Ok, so why can't God give anyone a special ability?
Case in point, the OP claiming the God given ability to interpret scripture.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation
- Thread starter 74x12
- Start date
Ok, so why can't God give anyone a special ability?
Case in point, the OP claiming the God given ability to interpret scripture.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I suppose God could do that but I don't think that God gives people their abilities. People acquire their abilities by their own choices and actions.
The Messengers of God (Prophets) are a special case since they are both divine and human and they got their abilities before they were born into this world. They got their abilities by being with God in the spiritual world before they were born in this world.
The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.
(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)
I do not believe anyone has any God given abilities to interpret scripture.
I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me unless I provided empirical evidence to support my claim. Those claiming to be messengers don't do that.
Some may have deluded themselves into believing they are getting messages from God, but others know they are deceiving people.
If he were real, he would have done this from the start.
Most people do not believe in the same God.
Such as???
An all wise God does what's wise; not foolish.
Most people aren't gonna go through all of that trouble investigating a religion they already know is false, just in case it might be true.
No; modern technology WILL confirm it is not a hoax
Some people will refuse to believe no matter the evidence; but then there are others who will convert.
I suppose God could do that but I don't think that God gives people their abilities. People acquire their abilities by their own choices and actions.
The Messengers of God (Prophets) are a special case since they are both divine and human and they got their abilities before they were born into this world. They got their abilities by being with God in the spiritual world before they were born in this world.
The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.
(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)
I do not believe anyone has any God given abilities to interpret scripture.
What do you need scripture for anyway since you already know how God operates?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
There is, never has been, and never will be any empirical evidence for God because God is not a physical entity that we can SEE.
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
Exodus 33:20 But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is true, but the real Messengers of God have not deluded themselves because they know they have received messages from God.
So all of Paul's traveling throughout the Mediterranean area, bring God's message to the Gentiles, was, according to you, a waste of time?
If I were you, I would put Trailblazer on "ignore", as I have. It's not worth discussing anything with someone who just enjoys being contrary.
BTW, God has spoken "from the sky"...
Matthew 3:16-17, "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Humm........ how convenient!
Those who are deluded are just as certain as well. But the real question is; how is everybody supposed to know the difference between the deluded vs the real messenger?
A waste of time??? Just because someone isn't 100% truthful doesn't mean everything they do is a waste of time.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
And you know that how?
If God is real, God has never done this, so that means that a real God would never do this...
The only option you have left available to you is atheism.
I can only hope that you realize that 'God is not real because God does not do what I think a real God would' do is not a rational reason to disbelieve in God.
If a real God exists why would He do what you think He should do instead of what He chooses to do?
A God that takes marching orders from humans. That is the most irrational thing I have ever heard.
They believe in the same God since there is only one God, they simply have different beliefs about that God because God has revealed Himself differently at different times in history.
Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.
The minimum criteria would be:
1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that He set out to do.
3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.
5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.
This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.
Another criterion I believe a true Messenger of God would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God. That would be a red flag since there is not only one true religion from God.
And you know more about what is wise than an All-Wise God?
That is true, most people will not bother to investigate, but it is their loss since the Baha'i Faith is true, and it is the latest true religion of God.
“Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its depths. Take heed that ye do not vacillate in your determination to embrace the truth of this Cause—a Cause through which the potentialities of the might of God have been revealed, and His sovereignty established. With faces beaming with joy, hasten ye unto Him. This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 136
Tell me how you know how any modern technology can detect God.
It is the same now with Baha'u'llah...
Some people will refuse to believe no matter the evidence; but then there are others who will convert.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is not convenient, it is just the way it is. God is spirit, and spirit cannot be seen.
If they really want to know they investigate.
Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.
"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."
Independent Investigation of Truth
“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8
“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, that is something someone wrote in a book. Anyone can write a book.
That is because they don't have to. They deliver God's message and He "does the work". Believe me, I know how hard it is to make a valid point without God-given faith. I was there a long time ago but am more than thankful that God revealed himself to me.
