By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[2ndpillar]

I think I remember where he said he doesn't remember. I did wonder about that, but if I were on a jury -- the reason one lawyer told me lawyers take depositions is because the ones being questioned may not remember what they said. (I won't be on a jury anyway, even though I worked for lawyers -- for several reasons -- )

Fauci stated he didn't fund "gain in function" to congress:

Fauci paid 9 million dollars to Doctors who supported his false narrative:

According to previous CDC director, Fauci suppressed truth.

Fauci said he didn't remember 212 times in Congressional hearings

Your best friend Fauci is a snake

 

[2ndpillar]

Scriptures need to be examined very carefully and explained with meaning.

You might want to first determine what is comprised within "Scripture", versus the seed of the tares.

 

[2ndpillar]

No, I don't think Dr. Fauci is solving 'the' problem. (Not 'my' problem as you seem to state.) I am not vouching for big pharma or information offered by authorities at all. I understand there are negative aspects attributed to the vaccines. I'm also saying that not everyone that is intelligent believes in doctors without wondering, and also what is issued in the form of information by authorities.

And yet you received an untested vaccine under emergency dictates from authorities, and those who represent themselves as science itself. Much like accepting a cannon from an unholy source. Either path has led to "destruction" for "many". (Mt 7:13)

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet you received an untested vaccine under emergency dictates from authorities, and those who represent themselves as science itself. Much like accepting a cannon from an unholy source. Either path has led to "destruction" for "many". (Mt 7:13)

The vaccines were tested. When you make claims like this that are so obviously wrong you lose the minuscule amount of credibility that you had left. And I see that you failed to find any valid support for your claims about Fauci.

 

[2ndpillar]

I am not debating with Muslims. And that is an incredibly minor matter. One cannot really "pray in the direction of Mecca" on a globe anyway since most of the time that direction would have large "down" component to it. You would need something a lot more substantial than that to refute Islam. One may as well try to refute Christianity based upon the failure of the Tyre prophecy.

The Muslim's apparently were adamant about the direction of prayer, and prior to the Muslim year of 100, were accurate at pointing the prayer wall in the direction of Petra, and after the Muslim year of 100, were accurate at it pointing it to Mecca. An indication, combined with the historical Muslim writings, shows that the Kaaba (holy place) a copy of the holy of holies of Jerusalem, was likely moved in the Muslim year 70 from Petra to Mecca, and that Islam history is a false narrative written by the southern Arabs in replacing the power position of the northern Arabs. There is no independent reference that Mecca was a trade center with gardens and fruit trees in the 7th century, and only a Roman historian saying it was a desolate wilderness at that time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Muslim's apparently were adamant about the direction of prayer, and prior to the Muslim year of 100, were accurate at pointing the prayer wall in the direction of Petra, and after the Muslim year of 100, were accurate at it pointing it to Mecca. An indication, combined with the historical Muslim writings, shows that the Kaaba (holy place) a copy of the holy of holies of Jerusalem, was likely moved in the Muslim year 70 from Petra to Mecca, and that Islam history is a false narrative written by the southern Arabs in replacing the power position of the northern Arabs. There is no independent reference that Mecca was a trade center with gardens and fruit trees in the 7th century, and only a Roman historian saying it was a desolate wilderness at that time.

Then try your arguments on a Muslim and see how far that you get. I am willing to bet that they just laugh at you.

 

[nPeace]

Sure, yes. Following his teachings however does not mean you have to read the Bible to know what those are. What about those who are illiterate? Do they need to learn how to read, then own a Bible and read it every day in order to be a Christian?

Where do we find Jesus' teachings?
If a person is teaching another about Jesus' teachings, where do they get those teachings?

You did qualify being a Christian as someone who reads the Bible. So that is a problem for the illiterate, isn't it?

Did I? Where did I do that, please?
I am sure I said one has to be a follower of Christ to be a Christian - that is, follow his example, and teachings. Where else are these found, outside the Bible?
If you know, please tell me. I do not know where else you can get them, except the source be the Bible.

