We complicate the answer we all seek

[Eathin_Hunt]

Sorry if I offended anyone.

I did not think I went there in reference to the bible being part of the process of salvation. If I did, would like to correct it now.

ebia, did not mean to insult you and I need to learn the rules better. I need to learn how to debate that particular area better- the difference (es) between someone who has different views than my own, particualry in this area.

Thank you for pointing that out, sincerely

 

[ebia]

Apology accepted

 

[humbledbyhim]

So... if believing in the literal truth of the Bible is a necessary prerequisite of the faith, were the original followers of Christ not true Christians? The Bible was not compiled until quite some time after His death.

To say that there can be no belief in Christ without the Bible is a very dangerous statement, I think.

I never said that....and...

Examples of facts that Jesus quoted from scripture:

Matthew 4

"4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God...
7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. "

Like I said... FACTS not parables.

 

[humbledbyhim]

The word Christian does not come from the bible.

Greetings:

you are wrong:

"Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

If you're going to argue against the scriptures, you should study them.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I never said that....and...

Examples of facts that Jesus quoted from scripture:

Matthew 4

"4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God...
7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. "

Like I said... FACTS not parables.

How is this a story referred to as fact? And why did you double-post this in my guestbook?

 

[ebia]

Greetings:

you are wrong:

"Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

I didn't say that the word was not in the bible, I said it is not from the bible. Even from St Luke's quote alone you can see that the word was in use before he wrote it and he expected his audience to already have encountered it. IIRC the word was coined by enemies of the church to belittle followers of The Way. I doubt there are many people in the world at any time in history that have first come across the word Christian through reading or hearing Acts. So to say the word is from the bible is incorrect. The bible just documents its first use.

And why did you double-post this in my guestbook?, to borrow a phrase.

 

[humbledbyhim]

How is this a story referred to as fact? And why did you double-post this in my guestbook?

I never said anything about stories in any of my posts, I said he used scriptures...
It is scripture referring to fact because if those quotations of scriptures that Jesus quoted arent fact then we should live by bread alone and that we should tempt God. I'll continue to believe that they are facts.

Also, I posted it in your guestbook in case you didn't return to this thread. I won't do it again since it isn't necessary.

 

[humbledbyhim]

I didn't say that the word was not in the bible, I said it is not from the bible. Even from St Luke's quote alone you can see that the word was in use before he wrote it and he expected his audience to already have encountered it. IIRC the word was coined by enemies of the church to belittle followers of The Way. I doubt there are many people in the world at any time in history that have first come across the word Christian through reading or hearing Acts. So to say the word is from the bible is incorrect. The bible just documents its first use.

And why did you double-post this in my guestbook?, to borrow a phrase.

For the double post thing, read my last post. Also:

Oh goodness. Fine, its clear that every word in the bible was in use before the bible was written otherwise it the words would have self materialized. Of course nothing came from the bible in and of itself. That means that your first statement was a little silly to begin with (though it was correct). My point in the matter is that you seem to feel like people are ignorant and go around bowing before bibles. Many simply believe that the bible is a collection of TRUE stories and statments that God intended for all Christians who were around since all of the scriptures were compiled into one book. Obviously, the first Christians didn't have bibles. You know why? because they had the disciples in person to guide them! We don't. We have the spirit to guide us, but just like the disciples and every other Christian, actual examples and accounts of Christ's teachings and practical holiness (and love) and a knowledge of the old law are needful tools to guide us through our daily walk. Many believe that God himself led the authors in the bible to write what they did because he knew that they would be compiled as a record of His teachings and His general will for all who live for Him.

 

[humbledbyhim]

Ebia, if you feel like it, or if you could, could you please formally write out what you believe as far as why you think the bible is inaccurate in it's retellings of God before Christ came to earth. Also, do you believe we can know anything about God before Christ came to earth outside of the bible. If so, how and why? And why does this make more sense to you than having the bible being what I said I believe it is in my last post.

 

[ebia]

For the double post thing, read my last post.

