Hmm.
Let me backtrack here... I trusted Christ before I understood or knew scripture itself. I thought Adam ate an apple and Job was a place you worked at. A complete Biblical illiterate.
That is why when you said the Bible and Christ are inseparable, that makes it confusing. Although I didn't say the Bible saves you, that's what's quoted in scripture I gave, but if the Bible and Jesus can't be separated, by just logic in English language we'd assume if you think Jesus saved you, of course the Bible would too.
The Bible as in Jesus's written words rather than the leather bounded book with gold lettering.
I don't think that is analogous.
Let's take the scripture reference and apply it correctly:
John 5:
Yes, scriptures don't save you... but the DO testify of Jesus and one must come to Jesus (in the Christian faith). I never said that scriptures save you... I said that they are tied together as (paraphrasing what I said) they
do testify of Jesus. If there is no plumb line of what testifies of Jesus then we could have multiple Christs (as Jesus said there would be but they would be false Christs).
Since one must come to Jesus to be saved, the bible only testifies to his behalf, they aren't part of the tool you need for salvation. In other words, you don't need his written testimony to know Jesus.
The second part, above you said you trust Christ before you knew of scripture. If this comment is true, then how do you know you knew the real Christ before scripture?
If, as Jesus said, "by thy words you are justified and by your words you are condemned", then there is a uniting of words and people. I know who you are by the accumulation of words that you speak (and actions too) for Jesus also said, "if you don't believe my by what I say, then believe me by what I do" (paraphrased - mine)
So, I don't think I misrepresented my thoughts.
/nods/
I suppose one can have a divergence of positions in its historicity. However, as archaeology continues to discover, it apparently has more historical content that what they thought 50 years ago. Perhaps over time it will continue to be validated? Only time will tell.
What does that mean in regards to what Jesus taught and your salvation? The Buddha has been proven to exist just as much as George Washington. Yet millions of people don't believe in The Buddha and a lot of people don't believe that George Washington is the first president.
I mean, I was curious when they thought they found the Garden of Eden and Noah's Arch; but, to me, finding these things wouldn't confirm my faith if I were Christian. If I stayed in the Church, the only thing that confirmed my faith would be the Church: the Eucharist, Sacraments, and His body-the people. Whether it's historically sound is besides the point of the Christian faith.
If we found out Jesus didn't historically exist, would that change your experience with Jesus? Is it depended on historical accuracy?
If God is not a man that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent of what He said... are not the truth of His words and expression of who He is?
I don't understand that phrase. You'll have to add commentary when quoting scripture. The latter part, not always. I can say curse words and go murder someone but that's not who I am. It's just what I said and did. If I defined who I am by my words and actions, than I pretty much have no identity at all. It would be a a child taking different pain colors and splashing it on the floor. To get to know someone, you got to talk with them personally. I don't know my ancestors by looking at photographs and reading their story. Yes, they are sacred to me, but prayer and conversation, interaction is how I
know them.
I don't understand how a book can be in the same level as Christ. If you know him in faith (or however termed), the book would be sacred, of course, but not an idol or near as such.
It's inerrancy of its prophetic declarations.
Also, I know you said "It's inerrancy of its prophetic declarations," my question is similar to the above. If those prophetic declarations where false, how would that change your belief?
If I found out a gush of wind pushed my right shoulder back from not getting hit by a car rather than the spirits or my grandmother, it wouldn't change my faith. I'd just be "um, that was weird." and I'll still be grateful regardless. If my dreams I have now sense I talk with my ancestors end up not being them talking to me, that wouldn't change my faith given they exist regardless of how I perceive them and interpret their messages or even misinterpret their messages to me. It's not based on anything physical first. It's always spirit-ual. Then physical. It's not inseparable.
Same as prophetic declarations. Those prophetic declarations are physical not spiritual. They things like the wind-push example may have happened for many reasons and like my interpretation analogy we could interpret wrong.
Sorry, in other words, just as I can misinterpret what the spirits did and tell me in my dreams so an believers misinterpret prophetic declarations as accurate. I don't care if it was an alien that pushed me over, I still believe in my family. In your case, how does these declarations make your faith true? Why can't god exist without scripture, declarations, and physical means of communication with humans?
I apply Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14... there is that which is uttered that the natural mind doesn't understand but the hearer hears the translation.
Interesting. I guess that sums up above, but still would want to know your comments nonetheless.
I write poetry and consider that a part of me. If I die before my mother and she kept my poems, she may consider my poetry as a part of me and I'm the Word within those words. However, knowing my mother, she'd probably still know the difference between poetry and her daughter after the years of grieving. If not, then I would have like to understand why. When we die we take care of our loved ones even if we couldn't do so now. So, I guess it depends on the person's beliefs.
I have yet to be convinced of your position.
I don't talk to convince. That's an argument. I like debates because they bring different opinions and evidence to the table, find logic between the two, find
mutual understanding without needing to make the other feel the way we do. Kinda wish that was written as a Ten Commandments here but no...
What I'm saying is "Christ Word/message from his Father is more important than his words (Scripture)."
I suppose that is in the probability factor although 100,000 make it very improbable.
True. Just don't like that idea that we take the words of many than the truth of a few. (Cool. Should write that down).
Same with Christianity. Yes, many people believe in Christ. Many supposed evidence. Many stories. Many facts. Doesn't mean its truth for everyone. It's not universal. It's not fact.
Why are we making spirituality fact
for others. That's convincing. It's impossible if one is strong in their faith. The best we can ask is mutual understanding (not agree to disagree).
So I would agree that we need to trust Christ... but knowledge of His words produce faith for faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word and without faith it is impossible to please Him.
I hear what you're saying. I know for me it would be the opposite. If I depended on the Bible for my knowledge and spiritual understanding of Christ, then I'd feel uncomfortable. Not because the Bible, in this analogy, to me is correct but as soon as I put words over the Word regardless how interrelated they are, I defeat the purpose of what Christ said. Hence why Christ came in the first place because people are putting their traditions (yes, reading the bible, bible study, etc are traditions) over god himself. So his father sent his son, a visible image-the word (not the bible)-to tell others like his apostles "hey, I'm still here" so they won't forget.
It sounds like Bible-oriented people are reverting to traditions that Christ came to replace. He became the "idol" and scripture is a commentary to it-it testifies to Christ. It isn't Christ (my words).
The reason I am approaching historically, in this case, is because there are those who would say "This is a fabricated story with no historical truth"--and thus don't even listed to the truths inside the historical stories as well as the parables and analogies (non-historical in content).
Both are true. I wouldn't call it fabricated since I love words and those seem kinda harsh. However, the Bible does have created stories just as every other oral tradition. I don't understand why people today don't understand the value in stories. Minority religions do heavily. They depend on them. It brings community. Christians seem to lost that over literal interpretation and "spiritual and not religious" point of view.
These created stories are historical. That doesn't mean a donkey actually talked and Jesus walked on water. There is truth behind that, as you said. I think you're kind of hung up on the words "fabricated, created, imaginary." It's just people's bias.
That does not mean they are wrong. They are just expressing it inappropriately.
