PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Logic and Scripture



Pages : [1] 2 3

Rullion Green
Mar 8th 2011, 10:13 PM
Do you agree that deductive logic is necessary for reading scripture and that it's usefull ?

there are a few doctrines in Christianity that are deduced they are not there in black and white so to speak, please give examples of doctrine that are deduced if you dont mind, the more obscure the better we can all think of a major one off hand, but are there any others ?

the Westminster confession of Faith puts it like this.

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture"

you dont have to subscribe to all of the confession just asking about this particular statement.

do you agree, this is a good method or do you only accept things that are explicitly stated ?

yay or nay

RabbiKnife
Mar 8th 2011, 10:16 PM
Yay.
........................

Bandit
Mar 8th 2011, 10:23 PM
...

there are a few doctrines in Christianity that are deduced they are not there in black and white so to speak, please give examples of doctrine that are deduced if you dont mind, the more obscure the better we can all think of a major one off hand, but are there any others ?

the Westminster confession of Faith puts it like this.

...

The westminister confession is not found in the bible... perhaps it is one of the examples you are seeking.

Rullion Green
Mar 8th 2011, 10:23 PM
Yay.
........................

thank you i'm in the same boat.

Rullion Green
Mar 8th 2011, 10:27 PM
The westminister confession is not found in the bible... perhaps it is one of the examples you are seeking.

I was sort of looking for doctrines that are deduced from scripture that are not stated explicitly (barring the Trinity too easy) and also if its a good practice to follow the advice in the confession. Agreed the Westminster confession of Faith is not found in scripture.

Athanasius
Mar 8th 2011, 10:35 PM
Yes, and any deducation to the contrary...

Bandit
Mar 8th 2011, 11:15 PM
I was sort of looking for doctrines that are deduced from scripture that are not stated explicitly (barring the Trinity too easy) and also if its a good practice to follow the advice in the confession. Agreed the Westminster confession of Faith is not found in scripture.

Well, end-time views are another favorite, along with doctrines like 'once saved always saved' and unconditional individual election and 'total depravity' (i.e., calvinism). But why bring up such? The point is that we all need to think about what the bible says. If it were an easy book, we would all agree on what it said.

Neanias
Mar 8th 2011, 11:30 PM
Can deduction actually teach us the truth of God?

1Co 2:14 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.

I think not. :)
Only through the Spirit can we truly understand and walk in the truth of God... Otherwise the written word would be enough... And the Pharisees would of been fine...

Bandit
Mar 8th 2011, 11:58 PM
Can deduction actually teach us the truth of God?

1Co 2:14 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.

I think not. :)
Only through the Spirit can we truly understand and walk in the truth of God... Otherwise the written word would be enough... And the Pharisees would of been fine...

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree here. In Isaiah 1:18 the LORD says,

“Come now, and let us reason together...”

God gave us both our brains and His revelations. He expects us to use the one to understand the other. Please don't assume that 'spiritual discernment' means 'no reasoning involved'. We could have a long and reasoned discussion concerning 1st Cor 2:14 and context, if you wish (but that would imply that for which you are seeking evidence). Perhaps we should skip the whole thing and go out for pizza and beer? That might be easier in the long run.

Dani H
Mar 9th 2011, 12:01 AM
Yay, if one bears in mind that man's logic doesn't always follow God's ... whose thoughts are higher than our own and we so very often lack understanding because our carnal mind keeps us from following God's logic.

So ... um ... yes and no? :D

Neanias
Mar 9th 2011, 12:05 AM
Amen Dani!!! That was my point...

And bandit, I agree :)

I was just trying to balance the equation. We should reason, we should use our brains, but knowing that our human reasoning is no good. We must look at what the Lord says and understand the spiritual reasoning. I think we cannot find truth by mere reasoning. It requires revelation.

If we actually believe our own reasoning can do the job, we will end up like the Pharisees and make God's word and commandments null by our beliefs.

Neanias
Mar 9th 2011, 12:06 AM
And Dani, amen to 'Yes and no'! :lol:

I think far more things that we ask are actually answered by 'yes and no', and when we pick a side we are missing the point. :)

Again, I'd rep you if I could!

Servant89
Mar 9th 2011, 12:07 AM
Yes there are many indeed. One good example is the doctrine of resurrection of the dead. Back in the days of Jesus (before the NT), the word "resurrection" was not in the Bible, not in the OT. Because of that there was division between saduccess and pharisees. The saducees did not believe in it. The saducees only believed in the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Bible. So, in demonstrating the doctrine of resurrection of the dead as being Biblical, Jesus did not quote to the Saducees from the prophets, instead he quoted from the Pentateuch. Here we see IMPLIED doctrine.

Mat 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Shalom

GitRDunn
Mar 9th 2011, 12:53 AM
Do you agree that deductive logic is necessary for reading scripture and that it's usefull ?

there are a few doctrines in Christianity that are deduced they are not there in black and white so to speak, please give examples of doctrine that are deduced if you dont mind, the more obscure the better we can all think of a major one off hand, but are there any others ?

the Westminster confession of Faith puts it like this.

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture"

you dont have to subscribe to all of the confession just asking about this particular statement.

do you agree, this is a good method or do you only accept things that are explicitly stated ?

yay or nay
Yay.

I think the Bible is obviously not a black and white book (except about a few things, such as how to go to Heaven) and thus requires one to think when reading it. God created everything, and that includes our brains. If He didn't want us to think, He wouldn't have given them to us, but since He did, I think it is a waste if one doesn't use their brain to think about what they are reading. To me personally, if a person doesn't think and contemplate about what they are reading, the Bible is just full of meaningless paper and ink. The way to truly learn while reading one must think about the text and deduce meaning from it.

Athanasius
Mar 9th 2011, 12:55 AM
Can deduction actually teach us the truth of God?

1Co 2:14 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.

I think not. :)
Only through the Spirit can we truly understand and walk in the truth of God... Otherwise the written word would be enough... And the Pharisees would of been fine...

You're answering a different question than the one asked. However, the answer is still yes, and you agree (if it's news to you) that deduction is required.

Rullion Green
Mar 9th 2011, 10:42 AM
Yes there are many indeed. One good example is the doctrine of resurrection of the dead. Back in the days of Jesus (before the NT), the word "resurrection" was not in the Bible, not in the OT. Because of that there was division between saduccess and pharisees. The saducees did not believe in it. The saducees only believed in the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Bible. So, in demonstrating the doctrine of resurrection of the dead as being Biblical, Jesus did not quote to the Saducees from the prophets, instead he quoted from the Pentateuch. Here we see IMPLIED doctrine.

Mat 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Shalom

Thanks for the scripture provided to show your deductions. :)

Rullion Green
Mar 9th 2011, 10:45 AM
You're answering a different question than the one asked. However, the answer is still yes, and you agree (if it's news to you) that deduction is required.

Sounds like you know your way through some informal fallacies. I could learn a thing or 2, Any books you could recommend or websites ?

ProDeo
Mar 9th 2011, 11:21 AM
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Amazing logic huh?

Another doctrine right down to the toilet in one sentence.

Reminds me of a couple of famous quotes.

A genius is one who shoots at something no one else can see, and hits it.
-- Author unknown

Genius... is the capacity to see ten things where the ordinary man sees one.
-- Ezra Pound

Genius is the ability to reduce the complicated to the simple.
-- C. W. Ceran

Servant89
Mar 9th 2011, 12:22 PM
On the other hand, there are many things explicitly stated in the Bible and Christians stubburnly refuse to believe them because they go against what they believe. For example, John wrote:

Rev 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

People interpret "keep thee from" the hour as meaning that God will take people out of this world before that hour arrives. They believe that in spite that John himself explained what that phrase means:

Jn 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

Jesus explained it like this:

Jn 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word (in John 17:15).

P.S. The reason for the plagues in Egypt was to show people that God is so big and powerful, that he does not need to remove his elect from the planet to hit the others with his plagues.

Ex 11:7 (http://webnet77.com/cgi-bin/bible/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

Shalom

Firstfruits
Mar 9th 2011, 01:09 PM
Do you agree that deductive logic is necessary for reading scripture and that it's usefull ?

there are a few doctrines in Christianity that are deduced they are not there in black and white so to speak, please give examples of doctrine that are deduced if you dont mind, the more obscure the better we can all think of a major one off hand, but are there any others ?

the Westminster confession of Faith puts it like this.

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture"

you dont have to subscribe to all of the confession just asking about this particular statement.

do you agree, this is a good method or do you only accept things that are explicitly stated ?

yay or nay

Other than when Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds he spoke plainly to his disciples and as far as I understand they were to speek plainly to us.

2 Cor 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 01:18 PM
Logic? I thought all that was needed to understand scripture is the "holy spirit".

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2011, 03:23 PM
Logic? I thought all that was needed to understand scripture is the "holy spirit".

Jesus said, "Search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me"

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 03:26 PM
Jesus said, "Search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me"

So is this the holy spirit? Or logic?

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2011, 03:29 PM
So is this the holy spirit? Or logic?

Logic, but the Holy Spirit will guide you in searching the scriptures if you have a meek and contrite spirit.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 03:36 PM
Logic, but the Holy Spirit will guide you in searching the scriptures if you have a meek and contrite spirit.

So is this the holy spirit? Or logic?

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2011, 03:43 PM
So is this the holy spirit? Or logic?

Logic is right thinking. There is no right thinking without God's guidance.

You believe you are logical and yet you think the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel, and that God is speaking to the Gentiles. This is definitely not logical. It is clear that Israel suffers because of sin, but the suffering servant suffers for the sins of others.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 03:50 PM
Logic is right thinking. There is no right thinking without God's guidance.OK, so without the holy spirit, one can't think logically. Gotya.


You believe you are logical and yet you think the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel, and that God is speaking to the Gentiles. This is definitely not logical. It is clear that Israel suffers because of sin, but the suffering servant suffers for the sins of others.As I am fond of pointing out, what's "clear" to one person may not be clear to another.

Athanasius
Mar 9th 2011, 03:53 PM
Logic is right thinking.

Is logic right thinking? If I employed logic but came to the wrong conclusion, what then?

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 04:00 PM
I am sometimes frutstrated with Fenris's methods of debate, but he's hitting on a good one, in this thread.

Are we called by God to intellectualize His Word, or be led by the Spirit? What of those who cannot read? Or those who simply cannot comprehend what they read? Scripture isn't exactly Cat In The Hat.

Rullion Green
Mar 9th 2011, 04:04 PM
I am sometimes frutstrated with Fenris's methods of debate, but he's hitting on a good one, in this thread.

Are we called by God to intellectualize His Word, or be led by the Spirit? What of those who cannot read? Or those who simply cannot comprehend what they read? Scripture isn't exactly Cat In The Hat.

I think theology and doctrines can be thorny issues and can get very complicated and involved, but thank God a child can understand the Gospel and be saved :) by the grace of God

Athanasius
Mar 9th 2011, 04:04 PM
I am sometimes frutstrated with Fenris's methods of debate, but he's hitting on a good one, in this thread.

Are we called by God to intellectualize His Word, or be led by the Spirit? What of those who cannot read? Or those who simply cannot comprehend what they read? Scripture isn't exactly Cat In The Hat.

It's not a question of 'intellectualizing' the Word, or being led by the Spirit. Restricting our conversation to those who can read (as that is the question asked), we could probably very safely assume that the principles we glean from scripture were gleaned as a result of a deductive process (that is, as we read scripture we come to certain conclusions regarding scripture...). For instance, the view that the Holy Spirit informs us about God (and that deductive reasoning can't), was most likely arrived at through some deductive process.

ProDeo
Mar 9th 2011, 04:11 PM
Logic? I thought all that was needed to understand scripture is the "holy spirit".

Exo 31:3 - And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship

Isa 1:18 - Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD

The OT at your service :)

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 04:12 PM
I think theology and doctrines can be thorny issues and can get very complicated and involved, but thank God a child can understand the Gospel and be saved :) by the grace of GodRight. So, outside of the bare Gospel of Christ which saves, what does God expect from His Children?

Lately, this is a big topic for me. I love talking about and analyzing Scripture. I firmly believe that the SEARCH for Truth in Scripture is where God speaks to us. The desire to connect with Him in Scripture creates a "oneness" with the Holy Spirit which produces the Fruits of the Spirit. I am wholly UNconvinced, however, that God expects us to form a single, correct "doctrine" of the entire written word. I tend to believe that God merely wants us to devote our entire heart and mind to Him and seek Him in all things. In doing so, He will meet us with the Spirit and guide our daily life...which is His calling for each of us.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 04:15 PM
Exo 31:3 - And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship

Isa 1:18 - Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD

The OT at your service :)

Way to go grabbing verses out of context. The first refers to Bezalel building things for the sanctuary. The second has nothing to do with logic whatsoever.

