Biblical Justification

[Tristesse]

Understood, but you were never a christian if today you deny Jesus is God. The fact is you can intellectually read something all day long. However we are taking about the difference between us reading something while being dead (spiritually dead) and reading something once God awakens us. Two different things. So you are right you will never convert as you say by anything I can do, but if God wants you he will take you.

Fine, you can get away with that "oh you were never really a christian" crap, but I was, and I studied the bible. I was baptized, went to church, I believed. I'm not sure what your talking about when you say reading something when your dead(spiritually dead). I'm not sure I know what spiritually means. Is it something that can be observed?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

That sounds like the preacher at the Baptist church I attended as a kid... He had this cute saying (Baptists just love alliteration...): "Faith that fizzles before the finish was faulty from the first!" That would always elicit a chuckle from the crowd, but I later learned from personal experience that he was not only wrong but arrogant for presuming to know what someone else believed or experienced. I know the depth and content of my beliefs both 'before' and 'after.' A preacher or anyone else simply does not have access to that.

Again I am just defining my answers by what the bible teaches. Hate the bible not me, or hate us both I don't care.
The truth is though the bible says once God has you, nothing will ever take you away from him. so maybe TRISTESSE is still his, I don't know. But we can look at the evidence in ones life to say if they deny God they probably aren't his.

 

[Wandered Off]

Hate the bible not me, or hate us both I don't care.

Why should I hate either one? I don't think we have direct control over our beliefs anyway, so they're not a reason to hate.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I wrote an essay on the difference in the Alexandrian and Antioch bible sources as they pertain to the King James Only movement. You can read it in this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/37606-king-james-onlyism.html

So, itwillend, which of the many Bibles do you consider the truth? Do you have a perfered source, Alexandrian or Antioch? Why?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Fine, you can get away with that "oh you were never really a christian" crap, but I was, and I studied the bible. I was baptized, went to church, I believed. I'm not sure what your talking about when you say reading something when your dead(spiritually dead). I'm not sure I know what spiritually means. Is it something that can be observed?

TRISTESS:
I preceive you want the truth, and you talk with reason and passion. I thank you for that, and not just bashing someone around.

To understand being spiritually dead, is to understand the whole bible. When we sinned we were lost our relationship with God, or so the bible teaches right? However what exactly happened then?
1)We wnet from having eternal life to death
2)While we didn't physically die yet, we were dying
3)We were spiritually seperated from God at that time, so that we would never want to know God anymore.

Now as children especially those growingup in a church we are taugh (man docrtine) that Jesus loves everyone and that we can get baptised and so forth and become saved.
The problem with all that is evident in your life. Did it work? Obviously no. Why not? So we go back into the bible and we read passages like in romans 3:10&11. We see verses that no one will ver choose God. How come we didn't here about thee verses in church? You see when a church is formed they create by laws and creeds, and once they are set, they stick to them. IF anyone questions the creeds, they are warned and eventually ex-communicated. So who is in charge the church or the bible?
So in your case, you were taught all you had to do was repent and say you accept Jesus. In other words, you dictate to God, that God will save you this day. That flies in the face of what the rest of the bible teaches.
Pastors use passages that say" repenet and be baptized" or "call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved". But the fact is we are a spritual COARPSE! How can we call on him? Yes we are alive and have a concience, but we do not have eternal life so that we cna communicate with God. In fact we don't want anything to do with the real God. At the most we want a God that we can imagine to be our friend, etc etc.
The story of Lazarus was put into the bible by God to demonstrate what I am saying. Lazarus died, and wasunable to do ANYTHING to arise. So when Jesus called him Lazarus listened. After that yes it is true Lazarus now loved God, but God had to love him first.
There are SO MANY passages inthe bible that support this, I hope this helps you understand what being spiritual dead is. If not I can expound more.

 

[Tristesse]

TRISTESS:
I preceive you want the truth, and you talk with reason and passion. I thank you for that, and not just bashing someone around.

To understand being spiritually dead, is to understand the whole bible. When we sinned we were lost our relationship with God, or so the bible teaches right? However what exactly happened then?
1)We wnet from having eternal life to death
2)While we didn't physically die yet, we were dying
3)We were spiritually seperated from God at that time, so that we would never want to know God anymore.

