The Authority Of Scripture

Scofflaw

Puck wrote:

The Bible confirms that it is God's Word, this is one of the reasons I believ it is God's Word. However this would not be enough for me on its own. Something simply claiming to be the truth does not make it the truth. I certainly take IFXs point that the logic behind this is circular. However, when you place something at the top of a chain of authority, when you depend on that to be your guide and authority in life you will likely find yourself justifying its authority by using it's own claims or evidence. That's... really hard to explain in text so I'll try to offer an example:

Say you only believe what you can observe immediately with your senses (your senses being the "top authority" in this case). You believe your senses are this authority because they have told you about the things you have observed (with your senses) and you have not observed (with your senses) anything that you do not believe.

I don't know if that helps. I'm trying not to just copy N. T. Wright here and you try following that guy.

As I said, Scripture's claims for it's own authority would not be enough on it's own for me to believe it. This is the same is if a person made some wild claim. If they are a stranger and you know nothing more of them than this wild claim it would be unwise to just take them at their word. However, if you know them, if you have learned from them and they have proven themselves wise in other areas, you might well believe their claim to authority. This is what the Bible is like for me. I have had my life changed by reading it.

By the way, my excuse is that I was away for the weekend at a God-botherer conference.

In short, you make the initial step of faith ("accept Jesus"), however tentatively, to take the Bible as your authority, and then you see whether it works. That it works is proof that it is right. That it is right means the Bible is authoritative.

This is, I think, something many of my fellow unbelievers fail to penetrate. In a sense, this is the mystery of faith - that it is a way of looking at the world that you can only experience by looking at the world that way.

Faith is like a Tardis. Seen from the outside, a dusty collection of books and quirky rules. Seen from the inside, an additional colour in the spectrum that changes all the others, or an additional depth in everything.

OK, so that's not the Tardis.

Excelsior wrote:

I think it interesting that there are a lot of non-Christians discussing various tangents and very few Christians answering my question. Maybe when I say interesting I am just politely saying disappointing.

Scoffy, seeing as you are the only fellow who seems to have taken the time to read Wright, I guess you can see how the "performance" of the final act which the Christian life consists of will be testing ground for the claims of the authority the text makes for itself.

I hope you don't find it disappointing that I did read it. Yes, I can see how that works, but I would consider it a gamble (and more than Pascal's Wager), given the number of competing claims to authority from all the other religious systems.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

In short, you make the initial step of faith ("accept Jesus"), however tentatively, to take the Bible as your authority, and then you see whether it works. That it works is proof that it is right. That it is right means the Bible is authoritative.

Very well put, that would be my take on any belief system. There is no system out there that does not require a leap of faith of somekind. Even Atheists need to have faith in what they believe. For this reason it believe it is impossible to ever win any religion-based argument. Everything must come down to a matter of personal faith.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

Scoffy, seeing as you are the only fellow who seems to have taken the time to read Wright, I guess you can see how the "performance" of the final act which the Christian life consists of will be testing ground for the claims of the authority the text makes for itself.

I read it, but then it doesn't answer the question so I figured it was rather pointless excecise

Wright starts from the position that the Bible is the authoritive word of God, he then explains that God is autoritive, therefore the Bible is authoritive. Well duh!

You first have to accept the Bible is authoritive, and then its authority becomes clear to you. Which is the original cyclical position that IFX was talking about.

The Bible is not authoritive on its own. Its only authoritive because you make it authoritive. You could just as easily make the Qu'ran authoritive, or Mao's Little Red Book. Like anything in human culture the basis of its authority comes originally from humanity.

Dades

Asiaprod wrote:

Even Atheists need to have faith in what they believe.

*steps aside from co-mods comment*

Asiaprod wrote:

For this reason it believe it is impossible to ever win any religion-based argument. Everything must come down to a matter of personal faith.

How do you win a religion-based argument? Convert the other party?
Now that would be a first for Boards!

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

*steps aside from co-mods comment*

Chicken:D

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

But that is the problem that non-believers like myself have.

Jesus doesn't fit the OT laws into the convent, he tell you guys to do that. Which means it is largely left up to yourself to figure out how the OT fits into the teachings of Jesus. You can see the problem. There isn't a whole lot to tell you "no actually that is wrong, thats not what God means at all".

I suppose you can direct me to a complete set of laws rules or statements which are entirely consistant within themselves? No? thought not.