Also, if one cannot read, what prevents them learning?
People who cannot read are taught to.

If one is blind, what prevents them seeing to read?
Blind people are reading the Bible.

If one cannot understand what they read, they can get help from one who will explain the scriptures... using the scriptures.

Philip ran alongside and heard him reading aloud Isaiah the prophet, and he said: “Do you actually know what you are reading?” He said: “Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” So he urged Philip to get on and sit down with him. - Acts 8:30, 31​

First, all those verses have Jesus telling them what the scriptures had told them.

My question was... Do you consider these scriptures to have been important to Jesus, and did Jesus consider them important to his followers?

Were all his disciples literate?

Does it matter? The disciples listened to Jesus, and the apostles... who used the scriptures.
The point being made here, is that they used the scriptures. Why are you making a point about illiteracy?
When Jesus read the scriptures, were those listening illiterate? When the crowds were listening to him, were there deaf people? What exactly is your point?

Jesus entered the synagogue and stood up to read. So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written... Luke 4:16,17​

I doubt that. Aside from Matthew, I doubt any of them were. Did they all own Bibles? Absolutely not! So how could they have read the scriptures themselves?

I fail to see the relevance of your argument.
Can you explain what that has to do with the OP, and the questions I asked.. which you have not answered?
The question was... Do you consider these scriptures to have been important to Jesus, and did Jesus consider them important to his followers?

Back then, the only place you could access the scriptures was the local synagogue, which may have a scroll on hand, and someone to read it for the people who went there. People didn't have those laying around in their domiciles back then! Nor if they did, would have been able to actually read them.

According to scripture, evidently that is not the case.
According to the Jewish law, parents were to teach their children, at home. Deuteronomy 6:4-6
Jesus was born to faithful Jewish parents, and they taught him.... from what?

Persons had scriptures which they both studied, on a daily basis, and used to teach others.
(John 5:39) You are searching the Scriptures . . .
(Acts 8:28) . . .he was returning and was sitting in his chariot, reading aloud the prophet Isaiah.
(Acts 17:11) . . .they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
(Acts 18:28) . . .he thoroughly proved the Jews to be wrong, showing them from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. . .
(2 Timothy 3:15) . . .from infancy you have known the holy writings. . .
(2 Timothy 4:13) . . .When you come, bring the cloak I left at Troas with Carpus, and the scrolls, especially the parchments.

Still failing to see the relavance of your argument though.

You see the problem so far? If not, I'll explain it more clearly in a minute.

Please do, because the only problem I am seeing cannot be the one you are seeing.

Again, only a select few could read the scriptures or had access to them. So your statement that in order to be a Christian you have to read the Bible cannot be true.

I did not make that statement.
Why would I, since reading the Bible does not make one a Christian.
What I think you appear to be doing, is making an argument you think you can use to shut down the relevant discussion. Is that it?

No average Christian would ever have owned their own Bible's prior to the mid 1400's in Europe following the invention of the Guttenberg press. And even then, only those that could afford one. And then, only those who were literate and could read one.

It's taking shape.

The literacy rate you see today, is radically different than what it was even, a century ago! The worldwide illiteracy rate in 1900 was 78.6%! That means a little over a hundred years ago, only 21.4% of the world's population could read. It wasn't until after the 1950's that literacy rates moved above 50%. And even today, around 15% of the world's population is still illiterate.

Rambling a bit, but let me see.

Yet, are you saying they couldn't be a follower of Christ? Surely, "reading the Bible" cannot be a condition of being a Christian then. Correct?

Ah. Looks like a strawman taking full form.
So you ignored the point entirely to claim I said something I did not say, so that you can distract from addressing the point of the OP, and the questions asked?

You have not answered my question up to this point. Will you?
Jesus said... “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44)
(Luke 24:45) Then he opened up their minds fully to grasp the meaning of the Scriptures,

The question I asked was... Do you consider these scriptures to have been important to Jesus, and did Jesus consider them important to his followers?