Now as children especially those growingup in a church we are taugh (man docrtine) that Jesus loves everyone and that we can get baptised and so forth and become saved.
The problem with all that is evident in your life. Did it work? Obviously no. Why not? So we go back into the bible and we read passages like in romans 3:10&11. We see verses that no one will ver choose God. How come we didn't here about thee verses in church? You see when a church is formed they create by laws and creeds, and once they are set, they stick to them. IF anyone questions the creeds, they are warned and eventually ex-communicated. So who is in charge the church or the bible?
So in your case, you were taught all you had to do was repent and say you accept Jesus. In other words, you dictate to God, that God will save you this day. That flies in the face of what the rest of the bible teaches.
Pastors use passages that say" repenet and be baptized" or "call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved". But the fact is we are a spritual COARPSE! How can we call on him? Yes we are alive and have a concience, but we do not have eternal life so that we cna communicate with God. In fact we don't want anything to do with the real God. At the most we want a God that we can imagine to be our friend, etc etc.
The story of Lazarus was put into the bible by God to demonstrate what I am saying. Lazarus died, and wasunable to do ANYTHING to arise. So when Jesus called him Lazarus listened. After that yes it is true Lazarus now loved God, but God had to love him first.
There are SO MANY passages inthe bible that support this, I hope this helps you understand what being spiritual dead is. If not I can expound more.

ok, but your not using evidence or reason to make your case, essentially what your doing is saying "well, my bible says this is the way it is" And I'm saying what reason do you have for thinking your bible it at all accurate? Because I have no reason to think that it's any different from the vedas, the qur'an or any number of "holy" text out there. And they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

ok, but your not using evidence or reason to make your case, essentially what your doing is saying "well, my bible says this is the way it is" And I'm saying what reason do you have for thinking your bible it at all accurate? Because I have no reason to think that it's any different from the vedas, the qur'an or any number of "holy" text out there. And they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

Your right, there is only one truth. My aim was to explain spritual deadness. You said you were a christian, because you were baptized, and went to church and studied the bible. Satan himself knows more about the bible than many people and he knows Jesus is real, but does that mean he is saved? I was just pointing out that until we are given spiritual life, we will never lay hold on truth. We will ever be searching for it, bet never quite grasp it.

 

[Tristesse]

Your right, there is only one truth. My aim was to explain spritual deadness. You said you were a christian, because you were baptized, and went to church and studied the bible. Satan himself knows more about the bible than many people and he knows Jesus is real, but does that mean he is saved? I was just pointing out that until we are given spiritual life, we will never lay hold on truth. We will ever be searching for it, bet never quite grasp it.

ok, Who created satan?

 

[EverChanging]

I have found every "contradiction" brought up by anyone to be straight-forwardly if not exhaustingly explained. For instance the apparent discrepancies of the color of the cloak given to Jesus.
So I generally don't go through each one but rather ask someone to simply give me their best one and I'll refute that.

Cop out! Can you refute the following?

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the **** crow - MAT 26:34
Before the **** crow twice - MAR 14:30


How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:


When/how was the stone at the tomb rolled away?
A) The stone had been rolled away when they arrived. (Mark)
B) An angel came down, rolled the stone back, and sat on it while they were there. (Matthew)


What time did they go to the tomb?
A) Just after sunrise. (Mark)
B) While it was still dark (John)


Who went to the tomb?
A) Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Salome (Mark)
B) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew)
C) Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them (Luke)
D) Mary Magdalene (John)

 

[EverChanging]

EverChanging, you obviously did not read the beginibng of my post. I had to end for the night and said I would pick it up this morning. However, why are you insulting me? What id dI say that was attacking towards you? I am not sure I see the point in explaining the answers to you if you are not willing to read my entire post. However I will assume you just overlooked my beginning sentence, and I will continue.

I wasn't even talking to you.

 

[EverChanging]

Now, before I move onto your other contradictions, I want to see if you are open minded enough to understand this point. I see no reason to move forward if you are as you said "too blind" to see the truth to this point.