I'm not being smart but I actually have no idea what that actually means in practical terms. What does fufilling the prophecies actually do to the old testement laws?

The old testamant was way advanced on the uncivilised elements for those times. As such the rules fit the times. the big picture however was about people doing the right thing and God making a promise to them. If they started off by reforming, not killing not raping etc. and if they maintained custome he would keep his promise to single them out for special treatment. Now many jews saw the letter of the law as the important thing and not the spirit or why laws were ther in the first place. Paul tells us that sin came into the world before the law did. so while fundamentalists rigidly adhered to laws they forgot the reason why the law was given was to prepare them for a better future. When the Messiah came he superceeded these laws. He did so because he wasnt a prophet but god himself. Indeed much debate was had on whether customary laws e.g. circumcision had still to be kept by early christians.

No judgements beyond the inital judgement that what happened was wrong? The point is how is this inital judgement made, using the Old Testement laws or using your own moral judgement?

Using you conscience which is informed by scriopture , church teaching and social practice.

BrianCalgary

Well Excelsior, I got to read NT Wright this morning. I loved it and really gave a great view on the Bible and the authority issue. Now I just need to digest it.

When accepting the Bible as God's word one exercise is to compare it to other sacred writings.

Qu'ran = claims that Jesus was not crucified, and obvious error in fact. It was also written by a man, Mohammed who really did not exercise any authority by God, except to claim it.

Mormon - Joseph Smith made theclaim of a fantastic civilization tha existed in North Americe, althoug there has been absolutely no evidence ouside of the book of Mormon to corroborate the claims of Joseph Smith.

Siddhartha - Never claimed to be god but came up with a method whereby you obatin inner peace and eventually Nirvana. (Asia - just a quickie, I know not complete)

Mao Tse Tung - another man who obtained political leadership and led a nation by a certain philosophy.

JW - claims that the Bible we use today has been coruupted, and they also deny Christs crucifixion, which history corroborates.

The Bible - the NT is all about the Messiah, God with us, who came form Heaven, took on humanity and died for our sins. Jesus not only claims it, He backs it up with works, He raised the dead, He healed the sick, and after 3 days in the grave He rose again. As a result, I am on His side. Th ebook about Him then becomes authotitative as they report His teachings and since He quotes the OT it becomes a valid sacred book as well.

As far as I'm concerned, there is not that much of a leap of faith.

Medina

Puck wrote:

The Bible confirms that it is God's Word, this is one of the reasons I believe it is God's Word. However this would not be enough for me on its own. Something simply claiming to be the truth does not make it the truth. I certainly take IFX's point that the logic behind this is circular. However, when you place something at the top of a chain of authority, when you depend on that to be your guide and authority in life you will likely find yourself justifying its authority by using it's own claims or evidence. That's... really hard to explain in text so I'll try to offer an example:

Say you only believe only what you can observe immediately with your senses (your senses being the "top authority" in this case). You believe your senses are this authority because they have told you about the things you have observed (with your senses) and you have not observed (with your senses) anything that you do not believe.

I don't know if that helps. I'm trying not to just copy N. T. Wright here and you try following that guy.

As I said, Scripture's claims for it's own authority would not be enough on it's own for me to believe it. This is the same is if a person made some wild claim. If they are a stranger and you know nothing more of them than this wild claim it would be unwise to just take them at their word. However, if you know them, if you have learned from them and they have proven themselves wise in other areas, you might well believe their claim to authority. This is what the Bible is like for me. I have had my life changed by reading it.

By the way, my excuse is that I was away for the weekend at a God-botherer conference.

Hi Puck

I would like you to expand on what it was that made you believe in the Bible as the word of God?
Also how do you feel about what are often called 'versions' but can be significantly different 'translations' with different meanings.
I'll tell you what happened to me the other day (about 2 weeks ago)..I went into Easons to buy a Bible. They only had one Bible on sale and I was looking at it wondering 'Is this the right version?' (I'm currently a so-called catholic). As I was staring at it I realised I shouldn't have to wonder if I have the 'right' version..if it was the word of God then shouldn't any version be sufficient? So I dismissed my thoughts as silly, bought it (The King James Version) and came home. Was happily reading it and looking at it until I realised from reading online that it is actually the Protestant version and is seven books shorter than the Catholic version. Hmmm weird I thought. And what right have they to change it I wondered? And how did they pick and choose which texts to put into it I wondered? So in the end I looked up info concerning different versions and I found the following link

http://www.jamaat.net/bible/Bible1-3.html

Now yes it is written by a Muslim, but the investigation still stands and it is very hard to find a Christian scholar who has published this kind of information...believe me I looked....it must be their unwillingness to expose what they know to be the weakness.