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 04:22 PM
So is this the holy spirit? Or logic?



Logically it's the holy Spirit.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 04:25 PM
Logically it's the holy Spirit.

:note::hmm: :help:

Rullion Green
Mar 9th 2011, 04:29 PM
I am wholly UNconvinced, however, that God expects us to form a single, correct "doctrine" of the entire written word.

I agree with what you say for the most part. Nobody is saying we have to form a single correct doctrine of the entire written word ?

However correct doctrine is extremely important otherwise what's wrong with the JW, Mormonism, Rastafarianism, islam they have a doctrine on Christ also. I would agree with what you said but add correct doctrine in there also.

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 04:34 PM
It's not a question of 'intellectualizing' the Word, or being led by the Spirit. Restricting our conversation to those who can read (as that is the question asked), we could probably very safely assume that the principles we glean from scripture were gleaned as a result of a deductive process (that is, as we read scripture we come to certain conclusions regarding scripture...). For instance, the view that the Holy Spirit informs us about God (and that deductive reasoning can't), was most likely arrived at through some deductive process.Well, I am inclined to say that the principles in Scripture that benefit us are those that are revealed through the Holy Spirit. All of us have likely had instances where a piece of Scripture...a parable, or a verse, even a chapter...fit perfectly with an issue in our lives. We read that Word and it made sense. We felt as if it was specifically addressed to us, specifically. That, in my estimation, is the purpose of Scripture. We are to learn and study Scripture so that God's Word can be revealed to us at the appropriate time...by the Spirit. I don't believe that God is impressed with our deductive reasoning of what Paul is saying in Romans. The "Logos" is meaningless without the "Rhema".

I realize that many would totally disagree with this. What do you think?

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 04:35 PM
I agree with what you say for the most part. Nobody is saying we have to form a single correct doctrine of the entire written word ?

However correct doctrine is extremely important otherwise what's wrong with the JW, Mormonism, Rastafarianism, islam they have a doctrine on Christ also. I would agree with what you said but add correct doctrine in there also.The difference is that they are not guided by the Holy Spirit.

Athanasius
Mar 9th 2011, 04:37 PM
What do you think?

I think you had to reason out your position to arrive at it ;) The question may as well be, 'do you need to think to understand Scripture?' Some people, however ridiculous, would still say, 'No, the Holy Spirit will reveal it!'

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 04:40 PM
The difference is that they are not guided by the Holy Spirit.

The funny thing is, they say the same thing about you and me...

crawfish
Mar 9th 2011, 04:41 PM
Well, I am inclined to say that the principles in Scripture that benefit us are those that are revealed through the Holy Spirit. All of us have likely had instances where a piece of Scripture...a parable, or a verse, even a chapter...fit perfectly with an issue in our lives. We read that Word and it made sense. We felt as if it was specifically addressed to us, specifically. That, in my estimation, is the purpose of Scripture. We are to learn and study Scripture so that God's Word can be revealed to us at the appropriate time...by the Spirit. I don't believe that God is impressed with our deductive reasoning of what Paul is saying in Romans. The "Logos" is meaningless without the "Rhema".

I realize that many would totally disagree with this. What do you think?

There is a difference between "meaning" and "application". Any piece of scripture only has one meaning - the meaning that was intended by the original author. However, that same piece of scripture may have many different applications - some applications may be universal, most are very personal.

Probing the meaning of God's word is important in that it sets the bounds for our belief. However, I completely believe that the bulk of the Holy Spirit's work is done through application.

Rullion Green
Mar 9th 2011, 04:42 PM
The difference is that they are not guided by the Holy Spirit.

I can agree with this and still maintain my position that correct doctrine is important also.

GitRDunn
Mar 9th 2011, 04:42 PM
So is this the holy spirit? Or logic?
Why does it have to be one without the other? Why can we not use logic to deduce things from scripture, but have the Holy Spirit guiding it?

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 04:44 PM
As Jewish person, I have to say that logic should prevail in any reading of the bible. God would not have bothered to communicate with man if it couldn't be understood by us. And while a given verse may have a deeper, hidden meaning, we never have an excuse to ignore the plain text.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 04:45 PM
Why does it have to be one without the other? Why can we not use logic to deduce things from scripture, but have the Holy Spirit guiding it?

If the holy spirit is guiding, then it isn't logic. Logic is something that is reproducable, like a math proof.

Rullion Green
Mar 9th 2011, 04:50 PM
As Jewish person, I have to say that logic should prevail in any reading of the bible. God would not have bothered to communicate with man if it couldn't be understood by us. And while a given verse may have a deeper, hidden meaning, we never have an excuse to ignore the plain text.

Wow we Agree, to some extent anyway, this post will have to be bookmarked or memorialised in some way.

ProDeo
Mar 9th 2011, 04:52 PM
Way to go grabbing verses out of context. The first refers to Bezalel building things for the sanctuary.

Exo 31:3 - And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship

I think that wisdom and knowledge are essential ingredients for good logic. As the text shows, God is the giver of wisdom & knowledge.

An example:

Scripture is saturated with statements about the heart. Nowadays we know it's not the heart but the brain. End of knowledge part.

And now the wisdom & logic part, the reasoning:

Since we accept Scripture as infallible we safely may conclude that God spoke to the ancients on their level and concept of understanding.

Logic.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 04:52 PM
Wow we Agree, to some extent anyway, this post will have to be bookmarked or memorialised in some way.

Make a sig out of it.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 04:55 PM
I think that wisdom and knowledge are essential ingredients for good logic. As the text shows, God is the giver of wisdom & knowledge.

This is a massive over-application of a single verse. God is simply saying "Trust this guy Bezalel to build stuff for My tabernacle, because I gave him mad skillz". It's not saying that "You can't understand the bible without My Help" or anything else for that matter.

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 05:00 PM
I think you had to reason out your position to arrive at it ;) The question may as well be, 'do you need to think to understand Scripture?' Some people, however ridiculous, would still say, 'No, the Holy Spirit will reveal it!'OK. We use our minds to read and study Scripture, clearly. The Holy Spirit doesn't speak to us through a passage that we don't understand any more than He would speak to us in Scripture written in a language we don't understand. Is this beneficial to us in our Walk with Christ when we "get" what the writer is saying or when the Spirit prompts us to utilize it in our daily life.

I think the question revolves around this type of back and forth:

Person A: "Paul is saying_____."
Person B: "No, he's saying______."
Person A: "Well, in Romans, he says___"
Person B: "Yes, but that is out of context. What about when he says ____ in Ephesians?"

We have two people disagreeing on the Word of God, here. At what point is God involved in this discourse? Is there a right side to this argument that reveals God where the wrong person is outside the Will of God? I would say that the discussion of Scripture leads us to search for Him, assuming we aren't just trying to prove ourself to somebody else. It's in the searching that the Word is revealed, not who is "correct" in their interpretation of the Scripture. There may be a Word for you in Romans and a Word for me in Ephesians. That is what is important, I think.

ProDeo
Mar 9th 2011, 05:06 PM
This is a massive over-application of a single verse. God is simply saying "Trust this guy Bezalel to build stuff for My tabernacle, because I gave him mad skillz".

God is the inventor of the brain, he gives knowledge, he gives wisdom. That's what the text is also about. God said, I gave him all that. God did not say, the Bezalel guy is a smart dude and studied a lot hence he knows a lot. Nope, I gave him that.


It's not saying that "You can't understand the bible without My Help" or anything else for that matter.

I think I answered that in the part you snipped.

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 05:07 PM
There is a difference between "meaning" and "application". Any piece of scripture only has one meaning - the meaning that was intended by the original author. However, that same piece of scripture may have many different applications - some applications may be universal, most are very personal.

Probing the meaning of God's word is important in that it sets the bounds for our belief. However, I completely believe that the bulk of the Holy Spirit's work is done through application.I agree with this.

I don't know that my ideas on this are really so unorthodox, actually. I'm not advocating that Scripture should be read absent of our intellect. My whole issue is with the different doctrines of man...all based on their own interpretations with each claiming to be right. The interpretation of a Scripture is "right" when it is revealed by the Spirit. That is all I am saying.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 05:18 PM
I think I answered that in the part you snipped.
"Scripture is saturated with statements about the heart. Nowadays we know it's not the heart but the brain. End of knowledge part."

Not a "logical" jump here.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 05:20 PM
God is the inventor of the brain, he gives knowledge, he gives wisdom. That's what the text is also about.
Yes, and so? This has nothing to do with God helping anyone understand the bible.

BroRog
Mar 9th 2011, 05:23 PM
If the holy spirit is guiding, then it isn't logic. Logic is something that is reproducable, like a math proof.I think some Christians have gotten the wrong idea about the Holy Spirit as if it is another way of knowing. But the NT presents him as the "helper" (Greek: parakletos), which refers to someone who argues a case in court. Even the Holy Spirit uses reason and logic to argue his case.

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 05:27 PM
:note::hmm: :help:



Logically speaking, if one is coming to a correct understanding of the Scriptures, then the Holy Spirit must be involved somewhere.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 05:28 PM
Logically speaking, if one is coming to a correct understanding of the Scriptures, then the Holy Spirit must be involved somewhere.
How so? I don't see it.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 05:29 PM
I think some Christians have gotten the wrong idea about the Holy Spirit as if it is another way of knowing. But the NT presents him as the "helper" (Greek: parakletos), which refers to someone who argues a case in court. Even the Holy Spirit uses reason and logic to argue his case.

Then it should be reproducable.

BroRog
Mar 9th 2011, 05:31 PM
Then it should be reproducable.I'm not sure what you mean.

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 05:38 PM
Logically speaking, if one is coming to a correct understanding of the Scriptures, then the Holy Spirit must be involved somewhere.I wouldn't say that the Holy Spirit has to be involved in order for us to understand Scripture. I would, however, say that the Holy Spirit is involved in how Scripture is applied to our lives...which is THE reason for Scripture.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 05:40 PM
I'm not sure what you mean.

If something is "logical" then it can be used to prove a certain thing.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 05:40 PM
I wouldn't say that the Holy Spirit has to be involved in order for us to understand Scripture. Ok, fair enough...


I would, however, say that the Holy Spirit is involved in how Scripture is applied to our lives...which is THE reason for Scripture.I do not understand.

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 05:46 PM
How so? I don't see it.



Notice that I said 'if'. Since both the OT and the NT are God inspired writings, then who better than the author would know exacttly what everything means? When the prophets of old spoke, they weren't just speaking their opinions, their words were directed by the Spirit of God. And since it was the Spirit of God that put the words in their mouths, then this same Spirit of God would help us to understand exactly what the prophets meant. But the problem arises when 10 different people are claiming the Holy Spirit revealed this or that, but all 10 are coming to different conclusions. It's only logical then, that the Holy Spirit can't be given credit all the time. This doesn't mean that at least one of those 10 wasn't led by the Holy Spirit, in regards to what was revealed. But to use the argument, well the Holy Spirit revealed this to me...well that's a weak argument, unless one can 100% prove it logically with Scriptures, as in no contradictions.

BroRog
Mar 9th 2011, 05:51 PM
If something is "logical" then it can be used to prove a certain thing.Yes, I agree. On a slightly different note, have you ever known of or heard about someone who was an excellent exegete of the scriptures, but didn't believe what they said?

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 05:58 PM
Notice that I said 'if'. Since both the OT and the NT are God inspired writings, then who better than the author would know exacttly what everything means?
Right...but maybe God gave us these to read and expects us to use our mind to understand them. Without His help or interference.

ProDeo
Mar 9th 2011, 05:59 PM
Not a "logical" jump here.

The logic was in the part that, once again, you snipped.

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 05:59 PM
I do not understand.If an instruction, Word of encouragement, or any other type of Word applies to a circumstance in my daily life, it is the Holy Spirit that has revealed that to me because that is God's Word for me for that circumstance. It may be a commandment of the Law or a verse in Psalms. Either way, the Scripture as it applies to my life is how the Spirit speaks (well, one of the ways).

"Thou shalt have no other Gods Before Me." If I begin neglecting spending time with God because I am working every weekend to make more money, the Spirit will convict me with that commandment. That commandment means nothing to me without the Holy Spirit. If my entire heart and mind is set on God, I won't be convicted in my Spirit of that commandment. He may have a Word for me out of Ephesians or Daniel. Whatever. Of course, in order to be convicted by the Spirit, I must understand what "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" means.

Conviction, encouragement, guidance, worship...all of these are imparted to us not be merely the words in black and white, but how God uses those words to speak to us.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 06:00 PM
Yes, I agree. On a slightly different note, have you ever known of or heard about someone who was an excellent exegete of the scriptures, but didn't believe what they said?

