Seperating The Dogma from the Truth!

JimiTime · 2006-10-16 11:47:17

As someone who is still looking to expel un-truths, I wanted to raise this issue with the Christians on the forum to discuss the following issues with an agenda to expelling Dogma from fact. 1. The Trinity. My standing on this is clear for me. Jesus is seperate from God, they are in union, but different beings. It also…

#32 16-10-2006 05:54PM

Cantab.

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭

Join Date: December 2005

Posts: 1337

JimiTime wrote:

I implore you to take yourself from the seat of Judgement.

Oh I'm not judging you - you're a free man. Judges put free men in jail. God is the one who will judge. You won't be able to plea ignorance once you're finished with me.

JimiTime wrote:

Do you also see the crusades as Christian?

I take it you've never heard of just war doctrine then?

JimiTime wrote:

You call the Catholic Church as the truth.

Yawn.

JimiTime wrote:

That in itself is a blasphemy, as Jesus is the Truth.

No it isn't you fool.

JimiTime wrote:

Was limbo a truth?

Limbo is under current theological scrutiny and you know that. My understanding is that, the Church is a living organism and there are many great questions yet unanswered - only through prayer, study of the Church and the Bible can we find answers to these questions.

JimiTime wrote:

Were indulgences a truth? Go your way, if you will, but don't spout your doctrinated drivel to me and claiming that you are talking in Christ. How dare you even use the word Evil when describing my quest for truth!

I don't claim to be a bishop nor a priest nor speak on behalf of the Pope. I am but a Catholic lay person (and proud to be such). I am perfectly capable, however, of identifying the odd heretic here and there especially when they start ridiculing the Bible and the Trinity.

JimiTime wrote:

If heracy means that I disagree with Catholocism then I accept it gladly. Will you now burn me at the steak? Be going your way from here until you have something constructive to add.

Good. You're are indeed a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Go ahead and make up your own religion - I really don't think you can ever find happiness and I pray for you.

0

#33 16-10-2006 05:55PM

wolfsbane

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2005

Posts: 5941

JimiTime said:

OK, here is a radical view for some maybe. But instead of taking certain scriptures as an 'evidence' of a certain doctrine. If we are to take scripture as a whole, as an insight into Gods personality, alot more becomes evident in my experience. If you recall the pharisees even adhered to scriptures but lost the meaning. How did they lose the meaning, because they used it as a rulebook rather than shall we say, an insight into the creator. If I may use an example, 'If I'm taliking to a friend and say, I hate Chinese, they know I'm not a racist and therefore I am most likely talking about food. Someone else who doesn't know me may think I'm saying I hate chinese people. Its probablya very simplistic (bad even) analagy to make, but I think it puts my point across ok?

Yes, I accept your point about not seeing the forest for the trees. But the answer is not to not see any tree, but to see them all. God reveals himself to us in individual truths. Taken as a whole, we have our picture of God's personality.

The difficulty you have in seeing Him as opposed to hellfire is in establishing that from the truths He has revealed. Not just one or two truths, but all of them. Most folk I have met who deny hellfire do so on what they think God should be like, not on the Scripture that actually tells us what He thinks. Usually it comes down to what they think is just and good. They face the awfulness of hell as outlined in the Bible and say it cannot be so, for it goes against all that they think is right.

But we need to ask ourselves what does God say is right, and conform our ideas to that. Being sinful creatures, our logic and understanding is prone to err. The fate of all mankind is revealed by Christ: Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Quote:
The objection to the Scripture as the infallible, inerrant word of God must explain those texts that declare it to be so.

Sorry to be ignorant to this Wolfsbane, but could you tell me where I find thse scriptures. Thanks.

Quote:
What then did Christ mean when He said 'The Scripture cannot be broken'? How can the words of mere men be inerrant and infallible?

As above, could you tell me where to find that so that I may check its context. Thanks again.

John 10:35. Context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=50;

But Christ refers to it as Moses' guide, in that in talking of divorce said that 'Moses' granted you divorce, and then went on to correct that by saying that only in fornication you have the right to divorce.

Yes, it was a temporary provision. It was not God's eternal moral law. But that does not mean Moses or a later copyist inserted that bit in Scripture. Moses wrote what God told him to. The Pentateuch, the Books of the Law, are God's word just as much as the Gospels or Romans, etc.

What do you mean seperate lineages? they go from Joseph back. How is that a seperate lineage?

From http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm:
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

This is the bit that worries me. Paul gives his opinion in parts, and says it so. When he says,' this is my opinion' how is that the word of God.

I see how you are getting confused. When we say the Bible is the word of God, we are not saying everything in it is true or good, etc. For example, Genesis 3:4 says, Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. This is the word of God, an accurate and faithful record of what transpired in the Garden. But what the serpent said is not true or good. Only the record of it. So with anything any man says in the scripture: what is not presented as from God is not to be taken as if it were. But the record of it is to be taken as God's truth. One way we put it is to say the Bible is inerrant in all that it asserts.