Paul was 100% truthful. John 14:6a, "Jesus replied, "I am the way, the truth, and the life". Galatians 2:20a, "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me." Therefore, Paul was truthful.
There are many Republican Representatives that openly support Christian Nationalism like Mike Johnson, and Marjorie Green
More than half of Republicans support Christian nationalism, according to a new survey
FEBRUARY 14, 20235:00 AM ETAshley Lopez
Voters mark their ballots for the midterm election Nov. 8, 2022, at Lawrenceville Road United Methodist Church in Tucker, Ga.
Ben Gray/AP
Long seen as a fringe viewpoint, Christian nationalism now has a foothold in American politics, particularly in the Republican Party — according to a new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution.
Researchers found that more than half of Republicans believe the country should be a strictly Christian nation, either adhering to the ideals of Christian nationalism (21%) or sympathizing with those views (33%).
Robert P. Jones, the president and founder of the nonpartisan PRRI, has been surveying the religious world for many years now. Recently, Jones said his group decided to start asking specifically about Christian nationalism.
"It became clear to us that this term 'Christian nationalism' was being used really across the political spectrum," he said. "So not just on the right but on the left and that it was being written about more by the media."
I am a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.
Christian nationalism is a worldview that claims the U.S. is a Christian nation and that the country's laws should therefore be rooted in Christian values. This point of view has long been most prominent in white evangelical spaces but lately it's been getting lip service in Republican ones, too.
During an interview at a Turning Point USA event last August, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said party leaders need to be more responsive to the base of the party, which she claimed is made up of Christian nationalists.
"We need to be the party of nationalism," she said. "I am a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists."
Jones said until now it's been difficult to tell how prominent Christian nationalism is within the Republican Party.
"There was some data out there but what we saw as a need was to have a real set of data that would quantify what that term means, how many Americans really adhere to it," he said. "And we also wanted to have a more nuanced view — not just people who are hard adherents but maybe people who are sympathetic."
My posts are based on factual references,ie concerning the happiest countrie,
Of course, you would believe that, because you are biased toward people that share your beliefs.
Again my understanding of Christianity is not topic of the thread,
It is whether:
Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation
No more than any of the other nany conflicting claims of Christians who claim God gave then the 'true' interpretation.
In all humility I would make no such claim.
The subject of the thread is that God gives you the interpretation. If you already had the interpretation did 'give it to you before, to claim the understanding of the holy scriptures different from the many conflicting claims.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
I'm well aware of the Acts description of the rioting and also that the historical reliability of the Acts is disputed... BUT..the fact remains that the Revelation states that the voice of Jesus "described" Paul as the false apostleNo other apostle claimed to be one in Ephesus but was not, because a) he changed a great deal of important Jesus words and b) he was inconsistent with his writings.. And Jesus appeared pleased that all in Asia condemned Paul.
In reality of course, it is evident that John of Patmos was not keen on Paul's teachings the same as all the disciples. The dispute between Peter (James in fact) and Paul is well known, because Paul wanted the new Gentile converts not to be circumcised, nor to observe the Mosaic Law as he considered it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ.
In fact I'm certain that all the disciples wondered.. who is this guy who until yesterday chased us, but then suddenly he claimed he saw our Lord in a vision and started teaching differently from what our Lord taught us..
1. The apostle "Luke" tells us in the book of Acts (Luke wrote Acts), that Paul was rejected by the local town silver smith rustling up a riot to attempt to support his business in making idols for worship of pagan Gods (specifically Artemis) then later by the local Jews during his second visit!
2. Paul supports the initial rejection claim in Ephesians Chapter 2
1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you used to walk when you conformed to the ways of this world and of the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, fulfilling the cravings of our flesh and indulging its desires and thoughts.
3. The book of Revelation is talking about the Christian church in Ephesus being corrupted "they lost their first love". This first love is not a human relationship...note that John wrote Revelation more than 30 years after the church in Ephesus was first planted by the Apostle Paul...the church had clearly lost their way!