If you didn't believe what they said, their point was not logical.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 06:02 PM
That commandment means nothing to me without the Holy Spirit.
Yep, you're not Jewish, that's for sure. :lol:

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 06:03 PM
Right...but maybe God gave us these to read and expects us to use our mind to understand them. Without His help or interference.What about those people who have an inability to understand them? I earlier gave an example of someone who couldn't read. Well, that's extreme, admittedly. However, what about people who, let's face it, simply don't read and comprehend very well? Like I said, the Scriptures aren't exactly The Cat In The Hat. Understanding context can be a difficult proposition for someone who isn't proficient at analyzing and understanding the written word.

BroRog
Mar 9th 2011, 06:04 PM
Right...but maybe God gave us these to read and expects us to use our mind to understand them. Without His help or interference.Do we bring our own biases and presuppositions to the text?

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 06:05 PM
Yep, you're not Jewish, that's for sure. :lol:LOL. I don't think our philosophies are so different. What reason would you have to serve God and God only? Where does love for God come from?

ProDeo
Mar 9th 2011, 06:07 PM
Yes, and so? This has nothing to do with God helping anyone understand the bible.

Who, in general and by your logical reasoning, understands the Bible better, an IQ=80 believer or an IQ=120+ believer?

BroRog
Mar 9th 2011, 06:07 PM
If you didn't believe what they said, their point was not logical.But what I am getting at, perhaps not very well, is the role our plausibility structures, biases, presuppositions, and our stubborn unwillingness to face the truth plays in the process of interpretation.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 06:07 PM
Do we bring our own biases and presuppositions to the text?
That's why you get a teacher. Precedent and tradition have their places.

One of the more interesting aspects of Jesus's statements is where he severs traditional understanding of the bible. It's why Jews and Christians can read the same exact book and take away something completely different.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 06:09 PM
Who, in general and by your logical reasoning, understands the Bible better, an IQ=80 believer or an IQ=120+ believer?
120 obviously.

That doesn't imply God actively helping someone understand the text.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 06:10 PM
What about those people who have an inability to understand them? I earlier gave an example of someone who couldn't read. Well, that's extreme, admittedly. However, what about people who, let's face it, simply don't read and comprehend very well? Like I said, the Scriptures aren't exactly The Cat In The Hat. Understanding context can be a difficult proposition for someone who isn't proficient at analyzing and understanding the written word.

It's for this very reason that the rabbis mandated that all children recieve an education. Jews have enjoyed near-universal literacy since before the first century.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 06:13 PM
But what I am getting at, perhaps not very well, is the role our plausibility structures, biases, presuppositions, and our stubborn unwillingness to face the truth plays in the process of interpretation.

Yeah but it's very easy to say that anyone who doesn't understand the bible exactly as you do is "unwilling to face the truth". It's also a very self-serving argument. And they can say the same thing back at you.

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 06:23 PM
I wouldn't say that the Holy Spirit has to be involved in order for us to understand Scripture. I would, however, say that the Holy Spirit is involved in how Scripture is applied to our lives...which is THE reason for Scripture.



What if we change understand to believe, as in to believe what is written? Could the Holy Spirit not necessarily be involved in that as well?

ProDeo
Mar 9th 2011, 06:26 PM
Only through the Spirit can we truly understand and walk in the truth of God... Otherwise the written word would be enough... And the Pharisees would of been fine...

I think that most of the time we don't even realize (when) we are led by the Spirit.

Why?

Because we have the mind of Christ.

I even dare to say that's the logical outcome ;)

You quoted 1 Cor 2:14, in context it reads:

And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ.

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 06:28 PM
120 obviously.

That doesn't imply God actively helping someone understand the text.



I disagree big time. I've encountered others on other boards with IQs even higher. When it came to some of their interpretations of the Bible, man they were way off. Not according to me tho, but according to what is written.

Rullion Green
Mar 9th 2011, 06:30 PM
Yeah but it's very easy to say that anyone who doesn't understand the bible exactly as you do is "unwilling to face the truth". It's also a very self-serving argument. And they can say the same thing back at you.

what's the answer to this then ? do we abandon objective truth in favour of scriptural relativism to avoid disagreement. Is this were logic comes into play by looking at the biblical data and making a case. It may not be so cut and dry at the top end as countless scholars have proved but its got to be better than saying you have your truth and i have mine ?

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 06:33 PM
I disagree big time. I've encountered others on other boards with IQs even higher. When it came to some of their interpretations of the Bible, man they were way off. Not according to me tho, but according to what is written.
Because even smart people can ignore logic in the face of what they "believe".

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 06:40 PM
Because even smart people can ignore logic in the face of what they "believe".



This I 100% agree with. You hit the nail on the head.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 06:42 PM
what's the answer to this then ?
In the messianic era, we will have the answer.

ProDeo
Mar 9th 2011, 06:44 PM
120 obviously.

That doesn't imply God actively helping someone understand the text.

By definition no. But sometimes yes by special revelation out of the blue. Or sometimes by specifically praying for insight on a subject that is crucial for you. The Holy Spirit does all that. The Holy Spirit also can work on a global level, I believe that 1948 was such an event. Suddenly Israel after 1900 years was on the map again. Millions of Christians changed their end-time views. Perhaps many Jews also.

Rullion Green
Mar 9th 2011, 06:49 PM
In the messianic era, we will have the answer.

We have it now my friend, Pontius Pilate asked what truth was, and it was standing before him.

off to bed, good night for now.

Servant89
Mar 9th 2011, 07:06 PM
Who wants to hear a donkey? Anyone? I thought so.... I won't say a word then.

Jn 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

1 Cor 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1 Cor 2:14 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.

Lk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Shalom

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 07:19 PM
What if we change understand to believe, as in to believe what is written? Could the Holy Spirit not necessarily be involved in that as well?I would say that the Holy Spirit is THE reason we believe Scripture. So...the answer to that question is No.

BroRog
Mar 9th 2011, 07:23 PM
Yeah but it's very easy to say that anyone who doesn't understand the bible exactly as you do is "unwilling to face the truth". It's also a very self-serving argument. And they can say the same thing back at you.Sure, this is undoubtedly the case as divaD point out earlier. But even so, the benefit of the Holy Spirit is his ability to help us overcome our biases and prejudices in order to help us accept the truth of the scriptures, even when the truth is not something we want to hear right now.

One could say that the Bible is a normal book, written in normal human language and to be understood by normal human beings using reasoning and logic. If this is what you believe then I agree with you. And this answers the OP, but if we are asking what role the HS plays in our study of the scriptures, I would say that he helps us get over ourselves.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 07:36 PM
Sure, this is undoubtedly the case as divaD point out earlier. But even so, the benefit of the Holy Spirit is his ability to help us overcome our biases and prejudices in order to help us accept the truth of the scriptures, even when the truth is not something we want to hear right now. And when you can't agree with another person, who's correct? Who is actually channeling the holy spirit?


One could say that the Bible is a normal book, written in normal human language and to be understood by normal human beings using reasoning and logic. If this is what you believe then I agree with you. And this answers the OP, but if we are asking what role the HS plays in our study of the scriptures, I would say that he helps us get over ourselves.
Again, that presumes that God doesn't want us to use our minds.

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 07:40 PM
what's the answer to this then ? do we abandon objective truth in favour of scriptural relativism to avoid disagreement. Is this were logic comes into play by looking at the biblical data and making a case. It may not be so cut and dry at the top end as countless scholars have proved but its got to be better than saying you have your truth and i have mine ?And herein lies the dilemma. What "objective truths" are we called to understand from Scripture? The Resurrection is obviously the biggie. It's the one thing we agree upon. It's also the foundation of our Faith. Why is it that we agree on the Resurrection and quibble over the doctrines of our Walk? I would say that it is because the Resurrection is one place where the Holy Spirit leads us all.

crawfish
Mar 9th 2011, 07:41 PM
I disagree big time. I've encountered others on other boards with IQs even higher. When it came to some of their interpretations of the Bible, man they were way off. Not according to me tho, but according to what is written.

I've taken stories that are reported in multiple placed in the bible, put them side by side for comparison, and asked why they appear to contradict each other. I've been criticized for doing this by some, who tell me that I should just trust God's word. Sometimes, being smart simply means that you see the intricacies better than others, and my intellect forces me to deal with them honestly. The anti-intellectualism I see in the Christian world wants to either pretend that there are no such issues or act like their solution is sufficient for explanation.

An intellectual who works with faith and humility will most likely understand the scriptures better than someone of lesser intelligence. That doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit can't work equally within either.

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 08:08 PM
I've taken stories that are reported in multiple placed in the bible, put them side by side for comparison, and asked why they appear to contradict each other. I've been criticized for doing this by some, who tell me that I should just trust God's word. Sometimes, being smart simply means that you see the intricacies better than others, and my intellect forces me to deal with them honestly. The anti-intellectualism I see in the Christian world wants to either pretend that there are no such issues or act like their solution is sufficient for explanation.

An intellectual who works with faith and humility will most likely understand the scriptures better than someone of lesser intelligence. That doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit can't work equally within either.



I understand what you're saying and I would agree, so let me illustrate my point then. Then you decide if this person is way off or not. BTW, this person in question, his IQ is easily above 120 by a long shot. Also, I am in no way claiming, that if a person has an IQ of 120 and above, that they couldn't understand the Scriptures better than someone with an IQ of 80. I'm just saying, just because they have an IQ of 120+, it doesn't always automatically mean they will.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
.....
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

According to this literal genius in question, this should be understood as Adam and Eve both had sex with the devil, and that Cain was really the serpent's child literally, and not Adam's. IOW the serpent seed nonsense. This is why I logically concluded he was way off, tho his IQ was way above mine. The text states nor implies any such thing.

BroRog
Mar 9th 2011, 08:09 PM
And when you can't agree with another person, who's correct? Who is actually channeling the holy spirit?Good question, and it's a question many Christians need to consider. But unlike other Christians, I'm not saying that we need the Holy Spirit to help us arrive at the objective meaning of a text. I think anyone -- believer, nonbeliever, Christian, Jew, atheist, anyone with a mind and decent reading skills can come to understand the Bible. When we read anything, whether it be the Newspaper or the Bible, we need to ask three questions: 1) What does it say, 2) What does it mean, and 3) is it true? Anyone can use reason and logic and good reading skills to answer questions 1) and 2). We don't need the Holy Spirit to help us understand what a text says and means.

Given this to be the case, any disagreement over what a text says and means will center on an appeal to normal exigetical principles and practices. And we don't need to be Biblical scholars in order to understand the Bible. We simply need decent reading skills and the patience to stick with the author until we grasp what he wanted to say, and to have the humility before the text to allow it to teach us rather than using it to say what we want to hear. In my experience, disagreements over what a passage means is not typically centered on vocabulary, grammar, background, idiom, or context. Disagreements are centered on preconcieved notions about what a text means based on "orthodox" interpretations. The locus of many disagreements is not what the author intended to communicate with his words, but what the institution says his words mean to them. And affirmation of a particular passage of scripture is not an affirmation of what the author intended to say, but an affirmation of institutional interpretations in order to be considered "one of us."


Again, that presumes that God doesn't want us to use our minds.No, that would not be a fair conclusion from my view. A modern example of my view can be found in certain TV shows that catch people on tape doing things that ought not be done. For instance, a video recorder might be set up over a cash register. And during the day it might record an employee stealing from the till. But even when confronted with the video tape evidence, the person will deny it was him. Again, the man who stole money from the cash register will deny his theft even when looking at himself doing it on video. Human beings have the capacity and the audacity to believe what is false even if you rub their nose in it.

This is the role of the HS with regard to the truth found in the scriptures. He isn't there to tell us what the text means. God gave us a mind for that. He is there give us a dope slap for denying the obvious.

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2011, 09:29 PM
Is logic right thinking? If I employed logic but came to the wrong conclusion, what then?

(a) You would be a Fenris and would not have employed your logic analytically.

(b) You would be dealing with the supernatural and therefore the laws of logic would not apply.

Short definition of Logical--Definition of LOGICAL. 1. a (1): of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic (2): skilled in logic b: formally true or valid : analytic, deductive

Neanias
Mar 9th 2011, 09:32 PM
Because even smart people can ignore logic in the face of what they "believe".

Agreed. You can't hold on to a belief. But then, if you read something and logically deduce something, you make a belief. Set up your own righteousness, you know. ;)

What we need is living faith. We are to be led of the Spirit.

There is a reasoning, but it is submitted to the Spirit.

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2011, 09:37 PM
OK, so without the holy spirit, one can't think logically. Gotya.

