Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[3rdAngel]

As a believer, I have to wonder why God would grant me a high IQ and a thirst for knowledge, if he only wants me to close my mind and accept without questioning or believe others without questioning.

If we enquire of the benchmark (IMO) the Word of God it is because God made us in his image. It is not about closing our minds it is being able to acknowledge I believe as finite men that we do not have all the answers. Many of these answers I believe are revealed to us through the scriptures and also by investigating and looking for them outside through the sciences by God's guidence.

 

[3rdAngel]

Do you not think that this is circular reasoning?

No not really. The scriptures are my benchmark. According to them the christian lives by faith and not by sight (trusting in God when we just do not know). We live this way because we do not know all the answers but God does and he is our guide and teacher. This is my view I am sure others have a different view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For me it depends how it is argued. For example the definition of atheism is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. It is a belief that does not believe in a God or God's yet they there is no evidence that God does not exist for this belief. Therefore it can be argued that those who believe this way are living by faith just as the Christian but in the opposite direction IMO. If I am honest I believe that evidence can be argued for a God and intelligent design within creation through Science just as those who would disagree can argue against these claims. There is evidence to believe one way or the other. Now not both view can be correct which you would agree but this is not how one finds and knows God IMO and is simply a distraction that mises the make. The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God and through wordly wisdom the wise will never find God according to the scriptures.

You are applying faith in a condition where faith is not necessary.

A person that does not see a flying elephant as an answer is not ignoring flying elephants on faith. Substituting a god in place of the flying elephant does not require the addition of faith.

However, a person claiming they know no god exists is using faith as a basis. Since no evidence is available for one side or the other.

I understand the former and even respect the logic used to reach the conclusion, even as I disagree. The latter, faith-based version, is just belief that can be dismissed by believing differently.

 

[3rdAngel]

You are applying faith in a condition where faith is not necessary.

A person that does not seea flying elephant as an answer is not ignoring flying elephants on faith. Substituting a god in place of the flying elephant does not require the addition of faith.

However, a person claiming they now no god exists is using faith as a basis. Since no evidence is available for one side or the other.

I understand the former and even respect the logic used to reach the conclusion, even as I disagree. The latter, faith-based version, is just belief that can be dismissed by believing differently.

You may disagree though I am applying both those who believe in God and those who do not believe in God to beliefs that are not supported by evidence hence Faith. The definition of faith in the scriptures is the substance of things hoped for (believed) the evidence of things not seen. In this case to Christianity and also to atheism both are two separate belief systems that have no evidence for God or that God does not exist IMO. Hence my view is that both belief systems are based on faith as there is no evidence for their belief. Atheism in my view is a belief system that lives by faith just as those who believe in God but in the opposite direction.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No not really. The scriptures are my benchmark. According to them the christian lives by faith and not by sight (trusting in God when we just do not know). We live this way because we do not know all the answers but God does and he is our guide and teacher. This is my view I am sure others have a different view.

Interesting. You do not consider that your view of the Bible itself is faith-based and you have no objective means to demonstrate your belief. What about your views on errors in the Bible? Are you a literalst that rejects this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You may disagree though I am applying both those who believe in God and those who do not believe in God to beliefs that are not supported by evidence hence Faith. The definition of faith in the scriptures is the substance of things hoped for (believed) the evidence of things not seen. In this case to Christianity and also to atheism both are two separate belief systems that have no evidence for God or that God does not exist IMO

That is a very cryptic basis for a position. Things not seen have no evidence, though I have my own interpretation of that passage. Faith is belief without evidence.

 

[3rdAngel]

Interesting. You do not consider that your view of the Bible itself is faith-based and you have no objective means to demonstrate your belief. What about your views on errors in the Bible? Are you a literalst that rejects this?

Not at all, I am stating the opposite but drawing distingtions between Christianity and atheism IMO both are living by faith as both do not have evidence that there is God or there is no God. Although I believe Dan there is evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If we enquire of the benchmark (IMO) the Word of God it is because God made us in his image. It is not about closing our minds it is being able to acknowledge I believe as finite men that we do not have all the answers. Many of these answers I believe are revealed to us through the scriptures and also by investigating and looking for them outside through the sciences by God's guidence.