Well don't get hung up on the Islamic side of things, just read the bits about the versions and how they changed over time...

Would genuinely be interested though if you could share what made you believe it is the word of God?

Thanks

BrianCalgary

Hey Medina

There are different translations of the Bible available. The King James version was translated in the 17th century and translated into a form that could be understood by the poeple of the time.

Today we have english translations that convey the original language into ideas ro word for word. They speak in todays english, others into the english spoken in 1920. Americans speak differently than Brits. Hence the need for different translations. On a day to day basis I use the NIV, but for study I will look at three or four different transaltions to try and get a better handle on what the writer intended to say.

As for the extra books in the Catholic version (I have one as well). I understand the they were added to the Bible bythe RC church at about the time of the reformation and weren't considered part of scripture until then.

Th eproblem I have with the apocryphal books is that they are not referenced by the Nt writers and weren't considered scriptural by the Jews.

Medina

BrianCalgary wrote:

Qu'ran = claims that Jesus was not crucified, and obvious error in fact. It was also written by a man, Mohammed who really did not exercise any authority by God, except to claim it.


The Bible - the NT is all about the Messiah, God with us, who came form Heaven, took on humanity and died for our sins. Jesus not only claims it, He backs it up with works, He raised the dead, He healed the sick, and after 3 days in the grave He rose again. As a result, I am on His side. Th ebook about Him then becomes authotitative as they report His teachings and since He quotes the OT it becomes a valid sacred book as well.

As far as I'm concerned, there is not that much of a leap of faith.

Hi Brian,
How can you be so sure that there is an obvious error in fact with regard to the Qur'an? Where is the factual evidence that Jesus was crucified?

As far as I know the only independent historian to mention Jesus was Josephus and wrote:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ . And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Have you actually read the crucifixion story according to each of the four gospels?

Every single account is different! I couldn't believe my own eyes when I saw it!

Also here is a few points:
Matthew 12
The Sign of Jonah
38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Now Jonah was thrown into the sea (miracle 1), was swallowed by a whale and survived 3 days and nights (miracle 2) and was physically still alive after (as opposed to 'spiritually alive').

Jesus speech implies here that he will also be physically alive after 3 days and 3 nights in the earth.

Now we Christians believe after the 3 days and nights, Jesus returns 'spiritually' alive.. correct?
As in NOT physically alive.

And then in Luke 24 after the crucifixion is the following:
Jesus Appears to the Disciples
36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

Jesus denies that he is a 'ghost' or a 'spirit' depending on the version of the Bible you are reading. He encourages them to touch his flesh. He is physical and he did not die on the cross! He would not labor the point with the apostles seen as they were terrified because they had heard that he had been crucified, none of them had actually seen him..they had fled.

Mark 14
50Then everyone deserted him and fled.

And can you explain why Jesus as Son of God (and God since part of Trinity)would shout this

Mark 15
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Also I would encourage you then to answer my posts here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055003639&page=7

and here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52291102#post52291102


cos so far no one has replied

Medina

BrianCalgary wrote:

Hey Medina

There are different translations of the Bible available. The King James version was translated in the 17th century and translated into a form that could be understood by the poeple of the time.

Today we have english translations that convey the original language into ideas ro word for word. They speak in todays english, others into the english spoken in 1920. Americans speak differently than Brits. Hence the need for different translations. On a day to day basis I use the NIV, but for study I will look at three or four different transaltions to try and get a better handle on what the writer intended to say.

As for the extra books in the Catholic version (I have one as well). I understand the they were added to the Bible bythe RC church at about the time of the reformation and weren't considered part of scripture until then.

Th eproblem I have with the apocryphal books is that they are not referenced by the Nt writers and weren't considered scriptural by the Jews.

Brian, I was hoping you wouldn't be so predictable as to say that its just different language because we 'speak differently'.

http://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

When accepting the Bible as God's word one exercise is to compare it to other sacred writings.