I do not want to lessen its importance, but as I said, does it have to be the word of God in order for you to have faith in him?

Just to clarify something that seems to be cropping up. I am saying that the bible is not 'the word of god'. I am not saying however I nit pick what I believe true or false in it. I find alot of the contentions that people have with it such as the lineage of Jesus account is not very significant anyway, but it becomes significant if its argued that it is the actual word of god. Just because I'm saying its not the 'word of god' does not mean that I see it as un-true. Its message rings true in any case. I am contending that it actually does not say it is the word of god, and I've asked if there are any scriptures that do.

If there are bits of the record that are mistaken, how do you tell which bit is true and which mistaken? If the genealogy is wrong, why are you sure about the resurrection? The ascension? The promise of His return?

0

#34 16-10-2006 05:58PM

Cantab.

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭

Join Date: December 2005

Posts: 1337

robindch wrote:

> Let the religious war begin!

Monotheists have always had the best religious wars -- let the cries of "heretic" and "Burn 'em!!" ring out across the land once again!

All in the cause of Truth (with a capital 'T'), of course!

And of course you have your own truth - that of relativism. If you listen hard enough, you'll hear cries of "fundamentalist", and "brain-washing" echoing through the ether of debonair nihilists.

0

#35 16-10-2006 06:01PM

wolfsbane

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2005

Posts: 5941

Anyone know why my last post extended beyond the page? Thanks.

0

#36 16-10-2006 06:08PM

wolfsbane

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2005

Posts: 5941

JimiTime said:

OK, here is a radical view for some maybe. But instead of taking certain scriptures as an 'evidence' of a certain doctrine. If we are to take scripture as a whole, as an insight into Gods personality, alot more becomes evident in my experience. If you recall the pharisees even adhered to scriptures but lost the meaning. How did they lose the meaning, because they used it as a rulebook rather than shall we say, an insight into the creator. If I may use an example, 'If I'm taliking to a friend and say, I hate Chinese, they know I'm not a racist and therefore I am most likely talking about food. Someone else who doesn't know me may think I'm saying I hate chinese people. Its probablya very simplistic (bad even) analagy to make, but I think it puts my point across ok?

Yes, I accept your point about not seeing the forest for the trees. But the answer is not to not see any tree, but to see them all. God reveals himself to us in individual truths. Taken as a whole, we have our picture of God's personality.

The difficulty you have in seeing Him as opposed to hellfire is in establishing that from the truths He has revealed. Not just one or two truths, but all of them. Most folk I have met who deny hellfire do so on what they think God should be like, not on the Scripture that actually tells us what He thinks. Usually it comes down to what they think is just and good. They face the awfulness of hell as outlined in the Bible and say it cannot be so, for it goes against all that they think is right.

But we need to ask ourselves what does God say is right, and conform our ideas to that. Being sinful creatures, our logic and understanding is prone to err. The fate of all mankind is revealed by Christ: Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Quote:
The objection to the Scripture as the infallible, inerrant word of God must explain those texts that declare it to be so.

Sorry to be ignorant to this Wolfsbane, but could you tell me where I find thse scriptures. Thanks.

Quote:
What then did Christ mean when He said 'The Scripture cannot be broken'? How can the words of mere men be inerrant and infallible?

As above, could you tell me where to find that so that I may check its context. Thanks again.

John 10:35. Context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=50;

But Christ refers to it as Moses' guide, in that in talking of divorce said that 'Moses' granted you divorce, and then went on to correct that by saying that only in fornication you have the right to divorce.

Yes, it was a temporary provision. It was not God's eternal moral law. But that does not mean Moses or a later copyist inserted that bit in Scripture. Moses wrote what God told him to. The Pentateuch, the Books of the Law, are God's word just as much as the Gospels or Romans, etc.

What do you mean seperate lineages? they go from Joseph back. How is that a seperate lineage?

From http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm:
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

This is the bit that worries me. Paul gives his opinion in parts, and says it so. When he says,' this is my opinion' how is that the word of God.

I see how you are getting confused. When we say the Bible is the word of God, we are not saying everything in it is true or good, etc. For example, Genesis 3:4 says, Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. This is the word of God, an accurate and faithful record of what transpired in the Garden. But what the serpent said is not true or good. Only the record of it. So with anything any man says in the scripture: what is not presented as from God is not to be taken as if it were. But the record of it is to be taken as God's truth. One way we put it is to say the Bible is inerrant in all that it asserts.

I do not want to lessen its importance, but as I said, does it have to be the word of God in order for you to have faith in him?

Just to clarify something that seems to be cropping up. I am saying that the bible is not 'the word of god'. I am not saying however I nit pick what I believe true or false in it. I find alot of the contentions that people have with it such as the lineage of Jesus account is not very significant anyway, but it becomes significant if its argued that it is the actual word of god. Just because I'm saying its not the 'word of god' does not mean that I see it as un-true. Its message rings true in any case. I am contending that it actually does not say it is the word of god, and I've asked if there are any scriptures that do.