Ok, please don't do it again. I don't "post and run".

Oh goodness. Fine, its clear that every word in the bible was in use before the bible was written otherwise it the words would have self materialized. Of course nothing came from the bible in and of itself.
That means that your first statement was a little silly to begin with (though it was correct).

I made the statement to counter a particular claim - effectively that the word Christian orginated in the bible and therefore if one did not hold the bible as ultimate authority (or something like that) one could not consider oneself Christian. The statement itself was never intended to be particularly profound.

My point in the matter is that you seem to feel like people are ignorant and go around bowing before bibles.

Some (not necessarily those posting in this thread) seem pretty close to that. Many avoid that extream but still seem to give an authority to the bible that is God's and God's alone. If I had a dollar for every time I've read something like "God is bound by his word" or "the bible is the ultimate authority"...

Many simply believe that the bible is a collection of TRUE stories and statments that God intended for all Christians who were around since all of the scriptures were compiled into one book.

I would agree 100% with that statement. I probably have a wider interpretation of the word "true" than you.

Obviously, the first Christians didn't have bibles. You know why? because they had the disciples in person to guide them! We don't. We have the spirit to guide us, but just like the disciples and every other Christian, actual examples and accounts of Christ's teachings and practical holiness (and love) and a knowledge of the old law are needful tools to guide us through our daily walk.

Again, no problem with that. With the proviso that God has not stopped talking to us in other ways, and that the bible isn't God speaking; God speaks through the bible.

Many believe that God himself led the authors in the bible to write what they did because he knew that they would be compiled as a record of His teachings and His general will for all who live for Him.

How much I could agree with that would depend on exactly what you mean by some of those words. God's inspiration of the authors is not some kind of divine dictation and it wouldn't use the word "record" to describe such a diverse collection of literary styles. I would prefer to describe the bible as something like "A uniquely inspired collection of literary works in a variety of genres that describes the encounters with God of individuals and peoples and provides us with a resouce through which God can teach us about himself, ourselves and his calling for each of us (to be used alongside the myriad of other ways that God speaks to us)."

Ebia, if you feel like it, or if you could, could you please formally write out what you believe as far as why you think the bible is inaccurate in it's retellings of God before Christ came to earth.

The stories are there to help us learn about God. Their truth lies in how they transform us (or rather in how God transforms us through them), not in whether they accurately discribe historical events in some post-enlightenment sense of factual truth.

Also, do you believe we can know anything about God before Christ came to earth outside of the bible.

I've read this several times and I'm still not sure what you are asking. Are you asking what I can tell about what God's nature was before the incarnation (surely the same as it was after), or are you asking what what people who lived before the incarnation could know about God? Or something else?

 

[ebia]

I never said anything about stories in any of my posts, I said he used scriptures...
It is scripture referring to fact because if those quotations of scriptures that Jesus quoted arent fact then we should live by bread alone and that we should tempt God. I'll continue to believe that they are facts.

The second is not a fact - it's an instruction.

The first is a theological/spiritual truth. I guess you could call it a fact, though I'm not sure I would.

But even if they were both facts, that does not demonstrate that other parts of scripture are factual, only that those bits are.

 

[humbledbyhim]

The stories are there to help us learn about God. Their truth lies in how they transform us (or rather in how God transforms us through them), not in whether they accurately discribe historical events in some post-enlightenment sense of factual truth.

I agree with the first 1.5 sentences.
When I say the stories are "true" I mean that they actually happened to real people at a real time here on earth and are accurate.


Forget my last question. I have anew one.

Why, if you believe that the bible is full of stories that aren't neccessarily accurate historically but have greater meaning that can change our lives...

Why did you say this?
"If the OT stories of attrocities are true and accurate, God is not the loving God he claims to be."

In other words, how can you believe some stories and not others? How can you believe that Christ performed the miracles? By your logic, it's obvious that he was a real person (there is proof), but it's not obvious that the stories of his resurrection are historically accurate or true, by my definition of truth, without the spirit revealing it to you. Could it be that you believe that the spirit has told you that the stories about Christ are true while some of the OT stories are false? If so, I must say that my spirit tells me something different, and one of us has to be wrong. If not, then I don't understand your thinking.