If God made the laws of logic who would be better to go to?


As I am fond of pointing out, what's "clear" to one person may not be clear to another.

That is true, especially when your are carrying a bias.

RabbiKnife
Mar 9th 2011, 09:39 PM
If God made the laws of logic who would be better to go to?



That is true, especially when your are carrying a bias.

I hope this doesn't imply that all Christians are logical (or even rational) and that all non-Christians are illogical.... because that has certainly not been my experience.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 09:41 PM
(a) You would be a Fenris and would not have employed your logic analytically.
:wave::lol:

It's too easy to say that anyone who disagrees with you did not employ their logic analytically.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 09:44 PM
If God made the laws of logic who would be better to go to?Why bother to make the laws of logic? Just trust the holy spirit then.




That is true, especially when your are carrying a bias.
It's easy to say to anyone who disgrees with you "you have a bias".

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2011, 09:45 PM
I hope this doesn't imply that all Christians are logical (or even rational) and that all non-Christians are illogical.... because that has certainly not been my experience.

Not by a long shot, for we all have our blind spots.

Neanias
Mar 9th 2011, 09:47 PM
Not by a long shot, for we all have our blind spots.

Ouh... Good point :)

This brings another aspect. You must follow the Spirit, but not only in yourself, but also Christ in your brothers. Christ wants us to love our brothers and sisters and he made us to have blindspots so that we need each other.

Neanias
Mar 9th 2011, 09:49 PM
And everyone's reasoning has it's blind spot, which is why we need the Spirit to guide us, and we need to submit our reasoning to him. And it's also why we need each other.

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2011, 09:49 PM
Why bother to make the laws of logic? Just trust the holy spirit then.

Why does it have to be one or the other?



It's easy to say to anyone who disgrees with you "you have a bias".

We all have bias's that blind us to truth. Given enough time and the right circumstances we can work beyond them.

episkopos
Mar 9th 2011, 09:53 PM
Let's see how far logic takes us...

Here is a statement of Jesus at the very end of the bible....

How many possible destinies/types for men does Jesus enumerate?

11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 09:54 PM
We all have bias's that blind us to truth. Given enough time and the right circumstances we can work beyond them.Ah. And next you will say that you already worked yourself through your biases, and I have yet to work my way through mine.

See how easy this is?

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 09:55 PM
Why bother to make the laws of logic? Just trust the holy spirit then.





A question I've been wanting to ask you. How do you understand the Holy Spirit, as in what does that term mean to you? Is the Holy Spirit an invention of Christians? Is the Holy spirit spoken of in the OT, according to your understanding?

RollTide21
Mar 9th 2011, 09:58 PM
It's easy to say to anyone who disgrees with you "you have a bias".That only factors in when two people are arguing over the "truth" of something that wasn't meant to be designated as "A truth".

Take the classic Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. I don't know how much you know of these two doctrines, but basically, Calvinism insists that salvation is all God's Grace and Arminianism believes that we humans must respond to God's offer of Grace. Anyway, there are Scriptures all over the New Testament that people point to in making each argument. What does that tell us? Does that mean that one group is being guided by the Holy Spirit and the other is not? No way. I know strict Arminians and strict Calvinists...both of whom have the Holy Spirit living within them.

I would say that the Holy Spirit functions to enable us to live righteously in the sight of God. That's its purpose. We can't please God outside of the Holy Spirit. It is righteous on our behalf before God. That being its purpose, it is God's way for each of us to be individually pleasing to God. It's function isn't to create doctrine. Therefore, NEITHER side of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism is led of the Spirit to those conclusions. We come to those conclusions of our own deductions. That is why there is so much division and dissention within the Church.

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2011, 10:05 PM
Ah. And next you will say that you already worked yourself through your biases, and I have yet to work my way through mine.

See how easy this is?

No I have not worked through all my biases. You help me with mine, and I will help you with yours.

For instance, take a look at the book of Isaiah in the 53 chapter. Logic should tell you that the Bible is written to the Jew, not the Gentile, and yet you insist that God is speaking to the Gentiles. Secondly that Israel is the suffering servant spoken of here, and yet the servant here is suffering for the sins of others. The whole Bible including the first chapter of Isaiah tells us that Israel is suffering for her own sins. What part of this logic is not true?

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 10:07 PM
A question I've been wanting to ask you. How do you understand the Holy Spirit, as in what does that term mean to you? Is the Holy Spirit an invention of Christians? Is the Holy spirit spoken of in the OT, according to your understanding?
You won't find the phrase "holy spirit" anyplace in the OT. It is definitely a Christian concept.

episkopos
Mar 9th 2011, 10:12 PM
You won't find the phrase "holy spirit" anyplace in the OT. It is definitely a Christian concept.

Psa 51:11 CastH7993 me notH408 away from thy presence;H4480 H6440 and takeH3947 notH408 thy holyH6944 spiritH7307 fromH4480 me.

Isa 63:10 But theyH1992 rebelled,H4784 and vexedH6087 (H853) his holyH6944 Spirit:H7307 therefore he was turnedH2015 to be their enemy,H341 and heH1931 foughtH3898 against them.

Isa 63:11 Then he rememberedH2142 the daysH3117 of old,H5769 Moses,H4872 and his people,H5971 saying, WhereH346 is he that brought them upH5927 out of the seaH4480 H3220 withH854 the shepherdH7462 of his flock?H6629 whereH346 is he that putH7760 (H853) his holyH6944 SpiritH7307 withinH7130 him?

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2011, 10:14 PM
You won't find the phrase "holy spirit" anyplace in the OT. It is definitely a Christian concept.

This is purely semantics for the Spirit of God is throughout the Old Testrament. You are denying that the Spirit of God is Holy?

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 10:15 PM
No I have not worked through all my biases. You help me with mine, and I will help you with yours.Fair enough.



For instance, take a look at the book of Isaiah in the 53 chapter. Logic should tell you that the Bible is written to the Jew, not the Gentile, and yet you insist that God is speaking to the Gentiles.Uhm, no. I never said anything of the sort.

Isaiah Chapter 51 through 54 are about the Jewish exiles brought back to Zion in the messianic era. Sandwiched in the middle is 53, which is a retrospective of all the suffering in Jewish history. In it, the gentile kings and nations of the world admit that they were wrong and the Jews were right. But it's all addressed to the Jewish reader, not the gentiles.


Secondly that Israel is the suffering servant spoken of here, and yet the servant here is suffering for the sins of others. No, the servant suffers from the sins of others. One word, yet it makes such a difference.


The whole Bible including the first chapter of Isaiah tells us that Israel is suffering for her own sins. The book of Isaiah has many topics, it's not all about sin and suffering. One of the topics is God's servant, identified several times as Israel.


What part of this logic is not true?It's not logical at all. You're describing tenets of your faith, not something logical.

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 10:16 PM
You won't find the phrase "holy spirit" anyplace in the OT. It is definitely a Christian concept.

What about the Spirit of God? That's in the OT. Could that be the same thing? How do you understand the Spirit of God?

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 10:20 PM
Psa 51:11 CastH7993 me notH408 away from thy presence;H4480 H6440 and takeH3947 notH408 thy holyH6944 spiritH7307 fromH4480 me. וְרוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ

"spirit of holiness"


Isa 63:10 But theyH1992 rebelled,H4784 and vexedH6087 (H853) his holyH6944 Spirit:H7307 therefore he was turnedH2015 to be their enemy,H341 and heH1931 foughtH3898 against them.

Isa 63:11 Then he rememberedH2142 the daysH3117 of old,H5769 Moses,H4872 and his people,H5971 saying, WhereH346 is he that brought them upH5927 out of the seaH4480 H3220 withH854 the shepherdH7462 of his flock?H6629 whereH346 is he that putH7760 (H853) his holyH6944 SpiritH7307 withinH7130 him?
רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ

"his holy spirit"

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 10:21 PM
What about the Spirit of God? That's in the OT. Could that be the same thing? How do you understand the Spirit of God?

It's a poetic term, not 1/3 of the trinity or anything.

Butch5
Mar 9th 2011, 11:04 PM
Do you agree that deductive logic is necessary for reading scripture and that it's usefull ?

there are a few doctrines in Christianity that are deduced they are not there in black and white so to speak, please give examples of doctrine that are deduced if you dont mind, the more obscure the better we can all think of a major one off hand, but are there any others ?

the Westminster confession of Faith puts it like this.

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture"

you dont have to subscribe to all of the confession just asking about this particular statement.

do you agree, this is a good method or do you only accept things that are explicitly stated ?

yay or nay

OSAS is a doctrine that is not in Scripture.

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2011, 11:23 PM
[QUOTE=Fenris;2636484]Uhm, no. I never said anything of the sort.

I disagree, but the truth lies in the semantics.


Isaiah Chapter 51 through 54 are about the Jewish exiles brought back to Zion in the messianic era. Sandwiched in the middle is 53, which is a retrospective of all the suffering in Jewish history. In it, the gentile kings and nations of the world admit that they were wrong and the Jews were right. But it's all addressed to the Jewish reader, not the gentiles.

Here is some logic. The suffering servant is the arm of the lord as found in Isaiah 53:1 (KJB), would you not agree? This same arm of the Lord is the one who dried up the Red Sea as stated in Isaiah 51:9-10, would you not agree? If that is true then your logic is that Israel dried up the Red Sea. Does not compute.


No, the servant suffers from the sins of others. One word, yet it makes such a difference.

Isaiah 50:1 "--For your iniquities you have sold yourselves. And for your transgression your mother has been put away." Clearly this is Israel and it does not sound like she is suffering from the sins of others, but her own sins.


The book of Isaiah has many topics, it's not all about sin and suffering. One of the topics is God's servant, identified several times as Israel.

Surely Israel is God's servant, but time and time again Israel is portrayed as a disobedient servant. If you disagree I can spend the time to present all the scripture that portrays Israel's disobedience.


It's not logical at all. You're describing tenets of your faith, not something logical.

While I would agree that the revelation that is in the New Testament influences how I perceive the Old Testament, I would disagree that it nullifies the logic of the book of Isaiah.

divaD
Mar 10th 2011, 12:06 AM
Here is some logic. The suffering servant is the arm of the lord as found in Isaiah 53:1 (KJB), would you not agree? This same arm of the Lord is the one who dried up the Red Sea as stated in Isaiah 51:9-10, would you not agree? If that is true then your logic is that Israel dried up the Red Sea. Does not compute.






I love it! Can't wait to hear Fenris' reply tomorrow.

Servant89
Mar 10th 2011, 12:43 AM
And everyone's reasoning has it's blind spot, which is why we need the Spirit to guide us, and we need to submit our reasoning to him. And it's also why we need each other.

Amen, amen, amen. Yes we do need each other.

Shalom

TrustGzus
Mar 10th 2011, 12:53 PM
Major premise: The Word is God (John 1:1)
Minor premise: Jesus is the Word (John 1:14)
Conclusion: Jesus is God.

The Bible is loaded with logic and theology that is logically inferred.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 01:35 PM
I disagree, but the truth lies in the semantics.Not sure what you mean. I said what I said, you don't get to change that.




Here is some logic. The suffering servant is the arm of the lord as found in Isaiah 53:1 (KJB), would you not agree? No. The suffering servant is the suffering servant. The "arm of the Lord" is God's action on this earth.


This same arm of the Lord is the one who dried up the Red Sea as stated in Isaiah 51:9-10, would you not agree? If that is true then your logic is that Israel dried up the Red Sea. Does not compute. Of course it doesn't compute, you're making assumptions on how I read this chapter.




Isaiah 50:1 "--For your iniquities you have sold yourselves. And for your transgression your mother has been put away." Clearly this is Israel and it does not sound like she is suffering from the sins of others, but her own sins.
Fine and good, but 53:5 specifically says "he was wounded from our sins". From. Not For.



Surely Israel is God's servant, but time and time again Israel is portrayed as a disobedient servant. If you disagree I can spend the time to present all the scripture that portrays Israel's disobedience.Israel's obedience or lack thereof does not change the fact that Israel is still God's servant.



While I would agree that the revelation that is in the New Testament influences how I perceive the Old Testament, I would disagree that it nullifies the logic of the book of Isaiah.There's no logic in saying that the suffering servant is God or the messiah. Noplace is he described as such.

It's a tenet of your faith.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 01:37 PM
Major premise: The Word is God (John 1:1)
Minor premise: Jesus is the Word (John 1:14)
Conclusion: Jesus is God.

Only a valid logical conclusion if you accept the initial premises.

divaD
Mar 10th 2011, 03:29 PM
No. The suffering servant is the suffering servant. The "arm of the Lord" is God's action on this earth.




