a real thing, not enough is known about it to be terribly concerned about it.
OK, so I take it we agree on that much. So, I'll take it that there has been no "spinning" to this point? Or is there only "spinning" on points with which you disagree?
According to the highly literal and in no way figurative Book of Revelations, yes.
So, when you say my "theory" is inconsistent with the citationS I provide, what you really mean is that it is inconsistent with one of them?
Fair enough. It is an interesting observation, one that I did not consider.

Sometimes problems like these are a result of translation. As far as I can tell, the most literal translation of the phrase here would be: "it has not been written, the name of him." So, it does appear to be inconsistent with "my theory". Nevertheless, this same author of Revelations does acknowledge the phenomenon of "blotting out" names in the Book of Life in Revelations 3:5.

So, rather than "my theory" being incorrect, perhaps it was merely incomplete. This, of course, just depends on how much weight we are willing to give to these narratives in Revelation. However, it would appear that if the author is familiar with "blotting out" names, then the language used in 13:8 and 17:8 might be used to contrast it. It could be that the author is claiming there is a third category of individuals in addition to those who have been written in the Book of Life, and those who have been blotted out: those who were never written in.

So that's one possibility, and it seems to be a plausible reading. I can say that if this third category exists with reference to the Book of Life, it is never mentioned until the Book of Revelation. So there would appear to be a category of people who God foreknew to be "doomed" from the get-go... which will be no surprise to hardcore Calvinists.
No.
Sure, but the Book is a reflection of the status, not the mechanism.
Critical information, but not necessarily in the way you describe it. It does not say that your salvation is determined by your works; it says that you will be judged by your works (which are recorded in the Book). This emphasis on works is only confusing if we assume that faith and works are mutually exclusive. To be fair, many Christians make this same mistake.
This all depends on what you mean by "faith".
I am no Roman Catholic, but they would vociferously deny that they worship saints. They do believe that saints have the ability to intercede on our behalf, but that is different than worship.
Feel free to demonstrate where I am a liar. You have already said that I have been "spinning" things, but conveniently neglected to mention where I was bending facts. You provided a helpful corrective to my discourse, but that hardly necessitates that I was being dishonest.
No doubt this is true. Where you err is not in saying that Christians have mastered the practice, but in implying that somehow they have done so more than others, including atheists.
Actually, I think there is no shortage of these, unfortunately.
No doubt there are many of these. There are also those who, despite not having any other problem with homosexuality per se, are nevertheless convinced that the Bible says it is immoral. That includes many Christian homosexuals.

@Shawn,

It is. Granted, there are specific rules in the OT, but none that I know of that connect the acts with the terms "sexual immorality". Furthermore, a few examples in the Bible does not provide adequate justification for adding other such acts to the mix, as many like to do.

But why then not the punishment for breaking them? Who says we cannot stone people any more? Did Jesus tell us this? Or perhaps it is our distaste for such barbarism that we justify this as being "old law" and connect that claim to some ambiguous passage in the Bible?

... as clearly explained in the document that Paul wrote himself.

...as clearly told in stories by Paul himself.

@DavidFirst of all, this question probably deserves its own thread. For now, though, I'll answer it here, and maybe I'll just copy/paste this into a new thread.

More to the point: it is important to point out that the Bible prohibits certain sexual *acts*. It says nothing at all about "homosexuality". The Bible is absolutely silent on sexual orientation. And in ancient Palestine, this concept of "orientations" really didn't exist in the way we think of them now. Relationships among men & boys men were common enough (and still are in many Near East areas), but most men in Greece and Rome who engaged in homosexual relations were married. *For whatever reason*, such sexual activity was disallowed in Judaism and Christianity, but this prohibtion does not include the rejection of a group of people who identified themselves by sexual identity/orientation as "gay" or "homosexual".

All that said, the Bible does obviously prohibit certain sexual behaviors. I posted a while back my thoughts on this, and I personally don't think it is as clear as many Christians do that homosexual behavior, as we currently understand it, is immoral. But that isn't as relevant right now. The issue is whether or not Christians selectively interpret texts. Well, no doubt they do, but this isn't always intentional. Sometimes there are simply honest mistakes.

As for why Christians "ignore" other laws in the OT, but still accept these sexual prohibitions, it is important to show that the acceptance of some but not others is not arbitrary, nor based on personal preference. Obviously, we are delving into the difference between Christianity and Judaism, when originally there was no such distinction. Church27 touched on one part of the answer, if briefly, which is that Gentiles have *never* been expected to follow OT law. Gentiles, to be considered "God-fearers" were to follow the Noahide Laws, and these were reflected in the stipulations James set out at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

Nevertheless, Bo makes a significant point, which is that less law is not necessarily helpful if it is vague. So, if we are to abstain from sexual immorality, what exactly is "immoral"?

The issue is actually a pretty common one in the NT. It pops up in Matthew 5:17-20, where Jesus says that he came "not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it". (of course what does he mean by "fulfill"?!) It pops up even more often (not surprising, given his interaction with the Gentiles) in Paul’s letters, where he claims that in Christ the law is "fulfilled" (Gal. 5:14). Bottom line: how much of the Moses' Law Christians (Gentile or not) should follow is left open-ended.

The earliest Christians were Jews and were often found at the Temple. As we see with Peter in Acts, they seemed to feel that the Law of Moses was still worth following, at least this seems to be the case in the Jerusalem Church. And although some may have done so merely out of tradition, at least some felt it was still binding. Thus, this is a much more complex issue for Christian ("Messianic") Jews than it is for Gentiles.

