Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Ajax]

It is absurd to think that people abandoned Christianity because they read the Bible. They lost their faith in God by reading???

I went to the hospital because of a severe asthma attack. AT THE TIME I WAS A CONFIRMED ATHEIST! A pastor prayed for me and I was a) instantly healed and b) my entire body was filled with extreme love (that is the only way I can describe it.)

The quotes from the Bible closely describe what happened to me, except I wasn't anointed with oil.

OK fair enough, but may I ask you, If - touch wood as they say - you fall ill again, will you go to the scientists doctors, or will you pray as the Bible says and wait to be healed?

 

[blü 2]

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It is a book that teaches people spiritual truths, not scientific facts.

So you and I agree there was no Great Flood as described in Genesis, and that the bible contains folktales presented as facts, then?

There would be no point in turning to scientific texts for spiritual answers, correct?

On the contrary, I think the study of humans and how they think is capable of greatly illuminating why virtually all of them/us have invented gods at some time or another.

As you'll have noticed, in the early part of the Tanakh, it's taken for granted that there are many gods, as shown (amongst many examples) in the command, Thou shalt have no other gods before me ─ instead of Ain't no other gods! That's called henotheism, as you doubtless know. God only becomes the sole God after the Babylonian captivity, say by Isaiah.

And of course God continues to evolve. The Christian version of [him] splits off in the first century CE, renounces the covenant of circumcision, shifts the seventh day to Sunday, and as a matter of political necessity adopts the Trinity notion and thus officially raises Jesus to God status around the 4th century, though the pressure had been there since the 2nd century.

Then the Christian God splits into east and west, then the west splits into Catholic and Protestant, then the Protestant splits into high and low, then the low fragments split into literally thousands of pieces. We also find Jesus in the Mormon church and the Rastafarian church.

So the effort of a bit of study is well repaid with some understanding.

 

[blü 2]

Why don't you understand the quote? "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

Here is the same verse and the two following from a modern translation:

"Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.

“For who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

Judging by their posts, many people on this forum have clearly demonstrated the truth of these verses. They don't understand the truths of Scripture because they are spiritually discerned. Because Christians have "the mind of Christ", we are able to understand them.

"Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny."

You managed not to address my actual question, which you'll recall was

But since believers disagree with each other, is that because the Spirit tells them different things, just for mischief?

Or does the Spirit have a speech impediment, or speak only in koine Greek, or is inclined to mumble, so it's hard to understand?

How does that work?

 

[blü 2]

OK, so you're asking. Disagreement results from human imperfection, not from failure on God's part.

So the perfect God has chosen to communicate via imperfect messengers then?

If [he]'s trying to communicate with humans in good faith, that's just dumb of [him], no?

Or does [he] enjoy jerking people around?

 

[Unfettered]

So the perfect God has chosen to communicate via imperfect messengers then?

That's correct.

If [he]'s trying to communicate with humans in good faith, that's just dumb of [him], no?

I guess that depends on what you know of God's purposes, plans, methods, provisions, knowledge, etc. Using the framework of your understanding, I'm guessing the answer would be "yes."

Your question isn't compatible with the framework of my understanding, so I can't offer an answer that belongs to me.

Or does [he] enjoy jerking people around?

Same as above.

 

[blü 2]

That's correct.

I guess that depends on what you know of God's purposes, plans, methods, provisions, knowledge, etc. Using the framework of your understanding, I'm guessing the answer would be "yes."

Your question isn't compatible with the framework of my understanding, so I can't offer an answer that belongs to me.

Same as above.

But surely included in your framework of understanding must be the observation that there are thousands of versions of Christianity around the planet, not to mention the Mormons and the Rastafarians. no?

And that must tell us something about God as a communicator, no?

And as an additional question, what is God doing about getting [his] message, whatever that is, across to the Hindus, the Confucians, the Buddhists, the Shinyoists, the followers of the Great Spirit or the Rainbow Serpent, and so on?

 

[Unfettered]

But surely included in your framework of understanding must be the observation that there are thousands of versions of Christianity around the planet, not to mention the Mormons and the Rastafarians. no?

It is, yes.

And that must tell us something about God as a communicator, no?

The fact alone? No, it's simply a fact. We could make assumptions about causes, but if that's as far as we go before we start drawing conclusions, how would we know if we'd arrived at the truth of the matter?

And as an additional question, what is God doing about getting [his] message, whatever that is, across to the Hindus, the Confucians, the Buddhists, the Shinyoists, the followers of the Great Spirit or the Rainbow Serpent, and so on?

From within whose framework of understanding are you asking me to respond?

 

[McBell]

From within whose framework of understanding are you asking me to respond?

What are the options?

 

[Unfettered]

What are the options?

That depends on whether one wants an intelligible, or at least an informed, response, or whether one simply wants to have his own understanding reflected back to himself in the response (very common).