That's not my definition. I said if what you said was correct, then the above would be true. I don't accept that as true.

Your definition of a Christian is not one who is a follower of Christ - his example, and teachings?
You appear to have lost track of what I said.

Sure, they should know his teachings. However..... there are those who do the will of the Father, who "follow Christ" in their actions, who have never even heard of Jesus and his teachings.

This is what you believe?
On what basis, do you believe this?

"Those who do the will of my father are my brothers and sisters...".

Surely, you don't think that scripture supports what you just said.
(Matthew 12:49, 50) 49 And extending his hand toward his disciples, he said: “Look! My mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, that one is my brother and sister and mother.”

Seriously? "extending his hand toward his disciples".
His disciples are not people who never heard of Jesus and his teachings. Really?

Didn't Paul say in Romans about the Gentiles who do not have the law, but do by nature the things required of the law, that they fulfill the law?

Next verse - 16 . . .This will take place in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind, according to the good news I declare.

Who then is really a Christian? Those who read the Bible, or those that do from the heart what the teachings of Jesus are, even if they've never heard of him before? I vote for the latter.

It's obviously not those who read the Bible, but that's your strawman, remember.
Millions read the Bible, and "go to church", and they certainly are not Christians. I've said this on numerous occasions.
So the argument you created, in order to argue against, is destroyed even before you created it... but you already knew that, didn't you.

Your voting for the later, though, only puts us back at point A... before you commented on the thread.
You have not addressed the OP, nor anything that is actually being discussed on the thread. I'm sure @YoursTrue did not indicate what you brought up.

Also, we do not read "those that do from the heart what the teachings of Jesus are, even if they've never heard of him before". What?
What is a Christian again?
Should I quote you?

 

[nPeace]

This is a good sign then. There is hope for the world.

Through prayer and meditation. Through direct communion of your heart with the Spirit of God.

I am not talking about hearing voices, or being told secret information. But I am talking about a heart of openness and willingness and receptiveness to hear that 'still small voice'. If you live a life like this, then you can have a growing and more accurate knowledge of God. "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God."

This is very different from reasoning your way through life by reading about God. That's not really knowing God. That's knowing about God.

Thanks for sharing your view.

Sure, scripture can help illuminate our feet on our path, but if that is all there is, that is not walking in the Light. I think this cartoon illustrates very clearly what I am trying to convey:

View attachment 75305

What do you mean by "if that is all there is"?

This is the difference between learning about God, and knowing God.

I think you mean, behaving in a way that demonstrate you know God.
Still, is learning about God necessary, or it's not important?

Through the Spirit. I experienced God, before I experienced religion and read the Bible.

I won't ask you about that spirit. Many people feel they have some special communication with "the spirit".

Again, if you were illiterate and could not read the Bible, would you be unable to have spiritual fulfillment?

Perhaps this can answer your question.

What about those poor souls who lived before the printing press was invented and couldn't afford one even if they could read?

What about those poor souls who never heard the Good news.
Are they to be called Christian, just because?

 

[nPeace]

It's a tool of support, not the Door to knowing God. You can know God never having read a single word from it.

I suppose you think God was known to people whom he did not get in contact with.
So outside of the people God chose - Israel... aside from their forefathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, etc., who knew God?
Apart from the law God had Moses write, and copyist duplicate, what law of God was there, and who knew it?

 

[2ndpillar]

Then try your arguments on a Muslim and see how far that you get. I am willing to bet that they just laugh at you.

In general, the claims of Muslim's are ludicrous when looking at the historical, and physical evidence. Just as the claims of "Christians", that their sins have been forgiven. Just as some "Christian" claims that Mary is the seed of David as regards the prophecy of Isaiah. Both daughters of Babylon are followers of false prophets, except the prophet of the Muslims is a little bit more ephemeral when looking at the historical record and the histories of the Muslim's themselves. Your knowledge of Islam is as scant as your insight into "the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 13:13-15), and your effort to put the burden on Muslims for your argument, is not an argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In general, the claims of Muslim's are ludicrous when looking at the historical, and physical evidence. Just as the claims of "Christians", that their sins have been forgiven. Just as some "Christian" claims that Mary is the seed of David as regards the prophecy of Isaiah. Both daughters of Babylon are followers of false prophets, except the prophet of the Muslims is a little bit more ephemeral when looking at the historical record and the histories of the Muslim's themselves. Your knowledge of Islam is as scant as your insight into "the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 13:13-15), and your effort to put the burden on Muslims for your argument, is not an argument.

