The Chain of Infallibility

[buddhist]

Using your standards that personal knowledge is all knowledge or even the best knowledge, which facts can I believe? Is Harry Potter the subject of a book? Does this book exist if I've not read it? Do books exist? What is a book?

I'm unsure how you see one writer who manufactured the whole of the Bible, unless you want to say that your personal knowledge of faked books is above the knowledge of historians. Modern scholars accept multiple sources for the Bible--I've already cited the Septuagint as conclusive that there had to be at least two writers, one for each testament.

Again, history informs us that OT writers showed excellent knowledge of the construction, agronomy and etc. of their times. The same can be said of the NT. Do you have personal knowledge that all historians work against facts? Do you have personal reason to believe that archaeologists don't find coins, burial methods, remains of homes, stele and documents that verify the Bible, but rather that 100% of Bible archaeologists are fraudulent?

At what point should I think you know personal facts? At what point should I conclude that you are pretending not to know impersonal facts?

All I'm saying is that I only know what I know directly myself.

I do not know for myself what others have researched - it may be knowledge for them, but it is hearsay for me.

 

[Shiranui117]

I cited two facts that I think are salient here--that Jesus is said in the Bible to have died for the sin of mankind, and that He rose from the dead. List here any denominations in history that you feel are not cultic (using the Bible to proof text their cultic ideas rather than interpreting the Bible to obey the Bible itself) who believe from their Bible study that 1) Jesus died for a reason other than human sin 2) Jesus remained in His tomb:

* Sect or denomination 1

* Sect or denomination 2

* Sect or denomination 3

Thank you.

Is the entire sum total of all Christian thought completely limited to the questions of "Did Jesus die for our sins? Yes. Did Jesus stay in the tomb? No. That's it, discussion over, that's 100% of everything we need to derive from the Bible!" I think you and I would both agree that this is not the case. Even if every Christian denomination agrees on these two incredibly general and vague points, there are glaring and irreconcilable differences between them when we get into the questions of...

-Why did Jesus die for our sins? What does it mean that He died for our sins? What did dying for our sins accomplish? Why is it important that He died for our sins? Why did Jesus have to die, instead of an angel or the Father dying? Would any other person have done? If so, why? If not, why not? If Jesus died for my sins, does that mean I can keep on sinning? If Jesus died for my sins, then what does it mean in terms of my own salvation? Do I need good works to truly accept Jesus' gift of salvation?

-What does it mean that Jesus rose from the dead? Did He rise in a physical body, or was He a disembodied spirit? Did He actually come back to life, or just ascend from Heaven? What did Jesus' rising from the dead accomplish?

You may think these questions superfluous, but they actually become immensely important. For example, the Gnostics agree that Jesus came to earth, died for our sins and rose from the dead, but their interpretation of what that means is so far outside of how Christians interpret it, that Gnostics fall outside the pail of Christianity altogether because of these differences in how we view the world, God, life, death, sin and ourselves. So no, it's not enough to agree on one or two points and say "Yes, Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead", because beneath the apparent similarity of our beliefs is a myriad of difference that makes our respective faiths mutually irreconcilable. For example, Calvinists and Catholics could never be one, because of how Calvinists and Catholics view sin, man's free will, the purpose of Jesus' death and Resurrection, and God's sense of justice. Our faiths fundamentally differ, even though we agree on a few commonly-held Christian points.

That is the point I'm getting at. "Just reading the Bible and using the Bible to interpret the Bible" doesn't cut it for keeping a common Christian faith. We need to have another measure, outside the Bible, for assessing the worldviews, beliefs, why's and how's through which we interpret the Bible. Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever "just reads the Bible". There is ALWAYS layers upon layers of subjective interpretation that goes into our reading and understanding of it.

EDIT: I'll add that writers also have layers of worldviews, beliefs, values and ideas through which they operate when writing a text. The only way we can ever be sure that we're interpreting the Bible correctly is if we know all the layers of culture, linguistics, beliefs, worldviews, values and ideas from which the author operated. If we have these layers, then we can know how the authors of the Bible actually intended their books to be read and understood.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All I'm saying is that I only know what I know directly myself.