If there are bits of the record that are mistaken, how do you tell which bit is true and which mistaken? If the genealogy is wrong, why are you sure about the resurrection? The ascension? The promise of His return?

0

#37 16-10-2006 06:15PM

wolfsbane

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2005

Posts: 5941

JimiTime said:

OK, here is a radical view for some maybe. But instead of taking certain scriptures as an 'evidence' of a certain doctrine. If we are to take scripture as a whole, as an insight into Gods personality, alot more becomes evident in my experience. If you recall the pharisees even adhered to scriptures but lost the meaning. How did they lose the meaning, because they used it as a rulebook rather than shall we say, an insight into the creator. If I may use an example, 'If I'm taliking to a friend and say, I hate Chinese, they know I'm not a racist and therefore I am most likely talking about food. Someone else who doesn't know me may think I'm saying I hate chinese people. Its probablya very simplistic (bad even) analagy to make, but I think it puts my point across ok?

Yes, I accept your point about not seeing the forest for the trees. But the answer is not to not see any tree, but to see them all. God reveals himself to us in individual truths. Taken as a whole, we have our picture of God's personality.

The difficulty you have in seeing Him as opposed to hellfire is in establishing that from the truths He has revealed. Not just one or two truths, but all of them. Most folk I have met who deny hellfire do so on what they think God should be like, not on the Scripture that actually tells us what He thinks. Usually it comes down to what they think is just and good. They face the awfulness of hell as outlined in the Bible and say it cannot be so, for it goes against all that they think is right.

But we need to ask ourselves what does God say is right, and conform our ideas to that. Being sinful creatures, our logic and understanding is prone to err. The fate of all mankind is revealed by Christ: Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Quote:
The objection to the Scripture as the infallible, inerrant word of God must explain those texts that declare it to be so.

Sorry to be ignorant to this Wolfsbane, but could you tell me where I find thse scriptures. Thanks.

Quote:
What then did Christ mean when He said 'The Scripture cannot be broken'? How can the words of mere men be inerrant and infallible?

As above, could you tell me where to find that so that I may check its context. Thanks again.

John 10:35. Context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=50;

But Christ refers to it as Moses' guide, in that in talking of divorce said that 'Moses' granted you divorce, and then went on to correct that by saying that only in fornication you have the right to divorce.

Yes, it was a temporary provision. It was not God's eternal moral law. But that does not mean Moses or a later copyist inserted that bit in Scripture. Moses wrote what God told him to. The Pentateuch, the Books of the Law, are God's word just as much as the Gospels or Romans, etc.

What do you mean seperate lineages? they go from Joseph back. How is that a seperate lineage?

From http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm:
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

This is the bit that worries me. Paul gives his opinion in parts, and says it so. When he says,' this is my opinion' how is that the word of God.

I see how you are getting confused. When we say the Bible is the word of God, we are not saying everything in it is true or good, etc. For example, Genesis 3:4 says, Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. This is the word of God, an accurate and faithful record of what transpired in the Garden. But what the serpent said is not true or good. Only the record of it. So with anything any man says in the scripture: what is not presented as from God is not to be taken as if it were. But the record of it is to be taken as God's truth. One way we put it is to say the Bible is inerrant in all that it asserts.

I do not want to lessen its importance, but as I said, does it have to be the word of God in order for you to have faith in him?

Just to clarify something that seems to be cropping up. I am saying that the bible is not 'the word of god'. I am not saying however I nit pick what I believe true or false in it. I find alot of the contentions that people have with it such as the lineage of Jesus account is not very significant anyway, but it becomes significant if its argued that it is the actual word of god. Just because I'm saying its not the 'word of god' does not mean that I see it as un-true. Its message rings true in any case. I am contending that it actually does not say it is the word of god, and I've asked if there are any scriptures that do.

If there are bits of the record that are mistaken, how do you tell which bit is true and which mistaken? If the genealogy is wrong, why are you sure about the resurrection? The ascension? The promise of His return?

0

#38 16-10-2006 06:19PM

robindch

Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2004

Posts: 24060

> And of course you have your own truth - that of relativism.

I never said that I have my own "truth". BTW, It would be nice if you fundamentalists would actually listen to what us lot have to say about ourselves, rather than what your uninformed cartoon-book heroes have to say about us! But then again, that's really what the problem is, isn't it?

> If you listen hard enough, you'll hear cries of "fundamentalist", and
> "brain-washing" echoing through the ether of debonair nihilists.

I think you may be hearing voices in your head. Sign of madness. Get it checked out. And you've used that "debonair nihilists" phrase before -- do try a more original or entertaining insult next time!

- robin (not debonair, at all, at all)

0

#39 16-10-2006 06:36PM

wolfsbane

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2005

Posts: 5941

robindch said:

Sorry guys, but I have to ask this question of you both:

Have you ever considered that uncritically believing every story written down in in two old books may cause you to have an unreaslistic view of the world?

First, thanks for the help with the faulty page. Apologies to all for the mess.