... Jesus also notes their shortcoming: “Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love” (Revelation 2:4). They were hard-working, but they no longer had the same passion for Christ as when they first believed. Their work was no longer motivated by love.
Jesus called the Ephesians to repent: “Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first” (Revelation 2:5). In this case, the corrective was to remember the heights of their former love, repent (change their mind about their current status), and return to their previous way of doing things. It was time for revival in the church.
Jesus warns His church of impending judgment if they did not repent: “I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place” (Revelation 2:5b). In other words, their punishment would be the disbanding or destruction of the Ephesian church. The light in Ephesus would go out.
Jesus adds another commendation concerning doctrinal purity: “But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Revelation 2:6). We don’t know much about the Nicolaitans and their doctrine, except that it was heretical. Irenaeus, an early church father in Lyons (modern-day France), wrote that the Nicolaitans promoted fornication and a compromising position on eating food sacrificed to idols, leading many into an unrestrained, carnal lifestyle. What was Jesus’ message to the church in Ephesus in Revelation? | GotQuestions.org
Paul actually went to Ephesus twice...he was asked by the locals to return. He agreed that he would if it was God's will and we know he did return.
Paul arrived in Ephesus most likely during the first few months of A.D. 53, after spending some time in the province of Galatia preaching the gospel and collecting donations for the church in Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:1-4). The Christians in Jerusalem were suffering from the combined effects of a famine and persecution during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius (10 B.C.-A.D. 54) (Acts 8:1; 11:28). From Galatia, Paul took what Luke called “the road through the interior” (Acts 19:1), the upper Phrygian route that ran from the churches established in Galatia (Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe) to the southwest and to Ephesus. Paul had been to Ephesus previously, but only briefly, during his second evangelical journey. On that occasion, Paul sailed from Corinth across the Aegean Sea to reach Ephesus (see Parvis, 1945). He then went into a synagogue and “reasoned with the Jews.” When they asked him to spend more time with them, he declined, but as he left Paul promised, “I will come back if it is God’s will” (Acts 18:19- 21). According to Luke’s account, it was God’s will for Paul to return to Ephesus and that the key city would play a major part in the growth of Christianity. (European Journal of Theology and Philosophy www.ej-theology.org DOI: Apostle Paul in Ephesus: Christianity’s Clash with the Cult of Artemis | European Journal of Theology and Philosophy Vol 3 | Issue 1 | January 2023 22 Apostle Paul in Ephesus: Christianity’s Clash with the Cult of Artemis)
It should also be noted that The apostle John's influence at Ephesus was after Paul established the Christian church there and that Paul spent about 2 years in Ephesus (more than he spent anywhere else)...it was a base of operations for his ministry in the Asia.Now if we read the reference i have cited a little further, we find that in fact it was the local Jewish community during Pauls second visit decided to reject him, so Paul then moved his ministry to the wider gentile population in Ephesus and converted them instead!
During his missionary journeys, when Paul first arrived in an urban centre, he initially took the gospel message to the Jewish population, and if they rejected his teachings, he then turned to the Gentile population (see Acts 13:44-47; 18:5-6). When Paul first visited Ephesus, toward the end of his second missionary journey, he received at least some positive feedback teaching in the synagogue. Luke writes the local Jewish leaders who heard his message asked Paul “to spend more time with them,” but the apostle declined because he was committed to visiting other regions (Acts 18:20). When Paul returned to Ephesus three or four years later on his third journey, he again sought out the Jewish community, but on this occasion, he encountered animosity and after being rebuffed took his gospel message to a broader, more diverse audience. Luke writes, “Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So, Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:8-10). (European Journal of Theology and Philosophy www.ej-theology.org DOI: Apostle Paul in Ephesus: Christianity’s Clash with the Cult of Artemis | European Journal of Theology and Philosophy Vol 3 | Issue 1 | January 2023 22 Apostle Paul in Ephesus: Christianity’s Clash with the Cult of Artemis)
Last edited:
The only thing that is valid claim is Paul "believed" he was 200% truthful that he wrote. Being 100% 'truthful' is a higher standard for a subjective belief.
Last edited: