Originally posted by ScriabinFair enough--you seem reasonable; a lot more than I can say for most posters.
the original question was how is it possible that you DO believe in the "truth" of your faith?
we obviously mean different things when we use the word "truth."
for you, it is a matter of what you choose to believe.
For me, it is what is the case.
Originally posted by ScriabinIt is what it is which is a calendar for the coming of the Messiah. Do you dispute this? I don't see anyone else dispute this whether they be Jew, Christian, or atheist. However, the interpretation of it is an entirely different thing altogether. I do not present it in the light of indisputible evidence, rather, it is merely evidence.
I'd love to get you on the stand in a court of law so you could give us your "testimony."
Nothing you have written constitutes anything accepted in the real world as a matter of fact -- it is all a tissue of made up nonsense -- commentary based on commentary based on text written by human beings and thereby made to appear by later generations applicable said relates to anything outside the pages of that book and the thoughts between your ears.
Those that deride me for my faith often do so by attacking the Bible in various ways as you do. They either say it is not logical enough or not scientific enough etc, however, it is a religious book of faith. Therefore, what you seek from it is lacking because it is not the focus of its authors. It is like trying to find humor from a study review for the bar exam. Despite this, however, it is interesting that there are few and far between religious texts used as a basis of scientific study like the Bible has. Specifically, the Bible is the main source of Biblcial archeaology. It has been born from the texts of the Bible, not because these scientists are religious fanatics, rather, it has been born from the knowledge that it is accurate enough historically to base a field of study upon it. It then stands to reason that there are truths within its constructs and it is merely up to you to decipher which is truth or fiction. I just get a kick out of scientists standing around trying to reason how the Red Sea was parted. They sit around disputing naturalistic phenomenon that could have contributed to the story because they are convinced there is truth to it, however, they deny the supernatural source for the phenomenon. The same can be said for other stories in the Bible such as Noah's ark or the mythical power of the ark of the covenant. I have seen more than one such documentaries with scientists trying to weed out the truth in these stories, yet they seem confident that there is truth behind them. However, you seem to prefer to ignore them in their entirety as pure fable. That is up to you.
Originally posted by ScriabinI would simply say that it is the inspired word of God. This is ALL the
Here is a possible way forward -- even though I suspect that all you believers simply dwell in a fantasy world of your own and even use a language that merely sounds like English but is something else, for the words mean something different to you than they do to me.
Let's establish whether folks believe in one of two basic approaches to the Bible:
1. Biblical inerrancy, or
2. Biblical infallibility
which is the case?
Bible claims to be. No where within its confines is there the claim to inerrancy or infallibilty. Therefore, add them at your own peril!
I do realize that some Christians worship their text much like those within Islam, however, that does not mean that all do.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
The Bible is not intended to be a work of fortune telling; of prophesy. It fails in this regard for the same reason that the writings of Nostradamus fail: both are general and any 'proving' of prophesy is conveniently attached to a passage because the passage fit the event (after the fact!), not because the passage foretold an event.
The writings of the ancient prophets need to be seen for what they are. They are written to an audience and a situation that is no longer, so the prophecies do not apply. The Jewish prophets are invariably warning that if the Jews continue with path A then B will surely happen. The same is true with Revelations; it does not apply to today! It's not written for, nor is it intended for, a 21st century audience! Looking for the 'prophecies' of Revelations is foolishness, for the situation and the audience passed long ago.
For me the Bible is but a guide. It's like having a naturalist's guide to birds. Some of the birds I've never seen but maybe I'll know them if I see them. The guide tells me where certain birds are likely to be found but it's not going to predict that a certain bird will be in an exact location. The Bible also predicts nothing and if you're looking to a bird book to tell you where a bird is then you're as foolish as the person looking through the Bible for a certain event to happen because the Bible supposedly predicted it.
Originally posted by whodeyMatt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
I would simply say that it is the inspired word of God. This is ALL the
Bible claims to be. No where within its confines is there the claim to inerrancy or infallibilty.
John 10:35 ...and the Scripture cannot be broken
1 Pet 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever...
Ps 119:89 Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.
Tit 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began...
If God cannot lie and the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be both inerrent and infallible.
In that light Jesus once again claims divinity in Matt 24:35: Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
In other words, His words are the very words of God that will not fail.
Originally posted by Scriabin...and you seem very confident yourself about what you think you know , almost certain infact. How do you know that you know this?
Many people who demonstrably do not know what they are talking about are supremely confident that they know what they know.
Every hospital for psychopathic disorders has such patients; and who does not have acquaintances, not as yet incarcerated, who are similarly confident that they know what others believe no one can know.
Consider also the knowin ...[text shortened]... f confidence in what one knows is not a sufficient justification for knowing that one knows it.
Interestingly , I did not specifically say it was a matter of confidence. What I hinted at was a different kind of knowing rather than intellectualising about it. Knowing the living Christ is not the same as having religious fervour about witches and their need for burning. I'm not sure Christ would have condoned such actions.
To get back to the divinity of Jesus, there is another good reason to believe that Jesus is God:
Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day.
This is a historic fact that I am sure would stand in any just court of law. Jesus was seen over a period of about 40 days by many different people at different occasions, including by about 500 people at one time. He showed Himself alive to His disciples with 'many infallible proofs' (Acts 1).
The ressurected Christ made such an impression on the disciples that this fearful, almost cowardly, bunch were willing to give their lives to defend the truth that 'on the third day He rose again.' They had ample time under torture and treat to denounce Him and recant, but never did.
The early disciples signed their testamony of the ressurection and divinity of Jesus in their own blood, which gives them decidedly more credibility than any big mouth who isn't even willing to suffer discomfort for what he believes in.
Originally posted by Henry23Actually, St Paul is explicit that Jesus was raised on the third day, not rose. He never wavers
To get back to the divinity of Jesus, there is another good reason to believe that Jesus is God:
Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day.
This is a historic fact that I am sure would stand in any just court of law. Jesus was seen over a period of about 40 days by many different people at different occasions, including by about 500 people at on ity than any big mouth who isn't even willing to suffer discomfort for what he believes in.
in his phrasing it this way. Why?
Why would such a punctiliously careful writer use the passive voice in every case referring to Jesus'
resurrection? The answer is here, in the opening to his greeting to the people of Galatia:
Paul, an apostle -- sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through
Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead...
See? St Paul thought Jesus and God were distinct, so distinct that the latter raised the former
from the dead.
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeythere is much in the Bible of value - it is the way folks who knew more than the common uneducated masses chose to lay down some rules that could help the community defined by adherence to the particular monotheism that inspired its writing to survive and prosper.
It is what it is which is a calendar for the coming of the Messiah. Do you dispute this? I don't see anyone else dispute this whether they be Jew, Christian, or atheist. However, the interpretation of it is an entirely different thing altogether. I do not present it in the light of indisputible evidence, rather, it is merely evidence.
Those that de owever, you seem to prefer to ignore them in their entirety as pure fable. That is up to you.
For example, the dietary laws make good sense in that part of world, even today, as public health measures. But as one can also see here in the USA, people absorb law and politics through their gut, not their brains. Emotion and religion communicate better than a doctor's prescription against eating meat likely to cause disease.
And there is art and poetry in the book -- but people use this book to say things like you do:
"It is what it is which is a calendar for the coming of the Messiah. Do you dispute this?"
Dispute what? That there is or can be, in the real, rational world, any such thing or person as "the Messiah"? Sure -- another Zevi, or John Brown, or Joseph Smith, or you name it -- no shortage of messiahs and no matter how many folks they get to follow them, it simply does not and cannot establish the existence of divinity or the supernatural.
Dispute what? That you are submerged so deeply in a fantasy world such that you cannot distinguish thoughts and feelings inspired by this book from the real world outside of you?
What's the use? Do what you like -- but I think maybe you need more help than even I do -- and I don't dispute I need help. My burden is too heavy for most people; not just losing a son, but my own ill health and now that of my wife who is fighting cancer and numerous other serious problems. Yet we go on and we face what we have to without hiding behind fables, parables, myths, and faith. We deal with facts, with what is real, with what those things require of us in order to keep going. We are strong because we choose to be.
And that's not out of a book or a bottle.
But this is useless. No one obtains wisdom from a book, a bottle, from faith, from religion, from teaching, nor from any person, parent, teacher, wise man, etc. No -- we get it only through experience.