Isaiah 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
11 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young

What do you make of this passage? Wouldn't this be the same arm of the Lord as in Isaiah 53:1? And doesn't this passage say that this arm will rule for the LORD God? Personally, I'm not convinced this passage has been fulfilled as of yet, since it states his reward is with him. According to the NT, His reward is with Him at the 2nd coming, and not the first. There's always the chance I could be interpreting this wrong, but even so, it's still referring to the Messiah I would think.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 03:43 PM
What do you make of this passage? Wouldn't this be the same arm of the Lord as in Isaiah 53:1?
Yes, and so? It's a poetic expression.

You're arguing backwards. Instead of finding verses that mention the messiah and applying them to messianic expectations, you are finding verses that fulfill your messianic expectations and claiming that they must be referring to the messiah. In chapter 40, you believe that 'the arm of God" must be referring to the messiah because it does something you expect the messiah to do. Similarly, in 53 you believe that "the suffering servant" must be the messiah because he fulfilles something that you expect the messiah to. But in neither case does is the term identified as the messiah; it's just something that you believe to be so. And then you use your belief to prove the identity of the messiah. But you went into it with this expectation of identity all along.

Servant89
Mar 10th 2011, 04:03 PM
When God sends his word, he sends it with his 2 business cards, to make sure people are convinced it is HIS WORD indeed and not the word of man. And here they are:

1. Fulfilled Prophecy
2. Miracles

When the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics are violated, it is proof that God did it. Only the law-maker can bend or break the laws of nature.

That is why I believe the OT came from God. That is why I believe the NT is from God too. That is why I do not believe the Koran is from God.

When we stand before the open red sea, it is time to admit: There is a God.

Shalom

Servant89
Mar 10th 2011, 04:03 PM
Only a valid logical conclusion if you accept the initial premises.

I hear you, I agree with you Fenris. Deja Vu.

Shalom

divaD
Mar 10th 2011, 04:07 PM
Yes, and so? It's a poetic expression.

You're arguing backwards. Instead of finding verses that mention the messiah and applying them to messianic expectations, you are finding verses that fulfill your messianic expectations and claiming that they must be referring to the messiah. In chapter 40, you believe that 'the arm of God" must be referring to the messiah because it does something you expect the messiah to do. Similarly, in 53 you believe that "the suffering servant" must be the messiah because he fulfilles something that you expect the messiah to. But in neither case does is the term identified as the messiah; it's just something that you believe to be so. And then you use your belief to prove the identity of the messiah. But you went into it with this expectation of identity all along.


Since this thread is about logic, then it's only logical that one would use the NT to reveal what was spoken of in the OT. Why would this not be logical? If one were sticking solely to the OT, then your points would be valid. But since there's also the NT to consider, then your points are not as valid as you seem to think them to be.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 04:09 PM
When God sends his word, he sends it with his 2 business cards, to make sure people are convinced it is HIS WORD indeed and not the word of man. And here they are:

1. Fulfilled Prophecy
2. Miracles

At issue is that the "Fulfilled Prophecy" of Jesus are only "fulfilled" if one believes that they were, and none of us witnessed the miracles, which were only written down decades after they occured anyway.

Not saying one shouldn't believe; I'm just saying it doesn't have to be the logical conlusion.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 04:11 PM
Since this thread is about logic, then it's only logical that one would use the NT to reveal what was spoken of in the OT.
Why is that "logical"? Why does the OT need "revealing" at all?

BroRog
Mar 10th 2011, 04:12 PM
At issue is that the "Fulfilled Prophecy" of Jesus are only "fulfilled" if one believes that they were, and none of us witnessed the miracles, which were only written down decades after they occured anyway.

Not saying one shouldn't believe; I'm just saying it doesn't have to be the logical conlusion.I disagree. It is most definitly logical to trust the trustworthy. If Moses proves to be trustworthy, then it makes logical sense to trust him. If Jesus proves to be trustworthy, then it makes logical sense to trust him.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 04:18 PM
I disagree. It is most definitly logical to trust the trustworthy. If Moses proves to be trustworthy, then it makes logical sense to trust him. If Jesus proves to be trustworthy, then it makes logical sense to trust him.
I don't think either of them proved to be trustworthy. If one trusts them, it's out of faith.

divaD
Mar 10th 2011, 04:21 PM
Why does the OT need "revealing" at all?



Why not? The arm of the LORD has to be referring to someone in particular. What's wrong with trying to find out exactly who? The NT tells us that it's Jesus, the Messiah.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 04:24 PM
Why not?I really need a better reason than this.

My bible appears to be complete to me. It doesn't need "revealing".

BroRog
Mar 10th 2011, 04:38 PM
I don't think either of them proved to be trustworthy. If one trusts them, it's out of faith.You certainly have adopted a modern view of faith, which isn't consistent with the Biblical view. Of course Moses and Jesus proved themselves to be trustworthy. The only way someone might draw your conclusion is if one didn't believe that the scriptures were holy, incontrovertable, and a reliable source of God's revelation. If you want to allow your skeptisim to get that far, then you must also admit, along with many other lost souls in this world, that we can't know nothin'.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 04:49 PM
You certainly have adopted a modern view of faith, which isn't consistent with the Biblical view. .
Shrug. If you say so.

Of course Moses and Jesus proved themselves to be trustworthy.
How.

The only way someone might draw your conclusion is if one didn't believe that the scriptures were holy, incontrovertable, and a reliable source of God's revelation.Then you do not understand my position, since I do believe that the bible (at least my portion) is holy and from Above.

divaD
Mar 10th 2011, 04:53 PM
I really need a better reason than this.

My bible appears to be complete to me. It doesn't need "revealing".


Fenris, let's go this route then.

Isaiah 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
11 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.

Has this happened, or is it yet to occur? You being Jewish, wouldn't you be considered part of His flock? How are you to recognize the arm of the LORD when He does rule for the LORD God, if you don't even know who this means? I mean, the OT doesn't tell us who it is, does it? As in a face with a name to go along with it?

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 05:00 PM
Has this happened, or is it yet to occur?
This has yet to occur.



You being Jewish, wouldn't you be considered part of His flock? Yes.


How are you to recognize the arm of the LORD when He does rule for the LORD God, if you don't even know who this means? I mean, the OT doesn't tell us who it is, does it? As in a face with a name to go along with it?
Ok, what is this verse saying? I would say it's talking about the ingathering of His flock, the Jewish exiles. Ah. Now, are there other verses in the bible describing the same thing? Why yes, there are plenty. The first (chronologically) is Deuteronomy 30. What does it say?

1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt bethink thyself among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2 and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; 3 that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. 4 If any of thine that are dispersed be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will He fetch thee. 5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it;

God Himself will bring the exiles back. Now, can't "the arm of the Lord" simply be God, acting on this earth? Why does it have to be a person?

divaD
Mar 10th 2011, 05:26 PM
This has yet to occur.


Yes.


Ok, what is this verse saying? I would say it's talking about the ingathering of His flock, the Jewish exiles. Ah. Now, are there other verses in the bible describing the same thing? Why yes, there are plenty. The first (chronologically) is Deuteronomy 30. What does it say?

1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt bethink thyself among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2 and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; 3 that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. 4 If any of thine that are dispersed be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will He fetch thee. 5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it;

God Himself will bring the exiles back. Now, can't "the arm of the Lord" simply be God, acting on this earth? Why does it have to be a person?



Now we're getting somewhere. Of course it is God Himself. I couldn't agree more. And since the NT reveals that the arm of the LORD is none other than Jesus the Messiah, then using logic, obviously then, Jesus is God Himself.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 05:44 PM
Now we're getting somewhere. Of course it is God Himself. I couldn't agree more. And since the NT reveals that the arm of the LORD is none other than Jesus the Messiah, then using logic, obviously then, Jesus is God Himself.
Uhhh only makes sense if one believes that the NT is of divine origin. Without accepting that premise, you don't get to your conclusion.

Again, you find Jesus where you want to see him. "Arm of the Lord"? Jesus. "Suffering servant"? Jesus. Why? because it fits your preconceived notions. Not because logic proves it.

And you still haven't demonstrated why the bible "needs revealing".

And the Jewish exiles remain ungathered.

BroRog
Mar 10th 2011, 06:03 PM
Then you do not understand my position, since I do believe that the bible (at least my portion) is holy and from Above.And if you agree that the Hebrew scriptures are holy and from above, then wouldn't you agree with what it testifies about Moses?

divaD
Mar 10th 2011, 06:04 PM
Again, you find Jesus where you want to see him. "Arm of the Lord"? Jesus. "Suffering servant"? Jesus. Why? because it fits your preconceived notions. Not because logic proves it.

But it has nothing to do with preconceived notions. The NT tells us this. The NT is what links this to the OT.


And you still haven't demonstrated why the bible "needs revealing".


Perhaps I can't demonstrate why, but using logic tho, since the NT reveals much of the OT,
then it only stands to reason, the Bible(especially the OT) needs revealing, so to speak.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 06:06 PM
And if you agree that the Hebrew scriptures are holy and from above, then wouldn't you agree with what it testifies about Moses?

I "believe" with what it says about Moses. I don't consider it a "proof".

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 06:09 PM
But it has nothing to do with preconceived notions. Of course it does. None of these things are explicitly about the messiah, and Jews don't even see them as such.



Perhaps I can't demonstrate why, but using logic tho, since the NT reveals much of the OT,
then it only stands to reason, the Bible(especially the OT) needs revealing, so to speak.This is a circular argument. Totally unconvincing.

BroRog
Mar 10th 2011, 06:20 PM
I "believe" with what it says about Moses. I don't consider it a "proof".You don't? How can you say, on the one hand, that the scriptures are both holy and from above, and on the other hand, not find them convincing?

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 06:24 PM
You don't? How can you say, on the one hand, that the scriptures are both holy and from above, and on the other hand, not find them convincing?
In what way should I find them "convincing"?

Do I believe they depict actual events? Yes. Can I prove it? Uh. No, I cannot.

BroRog
Mar 10th 2011, 06:28 PM
In what way should I find them "convincing"?

Do I believe they depict actual events? Yes. Can I prove it? Uh. No, I cannot.Why aren't the scriptures proof enough? Look man, either God is real or he isn't. Either the scriptures are holy and from above or they aren't. If they are holy and from above, their testimony is proof. Don't let the postmodern philosophy of fatal skeptism rob you of your heritage and tell you that your scriptures aren't proof of anything. They certainly are proof.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 06:31 PM
Why aren't the scriptures proof enough?
How can they possibly be proof? We don't even know who wrote them, or when.

BroRog
Mar 10th 2011, 06:42 PM
How can they possibly be proof? We don't even know who wrote them, or when.If you accept that the scriptures are holy and from above, then you don't need to know who wrote them and when, except perhaps in the case of prophets. There are those who deny that the scriptures are holy and from above, who claim, for instance, that the book of Daniel was written by a couple of people after the fact. That is, according to such folks, Daniel wasn't predicting future events, but recording current events using prophetic language. But a claim that the scriptures are both holy and from above, is a claim that the scriptures are true in what they intend to say and superintended by God such that we have an accurate picture of things, Moses for instance. We both agree that the scriptures are holy and from above and given this premise, everything else follows from there. Whatever the scriptures say about Moses is both accurate and true, and therefore proof of the facts in question. The holy scriptures themselves provide factual evidence that helps establish the character of Moses, what he believed, how he felt about his people, what he thought about God and God's will for his people. To say that the scriptures are not proof, is to doubt God himself.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 06:50 PM
If you accept that the scriptures are holy and from above, then you don't need to know who wrote them and when, except perhaps in the case of prophets. I do accept that. But that isn't "proof". It's something I have faith in.



There are those who deny that the scriptures are holy and from above, who claim, for instance, that the book of Daniel was written by a couple of people after the fact. That is, according to such folks, Daniel wasn't predicting future events, but recording current events using prophetic language. Uh, to be honest I have some doubts about the book of Daniel. Jews never included it with the books of the prophets. They put it with the misc writings like Esther or Psalms.


But a claim that the scriptures are both holy and from above, is a claim that the scriptures are true in what they intend to say and superintended by God such that we have an accurate picture of things, Moses for instance. We both agree that the scriptures are holy and from above and given this premise, everything else follows from there. Whatever the scriptures say about Moses is both accurate and true, and therefore proof of the facts in question. You just lost me.

I believe that whatever the scriptures say about Moses is both accurate and true. That does not constitute a "proof". It's simply something I believe to be true.

Rullion Green
Mar 10th 2011, 07:00 PM
Why aren't the scriptures proof enough? Look man, either God is real or he isn't. Either the scriptures are holy and from above or they aren't. If they are holy and from above, their testimony is proof. Don't let the postmodern philosophy of fatal skeptism rob you of your heritage and tell you that your scriptures aren't proof of anything. They certainly are proof.

