Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a True Christian?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 283 of 329 (791729)
09-20-2016 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by ringo
09-20-2016 12:06 PM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
ringo writes:
Faith writes:
Do you actually think Paul would have called anything other than scripture itself "God breathed" or "inspired" -- which means breathed by the Holy Spirit?
As I asked Phat: Do you actually think Paul was talking about his own writings? The epistles that he hadn't even written yet?
No, in the context of 2 Tim 3, Paul was talking about the Scriptures that Timothy had been taught, i.e. the Old Testament.
But according to 2 Peter, Paul's writings were also considered by the early church to be Scripture:
quote:
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16, NIV)
Edited by kbertsche, : Added 2 Pet quote

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ringo, posted 09-20-2016 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by ringo, posted 09-21-2016 3:16 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 287 of 329 (791740)
09-20-2016 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by GDR
09-20-2016 2:55 PM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
GDR writes:
Sorry. Of course you are right. Tradition has it that Moses wrote the Torah but nobody really knows.
The point remains though that Jesus says that it was Moses that commanded them to stone to death adulterers, and that Moses got it wrong.
Your point would be a lot stronger if you argued from a passage that was actually in the original manuscripts. As you probably know, the story of the woman caught in adultery is thought by most scholars to be a later addition to the text. Those who hold to inerrancy claim that it only applies to the original autographs, which did not contain this account.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by GDR, posted 09-20-2016 2:55 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 09-21-2016 11:05 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 291 of 329 (791777)
09-21-2016 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by GDR
09-21-2016 11:05 AM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
GDR writes:
So, in other words the Bible is inerrant except for where Jesus says it isn't. Here then is another case from Matthew 19 where Jesus says that the OT got it wrong.
No, of course not. The Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts. Any later additions, changes, and explanatory notes are NOT inerrant.
You may think that this is a "cop-out", but it is not. There is very good agreement among biblical scholars on later additions to the text. This is determined by objectively comparing the earliest manuscripts to later ones.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 09-21-2016 11:05 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 09-21-2016 2:39 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 3:19 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 296 by GDR, posted 09-21-2016 3:42 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 297 of 329 (791794)
09-21-2016 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by jar
09-21-2016 2:39 PM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
jar writes:
But there are NO original manuscripts.
There are no extant original manuscripts at the present time. But there WERE original manuscripts once. And there are numerous copies and fragments from various dates, some quite early.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 09-21-2016 2:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by jar, posted 09-21-2016 6:29 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 298 of 329 (791795)
09-21-2016 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by ringo
09-21-2016 3:16 PM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
ringo writes:
Yes, 2 Peter calls Paul's epistles "scriptures" - i.e. writings. What else would they be called? But 2 Peter doesn't explicitly call Paul's epistles "inspired by God", does it?
Not just "writings", but associated with "the other Scriptures". This was a technical term for the OT, which WAS considered to be inspired by God. So yes, the early church seems to have viewed Paul's writings as divinely inspired, just like they did the OT.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by ringo, posted 09-21-2016 3:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by ringo, posted 09-22-2016 11:47 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 299 of 329 (791796)
09-21-2016 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by GDR
09-21-2016 3:42 PM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
GDR writes:
So I assume you think that the other examples I gave weren't supposed to be included in the Gospels either, or did those who put the canon together get it wrong?
Why do you assume this? Do you really think there are objective, textual reasons that your other examples were not in the original autographs?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by GDR, posted 09-21-2016 3:42 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by GDR, posted 09-21-2016 7:12 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 302 of 329 (791807)
09-21-2016 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Faith
09-21-2016 3:19 PM