To answer your question, Yes, I have considered that, and found it did not apply to the Bible. The witness of the Holy Spirit in my spirit convinced me of the Bible's veracity, and hence its accurate view of the world.

0

#40 16-10-2006 06:41PM

Zombrex

Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2001

Posts: 25665

Cantab. wrote:

And of course you have your own truth

Actually most atheists, including myself and Robin (I assume, apologies if wrong), would accept that the only "truth" in human existance is that we cannot ever know for the truth of the universe for certain.

There is just opinion and degrees of likelyhood.

That is one thing theists have a hard time understanding about atheists. They think we follow an alternative religion, believe in an alternative "truth"

We don't, well I certain don't. I don't know the truth of the universe, nor do I pretend to.

The atheists position is not an alternative truth, but the realisation that you cannot know the "truth" for certain, so pretending to, what ever the religion, is ultimately illogical and inherently dangerous.

0

#41 16-10-2006 06:55PM

wolfsbane

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2005

Posts: 5941

JimiTime said:

Yes is what I would say. Firstly let us deal with begotten. To cause to exist. If we take it that everything but the son came into existence from The Father through The Son, Jesus is unique, in that he was the only thing directly created by God. Thus when in Genesis he says, we will make man in our image, he is talking to The Son as the Son had been beggotten before creation of the world began, and through him the world was created.

But is that what begotten means here? We have to test that with the rest of Scripture. Can it mean begotten in the sense of being the eternal Son? The rest of Scripture makes that the only possibility. There He is declared to be God.

Have you not taken the scripture out of context here? Leading up to that scripture, it says that, god has 'given' him a place above all the angels as he has 'given' him a greater name. All the time, there is a greater authority than The Son. If you then take the scripture that you quoted, I would look into the translation of the word god etc, because by the surrouding text he's clearly saying that The Father is greater than he.

Yes, both things are true. Jesus is God and He is in filial relationship to the Father as the Son; He is also in relationship to the Father in His nature as a man. He is YHWH, but also the Son come as a man.

The following is the start of A Revelation to John:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Does this not say that, he was passing on Gods Word to his servants. He is 'The Word of God' afterall?

Yes, it says He was passing on God's word to His servants. But it specifically says Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, a title belonging to God.

It could be said here however, why is it that blasphemy against the Son is forgiven, but blasphemy against Gods Holy Spirit is not, if they all have equal standing?

Why is blasphemy against the Father forgiven? does this imply He is lesser than the Spirit? No, it is God's sovereign arrangement for the manifestation of His holiness and glory. He reserves to Himself the line which must not be crossed. He could have made all blasphemy unforgivable.

or do you believe The Father is greater than the Son?

Only in the filial sense. Both are equally God, fully united. But each has a separate role.

0

#42 16-10-2006 06:55PM

robindch

Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2004

Posts: 24060

> Actually most atheists, including myself and Robin (I assume, apologies if
> wrong), would accept that the only "truth" in human existance is that we
> cannot ever know for the truth of the universe for certain.

Almost right. I reject the notion of "truth" outright because I have been unable to find anybody who can define it more cogently than either statements of the form "truth is what I think truth is" or "X is truth", where X is some major feature of their own favourite religion. Neither of these definitions convey any meaning or understanding. The brain-in-a-vat argument also suggests -- in the most polite way possible -- that we can be mislead completely, so the views we hold must be tentative and never absolute, lest we nail ourselves politically to a tree that we can't subsequently climb down from.

Others will disagree, I'm sure.

0

#43 16-10-2006 07:04PM

wolfsbane

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2005

Posts: 5941

Wicknight said:

The atheists position is not an alternative truth, but the realisation that you cannot know the "truth" for certain, so pretending to, what ever the religion, is ultimately illogical and inherently dangerous.

I'm not nit-picking, just trying to pin-point yuor position. Does the above not make you an agnostic rather than an atheist? Does atheism not say it knows the truth about deities, that they are a figment of people's imagination?

0

#44 16-10-2006 09:28PM

JimiTime

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2006

Posts: 7233

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime said:

Scripture inerrant and infallible http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20119:159-160;&version=50;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=14&verse=49&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=10&verse=35&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=24&verse=44&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=13&verse=18&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=17&verse=12&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=19&verse=24&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=19&verse=28&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=9&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=19&verse=36&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=1&verse=16&version=50&context=verse

Scripture the test of the truth
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=18&verse=28&version=50&context=verse

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=50&context=context

The Trustworthy Prophetic Wordhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:16-21%20;&version=50;

Paul's letters are Scripture http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&verse=16&version=50&context=verse

John 10:35. Context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=50;

Yes, it was a temporary provision. It was not God's eternal moral law. But that does not mean Moses or a later copyist inserted that bit in Scripture. Moses wrote what God told him to. The Pentateuch, the Books of the Law, are God's word just as much as the Gospels or Romans, etc.