I know I don't have all the answers about anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not at all, I am stating the opposite but drawing distingtions between Christianity and atheism IMO both are living by faith as both do not have evidence that there is God or there is no God. Although I believe Dan there is evidence.

I believe you.

 

[3rdAngel]

That is a very cryptic basis for a position. Things not seen have no evidence, though I have my own interpretation of that passage. Faith is belief without evidence.

Well there is probably no difference I guess to what we believe as I believe the same. I simply quoted the words from the scriptures. Faith is a belief without evidence was the point I was trying to make for both Christianity and Atheism.

 

[3rdAngel]

I know I don't have all the answers about anything.

Maybe you have the answers about somethings that God has revealed to you Dan. I do not believe anyone has the answers to everything the same as you I guess but I believe God guides and teaches us if we seek him and ask him. This is the new covenant promise according to the scriptures *HEBREWS 8:11; JOHN 14:26: JOHN 16:13; 1 JOHN 2:27. Of course these are conditional on continuing to believe and follow God's Word *JOHN 8:31-36 IMO.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe you have the answers about somethings that God has revealed to you Dan. I do not believe anyone has the answers to everything the same as you I guess but I believe God guides and teaches us if we seek him and ask him. This is the new covenant promise according to the scriptures *HEBREWS 8:11; JOHN 14:26: JOHN 16:13; 1 JOHN 2:27. Of course these are conditional on continuing to believe and follow God's Word *JOHN 8:31-36 IMO.

Thanks for your posts. Have a good night.

 

[3rdAngel]

Thanks for your posts. Have a good night.

Thanks Dan nice talking to you

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hello EH, how are you

Sorry but I would have to disagree with you. There is no problem whatsoever with anything that I have provided. Virtually all scholars agree that the accounts of the biblical eyewitness records of JESUS is verified from not only the biblical records but also sources outside of the biblical records. This has ben verified by the accounts of the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote of JESUS only decades after his death. Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D.

Josephus was a JEW and wrote JEWISH History and was not a follower of Jesus, “he was however around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people were first hand eyewitnesses who had seen and heard Jesus. So here we have JEWISH historical records bearing witness to the bibical historical records. Then later we have the Roman Senator and historian Tacitus connecting Jesus to his execution by Pontius Pilate in the Annals of Imperial Rome written around 116 AD

None of the above had any Christian biases in their historical recordings and all of them were fighting against each other yet here we are all three sources;

1. JEWS,
2. ROMANS and
3. CHRISTIANS

All of whom agreeing from first hand eye witness sources that JESUS existed and recorded various aspects of his life.

Virtually every scholar agrees that this evidence is true and supports the biblical record. If there was only one record you could question it but we have three separate sources from, all the major groups of people known to be present inthe life of JESUS and written in the biblical records verified as credible by nearly all academic scholarship.

Are you saying JESUS did not exist? If you are all the evidence and academic scholarship is against you. If you are not and you believe JESUS existed why do you believe JESUS existed or how do you know JESUS existed?

I never said Jesus did not exist. However, the question is whether the events happened as described. Josephus did NOT write some of the words the Christians love (in the Testimonium). They were added later. And Tacitus was writing 87 years later, and using only received (not eyewitness) accounts.

Whether Jesus existed or not has no bearing on whether he fed 5000 with only a few loaves and fish, or whether he raised people from the dead. Or whether he is also God.

 

[3rdAngel]

I never said Jesus did not exist.

If you believe JESUS existed why do you believe JESUS existed and your belief is based on what?

However, the question is whether the events happened as described. Josephus did NOT write some of the words the Christians love (in the Testimonium). They were added later. And Tacitus was writing 87 years later, and using only received (not eyewitness) accounts.

Well that is debatable even the scholars do not agree on that hypothesis and there are two main passages referred to in the Jewish Antiquities, the one passage most scholars agree to is the one that recounts the unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim as James, the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah. Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, “he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus,” according to Mykytiuk. He was not one to add sources that were not credible and if there was some sources that he thought as such these were added to his footnotes in regards to authenticity. There were no such footnotes added to the references of JESUS.

Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian. Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.” This bears record exactly to the biblical record. So the death of JESUS was well known within the Roman empire and verifies the biblical account of the death of JESUS with both Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius also being mentioned in the Gospels (Luke 3). This was recorded in Annals of Imperial Rome in 116 AD.