Brian, I appreciate that you might not see it, but your list is really quite startlingly biased, to a non-Christian eye. What you have actually done is to compare these other writing to the Bible, from the point of view of someone who accepts the Bible as authoritative.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Qu'ran = claims that Jesus was not crucified, and obvious error in fact. It was also written by a man, Mohammed who really did not exercise any authority by God, except to claim it.

Mormon - Joseph Smith made theclaim of a fantastic civilization tha existed in North Americe, althoug there has been absolutely no evidence ouside of the book of Mormon to corroborate the claims of Joseph Smith.

Siddhartha - Never claimed to be god but came up with a method whereby you obatin inner peace and eventually Nirvana. (Asia - just a quickie, I know not complete)

Mao Tse Tung - another man who obtained political leadership and led a nation by a certain philosophy.

JW - claims that the Bible we use today has been coruupted, and they also deny Christs crucifixion, which history corroborates.

The Bible - the NT is all about the Messiah, God with us, who came form Heaven, took on humanity and died for our sins. Jesus not only claims it, He backs it up with works, He raised the dead, He healed the sick, and after 3 days in the grave He rose again. As a result, I am on His side. Th ebook about Him then becomes authotitative as they report His teachings and since He quotes the OT it becomes a valid sacred book as well.

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are claimed by the Bible. If the Qu'ran is authoritative, then its claim is correct, and the Bible's in error. Similarly, if the Qu'ran is correct, then Mohammed had the authority he claimed. The historicity of Jesus' crucifixion is not beyond doubt, except to those who accept the Bible as authoritative. Jesus' miracles are described in the Bible, and only have authority if you accept the Bible as authoritative.

BrianCalgary wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, there is not that much of a leap of faith.

That is because you have already made it. It is fairly obvious from the above that you can no longer see things from a non-Christian perspective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ISAW

BrianCalgary wrote:

Hey Medina

There are different translations of the Bible available. The King James version was translated in the 17th century and translated into a form that could be understood by the poeple of the time.

Today we have english translations that convey the original language into ideas ro word for word. They speak in todays english, others into the english spoken in 1920. Americans speak differently than Brits. Hence the need for different translations. On a day to day basis I use the NIV, but for study I will look at three or four different transaltions to try and get a better handle on what the writer intended to say.

In spite of all these versions in multiple languages questions on language translations are restricted to about ONE PER CENT of the bible. I am not referring to occult books here.

As for the extra books in the Catholic version (I have one as well). I understand the they were added to the Bible bythe RC church at about the time of the reformation and weren't considered part of scripture until then.

No! You seem ot have it the wrong way around! They were in the Latin Vulgate edition. Indeed they were in the first version of the King James version. It was the Protestants TOOK THEM OUT and not the Catholics put them in!

http://www.ocbooks.co.nz/biblehowto/difference.html
It is generally not known that our earliest English translations of the Bible-including the 1611 King James Bible-all included the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books. It was not until the period of the Reformation that many Protestant churches omitted the additional books from their "canon", believing that they were less authoritative or less authentic than the other books of the Greek and Latin canons.

It is not only Roman Catholics who have the Deuterocanonical books in their Bibles - Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic and Russian Orthodox Christians also include some or all in theirs.

The Catholic Bible includes all of the books found in the Septuagint and Vulgate - that is, the same 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books of every other Bible, plus the additional books. These additional books are known generally by Catholics as the Deuterocanonical books (or "second" canon), and by Protestants as the Apocrypha ("hidden" canon).

The eproblem I have with the apocryphal books is that they are not referenced by the Nt writers and weren't considered scriptural by the Jews.

The Roman Catholic canon, which was fixed by the time of the Council of Hippo in 393 and reaffirmed by the two Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, was formally defined by the Council of Trent in 1546.
Several of the Deuterocanonical Books were written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, the rest in Greek. More than two-thirds of the Book of Sirach is now extant in Hebrew, and four fragments of the Book of Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic were recovered from Qumran Cave IV. It seems certain that Judith and the additions to Daniel were also written originally in Hebrew. Hebrew is the original language of the prose parts of Baruch; the poetic parts were composed in Greek. The Wisdom of Solomon was written completely in Greek. The original language of 1 Maccabees was Hebrew while 2 Maccabees was composed in Greek.

ISAW

Medina wrote:

Jesus speech implies here that he will also be physically alive after 3 days and 3 nights in the earth.