As we all probably know, after A.D. 70 the Church of Jerusalem took a knockout blow, and as Palestinian Jews were scattered this facilitated the proliferation of Gentiles in the church. As history progressed and Christianity spread, it became more and more of a Gentile religion, to the point where anti-Semitism became quite common, just one of the many black eyes of the church. Because the Gentile "law" is fairly open-ended, guidance was naturally found in the OT. Though Judaism and Paul himself did not divide Torah as such, the Church identified what seemed to be ceremonial, judicial/civil, and moral law in the Torah. Not having a Temple or an Ark, ceremonial laws are obviously null and void. Not being Jews, they naturally eschewed what seemed to be Jewish distinctives. This, quite simply, is why Christians today still care about sexual behavior, but not eating pork.

The genuine problem, however, is whether there actually are these categories. Again, for Gentiles, I think this isn't as critical of an issue, but for Jews... well, I'm honestly not sure. Paul obviously felt the Law of Moses was fulfilled. Others, not so much. But even for Gentiles, the problem remains as to whether or not these are genuine categories, because we *could* be unnecessarily keeping some of the law (and denouncing acts as sinful) simply because we agree with it (thus labeling it "moral"), and we could be dropping what should be "moral" merely because we don't (thus labeling it as "civil" - such as slavery).

So, whether one agrees with the method or not, there are reasons for why Christians ignore certain laws in the Bible – ceremonial and judicial. And, although I do think making such distinctions can be precarious (if not outright erroneous), the fact of the matter is that there are reasons for assigning laws into one category or another as well. So, the matter is not arbitrary. Again, whether you agree or not, it is not selective acceptance or denial of certain laws based on some ad hoc reasoning, but a method that has developed over time, under careful consideration, and in light of NT teaching on the law.

So, if that is what is meant by "inability to be honest" that is obviously unfair. If, however, what is meant by it is simply that many Christians choose what they want to obey/ignore, then sure. But that is hardly remarkable; there are hypocrites everywhere. But let's not be so hasty to label people as hypocrites. What may seem an arbitrary distinction may be upon further reflection be a more reasoned approach. Simply because one does not understand it, does not make it dishonest.

Here i note that David does exactly what he denounces others for. Despite saying that Christians are mastering at deciding what they want to believe beforehand, then rationalizing. Despite the fact that David is asking a question (as if seeking understanding), he has already declared Christians to be dishonest. This, by the way, is exactly what I meant when I stated David has a pattern of asking disingenuous questions.

@Shawn

I'd have to agree with Bo here. Any interpretation of Biblical morality is necessarily ambiguous. Christians can claim an objective ground for morality all we want, but if in practice the law is "written on our hearts" - and that is what Scripture says - it is, in practice, subjective. Furthermore, any legal system has degree of ambiguity to it. Otherwise, interpretation wouldn't be necessary.

Jeremy,

Im not sure I understood all that you said, but you hit the mark with the " Written on our hearts" comment. Without God, we feel that anything that comes in our minds to do, is OK. On the other hand, If you have the spirit of God working through you, He will cause your heart to know what is right or wrong, good or bad, clean or unclean.

I still do some things that my heart tells me is wrong or that it's unpleasing to God, but I do them anyway. Those things are weaknesses in my flesh and I yield to them. God also knows my heart and He knows that I know He would rather I didn't do the things I do, but as Paul said, " O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Romans 7; 24

When we look at the use of the terms sexual immorality as traslated from Greek to English do you agree that an author who writes "sexual immorality" seems to have the impression that the Churches he wrote the letter to would understand sexual immorality without a great deal of further clarification? What faith did these Churches associate with prior to the crucifixion? Where did these people get their understanding of what sexual behavior was appropriate?

I can see you might not see the connection to sexual immorality and the OT views related to sex. So is the NT totally void of explanation?
Here are some verses about sexual immorality in the NT with some detail.
Mathew 5:28 (lustful thoughts), Hebrews 13:4 (sex outside of marriage), 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (homosexuality & adultery), 1 Corinthians 7:2 (Polygamy)... In fact 1COR7 has lots including depriving your spouse, this isn't all inclusive but there are some details.
I think he did in John 8

7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?[j] Has no one condemned you?”

11 She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and[k] sin no more.”

You can take 3 lefts of you can just turn right...

Did his teachings differ from Christ? If they did wouldn't the churches reject his letters? What motivation is there to reject Paul's testimony? What did paul do before he claimns he met Christ? Do his actions follow his claim?

Which counter claim was written claiming Paul of Taurus was a liar? Clearly people had a reason to believe what he said and the writings that object don't seem to exist.

No more than we would today in a similar situation. It is a single, ambiguous term.

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." Deut 22:5

So it is sexually immoral for my wife to wear my t-shirt?

Who did Adam and Eve's kids mate with? Does that make incest ok?

It is sexually moral to offer my virgin daughter to visitors?

Basically, I am looking for clear, unambiguous, Biblical rules here.

Who says these are issues of morality? I could see how most can be, but where does God say they are moral issues as opposed to just more of his rules?

Besides the controversy that this verse is a later insertion (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery), you choose to connect this to a general rule that we shouldn't stone anyone, rather than let everyone off the hook with a warning. Why? And why apply this to ALL crimes formerly worthy of stoning and not just adultery? Then why not let off all people with warnings for all crimes? What if the little whore kept on ridin' the baloney pony of the townsman? Then what? Do we keep on letting her off as long as we are sinners? Or do we eventually take action to prevent further offenses?

Do you now see the ambiguity?

Of course you don't think so, but critics who are free to come to any conclusion often do (those secular and Christian who are not innerentists). This is a decent start - www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html