Read Herman Hesse's great allegorical novel Siddhartha.
You will then, perhaps, get a glimmer.
I once got thrown out of an exam on metaphysics for cheating -- I was accused of looking into the soul of the girl next to me. I plead innocent, I was looking down her shirt.
Originally posted by NemesioActually, no one has ever come back from being dead for 36 hours.
Actually, St Paul is explicit that Jesus was raised on the third day, not rose. He never wavers
in his phrasing it this way. Why?
Why would such a punctiliously careful writer use the passive voice in every case referring to Jesus'
resurrection? The answer is here, in the opening to his greeting to the people of Galatia:
[i]Paul, ...[text shortened]... and God were distinct, so distinct that the latter raised the former
from the dead.
Nemesio
Plenty of folks have been revived after being technically dead for a short period of time.
Absent something that violates natural laws and contradicts the testimony of any number of medical experts, no one's brain can survive past a certain amount of time without oxygen.
So if Jesus walked out of a cave after 3 days -- he never died in the first place.
If he did die, than the guy who walked out of there wasn't the guy who died.
Mere assertion of "historical fact" makes me wish I had you guys on the stand -- it would be fun. For me -- not for you.
No court of law will accept what you both are trying to accept as real, as fact.
That's because it is just a story, nothing more. Lovely story -- great words, etc. Wish we all would follow the teachings and live according to what Jesus said we ought to do -- insofar as it doesn't involve a lot of supernatural nonsense -- but otherwise, he gave pretty good advice.
It never ceases to amaze me how credulous people are - how willing they are to believe what they were taught or assume later in life some great emotional attachment to something that is simply between their ears and has no actual point of reference outside of that.
But we are not very often strong enough to face what is real -- especially death. Whether it is the death of our children or our own pending death, it is hard to face. I choose to face it by looking it in the eye and accepting reality -- I do not choose to delegate that responsibility to someone or some thing that I imagine exists but cannot call up on my phone and talk to right now.
Originally posted by ScriabinI wasn't making a comment about my stance on the issue. I was merely reporting what St Paul
Actually, no one has ever come back from being dead for 36 hours.
Plenty of folks have been revived after being technically dead for a short period of time.
Absent something that violates natural laws and contradicts the testimony of any number of medical experts, no one's brain can survive past a certain amount of time without oxygen.
So if Jesus ...[text shortened]... or some thing that I imagine exists but cannot call up on my phone and talk to right now.
actually recorded.
Sorry if you were confused about that.
Nemesio
The Alfurs of Poso, in Central Celebes tell how the first men were supplied with their requirements direct from heaven, the Creator passing down his gifts to them by means of a rope. He first tied a stone to the rope and let it down from the sky. But the men would have none of it, and asked somewhat peevishly of what use to them was a stone. The Good God hen let down a banana, which, of course, they gladly accepted and ate. This was their undoing. "Because you have chosen the banana," said the deity, "you shall propagate and perish like the banana, and your off-spring shall step into your place ..."
Weak and narrow are the powers implanted in the limbs of man; many the woes that fall on them and blunt the edges of thought; short is the measure of the life in death through which they toil. Then are they borne away; like smoke they vanish into air; and what they dream they know is but the little that each hath stumbled on in wandering about the world. Yet boast they all that they have learned the whole. Vain fools! For what that is, no eye hath seen, no ear hath heard, nor can it be conceived by the mind of man.
--Empedocles (5th cent. B.C.)
Originally posted by NemesioGod the Father and God the Son are distinguishable, but not distinct.
See? St Paul thought Jesus and God were distinct, so distinct that the latter raised the former
from the dead.
I you know anything about interpreting Scripture you'll know about the 'Context Principle' of Hermeneutics: 'Scripture interprets Scripture.'
Paul, whom you quote, also said the following:
Rom 9:5 [The Israelites] of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
- Note that Paul says Christ is over all and is the eternally blessed God.
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
- Note that Paul says God purchased the church with His own blood, clearly refering to the blood of Jesus Christ which He shed on the cross.
There are litterally dozens of other Scriptures, but I won't bore you with them, I think you get the point: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are distinguishable, but not distinct. They are three Persons, but one God.
Try and fit that ocean of divine truth into the pint size cup of your human understanding! 🙂