Now we Christians believe after the 3 days and nights, Jesus returns 'spiritually' alive.. correct?
As in NOT physically alive.

No NOT correct!

Jesus denies that he is a 'ghost' or a 'spirit' depending on the version of the Bible you are reading. He encourages them to touch his flesh.

yeah. correct.

He is physical and he did not die on the cross!

Wrong! Where does he say he did not die on the cross?

He would not labor the point with the apostles seen as they were terrified because they had heard that he had been crucified, none of them had actually seen him..they had fled.

Yes. so what? where isd the contradiction you claim?

And can you explain why Jesus as Son of God (and God since part of Trinity)would shout this

Mark 15
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

It is Aramaic. It is a fulfillment of prophesy. Also, Cross Reference Psalm 22.

These words were spoken just before he died when all the sin of the world was taken onto him.

Note it is followed by :"Truly this man was the Son of God!" (Mark 15:33-34,37-39 RSV)

Here is Billy Grahams answer from:
http://www.christiangallery.com/ChapterFive.htm

"Hell, essentially, is separation from God. Hell is the loneliest place in the universe. Jesus suffered its agony for you, in your place. Now God says, Repent, believe on Christ, receive Christ, and you will never know the sorrow, the loneliness and the agony of hell."
...
"From Genesis to Revelation, God reveals Himself as a Holy God. He is utterly perfect and absolute in every detail. He is too holy to tolerate sinful man, too holy to endure sinful living...The Bible tells us that our inequities have separated us from God--separated us so completely that His face is hidden from us and He will not hear us when we call...It is in God's holiness that we find the reason for the death of Christ. Jesus was the only one good enough, pure enough, strong enough, to bear the sins of the whole world. God's holiness demanded the most exacting penalty for sin, and His love provided Jesus Christ to pay this penalty and provide man with salvation."

The author goes on to say:

The reason the doctrine of Holiness taught by Billy Graham and all the other Protestant theologians is going to have to be altered is because the doctrine of Holiness utterly destroys the integrity of the doctrine of the Trinity.

...The model of God created by the orthodox Protestant explanation of the meaning of Eloi, Eloi, Lamasabachthani utterly distorts the character of God.

[end quote]
And herein lies a problem.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

And herein lies a problem.

for protestant theology it seems here is a roman catholic answer:
Here is the man. Here is God himself. "In him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). In him: in those arms outstretched along the transverse beam of the Cross.
The mystery of the Redemption.
Nailed to the Cross, pinned in that terrible position, Jesus calls on the Father (cf. Mk 15:34; Mt 27:46; Lk 23:46). All his words bear witness that he is one with the Father. "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30); "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9); "My Father is working still, and I am working" (Jn 5:17).

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

The Roman Catholic canon, which was fixed by the time of the Council of Hippo in 393 and reaffirmed by the two Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, was formally defined by the Council of Trent in 1546.
Several of the Deuterocanonical Books were written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, the rest in Greek. More than two-thirds of the Book of Sirach is now extant in Hebrew, and four fragments of the Book of Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic were recovered from Qumran Cave IV. It seems certain that Judith and the additions to Daniel were also written originally in Hebrew. Hebrew is the original language of the prose parts of Baruch; the poetic parts were composed in Greek. The Wisdom of Solomon was written completely in Greek. The original language of 1 Maccabees was Hebrew while 2 Maccabees was composed in Greek.

Actually this does somewhat answer the question of authority.

constitutions come about over time but people do come together and deside they are valid. In the case of the Irish or Us constitution people voted to some degree. In the case of the British one it evolved. But people do come together with consent and decide it is to have authority binding on them.

Likewise People came together in the early church and desided the scriptures that were binding and had authority,

Medina

Hmmm ISAW, I can see we are going to have some problems

Before I go any further, let me explain the point of view I'm approaching this with. Basically, I believe that we cannot live our lives and stake our eternity on something which may not be the Truth. Therefore we all have to find the Truth. The Truth cannot contradict itself, it must support itself. Yes, there are plenty of verses which support the idea that Jesus is the Son of God, there are also many which do not support that idea. The two are impossible to align.
The man who wishes to believe the doctrine of Christianity chooses only the verses that support the argument he believes in. And why shouldn't he? He wants to point out the evidence in support of his belief, no one wants to admit even that they are afraid that their belief could be wrong.