Your claims appear to be equally ludicrous. You appear to have your own personal made up religion. Can you be so kind as to tell me what you believe and why?

 

[2ndpillar]

Your claims appear to be equally ludicrous. You appear to have your own personal made up religion. Can you be so kind as to tell me what you believe and why?

I am applying the historical and archeological record. You seem to be relying on some unnamed Arab apologist with regard to some ephemeral Muslim beliefs. Your reliance on the "message" of the "enemy" per Mt 13:25, seems to be the basis of your beliefs, whereas I lean towards the "message", the good seed, of the "son of man" for my guidance (Mt 13:37-38).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am applying the historical and archeological record. You seem to be relying on some unnamed Arab apologist with regard to some ephemeral Muslim beliefs. Your reliance on the "message" of the "enemy" per Mt 13:25, seems to be the basis of your beliefs, whereas I lean towards the "message", the good seed, of the "son of man" for my guidance (Mt 13:37-38).

No, that does not answer my question. The historical and archaeological record are not a friend to Christianity. They support some aspects of it. But they also refute parts of it. I asked what you believed and why. You could always state that you do not want to say. Why make false accusations of the beliefs of others? You could always ask politely.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fauci stated he didn't fund "gain in function" to congress:

Fauci paid 9 million dollars to Doctors who supported his false narrative:

According to previous CDC director, Fauci suppressed truth.

Fauci said he didn't remember 212 times in Congressional hearings

Your best friend Fauci is a snake

I took the vaccines because I believe they were effective. Period. If it turns out they make problems instead of preventing them,well then, that's how it is.

 

[YoursTrue]

You might want to first determine what is comprised within "Scripture", versus the seed of the tares.

Some statements and beliefs are more attractive to some than others. Some people choose to go on a vacation to a lake while others choose the ocean. On other words, we can make choices as to what is attractive to us. That includes religion.

 

[YoursTrue]

And yet you received an untested vaccine under emergency dictates from authorities, and those who represent themselves as science itself. Much like accepting a cannon from an unholy source. Either path has led to "destruction" for "many". (Mt 7:13)

Nope. I took the vaccine because I believed that it would work. I'm only guessing you did not take the vaccine. ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I took the vaccines because I believe they were effective. Period. If it turns out they make problems instead of preventing them,well then, that's how it is.

You have never been able to demonstrate any problems. You have only claimed them.

 

[YoursTrue]

You might want to first determine what is comprised within "Scripture", versus the seed of the tares.

Jesus preached. Sorry this has become a test of who can read and who cannot. That was not my point and I didn't mean it the way you are taking it. He preached. Some believed him, others did not. I can't say who read and who didn't read. But he preached. He didn't stand there reading the scriptures out loud without commenting on them OR just reading the scriptures. He spoke about them, observed them, and had followers who liked what he was saying and doing. He didn't just read the scriptures but spoke about them and taught them. Hope that helps to clarify my comments.

 

[YoursTrue]

Apart from the law God had Moses write, and copyist duplicate, what law of God was there, and who knew it?

Good question. I hope some think about it. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fauci stated he didn't fund "gain in function" to congress:

Fauci paid 9 million dollars to Doctors who supported his false narrative:

According to previous CDC director, Fauci suppressed truth.

Fauci said he didn't remember 212 times in Congressional hearings

Your best friend Fauci is a snake

Quite frankly, I looked at the Paul/Fauci video and can see that Senator Paul did not give Dr. Fauci a fair conversation, continually interrupting him and overriding him.