I have not completely made up my mind on the various arguments proposed on this subject one way or another. There's no reason we can't go on to the others, however. I also see no reason for you to claim that I said I was "too blind" to see the point because I never made any such statement. Why do challenges to a person's beliefs so often end up in baseless claims like that? It's really very immature of you.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I wrote an essay on the difference in the Alexandrian and Antioch bible sources as they pertain to the King James Only movement. You can read it in this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/37606-king-james-onlyism.html

So, itwillend, which of the many Bibles do you consider the truth? Do you have a perfered source, Alexandrian or Antioch? Why?

itwillend, I'm still waiting for an answer on which biblical translation you prefer.

 

[InerrantWord]

It's not my claim; it's an obvious fact.

There are various explanations for that contradiction, one of which -- the traditional rationalization -- is the levirate explanation. Another explanation is the more recent and even less likely rationalization that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy. Neither explanation is plausible.

Also, you've lost all credibility by claiming that everyone has always read Luke as giving the genealogy of Mary, by claiming that the Greek language has no way to express the concept of father-in-law, by claiming that your interpretation existed in the Greek Orthodox Church before the 15th century, etc. Your whole line of argument has been a string of claims that are not merely unsubstantiated but patently false.

So go ahead, stamp your feet and hold your breath; that will prove your point, at least to your own satisfaction. I found you amusing for a while, but now it's just kind of sad, so I think I'll take my leave of you.

Why are neither explanations plausible?

In fact the Levirate marriage explanation is fully plausible; so is the Mary Genealogy except that Mary's Genalogy is centered on limited Greek passages that may or may not be originals and how Luke intended to write it.

If it is not possible that the gospels are in harmony then explain why the Levirate marriage is impossible or that Luke's genealogy being that of Mary is impossible?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

itwillend, I'm still waiting for an answer on which biblical translation you prefer.

"Bump" and still waiting...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

"Bump" and still waiting...

Sorry, I did get out of hand trying to do to many threads at once, or be part of to many threads.
No disrespect intended. I prefer the king james, but I am open to any of them since we have a the original greek and hebrew to reference to check how the translators did.
why do you ask, am I going to be put in a box now?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Sorry, I did get out of hand trying to do to many threads at once, or be part of to many threads.
No disrespect intended. I prefer the king james, but I am open to any of them since we have a the original greek and hebrew to reference to check how the translators did.
why do you ask, am I going to be put in a box now?

No, I was curious about how you felt about the difference between the Alexandrian vs the Antioch texts. Do you feel one is inerrant and the other not?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

No, I was curious about how you felt about the difference between the Alexandrian vs the Antioch texts. Do you feel one is inerrant and the other not?

To be honest I would have to do more research on that. I am not one to just wiki something and expect to find all there is on the subject.

However let me say this. I believe all translations can be weighted by how faithful they are to the most original manuscipts. Greek and Hebrew respectfully and some Aramaic. If this then be the case, then we should go with the most faithful translation. This may in turn become just an act of faith for many people, me included as I tend to think that having access to the greek and hebrew provides comfort in checking the king james or any other such translation.

However what little I know, it appears the difference between the two are based on how interpretations take place. I would err on the side of caution, because there may be truth in both methods. Ultimately if we can not harmonize something in the bible with the rest of the bible we simply have to check our methods, or pray and wait for God to reveal that understanding.

For example, the bible says in Daniel 11 I believe that Daniel should seal up certain words. So no matter what method they used back in the day, they would never fully decifer the meaning to this sealed book. So just as ANY man made institution of teaching or thought there is always error, or arrogance, or solidification.

Today we know the the seven seals spoken of in Revelations, is what was spoken of in Daniel Ch 11, and today we can understan what was sealed up so long ago.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

To be honest I would have to do more research on that. I am not one to just wiki something and expect to find all there is on the subject.

As a start you can read the essay I referenced a few posts back. It gives the details on the two texts and their origins. It's pretty short so it doesn't take too long to read.

 

[*Paul*]

pssst hey itwillend, go with the antiochan.:shout

 

[Just_me_Mike]

As a start you can read the essay I referenced a few posts back. It gives the details on the two texts and their origins. It's pretty short so it doesn't take too long to read.

I did see the post earlier, can you repost the link? As admitted earlier I was carried away with too many threads...