The man who wishes to not believe the doctrine of Christianity chooses only the verses that support the argument he believes in. And why shouldn't he? T

The point is, can the person looking for Truth honestly accept a book which has so many flaws, which undermines itself in various places, which contradicts itself? Can we honestly accept the scripture as an authority of Truth? My opinion is only if we can say 100% confidently 'I see no contradictions here'.

That is why on this thread we could post back and forth the verses which we choose to support our argument.

To my mind that is irrelevent as the fact that there are verses which are clearly in contradiction to the doctrine of Christianity is enough to prove that it cannot be the Truth. I am sure that there is truth contained within it, but separating the truth from the web of opinion, and lies is an impossible task.

You may say 'How do you know there are lies within it?'
well the answer is, compare the life of Jesus as described in each of the four gospels. you will see that there are many different accounts which means either someone is right and the rest are wrong or they are all a bit wrong. Thats the best you can hope for in the Bible. So how can it be the whole truth? It cannot be unfortunately.

Now if you would like me to continue posting verses in support of my argument that is perfectly fine, I can do that. I feel I have posted enough already to show that there is plenty of evidence against Jesus being the Son of God.In this thread and on the other two threads whose links I posted.

I would love anyone to take a serious go at answering my questions.
Or alternatively for you to be able to put your hand on your heart and say that nothing in the Bible makes you confused/doubt/wonder even though accounts vary so greatly? That you have no questions for which you have not received a satisfactory answer?

Dades

Good post Medina.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

Good post Medina.

Ditto. Very nicely phrased.

BrianCalgary

Medina wrote:

Hmmm ISAW, I can see we are going to have some problems

Before I go any further, let me explain the point of view I'm approaching this with. Basically, I believe that we cannot live our lives and stake our eternity on something which may not be the Truth. Therefore we all have to find the Truth. The Truth cannot contradict itself, it must support itself. Yes, there are plenty of verses which support the idea that Jesus is the Son of God, there are also many which do not support that idea. The two are impossible to align.
The man who wishes to believe the doctrine of Christianity chooses only the verses that support the argument he believes in. And why shouldn't he? He wants to point out the evidence in support of his belief, no one wants to admit even that they are afraid that their belief could be wrong.

The man who wishes to not believe the doctrine of Christianity chooses only the verses that support the argument he believes in. And why shouldn't he? T

The point is, can the person looking for Truth honestly accept a book which has so many flaws, which undermines itself in various places, which contradicts itself? Can we honestly accept the scripture as an authority of Truth? My opinion is only if we can say 100% confidently 'I see no contradictions here'.

That is why on this thread we could post back and forth the verses which we choose to support our argument.

To my mind that is irrelevent as the fact that there are verses which are clearly in contradiction to the doctrine of Christianity is enough to prove that it cannot be the Truth. I am sure that there is truth contained within it, but separating the truth from the web of opinion, and lies is an impossible task.

You may say 'How do you know there are lies within it?'
well the answer is, compare the life of Jesus as described in each of the four gospels. you will see that there are many different accounts which means either someone is right and the rest are wrong or they are all a bit wrong. Thats the best you can hope for in the Bible. So how can it be the whole truth? It cannot be unfortunately.

Now if you would like me to continue posting verses in support of my argument that is perfectly fine, I can do that. I feel I have posted enough already to show that there is plenty of evidence against Jesus being the Son of God.In this thread and on the other two threads whose links I posted.

I would love anyone to take a serious go at answering my questions.
Or alternatively for you to be able to put your hand on your heart and say that nothing in the Bible makes you confused/doubt/wonder even though accounts vary so greatly? That you have no questions for which you have not received a satisfactory answer?

I've been away for a bit Medina and have lost what your questions are?

I can put my hand on my heart and say that nothing in the Bible confuses me. I wonder about just about everything and have no doubts whatsoever.

You mention above 'the doctrine of Christianity', what do you consider doctrine?

On the deity of Christ question, I have yet to see one verse that denies His deity. There are plenty of verses that speak of His manhood, and no Christian that I have ever read or known would deny this aspect of Christ's nature. On the other hane there are many verses speaking of Jesus' deity. Do you deny these verses exist? Do you also deny that Jesus called Himself God?

Puck

Medina wrote:

Jesus speech implies here that he will also be physically alive after 3 days and 3 nights in the earth.