From http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm:
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

I see how you are getting confused. When we say the Bible is the word of God, we are not saying everything in it is true or good, etc. For example, Genesis 3:4 says, Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. This is the word of God, an accurate and faithful record of what transpired in the Garden. But what the serpent said is not true or good. Only the record of it. So with anything any man says in the scripture: what is not presented as from God is not to be taken as if it were. But the record of it is to be taken as God's truth. One way we put it is to say the Bible is inerrant in all that it asserts.

If there are bits of the record that are mistaken, how do you tell which bit is true and which mistaken? If the genealogy is wrong, why are you sure about the resurrection? The ascension? The promise of His return?

Indeed I feel more enlightened. My deepest thank you for the time you spent on this. The lineage of Jesus question, brilliant:) So Bible writers inspired by Spirit to portray an accurate account of things. Also Containing the literal words of God, in prophesy and the commandments. Ok I'm convinced NEXT:D

As per my previous posts, I still don't have any evidence of a 3 figure Godhead? Everything points toward The Son being seperate from The Father as I've mentioned. Even what was quoted by yourself, did not stand up to scrutiny in my eyes.Your thoughts?

As for Hellfire. I completely concur that we must not assume that we know better than God when it comes to Justice. However, can I ask you what purpose you think 'hell' as a place of fiery torment fulfills in Gods eyes. Is it consistent with the judgements he has brought upon the wicked in the past? Sodom and Gommorah, the flood. The wicked were wiped out, but they did not suffer for eternity. It is obvious you are a man learned in scripture, do you really think that God has created such a place?

0

#45 16-10-2006 10:00PM

babyvaio

Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭

Join Date: July 2006

Posts: 341

JimiTime wrote:

As per my previous posts, I still don't have any evidence of a 3 figure Godhead? Everything points toward The Son being seperate from The Father as I've mentioned. Even what was quoted by yourself, did not stand up to scrutiny in my eyes.Your thoughts?

I agree with you Jimi that there is no evidence in the whole Bible whatsoever about the trinity. In fact, the 1st Commandment say One and only One True God (not in the exact words, but you kno what I mean) and yet there are people saying that Jesus made all these Commandments obsolete which is not true at all. If that is true, then why do they keep the obsolete stuff in the Bible?? I mean, Jesus did change some of the Law by God's Command, but not the obvious 1st Commandment.
And honestly, how can someone claim that up until year zerro or so, there was only One God, and then this changed all of the sudden, just like it was never there? They will say there is one God, but see, He is this & this & this (making Him to be three obviously, God forbid!)

Now, if you say to those who support the trinity, why did Jesus have to use the toilet (to give you the most ridiculous, yet true example!), they will say because that was part of him human personality. Also, why did he drink and eat and sleep and rest and pray, etc.??

See, they are cutting Jesus half - when they need to justify some accusations they use either him as a man or they attribute divinity to him, thus being so unjust towards Jesus the Prophet himself (actually, they are saying a terrible lie on him).

OK, then you ask them, how come Jesus is not equal to God Almighty (Christians would mean Father here, since I don't use that word, I'll use God Almighty just to make sure we understand each other), since Jesus himself (according to the Scripture) claims that God Almighty is greater than him.

Then again they will say, see, this is bcos in his human form he is not, but yet he is fully equal to God Almighty (of course the Scripture does not support this claim).

Then you say well OK, then, how about this: there is in the Scripture clearly stated that Jesus did not know everything, i.e. Jesus has no idea when will be the Judgement Day - therefore Jesus is not the All-Knowing and cannot be equal to God Almighty or therefore Jesus is not the All-Knowing God. Then they will say again the same thing.

Now you ask them this: how is it that Jesus was fully God in his flesh and yet there were things he didn't know? I mean at least his mind would be all-knowing, nevermind the flesh??.

And see what they say, I'm sure they will shoot me after this.

0

#46 16-10-2006 10:18PM

Zombrex

Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2001

Posts: 25665

wolfsbane wrote:

Does the above not make you an agnostic rather than an atheist?

No, because I believe that the concept of "gods" was invented by humanity, by the human imagination. As such it is not something that is in the realms of things that can or cannot exist, since the concept isn't based in reality to begin with.

Now I accept the very very slim chance that something humans invented just might, by pure chance, correspond to something that actually does exist.

But I think the chances of that happening, combined with the fact that there is no evidence of a god or gods, to make that as totally unlikely as to be not worth considering.

Therefore I'm an atheist. That doesn't mean I know the "truth" that there is no God. I don't. But then I don't know the truth that a green dragon isn't going to fall on my head 5 minutes from now, but I'm pretty certain that isn't going to happen.

Truth implies a unalterable fact. I might be wrong about there being no God, but I don't think I am. If I did I would be an agnostic (or just very confused, though sometimes I have trouble telling an the two apart

)

That is different from saying I know the "truth" that I'm not wrong.

I can't really know anything as unaltering "truth", but that doesn't stop me deciding what I believe and what I don't believe. And I don't believe in gods. I'm therefore an atheists.

As I said all there is really is opinion and likelyhood. Decisions as to what we believe or don't believe. There is no "truth".

Hope that makes sense.