 

[ebia]

I agree with the first 1.5 sentences.
When I say the stories are "true" I mean that they actually happened to real people at a real time here on earth and are accurate.


Forget my last question. I have anew one.

Why, if you believe that the bible is full of stories that aren't neccessarily accurate historically but have greater meaning that can change our lives...

Why did you say this?
"If the OT stories of attrocities are true and accurate, God is not the loving God he claims to be."

In other words, how can you believe some stories and not others? How can you believe that Christ performed the miracles? By your logic, it's obvious that he was a real person (there is proof), but it's not obvious that the stories of his resurrection are historically accurate or true, by my definition of truth, without the spirit revealing it to you. Could it be that you believe that the spirit has told you that the stories about Christ are true while some of the OT stories are false? If so, I must say that my spirit tells me something different, and one of us has to be wrong. If not, then I don't understand your thinking.

Why did you say this?
"If the OT stories of attrocities are true and accurate, God is not the loving God he claims to be."

If I were to rewrite that, removed from the context in which was originally posted, I would say "If the OT stories of attrocities are historically/factually accurate, God is not the loving God he claims to be." That is, the stories in question still have something to tell us, but if they are an accutate depiction of a real historical event, then that is not compatible with the loving God depicted in and by Christ whom I know.

In other words, how can you believe some stories and not others?

The purpose of the vast majority of the OT isn't contained in whether or not I believe it actually happened, but in how it transforms my relationship with God.

How can you believe that Christ performed the miracles?

Whether or not I believe some particular thing is independent on whether or not a believe some other particular thing. I don't believe in Christs miracles because I believe in the bible. I believe in Christ's miricles because I believe in Christ. I believe the bible has value because I believe in Christ. The bible is neither the starting point nor the end point but a tool along the way.

By your logic, it's obvious that he was a real person (there is proof), but it's not obvious that the stories of his resurrection are historically accurate or true, by my definition of truth, without the spirit revealing it to you.

I would have to say that the "secular" evidence (for lack of a better word) is inconclusive.

Could it be that you believe that the spirit has told you that the stories about Christ are true while some of the OT stories are false?

It's not that the OT stories are false, but that they are not historically accurate. To treat them as modern style history is to miss their point and force them into being something they never were meant to be.

If so, I must say that my spirit tells me something different, and one of us has to be wrong. If not, then I don't understand your thinking.

Well that's one of the Christian paradoxes isn't it? x many billion Christians being lead by the Holy Spirit and yet he leads us down different paths and (curiously) to different understandings as we journey down our individual paths.

 

[humbledbyhim]

If I were to rewrite that, removed from the context in which was originally posted, I would say "If the OT stories of attrocities are historically/factually accurate, God is not the loving God he claims to be." That is, the stories in question still have something to tell us, but if they are an accutate depiction of a real historical event, then that is not compatible with the loving God depicted in and by Christ whom I know.

The purpose of the vast majority of the OT isn't contained in whether or not I believe it actually happened, but in how it transforms my relationship with God.

Whether or not I believe some particular thing is independent on whether or not a believe some other particular thing. I don't believe in Christs miracles because I believe in the bible. I believe in Christ's miricles because I believe in Christ. I believe the bible has value because I believe in Christ. The bible is neither the starting point nor the end point but a tool along the way.
I agree, but many facts about Christ are located find in the bible (NT)... which is written by those who were with him ...or do you disagree?

I would have to say that the "secular" evidence (for lack of a better word) is inconclusive.

Meh.

It's not that the OT stories are false, but that they are not historically accurate. To treat them as modern style history is to miss their point and force them into being something they never were meant to be.

so you assume... I'm sure a many of orthodox Jews would disagree...

Well that's one of the Christian paradoxes isn't it? x many billion Christians being lead by the Holy Spirit and yet he leads us down different paths and (curiously) to different understandings as we journey down our individual paths.