Now we Christians believe after the 3 days and nights, Jesus returns 'spiritually' alive.. correct?
As in NOT physically alive.

No, not correct. We Christians (and your last post would indicate you are not among us) believe that Jesus was resurrected, as in physically alive. That's what the whole Resurrection is about Medina. Perhaps you should go research what the doctrines of Christianity actually are before you claim that Scripture contradicts them. I don't know what made-up, fantasy religion you are arguing against Medina but it is not Christianity.

It's like you've fabricated some... some kind of... man... of straw... just to prove yourself right.

Medina

Puck wrote:

No, not correct. We Christians (and your last post would indicate you are not among us) believe that Jesus was resurrected, as in physically alive. That's what the whole Resurrection is about Medina. Perhaps you should go research what the doctrines of Christianity actually are before you claim that Scripture contradicts them. I don't know what made-up, fantasy religion you are arguing against Medina but it is not Christianity.

It's like you've fabricated some... some kind of... man... of straw... just to prove yourself right.

Oh I do apologise for shocking you out of your comfy Christianity chair.
Now will you tell me how many days and nights you count between Friday and Sunday? As Christianity follows it...

Medina

BrianCalgary wrote:

I've been away for a bit Medina and have lost what your questions are?

I can put my hand on my heart and say that nothing in the Bible confuses me. I wonder about just about everything and have no doubts whatsoever.

You mention above 'the doctrine of Christianity', what do you consider doctrine?

On the deity of Christ question, I have yet to see one verse that denies His deity. There are plenty of verses that speak of His manhood, and no Christian that I have ever read or known would deny this aspect of Christ's nature. On the other hane there are many verses speaking of Jesus' deity. Do you deny these verses exist? Do you also deny that Jesus called Himself God?

My post and links to questions that I want answers for are at the top of this thread page .:)

Puck

Medina wrote:

Oh I do apologise for shocking you out of your comfy Christianity chair.
Now will you tell me how many days and nights you count between Friday and Sunday? As Christianity follows it...

You've shocked me? News to me. No apology necessary but thanks anyway. By the way if you come across a comfy Christian chair let me know where I can get one. My faith prompts me to study, pray and wrestle with Scripture. Wrestling, as they'll tell you on the Wrestling forum, can be painful and sweaty, I'd never describe it as comfy.

Between Friday and Sunday there is only one day. However in that place and time it was common to count the days inclusively no matter how small a portion of the day was included. Days Friday, Saturday and Sunday are therefore included even if it was not for the full 24 hours of the day.

See Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible" for further reading:

J, F & B wrote:

The period during which He was to lie in the grave is here expressed in round numbers, according to the Jewish way of speaking, which was to regard any part of a day, however small, included within a period of days, as a full day. (See 1Sa_30:12-13; Est_4:16; Est_5:1; Mat_27:63-64, &c.).

Medina

Puck wrote:

However in that place and time it was common to count the days inclusively no matter how small a portion of the day was included. Days Friday, Saturday and Sunday are therefore included even if it was not for the full 24 hours of the day.

So as a Christian you believe Jesus is God. And thats the best answer you can come with to explain why we have Good Friday and Easter Sunday but the time doesn't align. I mean even if your theory is correct there is still not three nights is there?

And Jesus was very specific.

Puck

Jesus, spoke the language of the people in the way people spoke at the time. He was after all a Palestinian Jew.

What exactly is your problem with the argument? I've just shown you how the time does align. You can't claim victory in an argument by just ignoring the points of the opposition.

[edit]I've found an article that might help explain this to you, along with some other theories. - http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt12_40.htm[/edit]

Even disregarding theories, why would the writer of the Gospel of the Resurrection of Christ include in his Gospel things that didn't support his argument? By your own logic wouldn't he just ignore these points and make some easily digestable fairytale that fully supported his argument and had nothing to counter it? Why are you trying to quote Matthew to find things that contradict Matthew?

Kamelot

BrianCalgary wrote:

Do you also deny that Jesus called Himself God?

If we are honest Brian, then there is no such verse in the whole Bible. I mean there's a difference between implicit and explicit statement.

Surely God has no need to be hiding Himself behind implicit statements, do you not think so? I still can't find one single verse in the Bible which would say something like "I, Jesus, am God, I created you, I created every single creature and all of you are my servants, I am the Lord of all creations, the Supreme, the Most High, the giver of life and death, etc. so worship me."