I do not know for myself what others have researched - it may be knowledge for them, but it is hearsay for me.

I understand. Over 99.99% of the knowledge available to you, therefore, that I would call "fact" as would most readers of this forum, you call "hearsay". Let me ask us to define terms better?

Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor; the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law

Fact: a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article; "every fact was double-checked"

Hundreds and hundreds of scholars, not just religious but agnostic and atheist scholars, stand behind the facts in evidence I've cited about Bible authorship, dating and prophecies. Any judge in any court would call certain things facts and use hearsay differently than you've used it. You've stated you are agnostic regarding your birth, I'm sure you were born!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is the entire sum total of all Christian thought completely limited to the questions of "Did Jesus die for our sins? Yes. Did Jesus stay in the tomb? No. That's it, discussion over, that's 100% of everything we need to derive from the Bible!" I think you and I would both agree that this is not the case. Even if every Christian denomination agrees on these two incredibly general and vague points, there are glaring and irreconcilable differences between them when we get into the questions of...

I didn’t say this is the entire sum of Christian thought, though arguably it’s the most important facet of the scriptures.

Why did Jesus die for our sins? What does it mean that He died for our sins? What did dying for our sins accomplish? Why is it important that He died for our sins? Why did Jesus have to die, instead of an angel or the Father dying? Would any other person have done? If so, why? If not, why not? If Jesus died for my sins, does that mean I can keep on sinning? If Jesus died for my sins, then what does it mean in terms of my own salvation? Do I need good works to truly accept Jesus' gift of salvation?

I’ll take them up in order. Hopefully it will help:

Why did Jesus die for our sins?

We’re imperfect and so cannot save ourselves (cannot be citizens of a perfect utopia on our own—we’d ruin the utopia).

What does it mean that He died for our sins? (He substituted for us, as a Christian on the Titanic was offered lifeboat space and gave it to a lost person. He switched places with us.)

What did dying for our sins accomplish? (See above.)

Why is it important that He died for our sins? (See above.)

Why did Jesus have to die, instead of an angel or the Father dying? (The Bible contains clear exposition on these things. Jesus is above all angels. Jesus’s death is an immense contribution. Jesus died so that the Father could place Him above all except the Father.)

Would any other person have done? If so, why? If not, why not? (All other persons are imperfect sinners with finite worth.)

If Jesus died for my sins, does that mean I can keep on sinning? (The Bible plainly says that all persons who trust Jesus certainly do sin. If they say they are NOW sinless, they are lying and Jesus isn’t within them in a meaningful way.)

If Jesus died for my sins, then what does it mean in terms of my own salvation? Do I need good works to truly accept Jesus' gift of salvation? (The Bible is clear that salvation is a gift of God NOT of works.)

You may think these questions superfluous, but they actually become immensely important. For example, the Gnostics agree that Jesus came to earth, died for our sins and rose from the dead, but their interpretation of what that means is so far outside of how Christians interpret it, that Gnostics fall outside the pail of Christianity altogether because of these differences in how we view the world, God, life, death, sin and ourselves. So no, it's not enough to agree on one or two points and say "Yes, Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead", because beneath the apparent similarity of our beliefs is a myriad of difference that makes our respective faiths mutually irreconcilable. For example, Calvinists and Catholics could never be one, because of how Calvinists and Catholics view sin, man's free will, the purpose of Jesus' death and Resurrection, and God's sense of justice. Our faiths fundamentally differ, even though we agree on a few commonly-held Christian points.

That is the point I'm getting at. "Just reading the Bible and using the Bible to interpret the Bible" doesn't cut it for keeping a common Christian faith. We need to have another measure, outside the Bible, for assessing the worldviews, beliefs, why's and how's through which we interpret the Bible. Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever "just reads the Bible". There is ALWAYS layers upon layers of subjective interpretation that goes into our reading and understanding of it.