The spirit of God does not create conflicts of belief, people do. Christ is one. It's our lack of understanding or lack of willingness to accept certain things that makes our understandings differ. However, God's love and grace covers our foolishness. So again, one of us is wrong on this. Also, God isn't the author of confusion. AAAAAnd, this is not ancient Greece or Rome. This idea of myths revealing spiritual and natural truths was the basis of their religions. We see what happened to that... Anyway, unless God leads me to discuss this stuff with you again, I'll probably decline to converse with you on these matters. Other matters...maybe. I will however, read your respnse to this.

 

[ebia]

I agree, but many facts about Christ are located find in the bible (NT)... which is written by those who were with him ...or do you disagree?

Agree.

Meh.

?

so you assume... I'm sure a many of orthodox Jews would disagree...

Perhaps. So what?

The spirit of God does not create conflicts of belief, people do. Christ is one. It's our lack of understanding or lack of willingness to accept certain things that makes our understandings differ. However, God's love and grace covers our foolishness. So again, one of us is wrong on this. Also, God isn't the author of confusion.

Perhaps, but I'm not particuarly convinced that God's primary purpose is having us all believe the same or even the "correct" thing. I tend to see his primary purpose in transforming us into what he would have us be. Most doctrinal facts are of insignifant importance by comparision.

But be that as it may, the fact is that there IS a vast divergence of doctrinal opinion amongst Christians of good will. "One of us is right and one of us is wrong" isn't much use in deciding which is which. The best any of can do is listen to God and to each other and let God lead us where he will.

AAAAAnd, this is not ancient Greece or Rome. This idea of myths revealing spiritual and natural truths was the basis of their religions.

Stories (myths, legends, etc) are how ALL oral cultures transmit their knowledge, because they knew the power of the story as a pedagogical tool. Just because we've forgotten that in the last couple of hundred years is not evidence that the hebrews didn't know it and use it. The idea that history consists of facts and is something separate from myth was completely unknown in the ancient world.

We see what happened to that... Anyway, unless God leads me to discuss this stuff with you again, I'll probably decline to converse with you on these matters.

That's your choice.

 

[humbledbyhim]

The second is not a fact - it's an instruction.

The first is a theological/spiritual truth. I guess you could call it a fact, though I'm not sure I would.

Okay...I tend to use truth and fact interchangeably. A fault on my part, but I'm sure these truths have been applied and verified by many Christians for them to be considered facts. Anyway, I 've said what I had to say.

 

[humbledbyhim]

The best any of can do is listen to God...

I will and I hope that you do too.

 

[ebia]

I will and I hope that you do too.

I try.

 

[Eathin_Hunt]

That is, the stories in question still have something to tell us, but if they are an accutate depiction of a real historical event,

I'm with you right up to here and seem to be right there with you as a Christan and thanks for explaining yourself further. And you write great too.

then that is not compatible with the loving God depicted in and by Christ whom I know.

Christ is loving, yes. But not like the fragile guy Samual Jackson played in "Unbreakable" the movie.

Not sure<<joking what your going to do when you find out that Christ has a very strong and fierce side to Him too.

 

[ebia]

I'm with you right up to here and seem to be right there with you as a Christan and thanks for explaining yourself further. And you write great too.

Thankyou.

Christ is loving, yes. But not like the fragile guy Samual Jackson played in "Unbreakable" the movie.

Not sure<<joking what your going to do when you find out that Christ has a very strong and fierce side to Him too.

However, he is always perfectly loving. Love isn't one aspect of his character to be balanced by others. God's love is not an imperfect love limited by other flaws and an inability to to find loving solutions (as ours is). Neither is God's love a label pinned onto "God can do what he likes" as has been argued on other threads.

Committing or ordering genocide or killing large numbers of babies to make a point to a political leader is not loving. To call it loving is to remove all meaning from the word "love". Therefore there must be something about those stories that didn't happen as described; either they didn't actually happen at all, or they did happen but not exactly as described.