I'll keep looking in the Bible until I find it. I understand that humans have flaws but not God, I just can't agree with that.

Another thing is, and I'm just thinking and it still doesn't make sense: Why would God humiliate himself by letting himself being nailed or a cross? I hope I won't get answers like "see, God is so merciful that He let His servants to nail Him on the cross so that He could save us."

I don't want to believe in a god with flaws and imperfections, but I will accept that a non-divine human was put on that cross and identity of that person is unknown at least to say.

Puck

Kamelot wrote:

If we are honest Brian, then there is no such verse in the whole Bible. I mean there's a difference between implicit and explicit statement.

Surely God has no need to be hiding Himself behind implicit statements, do you not think so? I still can't find one single verse in the Bible which would say something like "I, Jesus, am God, I created you, I created every single creature and all of you are my servants, I am the Lord of all creations, the Supreme, the Most High, the giver of life and death, etc. so worship me."

I'll keep looking in the Bible until I find it. I understand that humans have flaws but not God, I just can't agree with that.

Another thing is, and I'm just thinking and it still doesn't make sense: Why would God humiliate himself by letting himself being nailed or a cross? I hope I won't get answers like "see, God is so merciful that He let His servants to nail Him on the cross so that He could save us."

I don't want to believe in a god with flaws and imperfections, but I will accept that a non-divine human was put on that cross and identity of that person is unknown at least to say.

Hi Kamelot,

To a Jew at Jesus' time the quote 'Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." '(John 8:58). Was an explicit reference to Exodus 3:14 - "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'". It was explicit enough for the people to immediately pick up stones to stone Jesus.

About your other question. I don't want to just give you some pat answer that you've heard a million times before so can I ask you to clarify it a little? Are you asking how Christ's death on the cross actually saves us? I know before I was a Christian it really annoyed me how people kept throwing that phrase around and nobody ever thought to explain how Christ dying had anything to do with me.

Medina

Puck wrote:

Jesus, spoke the language of the people in the way people spoke at the time. He was after all a Palestinian Jew.

What exactly is your problem with the argument? I've just shown you how the time does align. You can't claim victory in an argument by just ignoring the points of the opposition.

Puck, explain to me how ur time aligns?!!
It does not. The Church celebrates Easter Sunday as the day Jesus was resurrected. Now if that is the truth then that is (by your theory) three days, TWO NIGHTS.

I suppose its not your fault the Bible is confusing

Jesus says
The Sign of Jonah
38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[e] greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

Puck

Medina wrote:

Puck, explain to me how ur time aligns?!!
It does not. The Church celebrates Easter Sunday as the day Jesus was resurrected. Now if that is the truth then that is (by your theory) three days, TWO NIGHTS.

I suppose its not your fault the Bible is confusing

Jesus says
The Sign of Jonah
38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[e] greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

Ok Medina, here's my thoughts on it, sorry if my previous answers have caused any frustration:

The Jews did not start their day at 00:00 we do. Their days began at the eveining of what we would see as the previous day, around 6 PM. In Mark 15 we read that Jesus died at around "the ninth hour" (Mk. 15:34-37). Nine hours on from 6 PM on what we would see as the previous day is about 3 AM, still dark still what you would call night but a new day nonetheless.

So Jesus is dead, and it's around 3 AM on what we think is Friday - 1 night.

Jesus is dead from dawn until evening on Friday - 1 day.

Jesus is dead Friday evening until dawn on Saturday - 2 nights.

Jesus is dead Saturday from dawn until evening - 2 days.

Jesus is dead Saturday eveing until dawn on Sunday - 3 nights.

Jesus is dead after dawn on Sunday - 3 days.

No matter how long after dawn on the Sunday Jesus rose, in Jewish terms at that time it would have still been included as a day.

Now as I've said these are my thoughts on it. I am human and have only been studying the Scriptures for just over one-and-a-half years. There could be a way better explanation for this and I could have gone completely the wrong way in my thinking. You're right, the Bible is confusing at times, I'll be among the first to admit this, especially since I like complaining a bit too much. That's why I went on about the sweaty, painful wrestling. It is quite possible to be a Christian and end up only scratching your head after reading a certain piece of Scripture. I don't expect the Word of God, containing the most profound Truths and relevant to every single human being to be an easy bedtime read.

Jesus is alive.