I agree Brorog, i take the word of God as my axiom or first principle. Axioms cannot be proved but they must be defended if they are to be taken seriously, everyone has a presupposition or axiom whether they be atheist or theist or anything in between, without one you literally cannot begin to think about your theory. Scripture has been validated over and over again it's the anvil that has worn out many hammers. Although it's impossible to prove every event in scripture we have enough evidence to make a judgement about its authenticity however not all agree and everyone's standards of credibility may be higher or lower, but it can be defended.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 07:10 PM
Really?

You can prove creation took place 5771 years ago? Noah's flood? The Exodus from Egypt? The empty tomb?

None of this can be proved. Believing them are acts of faith.

Rullion Green
Mar 10th 2011, 07:21 PM
Really?

You can prove creation took place 5771 years ago? Noah's flood? The Exodus from Egypt? The empty tomb?

None of this can be proved. Believing them are acts of faith.

Is this to me ?

If so read what i wrote again and answer it yourself. I'm not going to defend something i havn't said. Although there can be a logical conclusion to the empty tomb, that can be defend with logic. If your actually interested here (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html)it is.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 07:33 PM
If so read what i wrote again and answer it yourself. I'm not going to defend something i havn't said.

You said "Scripture has been validated over and over again it's the anvil that has worn out many hammers." What hammer has been worn out against it?

Rullion Green
Mar 10th 2011, 07:43 PM
You said "Scripture has been validated over and over again it's the anvil that has worn out many hammers." What hammer has been worn out against it?

It's a quote i like by G.K Chesterton talking about all the detractor that have opposed scripture throughout it's history. E.g The French philosopher Voltaire, boasted that within 100 years of his death, the Bible would disappear from the face of the earth. His home is now a museum for Bible printing press if i'm correct.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 07:45 PM
It's a quote i like by G.K Chesterton talking about all the detractor that have opposed scripture throughout it's history. E.g The French philosopher Voltaire, boasted that within 100 years of his death, the Bible would disappear from the face of the earth. His home is now a museum for Bible printing press if i'm correct.
So he was wrong. I don't see how that validates the bible in any way. As I said, the bibel claims so many events that cannot be proved. We simply believe them to be true.

Rullion Green
Mar 10th 2011, 07:51 PM
So he was wrong. I don't see how that validates the bible in any way. As I said, the bibel claims so many events that cannot be proved. We simply believe them to be true.

I like the quote and its fitting thats all. I agree and said myself there are countless events that cannot be proved but the more time goes on the Biblical account get stronger with new empirical based science such as archaeology, i think it was claimed the were never any Hittites now it's been proven FACT, and there are many more which i cant be bothered to mention, because i cant remember any. Google it

I believe it to be true because there is evidence to validate it's truth claim.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 07:58 PM
I believe it to be true
This part is accurate.

Rullion Green
Mar 10th 2011, 08:02 PM
This part is accurate.

Are you suggesting there is no evidence for the authenticity of scripture ?

you don't accept empirical science as evidence ?

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 08:04 PM
Are you suggesting there is no evidence for the authenticity of scripture ?yeah, pretty much.


you don't accept empirical science as evidence ?

There is empirical science that proves the bible correct?

Rullion Green
Mar 10th 2011, 08:10 PM
yeah, pretty much.


There is empirical science that proves the bible correct?

you insist on misquoting me. There is empirical evidence to show the validity of its authenticity = Archaeology

also recorded history do you reject this also ?

i'm not talking mathematical proofs here i'm talking evidence which taken into account we can deduce a conclusion on whether or not something is cogent as a argument or theory.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 08:16 PM
you insist on misquoting me. There is empirical evidence to show the validity of its authenticity = ArchaeologyArcheology can prove the places discussed in the bible existed. It can't prove the events depicted in the bible actually happened.


also recorded history do you reject this also ? I don't "reject" the bible, I just say it can't be proved. Recorded history can be equally sketchy at times. But the bible makes more extraordinary claims than just "history", and would in any case require a higher standard of proof.

Rullion Green
Mar 10th 2011, 08:25 PM
I don't "reject" the bible, I just say it can't be proved

I say the same thing. But i also say there are valid reason to believe its historicity and authenticity. There are reasons to believe.

What extraordinary claims ? that God created the world ?

easy = big bang cosmology, the objective moral argument, and the teleological argument. These arguments provide good grounds imo to believe the biblical statement God created the world.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 08:29 PM
I say the same thing. But i also say there are valid reason to believe its historicity and authenticity. There are reasons to believe. Believe. There's that word again. ;)


What extraordinary claims ? Greek historians wrote about their battles with the Persians. Nothing extraordinary about a war. It's credible that such a thing happened.

The bible writes about ten plagues, Exodus from Egypt, revelation at Sinai, etc... These are very extraordinary claims that would require extraodinary proof. Of this we have none.

Rullion Green
Mar 10th 2011, 08:38 PM
Believe. There's that word again. ;)

Greek historians wrote about their battles with the Persians. Nothing extraordinary about a war. It's credible that such a thing happened.

The bible writes about ten plagues, Exodus from Egypt, revelation at Sinai, etc... These are very extraordinary claims that would require extraodinary proof. Of this we have none.

Yeah everyone believes in something even the atheist it's not a soft word for the weak minded, why not quote reasons instead its in the same sentence lol.

Yes i see your point but with compilation of evidences that show the bibles historicity and its reliability it's made it easier to believe in a miricle working God, imo once Genesis one is believed and there is compelling evidence and theories for this, then the Exodus plagues are childs play to a God who created the universe.

bed time see ya

BroRog
Mar 10th 2011, 09:21 PM
Really?

You can prove creation took place 5771 years ago? Noah's flood? The Exodus from Egypt? The empty tomb?

None of this can be proved. Believing them are acts of faith.If they are recorded in a document that is both holy and from above, believing these things happened is a rational decision based on the facts.

BroRog
Mar 10th 2011, 09:24 PM
I do accept that. But that isn't "proof". It's something I have faith in.


Uh, to be honest I have some doubts about the book of Daniel. Jews never included it with the books of the prophets. They put it with the misc writings like Esther or Psalms.
You just lost me.

I believe that whatever the scriptures say about Moses is both accurate and true. That does not constitute a "proof". It's simply something I believe to be true.You need to reconsider your definition of "proof" then. This isn't some undergraduate debate. God is real and since he is real and since his scriptures are holy and from above, what they say is not a matter of "faith" (as the world defines it) but real proof.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 09:36 PM
If they are recorded in a document that is both holy and from above, believing these things happened is a rational decision based on the facts.

Based on what facts? The "fact" that I believe the bible is of divine origin?

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 09:37 PM
God is real
No.

We believe that God is real. Not the same thing at all.

divaD
Mar 10th 2011, 09:45 PM
No.

We believe that God is real. Not the same thing at all.

Back in the days of Exodus 19 for example, which would have been true to those at the time? God is real. They believed God was real.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 09:51 PM
Back in the days of Exodus 19 for example, which would have been true to those at the time? God is real. They believed God was real.
If the bible is true, then Abraham/Moses/the prophets spoke with Him.

Servant89
Mar 10th 2011, 10:10 PM
If our faith is blind (no facts to back it up), then the Muslims are ok and the Koran is as reliable as the Bible. Not so. Because God send his word with evidence to show it is HIS WORD, we have no excuse for not believing it. Jericho fell just like the Bible says it did, the walls and only the walls fell out. Babylon fell just like it was prophesied and it was covered with sand dunes just like it was predicted. Messiah arrived like Moses, after 430 years of no word of God. He arrived on a donkey at the right time as prophesied by Daniel 9:26. Israel went slave to Babylon for 70 years just like Jeremiah predicted and Daniel verified it (Dan 9:2).

There is no excuse.

Peace

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 10:13 PM
If our faith is blind (no facts to back it up), then the Muslims are ok and the Koran is as reliable as the Bible. It is, sorry.....

divaD
Mar 10th 2011, 10:26 PM
If the bible is true, then Abraham/Moses/the prophets spoke with Him.



Before I write these things, I'm going to have to remind myself that I'm dealing with someone very clever. I should have known there would be an 'if' involved somewhere. lol

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 10:29 PM
Before I write these things, I'm going to have to remind myself that I'm dealing with someone very clever.
:hmm:

:lol:

Thank you.

Servant89
Mar 10th 2011, 10:51 PM
It is, sorry.....

Speak for yourself Fenris. If you have seen no miracle and no prophecy fulfilled, that does not mean everyone is in the same boat. History is a good witness.

Shalom

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 10:54 PM
Speak for yourself Fenris. If you have seen no miracle and no prophecy fulfilled
Neither have you.

Everyone thinks their religion is "the great truth". Let's be honest, there's no way to prove which one is right. Heck, we could all be wrong.

ProDeo
Mar 10th 2011, 10:55 PM
Again, you find Jesus where you want to see him. "Arm of the Lord"? Jesus. "Suffering servant"? Jesus. Why? because it fits your preconceived notions. Not because logic proves it.

OT and NT fit seamless and logically since the OT predicts the NT.

But let's talk about logic and your faith.

How logic is it that God left the Jews alone, never send new prophets, this over a period of 2000-2500 years already. What kind of chosen people are you? What happened? Why is God silent? Where is the logic in His silence?

Curious....

ProDeo
Mar 10th 2011, 11:06 PM
I believe that whatever the scriptures say about Moses is both accurate and true. That does not constitute a "proof". It's simply something I believe to be true.

I am with you on this. Somewhere in time we have chosen to believe the Scriptures. And for a very good reason for which I don't need proof :)

crawfish
Mar 10th 2011, 11:55 PM
OT and NT fit seamless and logically since the OT predicts the NT.


In fairness to Fenris, the reason the OT and NT meld so seamlessly together is because our faith convinces us to accept the precepts of the NT. Jesus was not an "obvious Messiah" that the Jews could have predicted if they had only read their scriptures right; He was proof yet again that God does not communicate His exact intentions to us, that those intentions are only obvious via hindsight. Since Fenris does not accept Jesus' interpretations of OT scripture, then to him the NT is anything but seamless with the OT.

BroRog
Mar 11th 2011, 12:18 AM
Based on what facts? The "fact" that I believe the bible is of divine origin?Yes, once you believe that God exists and that God has superintended the scriptures, everything else follows from that. Just because "Thus says the Lord" is mediated through the written word doesn't make it any less true. And so, if I read that Moses was raised by Pharaoh's daughter, this fact is just as true as the fact that Paris is the capital of France. I don't have to treat the facts of the Bible as a special case of "religious" knowledge or assertions without proof. They are just as factual as any other bit of knowledge that exists in the corridors of our collective human "library".

I don't accept the premise that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence because I don't think such a thing exists. The concept of "extraordinary" evidence is just the rules of a mind game between those who stubbornly refuse to believe that God exists and those that do but have fallen for the ruse. Suggesting that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is like saying you need to prove the first miracle with a second one. This concept doesn't work in the real world.

An idea such as nuclear power was an extraordinary idea, but it wasn't proven with extraordinary evidence. It was proven with ordinary normal evidence, with ordinary and normal mathematics and ordinary and normal engineering and ordinary and normal experimentation by ordinary individuals. All that was required was a bit of ingenuity and creative thinking, which are both, normal, rational processes.

The idea that we not only have billions of stars in the universe but billions of galaxy's filled with billions of stars was an extraordinary claim when it was made but it was discovered with two eyes looking through a telescope, which is ordinary evidence, not extraordinary evidence. The discovery of germs came about after an ordinary piece of glass was ground to a fine polish and focused on some liquid. Nothing extraordinary about ground glass. We can multiply examples of extraordinary claims being proven with ordinary evidence, because extraordinary evidence is not a meaningful concept. Evidence is ordinary by it's very nature. Evidence is an indication that makes something evident. The evidence doesn't need to be extraordinary, it simply has to be compelling.

The Bible is an historical document like any historical document and if the Bible has been found to be reliable and accurate and hasn't given us any reason to doubt it, then the truths that it asserts can be trusted as factual. If we don't afford the Bible the same sympathetic reading as we afford other histories, then we are being unrighteously prejudice against the Bible without cause.

BroRog
Mar 11th 2011, 12:28 AM
In fairness to Fenris, the reason the OT and NT meld so seamlessly together is because our faith convinces us to accept the precepts of the NT.Not in my case. I accepted that the OT and NT were melded together because they were collected into a one volumn set. It was only later that I studied both of them that I became convinced that my original assessment was correct.
Since Fenris does not accept Jesus' interpretations of OT scripture, then to him the NT is anything but seamless with the OT.I can't speak for Fenris, but many Jews come to the text with the Talmud in one hand and the presuppostion that the OT couldn't be understood without the "teachers addition". In order for Jews to see the truth, they need to jetison the Talmud and recapture the truth of their own scriptures.