0

#47 16-10-2006 10:51PM

babyvaio

Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭

Join Date: July 2006

Posts: 341

Wicknight wrote:

No, because I believe that the concept of "gods" was invented by humanity, by the human imagination.

It was invented by humanity, base on what (I'm asking for the concept of One True God)? How are you so sure? Evidence please.

You find no problems believing that there are black holes in universe and yet you deny Almighty God so easily? Please explain. Previous explanation was a bit foggy.

0

#48 16-10-2006 11:01PM

Son Goku

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2004

Posts: 1446

babyvaio wrote:

It was invented by humanity, base on what (I'm asking for the concept of One True God)? How are you so sure? Evidence please.

You find no problems believing that there are black holes in universe and yet you deny Almighty God so easily? Please explain. Previous explanation was a bit foggy.

For black holes there is observational evidence, for God there is personal testimony. Even if you think we atheists are in denial, surely you can see why one is easier to accept than the other.
To be honest I don't even see why you choose those two things to contrast.

0

#49 16-10-2006 11:18PM

babyvaio

Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭

Join Date: July 2006

Posts: 341

Son Goku wrote:

For black holes there is observational evidence, for God there is personal testimony. Even if you think we atheists are in denial, surely you can see why one is easier to accept than the other.
To be honest I don't even see why you choose those two things to contrast.

No way, what a statement! So you're saying that the evidence that black holes exist is much firmer than the evidence that somebody created these black holes and the whole lot together?

Blind, so they cannot see. I wish you did.

PS I chose the two because for God and for black holes there is evidence. You cannot see God nor the black holes. However, there are more proofs that God is, than that black holes exist. I mean, black holes are just one little tiny example of creation, for God there are countless proofs of what He has created.

0

#50 16-10-2006 11:19PM

BrianCalgary

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭

Join Date: December 2005

Posts: 3142

JimiTime wrote:

As for Hellfire. I completely concur that we must not assume that we know better than God when it comes to Justice. However, can I ask you what purpose you think 'hell' as a place of fiery torment fulfills in Gods eyes. Is it consistent with the judgements he has brought upon the wicked in the past? Sodom and Gommorah, the flood. The wicked were wiped out, but they did not suffer for eternity. It is obvious you are a man learned in scripture, do you really think that God has created such a place?

Hell is a place that is actually created by those angels that rebelled. It is a place devoid of God. A place where God is not welcome and he honours the wishes of those inhabitants. God is not invited there so He does not go.

As with us, there are those that go through this life with opportunity to come to Him and they refuse. They wish to spend a life devoid of God and they get their wish for an eternity. They get to join the place with the fallen angels where God is not welcome.

Jesus then describes to us the contrast between the two, maybe in order to help us along in our decision.

As an example, there are those of us right here who will gladly give our testimonies of where and how we met the living God. What He does in our lives today and how He is a regular contributor to our lives.

Then there is Son Goku's position:
For black holes there is observational evidence, for God there is personal testimony. Even if you think we atheists are in denial, surely you can see why one is easier to accept than the other.
To be honest I don't even see why you choose those two things to contrast.

Here he flatly refuses to give any credence to those testimonies. What we have to say doesn't matter, however he wishes that we would all accept his measurements of the universe around us as factual. I do know which is easier to accept: the testimonies of changed lives as a result of the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

0

#51 16-10-2006 11:36PM

Son Goku

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2004

Posts: 1446

No way, what a statement! So you're saying that the evidence that black holes exist is much firmer than the evidence that somebody created these black holes and the whole lot together?

Yes, what evidence is that there was somebody who created it all outside your personal opinion that this is what occured?

Blind, so they cannot see. I wish you did.

Wow, another piece of advice, in the same vein as what we hear all the time.
We have a non-religious view of things, therefore we must be pitied.

Here he flatly refuses to give any credence to those testimonies. What we have to say doesn't matter, however he wishes that we would all accept his measurements of the universe around us as factual. I do know which is easier to accept: the testimonies of changed lives as a result of the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Sigh, groan, e.t.c.
I was originally going to write a rebuke of what you said, but to further my own understanding could you please explain what you think I'm saying. There are certain times when you respond to me that I've no idea where you're coming from.
Particularly the part in italics, black holes are observed, what does "accept his measurements of the universe around us as factual" mean?
This isn't even a creationist/evolutionist thing.

0

#52 16-10-2006 11:43PM

BrianCalgary

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭

Join Date: December 2005

Posts: 3142

Son Goku wrote:

Sigh, groan, e.t.c.
I was originally going to write a rebuke of what you said, but to further my own understanding could you please explain what you think I'm saying. There are certain times when you respond to me that I've no idea where you're coming from.
Particularly the part in italics, black holes are observed, what does "accept his measurements of the universe around us as factual" mean?
This isn't even a creationist/evolutionist thing.

And that is part of the problem. You don't even care where any of us are coming from.

You claim that there is no proof of there being a God, yet the testimony of many are around us completely. Why do you not even consider these testimonies as being possibly real and true evidence of there being a God?