Re: Do we have the authentic text of the Bible today?
Faith writes:
I agree with you in principle of course. I believe it quite possible to reconstruct the originals from the collection of old manuscripts available today. But not if you are working from the wrong collection of old manuscripts, and from what you are saying you do accept the wrong collection as authentic. That is, you accept the current scholarship about the history of the manuscripts that comes down from Westcott and Hort, which is understandable since the major seminaries and a lot of good teachers and preachers do also.
Yes, Faith and I differ on this issue of which NT Greek text is best. I side with the Greek "Critical Text", which is an attempt to get back to the original Greek text by putting more weight on earlier manuscripts, and trying to understand how later variants could have arisen (e.g. transcription errors, errors of hearing, explanatory glosses, etc.)
There is a small minority of scholars who advocate for the Greek "Majority Text" as opposed to the critical text. These scholars include Zane Hodges (who was a friend of my dad's) and Art Farstad (who I've met). Although I greatly respect both of these men, I disagree with their views on the best Greek manuscripts. For a brief discussion of the issues, see this article by Dan Wallace.
The KJV was based on the "Textus Receptus" which is similar to the "Majority Text", but not identical. I don't think any scholars today argue for the Textus Receptus. The KJV-only folks don't really argue for the Textus Receptus, but for the English KJV. They are essentially crackpots. For those (like Faith) who prefer the Majority Text, I would strongly recommend the NKJV (New King James) over the KJV translation. (Art Farstad was involved in translating the NKJV.)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 3:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 303 of 329 (791808)
09-21-2016 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by GDR
09-21-2016 7:12 PM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
GDR writes:
Hardly. You explained away the first quote by saying that it didn't belong in the canon. I was wondering what your reasoning was to explain the other examples of how Jesus contradicted what Moses said after Moses claimed that God had commanded it.
Was I unclear in some way? I tried to explain that the account of the woman taken in adultery did not belong in the canon due to objective, scholarly issues of textual criticism, NOT because of its content.
But I don't see how your other examples "contradict" Moses. Mt. 19:8 explains WHY Moses allowed divorce; it says that this was a temporary concession due to their hardness of heart. This is an "explanation", not a "contradiction":
quote:
Matt. 19:8 Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. Matt. 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
Nor do I see that Mt 5 "contradicts" Moses. Rather, it EXTENDS his commands by focusing on the motives rather than on the outward manifestations. What Moses said still applies; the outward manifestations are still wrong.
Edited by kbertsche, : Comment on Mt 19:8
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
Edited by kbertsche, : Comment on Mt 5.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by GDR, posted 09-21-2016 7:12 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by NoNukes, posted 09-21-2016 9:40 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 305 by GDR, posted 09-22-2016 2:27 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 306 of 329 (791815)
09-22-2016 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by GDR
09-22-2016 2:27 AM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
GDR writes:
kbertsche writes:
But I don't see how your other examples "contradict" Moses. Mt. 19:8 explains WHY Moses allowed divorce; it says that this was a temporary concession due to their hardness of heart. This is an "explanation", not a "contradiction"
It explains why Moses permitted it but then Jesus goes on to say how it was from the beginning. Jesus is saying that Moses used his own understanding but that he got it wrong., even though Moses claimed that it came from the Lord.
No, He doesn't say that Moses either "used his own understanding" or "got it wrong". He says that Moses allowed it for a reason. The implication seems to be that this was not God's ideal plan, but that God allowed it, through Moses, due to people's condition at that time. I see no implication that Moses got this wrong for his people and time.
GDR writes:
kbertsche writes:
Nor do I see that Mt 5 "contradicts" Moses. Rather, it EXTENDS his commands by focusing on the motives rather than on the outward manifestations. What Moses said still applies; the outward manifestations are still wrong.
That's true in some cases but here is an example where it isn't. Jesus says in Matthew 5:
quote:
38 You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
Jesus is referring to Exodus 21 and Leviticus 24 where the Bible tells us that the Lord told Moses that it is an eye for an eye etc. Here Jesus says that wasn't correct and then corrects what had been written.
This is certainly a change from Moses. But again, I see no implication that Moses was WRONG for his audience in his time. The implication that I see is that the times have changed, and now the rules are changing. Moses' instruction was correct for his time.
GDR writes:
For that matter, once again, you can't square that statement by Jesus with a God that commands genocide and public stoning. It is either faith in Jesus as the embodied word of God or an inerrant Bible. Once again you can't have it both ways.
I don't see why not. Why can't this simply be another case of the rules changing because times have changed?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by GDR, posted 09-22-2016 2:27 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by jar, posted 09-22-2016 7:41 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 308 by GDR, posted 09-22-2016 11:17 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 309 of 329 (791820)
09-22-2016 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by GDR
09-22-2016 11:17 AM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
GDR writes:
Frankly, I just don’t get it. After reading the Gospels can you really in your wildest imagination can you really see God as embodied by Jesus ever sanctioning such an atrocity in any time or situation?
Yes; Have you read the book of Revelation recently?
GDR writes:
This is what comes out of making a false idol of the Bible instead of allowing God to speak through it and using it as Paul says for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
Rather, your approach only allows God to speak through the parts of the Bible that you like, and insulates you from what He is trying to teach, rebuke, or correct you from the parts that you don't like.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by GDR, posted 09-22-2016 11:17 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by GDR, posted 09-22-2016 1:44 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 312 of 329 (791826)
09-22-2016 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by GDR
09-22-2016 1:44 PM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
GDR, you don't know most of my positions on these issues. But instead of asking and discussing, you prefer to make unjustified assumptions and false allegations about what I believe. For example, you say that I "obviously insist on reading it with a 21st century mind set." You are simply assuming this, you don't know how I read Revelation, and you are dead wrong. I try to interpret all of Scripture in light of the historical and cultural context in which it was written.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by GDR, posted 09-22-2016 1:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by GDR, posted 09-22-2016 6:08 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 314 of 329 (791831)
09-22-2016 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by GDR
09-22-2016 6:08 PM


Re: How should we understand Scripture?
GDR writes:
Just for starters once again how do you square the idea of a loving god with the idea that somebody should be stoned to death for picking up firewood on the Sabbath, with the added dimension how that will affect the people carrying out this atrocity.
Very briefly: God is loving, but He is not ONLY loving. He is also just, all-knowing, and many other attributes. What He does must be consistent with the entirety of His character, not only with a single attribute, like love (or worse, our modern understanding of what this single attribute means).
But I don't really want to get into a discussion of inerrancy or OT genocide for a number of reasons:
1) These are difficult and complex topics, and this would start a protracted discussion which I simply do not have the time for.
2) I do not sense that anyone here really is willing to consider these views; it seems that everyone just wants to argue against them. I am not interested in arguing.
3) these are off-topic for the current thread.
This thread is about "What is a true Christian?" It is NOT necessary to hold to inerrancy or to believe that God commanded genocide in order to be a true Christian.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by GDR, posted 09-22-2016 6:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by GDR, posted 09-22-2016 9:40 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024