Neanias
Mar 11th 2011, 12:29 AM
Neither have you.

Everyone thinks their religion is "the great truth". Let's be honest, there's no way to prove which one is right. Heck, we could all be wrong.

Unless, as Servant said, God were to confirm it. If Elijah had fire coming down from heaven, did that not show that he had the truth? Is there room for doubt after that.

You claim to believe in this God that has manifested himself and proved himself to men in the past, yet you do not believe he would manifest himself to people today and prove himself. That in itself denies the faith of the Old Testament, and you do not believe we can actually know what is truth today! ;)

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 12:47 AM
Here is God's business card # 1: Fulfilled Prophecy

What makes the Bible the truth and the Koran a lie? How do you know which sacred book is the one truly inspired by God? One of the attributes of God is that God is outside the time domain (can see the end from the beginning). I read the entire Koran, not one prophecy to be used to prove it came from God.

Our God said:

Deut 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Jer 28:9 The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.

ISA 41:21 Produce your cause, says the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, says the King of Jacob.
22 Let them bring them forth, and show us what shall happen: let them show the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.
23 Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods: …

Ezek 33:33 And when this cometh to pass, (lo, it will come,) then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them.

This is also why Jesus said:

JOH 13:19 Now I tell you before it comes to pass, that, when it is come to pass, you may believe that I am he.
JOH 14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

JOH 2:22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture (after seeing the data), and the word which Jesus had said.

2PE 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

But right after that verse Peter states that even though being an eye witness is a great way of being convinced, he knew of something, some evidence that is much more convincing than being an eye witness and provides greater assurance… prophecy fulfilled (the next verse says):

2PE 1:19 We have also a MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

On the other hand, when prophecy is fulfilled and we do not believe… this is the only place documented in the Bible that Jesus called the disciples “fools”.

LUK 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

When John the Baptist sent messengers to Jesus asking are you the one? The answer Jesus gave him was data that showed that he was fulfilling prophecy (the blind see, the lame walk, the gospel is being preached to the poor, etc., see Isa 29:18; Luke 4:18 and Mat 11:5). We are supposed to believe based on the same evidence.

History records that Israel went as slaves to Babylon for 70 as prophesied in Jeremiah and Daniel 9:2 confirmed it. BELIEVE IT !

Business card # 2 coming up ....

Shalom

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 12:50 AM
Business card # 2: Miracles (Mohamed did not do one single miracle and everyone knows that).

Exo 4: 1 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.
2 And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
3 And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
5 That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.
6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
7 And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.
8 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.
9 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.

Deut 4:34 Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Jn 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Jn 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Jn 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Jn 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else Believe me for the very works' sake.

Acts 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

Acts 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

2 Cor 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Shalom

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 10:41 AM
OT and NT fit seamless and logically since the OT predicts the NT.Sure. But only if you believe that it does.


But let's talk about logic and your faith.

How logic is it that God left the Jews alone, never send new prophets, this over a period of 2000-2500 years already. What kind of chosen people are you? What happened? Why is God silent? Where is the logic in His silence?

Ah. And Christians have had prophets over the last 2000 years?

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 10:43 AM
Yes, once you believe that God exists and that God has superintended the scriptures, everything else follows from that.
Belief is not proof, nor does it lead to a proof. Belief is simply something that one believes, despite any evidence. It's the whole point of "faith".

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 10:45 AM
I can't speak for Fenris, but many Jews come to the text with the Talmud in one hand and the presuppostion that the OT couldn't be understood without the "teachers addition". In order for Jews to see the truth, they need to jetison the Talmud and recapture the truth of their own scriptures.
They need to jettison one set of man-made books and accept another set of man-made books. Yes, it seems perfectly logical, why didn't I think of that? :rolleyes:

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 10:46 AM
Unless, as Servant said, God were to confirm it. If Elijah had fire coming down from heaven, did that not show that he had the truth? Is there room for doubt after that.

1) No one today has had fire come down from heaven 2)One has to believe that Elijah had fire come down from heaven.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 10:47 AM
Here is God's business card # 1: Fulfilled Prophecy

What makes the Bible the truth and the Koran a lie? How do you know which sacred book is the one truly inspired by God? One of the attributes of God is that God is outside the time domain (can see the end from the beginning). I read the entire Koran, not one prophecy to be used to prove it came from God.

Our God said:

Deut 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Muslims use Deuteronomy 18 as a proof text for Mohammed. Heh.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 10:48 AM
Business card # 2: Miracles (Mohamed did not do one single miracle and everyone knows that).

A billion Mulims believe that Mohammed did, in fact, perform miracles. So "everyone" doesn't know anything of the sort.

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 12:23 PM
A billion Mulims believe that Mohammed did, in fact, perform miracles. So "everyone" doesn't know anything of the sort.

That is not true. I have seen Muslim leaders on TV saying that Mohamed did one miracle, writing the Koran (which is not a miracle). I read the Koran, there is not one single miracle there done my Mohamed or anyone else.

Peace

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 12:24 PM
1) No one today has had fire come down from heaven 2)One has to believe that Elijah had fire come down from heaven.

The Fatima virgin brought the sun to come down to earth in a lying way but the 70,000 people present to see the miracle were convinced.

There are pictures of it.

Shalom

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 12:25 PM
Muslims use Deuteronomy 18 as a proof text for Mohammed. Heh.

They claim it with no evidence to back it up. We claim Jesus is the fulfillment with evidence that backs it up.

Messiah: A prophet like Moses

23. Fasted for 40 days and 40 nights [Exo 34:28] (Mat 4:2)
24. Started a Testament [Pentateuch] (Heb 9:15-20)
25. Changed the calendar [Exo 12:2] (Dan 2:21 & Anno Domini (A.D.) or year of our Lord 2011)
26. Born when Israel was under yoke [Egypt] (Rome)
27. Anointed by God [Num 11:16-17] (Luke 4:18)
28. Gave of his spirit to people [Num 11:25] (John 7:37-39)
29. Like a god [Exo 4:16] (John 8:24-27)
30. Healed people [Hos 11:1-3] (Mat 8:16)
31. Involved in a mixed marriage [Num 12:1] (Rev 7:9)
32. Tested (temptations in the desert) [Exo 13] (Mat 4:1-6)
33. # 1 in meekness [Num 12:3] (Mat 11:29)
34. Did not defend himself [Num 12:3] (Mat 27:14)
35. Suffered for God’s people [Heb 11:16] (John 3:16)
36. Fed thousands out of nothing [Num 11:31] (Mat 14:20-21)
37. Baptized people [1Cor 10:2] (Mat 3:11)
38. Face shinning with God’s glory [Exo 34:35] (Mat 17:2)
39. Taken out of Egypt [Exo 12] (Mat 2:15)
40. Arrival time was prophesied [Exo 12:41] (Dan 9:25; Neh 2; Luke 19:39-44)
41. Arrival was preceeded by 430 years of no Word of God [Gen 15:13-14; Exo 1:6] (history tells us there are 430 years between the closing of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament)
42. Whe he arrived, an order was given to kill babies [Exo 1:22] (Mat 2:16)
43. Saved the people on day of Passover by the blood [Exo 12] (Mat 26:2)
44. Liberated people from bondage, set them free [Exo 12] (Gal 5:1)
45. Ministry of miracles [Exo 4:5; Deu 34:10-12] (Acts 2:22)
46. His prophecies came to pass [Deu 18:18] (Mat 24:2)

Shalom

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 12:28 PM
The Fatima virgin brought the sun to come down to earth in a lying way but the 70,000 people present to see the miracle were convinced.


You Catholic now?

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 12:29 PM
1) No one today has had fire come down from heaven 2)One has to believe that Elijah had fire come down from heaven.

One day I said to a coworker, mark my words, the next thing that is going to happen is that the pope will make a covenant with Israel. The very next day it was on TV. I did not have a dream or a vision. I found the information in Scripture and he showed up right on time, not a month early, not a week late. I saw that before it happened. I have seen the Lord twice create out of nothing what I needed to meet my need, violating the first law of thermodynamics.

Shalom

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 12:30 PM
You Catholic now?

It is written in Rev 13:13 and 2Th 2:8-12.

Shalom

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 12:31 PM
That is not true. I have seen Muslim leaders on TV saying that Mohamed did one miracle, writing the Koran (which is not a miracle). I read the Koran, there is not one single miracle there done my Mohamed or anyone else.

PeaceThey say he brought water from the desert. Just like Moses. heh.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 12:33 PM
They claim it with no evidence to back it up. We claim Jesus is the fulfillment with evidence that backs it up.


This is like all the other 'evidence' you present. It's true- but only if you believe that it is.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 12:33 PM
One day I said to a coworker, mark my words, the next thing that is going to happen is that the pope will make a covenant with Israel. The very next day it was on TV. I did not have a dream or a vision. I found the information in Scripture and he showed up right on time, not a month early, not a week late. I saw that before it happened. I have seen the Lord twice create out of nothing what I needed to meet my need, violating the first law of thermodynamics.

Shalom

Well I'm convinced now.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 12:34 PM
It is written in Rev 13:13 and 2Th 2:8-12.

Shalom

I bet lots of people here disagree with that.

rejoice44
Mar 11th 2011, 03:10 PM
This is like all the other 'evidence' you present. It's true- but only if you believe that it is.

Fenris you amaze me. With all your conservative values, and yet you defy logic.

You are looking for a promised Messiah, and yet you are told not to look to hard. Why are you looking for a Messiah? Because he is to be your redeemer, saviour, and king, is that not so? Do a study on the arm of God, and you will see that the arm of God is your redeemer, saviour, and king. If the Messiah is not to be your redeemer and king please explain exactly why you are to be looking for him.

Your redeemer is also God. If the Messiah is to be your redemption and salvation, and God is your redemption and salvation, them the Messiah is God, that is logic.

Logic should tell you that for a man's birth, and only one man's birth to be recorded on almost every food item, and every transaction that is recorded every day of the year multi-millions of times a day, and that there is no other man on earth to be afforded such greatness, and honor, then surely the Lord God who is on high has so deemed it. Unless you don't believe God is in charge of bestowing honor on who he will.

You might argue God got the date wrong, but that is just faith on your part, for you cannot prove it. If they want to get my birth date off by several years, and record everything according to my birth, then I would consider it the greatest honor to be bestowed on me that could be given in this world.

Isaiah was right, Israel does not know her Lord.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:14 PM
Fenris you amaze me. With all your conservative values, and yet you defy logic.

I'm sorry, I didn't find a single logical point in your post.

Rullion Green
Mar 11th 2011, 03:15 PM
I bet lots of people here disagree with that.

That maybe so, but does it mean he's not correct ?

So i'm interested in this thread because it has brought up a clear distinction it seems between some of us and you, not just the religious category but our different take on epistemology. How would you describe you philosophical world view ?

are you a post-modern relativist ?

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:17 PM
That maybe so, but does it mean he's not correct ?No, it means he can't prove his point.


So i'm interested in this thread because it has brought up a clear distinction it seems between some of us and you, not just the religious category but our different take on epistemology. How would you describe you philosophical world view ?

are you a relativist ?

I don't know what this means.

Rullion Green
Mar 11th 2011, 03:20 PM
I don't know what this means.

Do you think there is no way to find absolute truth and every one has their own views and thats ok with you (i would say thats a relativist, although it's paraphrase).

or do you say there is a way to know truth ?

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:23 PM
or do you say there is a way to know truth ?

I would say that at this point in time, there are things that can be proved and things that we take on faith.

The whole discussion on which religion is correct (if any!) cannot be proved at this point in time.

rejoice44
Mar 11th 2011, 03:25 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't find a single logical point in your post.

I know you don't like to be reminded that Christ's birth is recorded on so many things that confront you every day, but tell me Fenris, are you looking for the Messiah to come? And if you are looking for the Messiah to come, what do you expect from him when he gets here?

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:28 PM
I know you don't like to be reminded that Christ's birth is recorded on so many things that confront you every dayWrong date.


but tell me Fenris, are you looking for the Messiah to come? I'm waiting for him to come. When he gets here, the messianic prophecy will be fulfilled. Literally, not "metaphorically" or "spritually". All of it, no "second coming" required.

Rullion Green
Mar 11th 2011, 03:31 PM
I would say that at this point in time, there are things that can be proved and things that we take on faith.

The whole discussion on which religion is correct (if any!) cannot be proved at this point in time.