 

[McBell]

That depends on whether one wants an intelligible, or at least an informed, response, or whether one simply wants to have his own understanding reflected back to himself in the response (very common).

Why not simply list the available options?
For example:

1. Intelligent
   1. From Christian PoV
      1. Baptist
      2. Methodist
      3. Mormom
      4. Catholic
      5. Etc.
   2. From Muslim PoV
      1. Sunni (without Hadith)
      2. Sunni (with Hadith)
      3. Shia (without hadith)
      4. Shia (with Hadith)
      5. Etc.
   3. From Hindu PoV
      1. Vaishnavism
      2. Smartism
      3. Shaktism
      4. Shaivism
   4. etc.
2. Informed
   1. From Christian PoV
      1. Baptist
      2. Methodist
      3. Mormom
      4. Catholic
      5. Etc.
   2. From Muslim PoV
      1. Sunni (without Hadith)
      2. Sunni (with Hadith)
      3. Shia (without hadith)
      4. Shia (with Hadith)
      5. Etc.
   3. From Hindu PoV
      1. Vaishnavism
      2. Smartism
      3. Shaktism
      4. Shaivism
   4. etc.
3. Etc.

 

[Unfettered]

Why not simply list the available options?
For example:

1. Intelligent
   1. From Christian PoV
      1. Baptist
      2. Methodist
      3. Mormom
      4. Catholic
      5. Etc.
   2. From Muslim PoV
      1. Sunni (without Hadith)
      2. Sunni (with Hadith)
      3. Shia (without hadith)
      4. Shia (with Hadith)
      5. Etc.
   3. From Hindu PoV
      1. Vaishnavism
      2. Smartism
      3. Shaktism
      4. Shaivism
   4. etc.
2. Informed
   1. From Christian PoV
      1. Baptist
      2. Methodist
      3. Mormom
      4. Catholic
      5. Etc.
   2. From Muslim PoV
      1. Sunni (without Hadith)
      2. Sunni (with Hadith)
      3. Shia (without hadith)
      4. Shia (with Hadith)
      5. Etc.
   3. From Hindu PoV
      1. Vaishnavism
      2. Smartism
      3. Shaktism
      4. Shaivism
   4. etc.
3. Etc.

If you are able to respond within the framework of all of those systems in an expert, informed manner, you know a whole lot more than I do. I only know what I know.

 

[McBell]

If you are able to respond within the framework of all of those systems in an expert, informed manner, you know a whole lot more than I do. I only know what I know.

I merely presented an example of a manner in which you can list the options.
Not that you had to present options that you are unable to do.

Never mind me, I got an answer to my curiosity.
Carry on.

 

[Trailblazer]

So the perfect God has chosen to communicate via imperfect messengers then?

Disagreement results from human imperfection, not from failure on the messenger's part.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's correct.

So you believe that Jesus was imperfect? I don't.
As a mirror image of a perfect God, Jesus was also perfect.

 

[Unfettered]

So you believe that Jesus was imperfect?

No, I don't believe that, and never said that.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I don't believe that, and never said that.

Good.

 

[blü 2]

It is, yes.
The fact alone? No, it's simply a fact. We could make assumptions about causes, but if that's as far as we go before we start drawing conclusions, how would we know if we'd arrived at the truth of the matter?

From within whose framework of understanding are you asking me to respond?

The world as it is. The Hindus, Buddhists, and so on, have been around longer than Christianity, and they're still going. That would appear to mean that what they believe is no less valid (albeit no more valid) than what Christians believe, no? The Muslims haven't been around as long, but I seem to recall a survey showing that in terms of numbers they'll overtake Christianity shortly.

Is the omnipotent Christian God going to take that lying down, or should we expect some cataclysm to reduce the opposition to ashes or whatever?

 

[Tomef]

Are you asking all this generally, or are you asking me personally? Are you asking rhetorically? Do you believe that there actually is a way that these apparently conflicting ideas can be reconciled?

Not sure what channel of discussion you're wanting to go down.

I’m asking you personally. From your posts it appears that you believe there is some way to know you are being guided by the spirit, however it is also the case that many people who believe the same thing disagree about what the spirit is telling them. You believe that any disagreement is due to human failings. So, what is it you mean exactly? The question is quite straightforward, this is a belief you have so my assumption is that you have some justification for it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is the omnipotent Christian God going to take that lying down, or should we expect some cataclysm to reduce the opposition to ashes or whatever?

There is no omnipotent Christian God, there is only God, the God of all those religions you mentioned, who is also the God of Christianity.

 

[Esteban X]

It is absurd to think that people abandoned Christianity because they read the Bible. They lost their faith in God by reading???

I thought I was a Christian but it was studying the Bible t.hat led me to Agnostic Atheism. The partisan nature of the Old Testament and the absurdity of it all among other things.I didn't lose my faith by reading but by thinking.