EDIT: I'll add that writers also have layers of worldviews, beliefs, values and ideas through which they operate when writing a text. The only way we can ever be sure that we're interpreting the Bible correctly is if we know all the layers of culture, linguistics, beliefs, worldviews, values and ideas from which the author operated. If we have these layers, then we can know how the authors of the Bible actually intended their books to be read and understood.

Thank you for raising these issues. I would include the gnostics in the cultic belief groups I mentioned earlier. The Bible plainly says Jesus died for sin—you’re not disagreeing with that—which underscores the nature and tenor of all the questions you raised—so a group that says, “Jesus did not die for sin” is obviously adding a non-orthodox, cultic, INVENTED belief that is nowhere in the scriptures.

And I’m not denying that you and I bring many layers of subjectivity and judgment to our reading of the Bible. I am denying that someone dealing with reality, not wanting to manipulate themselves or others for the pursuit of sin or cultic power, can read the Bible and misinterpret it (like gnostics). I’m denying that a thinking person can read the Bible without concluding Jesus is said to have died for all the sins of all people.

We’ve could have had this conversation:

*The Bible in modern form is a collection of books, bound inside cloth covers.

*No, it’s not—books are subjectively different things. You must realize you need to prove what a book is using objective tools before you say the Bible is really, truly a book or available at bookstores.

 

[buddhist]

I understand. Over 99.99% of the knowledge available to you, therefore, that I would call "fact" as would most readers of this forum, you call "hearsay". Let me ask us to define terms better?

Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor; the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law

Fact: a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article; "every fact was double-checked"

Hundreds and hundreds of scholars, not just religious but agnostic and atheist scholars, stand behind the facts in evidence I've cited about Bible authorship, dating and prophecies. Any judge in any court would call certain things facts and use hearsay differently than you've used it. You've stated you are agnostic regarding your birth, I'm sure you were born!

As I've stated before, I am agnostic regarding the circumstances of my birth - not my birth itself, per se.

Yes, you are correct in that many people ("scholars", etc.) have a different standard than I do regarding evidence. When it comes to my eternal destiny, I have a far greater standard - I require personal knowledge, not evidence interpreted by others and put forth as "fact".

E.g. If a "scholar" finds an ancient Egyptian chariot wheel in the Red Sea, he might interpret that as evidence supporting his idea that the Biblical exodus was true. It is now "fact" to him. It is not to me. A wheel found in the Red Sea is simply evidence for a wheel found in the Red Sea - nothing more, nothing less.

Or, to use another example, experiencing "feelings of love and peace" when praying to Jesus is interpreted and claimed by some as evidence for Jesus. To me, "feelings of love and peace" is simply evidence of "feelings of love and peace".

 

[BilliardsBall]

As I've stated before, I am agnostic regarding the circumstances of my birth - not my birth itself, per se.

Yes, you are correct in that many people ("scholars", etc.) have a different standard than I do regarding evidence. When it comes to my eternal destiny, I have a far greater standard - I require personal knowledge, not evidence interpreted by others and put forth as "fact".

E.g. If a "scholar" finds an ancient Egyptian chariot wheel in the Red Sea, he might interpret that as evidence supporting his idea that the Biblical exodus was true. It is now "fact" to him. It is not to me. A wheel found in the Red Sea is simply evidence for a wheel found in the Red Sea - nothing more, nothing less.

Or, to use another example, experiencing "feelings of love and peace" when praying to Jesus is interpreted and claimed by some as evidence for Jesus. To me, "feelings of love and peace" is simply evidence of "feelings of love and peace".

I can certainly give you personal examples:

I not only feel love and peace, but am able to love my enemies. I feel genuine love for people who have wielded weapons at me, spat upon me, and struck me with thrown objects while, smiling, I preached the love of Christ. Only spiritual people can love their enemies. Most atheists tell me they hate their enemies. Many religious persons tell me they forgive their enemies. Christians are enabled/enpowered to love their enemies.

I have learned about hundreds of things/facts like chariot wheels in the Reed Sea.

I have been chastised by the Lord many times for disobedience and blessed by the Lord many times for obedience.

I have had the opposite reaction that one has in nature to events because Jesus is a game changer, a world up-turner.

I find/have found answers in the Bible to hundreds of real life/real world issues. Most everything you read/hear/see about anything from the front page of The Times to POTUS candidates is in the scriptures, like the book of Proverbs. IMMENSE wisdom on money/relationships/governing/knowledge/gnosis/etc.

 

[buddhist]

I can certainly give you personal examples:

I not only feel love and peace, but am able to love my enemies. I feel genuine love for people who have wielded weapons at me, spat upon me, and struck me with thrown objects while, smiling, I preached the love of Christ. Only spiritual people can love their enemies. Most atheists tell me they hate their enemies. Many religious persons tell me they forgive their enemies. Christians are enabled/enpowered to love their enemies.

I have learned about hundreds of things/facts like chariot wheels in the Reed Sea.

I have been chastised by the Lord many times for disobedience and blessed by the Lord many times for obedience.

I have had the opposite reaction that one has in nature to events because Jesus is a game changer, a world up-turner.

I find/have found answers in the Bible to hundreds of real life/real world issues. Most everything you read/hear/see about anything from the front page of The Times to POTUS candidates is in the scriptures, like the book of Proverbs. IMMENSE wisdom on money/relationships/governing/knowledge/gnosis/etc.

And?

I also have similar experiences, such as experiencing loving-kindness, joy, compassion, and equanimity with Buddhism, also with my enemies. I also see Buddha as a game changer, a world up-turner, and have also found answers to real-life/real-world issues in the Buddhist scriptures.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And?

I also have similar experiences, such as experiencing loving-kindness, joy, compassion, and equanimity with Buddhism, also with my enemies. I also see Buddha as a game changer, a world up-turner, and have also found answers to real-life/real-world issues in the Buddhist scriptures.

I'm having trouble with the following:

1. How you know Buddha is a game changer when you have had no personal experience of his life, birth, death, rebirth--scholars agree some about the Prince is factual, some apocryphal. I'm curious how you parse these things since you can not affirm any truths of the Holy Bible since "you lack personal experience of its events and authorship".

2. "Loving-kindness, joy, compassion, and equanimity" for your enemies are not LOVE. Only Christians LOVE their enemies. Only experience a variety of blessings and promises devoted solely toward Christians in the scriptures.

 

[metis]

2. "Loving-kindness, joy, compassion, and equanimity" for your enemies are not LOVE. Only Christians LOVE their enemies. .

That simply is not true, especially when we consider the teachings from Buddhism and Hinduism especially.

 

[buddhist]

I'm having trouble with the following:

1. How you know Buddha is a game changer when you have had no personal experience of his life, birth, death, rebirth--scholars agree some about the Prince is factual, some apocryphal. I'm curious how you parse these things since you can not affirm any truths of the Holy Bible since "you lack personal experience of its events and authorship".

I've written about just this earlier in this thread, here, which I will quote:

There are different emphases, in early Buddhism vs Christianity.

As I wrote recently in another thread, "salvation" in early Buddhism does not depend on belief or blind faith on things which may or may not have happened 2500 years ago. It does not depend on belief or blind faith on the truth about who the Buddha was, or what he did, etc. (On the other hand, equivalent things matter greatly in Christianity and other faith-systems, because you must have blind faith in the right things, the right stories, the right Person, etc.)

Early Buddhism does depend on things which we can see in the here and now, e.g. the truth about suffering and its cessation.

So, it really doesn't matter if the Buddha was a prince born some 2500 years ago on the Indian subcontinent, or if he was a two headed monkey born 100,000 years ago. It doesn't matter if the Buddha traveled around to preach the Laws and Truths he rediscovered, or if he didn't. It doesn't matter if the words attributed to the Buddha were spoken by one man, two women, or a hundred different people, and brought together as the "Dhamma". What matters are the Laws and Truths themselves (the Dhamma), Truths which we now attribute to someone to whom which we give the title Enlightened One ("Buddha"), Truths which I can and have verified for myself, in the present.​

2. "Loving-kindness, joy, compassion, and equanimity" for your enemies are not LOVE. Only Christians LOVE their enemies. Only experience a variety of blessings and promises devoted solely toward Christians in the scriptures.

Are you seriously saying that only Christians can love, and love your enemies? Metta, loving-kindness, encompasess the idea of both love and putting that action into love through kindness.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That simply is not true, especially when we consider the teachings from Buddhism and Hinduism especially.

Redefining words?

Equanimity: mental calmness, composure, and evenness of temper, especially in a difficult situation

Love: an intense feeling of deep affection

Born again Christians have had love for torturers in a thousand dungeons. I'm sorry for being so strident on this point, but the words of Jesus are true in this as in all cases. Christians love their enemies. Love is not forgiveness or equanimity, which why words other than "love" are used.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've written about just this earlier in this thread, here, which I will quote:

There are different emphases, in early Buddhism vs Christianity.

As I wrote recently in another thread, "salvation" in early Buddhism does not depend on belief or blind faith on things which may or may not have happened 2500 years ago. It does not depend on belief or blind faith on the truth about who the Buddha was, or what he did, etc. (On the other hand, equivalent things matter greatly in Christianity and other faith-systems, because you must have blind faith in the right things, the right stories, the right Person, etc.)

Early Buddhism does depend on things which we can see in the here and now, e.g. the truth about suffering and its cessation.

So, it really doesn't matter if the Buddha was a prince born some 2500 years ago on the Indian subcontinent, or if he was a two headed monkey born 100,000 years ago. It doesn't matter if the Buddha traveled around to preach the Laws and Truths he rediscovered, or if he didn't. It doesn't matter if the words attributed to the Buddha were spoken by one man, two women, or a hundred different people, and brought together as the "Dhamma". What matters are the Laws and Truths themselves (the Dhamma), Truths which we now attribute to someone to whom which we give the title Enlightened One ("Buddha"), Truths which I can and have verified for myself, in the present.​

Are you seriously saying that only Christians can love, and love your enemies? Metta, loving-kindness, encompasess the idea of both love and putting that action into love through kindness.

1. If you only believe what you have personal experience of, how do you know what all Buddhists believe? If you have no personal experience regarding the Bible--and have said so here in other words--how are you able to tell me, who has personal experience with the Bible and Jesus, what Bible salvation is?

2. I did not say only Christians love. I did say only Christians can love their enemies.

 

[buddhist]

1. If you only believe what you have personal experience of, how do you know what all Buddhists believe? If you have no personal experience regarding the Bible--and have said so here in other words--how are you able to tell me, who has personal experience with the Bible and Jesus, what Bible salvation is?

2. I did not say only Christians love. I did say only Christians can love their enemies.

1. I don't know what all Buddhists believe. I speak about my understanding and definition of "Buddhism" as I have personally experienced it. I have had 3 decades of experience with Christianity and the Bible (with faith in its unverifiable claims), with almost 2 decades spent in it as a teacher of children and adults, so yes, I would say I understand the Christian concept of salvation, from my personal faith-based experience.

2. I'm a Buddhist and I know I can and have loved my enemies too.

 

[viole]

Great question. How can we verify claims the Bible makes about itself as to its infallibility?

1. Fulfilled prophecy. We can see hundreds, even thousands, of SPECIFIC examples where history reveals the Bible foretold the future. Our past history verifies the predictive prophecy of the Bible, showing Jesus wrote the scriptures.

2. Jesus's character as revealed in the scriptures shows Him the greatest person ever, and authoritative for us.

If the Bible is not even able to describe the past accurately, how do you expect it to be able to anticipate the future?

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

Redefining words?

Equanimity: mental calmness, composure, and evenness of temper, especially in a difficult situation

Love: an intense feeling of deep affection

Born again Christians have had love for torturers in a thousand dungeons. I'm sorry for being so strident on this point, but the words of Jesus are true in this as in all cases. Christians love their enemies. Love is not forgiveness or equanimity, which why words other than "love" are used.