Yes you cannot prove most things in life and you dont have to, provided you can defend you view with good reasoning.

So can we filter out the ludicrous from the credible in religion lets say ?

or do they all have equality and a right to be viewed as legitimate no matter how out there they are ?

RollTide21
Mar 11th 2011, 03:31 PM
Fenris, why, as you claim, do you love God? The issue that I cannot get past with your theology is that your Faith seems to be based solely on traditions of Judaism and the idea that the guidelines for life handed down by these traditions are good. Where does love for God fit into the equation? I mean, what is your idea of "love for God." Merely loving being a faithful Jew?

I ask because I am having trouble imagining where the "connection" to God takes place in Judaism. He seems so remote in your theology.

BTW, you're a heck of a sport for getting into these threads. Bravo. :lol:

rejoice44
Mar 11th 2011, 03:33 PM
Wrong date.

You can prove this of course, and does it change the fact that it is Jesus who has been so honored.


I'm waiting for him to come. When he gets here, the messianic prophecy will be fulfilled. Literally, not "metaphorically" or "spritually". All of it, no "second coming" required.

Exactly what is that messianic prophecy as you see it?

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:37 PM
So can we filter out the ludicrous from the credible in religion lets say ?

or do they all have equality and a right to be viewed as legitimate no matter how out there they are ?

Hard to say. What you find perfectly sensible may seem ludicrous to a person of another faith. Some of the most basic tenets of Christianity make no sense to me whatsoever.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:39 PM
Fenris, why, as you claim, do you love God? The issue that I cannot get past with your theology is that your Faith seems to be based solely on traditions of Judaism and the idea that the guidelines for life handed down by these traditions are good. Where does love for God fit into the equation? I mean, what is your idea of "love for God." Merely loving being a faithful Jew? I love God because He gave me life. He granted tremendous blessing upon me. He gave me grace- He told me what He expects by granting me the Law.


I ask because I am having trouble imagining where the "connection" to God takes place in Judaism. He seems so remote in your theology.
Oh no, He is quite personal. I speak with Him every day.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:41 PM
You can prove this of course,Yes. Herod died in 4BC. Ergo, Jesus could not have been born later than 4BC. See, this is called logic.


and does it change the fact that it is Jesus who has been so honored.Yes, because presumably God could get His own birthday right.




Exactly what is that messianic prophecy as you see it?Ingathering Jewish exiles, rebuilt temple, world peace...

RollTide21
Mar 11th 2011, 03:45 PM
I love God because He gave me life. He granted tremendous blessing upon me. He gave me grace- He told me what He expects by granting me the Law.

Oh no, He is quite personal. I speak with Him every day.You believe that He gave you life, blessing, grace, and His Law. Why do you believe that enough to give Him praise for it on a regular basis? Where does your belief originate?

RollTide21
Mar 11th 2011, 03:46 PM
You can prove this of course, and does it change the fact that it is Jesus who has been so honored.


It's commonly accepted that Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25th.

rejoice44
Mar 11th 2011, 03:49 PM
Yes. Herod died in 4BC. Ergo, Jesus could not have been born later than 4BC. See, this is called logic.

Yes, because presumably God could get His own birthday right.

Yes our dating is so precise that the Jews have the earth 5,771 years, and most everyone else says that it is approximately 6,015 years. The honest answer is that our dating is not a science, it is faith.


Ingathering Jewish exiles, rebuilt temple, world peace...

You are saying that the Messiah is not to be your savour?

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:52 PM
You believe that He gave you life, blessing, grace, and His Law. yes, quite correct. Thank you.


Why do you believe that enough to give Him praise for it on a regular basis? Where does your belief originate?From the first it's what I was taught growing up. My parents. My teachers. The bible. Over time I grew to appreciate the bible and it's message. How it changed the world. As my thinking matured I was able to look at the world as it is today. And how it got to be that way. And what the Jewish role was and still is.

I even post articles on it from time to time. They usually get ignored. That's fine, I don't mind.

I look at these things in totality, and it leads me to believe that Judaism is correct. Not that I could prove it, mind you. But my observations are sufficient for me.

Rullion Green
Mar 11th 2011, 03:53 PM
Hard to say. What you find perfectly sensible may seem ludicrous to a person of another faith.

Yes that is true. I'm no closer to finding out what your epistemology is :)

heres (http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/new/Bravus/epistemology/#)a quiz if anyone is interested lol.

warning this may be very boring for some people, it takes 3 or 4 mins to complete.

my results are;

You Scored as objectivist

Objectivists believe that knowledge is external to humans, and has an absolute existence of its own. We come to know through getting into contact with existing knowledge, either through being taught it by others or by reading/viewing/etc. it.


objectivist
77%
personal constructivist
60%
social constructionist
57%
social constructivist
37%


Of course its not binding or even correct just a bit of fun, if i can get away with using the word fun. btw i would agree with my results.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:54 PM
Yes our dating is so precise that the Jews have the earth 5,771 years, and most everyone else says that it is approximately 6,015 years. The honest answer is that our dating is not a science, it is faith.OK, so dating is faith, but religion can be proved? :rolleyes:




You are saying that the Messiah is not to be your savour?What is a "savior"?

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 03:58 PM
They say he brought water from the desert. Just like Moses. heh.

Not in the Koran, just gossip.

Shalom

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 04:00 PM
This is like all the other 'evidence' you present. It's true- but only if you believe that it is.

There is a huge difference, our evidence is in the written word. Their evidence is not in the Koran, it is gossip. Big Difference.

Shalom

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:01 PM
There is a huge difference, our evidence is in the written word.
Written by who?

Athanasius
Mar 11th 2011, 04:02 PM
Not in the Koran, just gossip.

Shalom

So if the Bible were passed orally today, as it was thousands of years ago, would you hold to the same view?

rejoice44
Mar 11th 2011, 04:02 PM
What is a "saviour"?

יָשַׁע
Transliteration
yasha`
Pronunciation

yä·shah' (Key)


Part of Speech
verb

Root Word (Etymology)

A primitive root

TWOT Reference
929

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) to save, be saved, be delivered

a) (Niphal)

1) to be liberated, be saved, be delivered

2) to be saved (in battle), be victorious

b) (Hiphil)

1) to save, deliver

2) to save from moral troubles

3) to give victory to

ProDeo
Mar 11th 2011, 04:03 PM
Ah. And Christians have had prophets over the last 2000 years?

Sure.

Contrary to the OT chosen people He dis not left us alone.

John 14:16 - And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not abandon you as orphans, I will come to you.

Fulfilled at Pentecost.

At least Christians are no orphans, I can not say that about Judaism, God left his chosen people as orphans 2000+ years ago.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:05 PM
1) to save, deliver

2) to save from moral troubles

3) to give victory toTo save from what?

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:06 PM
Sure.

Contrary to the OT chosen people He dis not left us alone.

John 14:16 - And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not abandon you as orphans, I will come to you.

Fulfilled at Pentecost.

At least Christians are no orphans, I can not say that about Judaism, God left his chosen people as orphans 2000+ years ago.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. You have modern-day prophets?

rejoice44
Mar 11th 2011, 04:08 PM
To save from what?

The enemy. The enemy.

RollTide21
Mar 11th 2011, 04:08 PM
yes, quite correct. Thank you.

From the first it's what I was taught growing up. My parents. My teachers. The bible. Over time I grew to appreciate the bible and it's message. How it changed the world. As my thinking matured I was able to look at the world as it is today. And how it got to be that way. And what the Jewish role was and still is.

I even post articles on it from time to time. They usually get ignored. That's fine, I don't mind.

I look at these things in totality, and it leads me to believe that Judaism is correct. Not that I could prove it, mind you. But my observations are sufficient for me.Sufficient for you to love God? Or sufficient for you to see that Judaism is a good religion to follow?

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:09 PM
The enemy. The enemy.

What enemy. This is biblical?

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 04:10 PM
I bet lots of people here disagree with that.

I agree with you that a lot of people would not believe it is biblical fulfillment, but that does not remove the fact that it is a fact of history, it did happen. The Scriputure was fulfilled with historical facts, and like you Fenris, people refuse to acknowledge the word of God is amazing at predicting what is going to happen in the future. Like you Fenris, people here reject historical records because it does not fit their model, because like you, it does not fit their theology. It does not remove the fact that Rev 13:13 was fulfilled perfectly and the character that fulfilled Rev 13:13 showed up only on days # 13 of the month. What a hint! And in spite of that, people do not believe, just like you. The fact remains, someone did make fire from heaven (the sun) to fall down towards the earth in the presence of many people, that is a fact. It is also a fact people refuse to give God the glory and say "The Bible predicted that !" People are more ready to defend their image than to acknowledge the Bible predicted the event.

Where is the logic? Like Jesus said: John 8:43 "why don't you understand my speech? It is because you can not receive my words." That's why. It has nothing to do with IQ or logic, it has everything to do with having more confidence in our ability to see the future (and have more faith in our theology) than on historical facts we see today. Logic goes out the window indeed.

Shalom

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:11 PM
Sufficient for you to love God? Or sufficient for you to see that Judaism is a good religion to follow?

Both.

You love God because you believe He saves you from eternal damnation.

I love God because I believe He gives my life meaning.

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 04:11 PM
Wrong date.

I'm waiting for him to come. When he gets here, the messianic prophecy will be fulfilled. Literally, not "metaphorically" or "spritually". All of it, no "second coming" required.

And that is your model, and if history does not fit your model, it is rejected. That is the root of the problem, having more confidence in our model than in historical facts.

Shalom

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:12 PM
I agree with you that a lot of people would not believe it is biblical fulfillment, but that does not remove the fact that it is a fact of history, it did happen.
Hmm. Something happened. Whether it was a miracle as they claim is something else entirely.

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 04:14 PM
Written by who?

By the Holy Spirit, because it came with both of God's business cards, prophecy fulfilled and miracles. The evidence is not in the Koran, it is in the NT.

Shalolm

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 04:15 PM
Hmm. Something happened. Whether it was a miracle as they claim is something else entirely.

70,000 people were in agreement. Yes, something happened and it matches Rev 13:13.

Shalom

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:15 PM
And that is your model, and if history does not fit your model, it is rejected. That is the root of the problem, having more confidence in our model than in historical facts.

I could say the same of you. You believe a non-literal fuflillment of biblical prophecy because it's all you have.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:16 PM
By the Holy Spirit
No, it was written by people. We're not sure who and we're not sure when. Hardly "indisputable truth".

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 04:16 PM
Hmm. Something happened. Whether it was a miracle as they claim is something else entirely.

The Bible calls it a lying wonder in 2Th 2:9.

Shalom

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 04:17 PM
No, it was written by people. We're not sure who and we're not sure when. Hardly "indisputable truth".

People can not see the future. People can not raise the dead. Only God can do that.

Shalom

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 04:21 PM
I could say the same of you. You believe a non-literal fuflillment of biblical prophecy because it's all you have.

Ohhhh, huge difference !!! I take history and I match history with prophecy. Prophecy is the mold of history. I have historical facts that match prophecy. And you refuse to believe that. Big difference. I have historical data to back up what I am saying. History is screaming "I FIT, I FIT, I FIT!!!".

Shalom

RollTide21
Mar 11th 2011, 04:22 PM
Both.

You love God because you believe He saves you from eternal damnation.

I love God because I believe He gives my life meaning.I love God because His Spirit lives within me through Christ. This Spirit is present in prayer, worship, Scripture reading, and in my decision making. It is the ACTUAL Presence Of God. It is not a matter of belief, but of fundamental KNOWING...unless I and many others whose lives were changed merely concocted this "Holy Spirit" out of our own imagination, which makes zero sense.

Otherwise, it's just religion and my "love" is based on nothing more than theological principles.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:25 PM
70,000 people were in agreement. Yes, something happened and it matches Rev 13:13.

There is plenty of doubt on the matter....

Servant89
Mar 11th 2011, 04:25 PM
So if the Bible were passed orally today, as it was thousands of years ago, would you hold to the same view?

Thousands of years ago? You mean from Adam to Moses?

Peace

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:26 PM
People can not see the future. People can not raise the dead. Only God can do that.


Your only proof that these things happened is your book.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 04:27 PM
Ohhhh, huge difference !!! I take history and I match history with prophecy. Prophecy is the mold of history. I have historical facts that match prophecy. And you refuse to believe that. Big difference. I have historical data to back up what I am saying. History is screaming "I FIT, I FIT, I FIT!!!".

What historical facts? Where is history screaming?

I'm waiting for the messiah who's going to bring the Jews back to Israel. Rebuild the temple. Usher in an era of world peace. The prophets mentioned all of these things, and that's what I'm waiting for. Literally.