So I have come to the conclusion that unless you can see it, and measure it, you can not accept it as being real.

0

#53 16-10-2006 11:56PM

Son Goku

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2004

Posts: 1446

BrianCalgary wrote:

And that is part of the problem. You don't even care where any of us are coming from.

You claim that there is no proof of there being a God, yet the testimony of many are around us completely. Why do you not even consider these testimonies as being possibly real and true evidence of there being a God?

So I have come to the conclusion that unless you can see it, and measure it, you can not accept it as being real.

That is what you think I'm saying?!

This part in particular:

You don't even care where any of us are coming from.

I said I don't understand, not that I don't care, where did you get that from?

Yikes Brian, no wonder you respond the way you do.
All I'm saying is that black holes are very dry "observed or not" entities in regard to their existence, where as God is a much more personal thing and harder to gauge. I'm saying that babyvaio's comparison makes no sense because of this.

In other words, God is a more difficult case to judge because it is personal and I can't see it and measure it.
babyvaio's example is bad because black holes are too easy to judge.

Brian, I think you have an incorrect view of the way a scientist thinks and frankly I'm a little worried if this is the kind of wall scientists will encounter when speaking to fundamentalist Christians.

0

#54 16-10-2006 11:57PM

JimiTime

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2006

Posts: 7233

BrianCalgary wrote:

Hell is a place that is actually created by those angels that rebelled. It is a place devoid of God. A place where God is not welcome and he honours the wishes of those inhabitants. God is not invited there so He does not go.

You see, this to me sounds like dogma! where did you get this idea? Where is it written that satan or his angels created anything, never mind this 'Hell' place. 'God is not invited there', who says? It sounds like more dogma to explain dogma. Am I incorrect?

As with us, there are those that go through this life with opportunity to come to Him and they refuse. They wish to spend a life devoid of God and they get their wish for an eternity. They get to join the place with the fallen angels where God is not welcome.

So they get everlasting life also, just a torturous one? Through whom do they get this everlasting albeit torturous life? There are people that will be resurrected to be tortured?? Where is the sense??

Hellfire has all the hallmarks of a Zealous man who believes the means justifying the ends. He saw that doctrinating the Layman with threats of hell would scare them into subjection. I am flabbergasted when I hear people defending this doctrine. It actually disturbs me that people think that My Lord would allow such a thing. It is not scriptural, but scriptures have been used in an attempt to prove it:(

0

#55 17-10-2006 12:43AM

Zombrex

Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2001

Posts: 25665

babyvaio wrote:

It was invented by humanity, base on what (I'm asking for the concept of One True God)? How are you so sure? Evidence please.

Exibit A ma' lord.

Human history and folk-lore, and the gods that populate it.

Exbit B ma'lord

The properties that early humans attributed to their gods, in the vast majority of cases they were used simply to explain the natural world around them.

Do you babyvaio accept that the Viking gods, or the Greek gods, were invented by the human imagination?

If so, the question is why is your god any different?

babyvaio wrote:

You find no problems believing that there are black holes in universe and yet you deny Almighty God so easily? Please explain.

Its quite simple really.

There is no evidence for the existence of gods and the explination that early humanity evented the concept to help explain the unexplainable (at the time), and to bring order and structure to a world they could not understand, is a lot more plausable.

0

#56 17-10-2006 12:57AM

Zombrex

Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2001

Posts: 25665

BrianCalgary wrote:

You claim that there is no proof of there being a God, yet the testimony of many are around us completely.

Well I mean no offence Brian, but that isn't proof (or even evidence). You could be mistaken, and we wouldn't know either way.

Think of it this way, lots of people throughout history have claimed to speak or be in direct contact with a vast array of gods, from other cultures and religions.

Now I'm assuming you don't believe that what they experienced was actually what they thought it was, am I right?

So why do you not consider the testimonies of people who claimed to be oracles for Apollo, or native americans who talked to the spirit gods, as being evidence of the Greek gods or the american spirit world?

As I asked Babyviao, why is your religion different?

0

#57 17-10-2006 01:53AM

ISAW

Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2005

Posts: 6985

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime said:

But is that what begotten means here? We have to test that with the rest of Scripture. Can it mean begotten in the sense of being the eternal Son? The rest of Scripture makes that the only possibility. There He is declared to be God.

I think the questions you raise about the trinity have been discussed here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054976754

0

#58 17-10-2006 11:36AM

JimiTime

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2006

Posts: 7233

ISAW wrote:

I think the questions you raise about the trinity have been discussed here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054976754

I did note that. However, the trinity forum is from a muslim versus christian side of things. I want the reasonings on both sides of the debate from a Christian standpoint, which is why I would be avoiding the trinity forum. I hope thats ok with everyone.

PS. I've just realised I'm now a 2 star user. Is that good or does that mean I've got too much time on my hands

0

#59 17-10-2006 03:27PM

BrianCalgary

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭

Join Date: December 2005

Posts: 3142

Son Goku wrote:

That is what you think I'm saying?!