Believe what you want. but that simply is not true. "Love" is one of the most difficult words to define simply because there are so many variations, so a definition you may use may not be shared by another. The concept of "agape" has many parallels in both Buddhist and Hindu teachings.

Let me suggest that you read "The Art of Happiness" by HHDL, for starters, because you simply do not appear to understand, or you don't want to understand, basic Buddhist and Hindu dharma.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1. I don't know what all Buddhists believe. I speak about my understanding and definition of "Buddhism" as I have personally experienced it. I have had 3 decades of experience with Christianity and the Bible (with faith in its unverifiable claims), with almost 2 decades spent in it as a teacher of children and adults, so yes, I would say I understand the Christian concept of salvation, from my personal faith-based experience.

2. I'm a Buddhist and I know I can and have loved my enemies too.

That is extraordinary--you are the first non-Christian I've met who feels genuine, intrinsic affection for their enemies, and would lay down your life for their sake. That is wonderful, although you may already be born again (you are a former church attendee).

I'm sorry you put faith in unverifiable claims. My faith is reasoned and has to do with verifiable claims.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If the Bible is not even able to describe the past accurately, how do you expect it to be able to anticipate the future?

Ciao

- viole

Your false premise is an incorrect preposition. The Bible explains the past so well that scholars note it contains things that are impossible to forge, such as accurate descriptions of ancient, time- and period-specific architecture, commerce, food, shipping, tradewinds, persons, places... archaeology has conclusively verified many Bible truths.

Your false premise is because you disbelieve that the Bible is describing God and religion accurately. God is real, the Jewish/Christian religious system is accurate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Believe what you want. but that simply is not true. "Love" is one of the most difficult words to define simply because there are so many variations, so a definition you may use may not be shared by another. The concept of "agape" has many parallels in both Buddhist and Hindu teachings.

Let me suggest that you read "The Art of Happiness" by HHDL, for starters, because you simply do not appear to understand, or you don't want to understand, basic Buddhist and Hindu dharma.

I have Bachelor's of Religion from a secular university and was required on numerous occasions in exams and papers to accurately describe Buddhist and Hindu beliefs (although we haven't discussed Hinduism on this thread, have we)?

I'm not interested in word quibbles. Jesus-styled agape, dying that others might live, literally dying, literally being tortured, and then raised from the dead by the power of God, has few if any "parallels" in Hinduism and Buddhism, unless you want to redefine "parallel" also. I appreciate that some monks have immolated themselves to protest certain injustices, but Buddhists and Hindus are nowhere in holy texts asked to love their enemies--nor has as been pointed to already--is "once for all salvation" offered within these traditions.

 

[viole]

Your false premise is an incorrect preposition. The Bible explains the past so well that scholars note it contains things that are impossible to forge, such as accurate descriptions of ancient, time- and period-specific architecture, commerce, food, shipping, tradewinds, persons, places... archaeology has conclusively verified many Bible truths.

Your false premise is because you disbelieve that the Bible is describing God and religion accurately. God is real, the Jewish/Christian religious system is accurate.

Water before the stars? I mean, are you sure?

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

I have Bachelor's of Religion from a secular university and was required on numerous occasions in exams and papers to accurately describe Buddhist and Hindu beliefs (although we haven't discussed Hinduism on this thread, have we)?

I'm not interested in word quibbles. Jesus-styled agape, dying that others might live, literally dying, literally being tortured, and then raised from the dead by the power of God, has few if any "parallels" in Hinduism and Buddhism, unless you want to redefine "parallel" also. I appreciate that some monks have immolated themselves to protest certain injustices, but Buddhists and Hindus are nowhere in holy texts asked to love their enemies--nor has as been pointed to already--is "once for all salvation" offered within these traditions.

You are believing only in that which you want to believe, so there's no way of going any further in this with you. Unfortunately, it's this "my way or the highway" approach that diminishes one's credibility. Yes, I can appreciate the fact that you found Jesus, but please don't let that belief put blinders on you.