In essence as we showed earlier we have outside historical references that are based on eyewitness accounts that testify to the biblical record and the life of JESUS from the 1. JEWS, 2. ROMANS and the 3. CHRISTIANS, who were all fighting with each other that testify of the life of JESUS with all three being recorded as major players in the biblical record. It is the three accounts together IMO that give the greatest weight of evidence to the life of JESUS and verifies the biblical records.

Whether Jesus existed or not has no bearing on whether he fed 5000 with only a few loaves and fish, or whether he raised people from the dead. Or whether he is also God.

No one is talking about this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pretty shallow reading of Paul, I’m afraid.

Not really. Jesus was peace and love. Paul was more wrath and punishment. God said be fruitful and multiply, but Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:1, does say it is best for for a man to not have sex with a woman. That does implicitly make god's oft repeated commandant impossible if a man does what Paul says is best. Jesus said he is specifically not the lord of the dead - Paul says he is.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you believe JESUS existed why do you believe JESUS existed and your belief is based on what?

I did not say that either, did I? I merely allowed for the possibility.

The one writer in the Bible that you can be fairly sure of is Paul. Paul met and spoke with the other disciples, including Jesus's supposed brother James (which puts to rest the possibility the Catholics like that Mary ascended into heaven still a virgin). And Paul's letters PRE-DATE the Gospels, please remember this. And Paul, in his own letters (ignoring the obviously spurious ones like Hebrews and 1 Timothy), knows and cares to know very little about Jesus as a human. He preaches Christ crucified, but doesn't mention Pilate or any of the other trappings around the tomb, or post-mortem appearances, or miracles, or pretty much anything else. That should be of great interest, since these are truly the very first "Christian Writings."

 

[sojourner]

Yes only one can be true. For instance either one has to follow the Mosaic Law, one cannot follow the mosaic law or one can do both to be saved. Only one of those three is true. That is logic. If one person says that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved and another person says the opposite, only one interpretation is correct

No. The instruments of salvation differ greatly. For Muslims it is one thing; for Hindus another; for Christians something else. And those things vary greatly within those religions. I’m convinced that salvation isn’t so much a cosmological question as it is an existential question. What works for one may not work for another. All religions and all sects have truth, and that truth is much larger than any one group can encompass.

That is your denomination. If your denomination interprets the Bible to say that multiple interpretations do not block salvation then that is fine for your belief. But if another groups says that only their view is right and people can only attain salvation through embracing their interpretation and nothing else, then that contradicts your view. If they are right then your denomination is wrong

No, because it’s not an issue of “right/wrong.” It’s an issue of truth.

 

[sojourner]

Not really. Jesus was peace and love. Paul was more wrath and punishment. God said be fruitful and multiply, but Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:1, does say it is best for for a man to not have sex with a woman. That does implicitly make god's oft repeated commandant impossible if a man does what Paul says is best. Jesus said he is specifically not the lord of the dead - Paul says he is.

Yeah, but do you know why Paul says that? You see, it’s not just the words themselves, it’s what’s meant by them that counts. From your posts, I just don’t see evidence that you have a good grasp of Paul.


[edit]
Sorry for being so curt. I just got home from church with a lot on my mind. I’m not picking at you just to pick. But I’ve studied the crap out of Paul in seminary. And I just don’t read in Paul what you’re saying, although what you’re saying is an extremely popular and oft-repeated viewpoint. Perhaps you’ve had some bad “pseudo-Paul” shoved down your throat by unscrupulous “experts.” I don’t know. I just don’t see Paul that way, and felt I had to respond.

 

[Samael_Khan]

No. The instruments of salvation differ greatly. For Muslims it is one thing; for Hindus another; for Christians something else. And those things vary greatly within those religions. I’m convinced that salvation isn’t so much a cosmological question as it is an existential question. What works for one may not work for another. All religions and all sects have truth, and that truth is much larger than any one group can encompass.

Yes, all religions and sects have truth, but many are mutually exclusive, so if their view of being exclusive is true then God favours them and all the others aren't true.

No, because it’s not an issue of “right/wrong.” It’s an issue of truth.

It is an issue of truth. And the truth or falsehoods determines whether a viewpoint is right or wrong.