This part in particular:

I said I don't understand, not that I don't care, where did you get that from?

Yikes Brian, no wonder you respond the way you do.
All I'm saying is that black holes are very dry "observed or not" entities in regard to their existence, where as God is a much more personal thing and harder to gauge. I'm saying that babyvaio's comparison makes no sense because of this.

In other words, God is a more difficult case to judge because it is personal and I can't see it and measure it.
babyvaio's example is bad because black holes are too easy to judge.

Brian, I think you have an incorrect view of the way a scientist thinks and frankly I'm a little worried if this is the kind of wall scientists will encounter when speaking to fundamentalist Christians.

Didn't mean to come across as so harsh, apologies.

I will give my view on how I see scientists thinking. I may be wrong on this but it is my perception of what is going on inside their heads.

A scientist is very curious about the world around us. Some scientists get interested in biology, or geology or space. They then read as much as they can about the topics and study them. They try and gather as much information about the topic as possible. Kind of the way I am with the Bible, religions and coaching football. Just want to be the best that I can in those areas.

A scientist then through their reading and study comes up with an idea, which becomes a hypthesis, develops into a theory and therefore requires study. (In the indoor game of soccer I came up with a particular set piece that I have never seen anybody use before that I am convinced will work, my theory)

You then go out and gather data to either support or refute the theory, if the data refutes your theory, your theory is invalid, if the data supports your theory, eureka:) , you've got something. (we'll continue to try the set piece and see how it works, the question is how often?).

I think we are on theright road so far. Now it gets sticky: what happens if you do everything you can to make the evidence fit your theory, because you just can't give it up; or you leave out a bunch of data for other prejudicial reasons?

In my case we never score on set pieces and the players lose confidence in my coaching abiblities.

The argument of the Christian is that the scientist in studying nature and creation accounts leaves God out. When the Christian has had very personal and real experiences with God and the scientist has the (gall, arrogance (maybe wrong words)) to poopoo that testimony and evidence.

So the question:
Why do you not even consider these testimonies as being possibly real and true evidence of there being a God?

0

#60 17-10-2006 03:50PM

BrianCalgary

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭

Join Date: December 2005

Posts: 3142

Wicknight wrote:

Well I mean no offence Brian, but that isn't proof (or even evidence). You could be mistaken, and we wouldn't know either way.

Think of it this way, lots of people throughout history have claimed to speak or be in direct contact with a vast array of gods, from other cultures and religions.

Now I'm assuming you don't believe that what they experienced was actually what they thought it was, am I right?

So why do you not consider the testimonies of people who claimed to be oracles for Apollo, or native americans who talked to the spirit gods, as being evidence of the Greek gods or the american spirit world?

As I asked Babyviao, why is your religion different?

I do take the what experiences others have as being very real. One must discern the source of the experience. I have a friend who used to be a fortune teller. She could touch someone and know something of their life, she would get a message from some real physical presence. She came to understand that the physiacl presence was actually a demon taking the focus away from Christ. The fruit of the activity was away from Christ and a bunch of unhappy unfulfilled people who were her clientele. When she became a Christian a battle ensued, Christ won and now there is very positive fruit of lives changed for th ebetter as a result of her testimony.

What are the fruits of the God whom you worship? There was a wiccan girl in my daughters grade 9 class, who worshipped lord and lay. I asked her what their names where and what they represented? She had no idea. What was the fruit of her worship: rebellion.

What makes Christianity better? God came from Heaven and offered Himself as a sacrifice so that I can obtain salvation. Christ gave Himself for me, that is very unselfish considering that I have nothing to do in order to obtain that gift.

As a result of Christs work I see the changed lives, the drug addict who is now clean and being a productive member of society. The girl who was born into a pagan family and was sexually abused and fed drugs, and how she is now ministering to street kids.

What makes Christianity real are those changed lives.

0

#61 17-10-2006 04:14PM

IFX

Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭

Join Date: September 2006

Posts: 87

BrianCalgary wrote:

What makes Christianity real are those changed lives.

This is a classic Christian logical fallacy. You are using anecodotal evidence to argue Christianity.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic4.html

You'd be better off using some objective statistics.
For example, factor in the amount of people for who Christianity does nothing.

Another classic Christian logical fallacy committed in your argument Brian is misunderstanding cause and effect or
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic5.html

More specifically, you think the reason why their life changed is simply because they prayed, you don't know that, however you are entitled to your opinions, they are just not logical.

As for analysis of a scientist, not bad but you left out the difference between a theory and an ok theory. A good theory makes accurate predictions. If you look at the major debates in Science, Newton V Einstein on gravity and The Big Bang V Steady State, it was the theory that made the most accurate predictions usually one.

As for including God, in a theory, some scientists have this God of Gaps idea which is not usually included in a theory but they maintain it personally. The idea is that it explains the great unknowns - it's quite different from Christianity or anything you read in the Bible.

Hawking for example once described God as the laws of the universe.

0

Comments