Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
30 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), ringo (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 166 of 2241 (738454)
10-10-2014 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
10-09-2014 9:26 PM


Re: 3 in one
The evidence is in the list of verses, but there was some sort of preamble to the list explaining that the Trinity isn't stated in so many words but inferred from all those separate verses that present the nature of God as One in Three independent Persons, then the verses show that to be the case.

So then the paradigm is to decide what particular dogma or theological point you want to make, then pick and choose disparate verses that you can then claim infer the point you are wanting to make. No wonder so many different and conflicting groups love "quoting" the Bible so much! Love it when a plan comes together! (no, I never ever watched that show)

Just like the verses in Genesis that I've pointed to which support evolution and even abiogenesis by speaking of it actually being the waters and the earth that brought forth all forms of life, albeit under YHWH's command and direction, so there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution. And then you can pick and choose verses that can be implied to show that there is a conflict between the Bible and evolution. Or the pro- and anti-slavery factions who both "quoted" the Bible, implying everything they needed to from the verses that they had picked and chosen in order to show that the Bible supported their position.

No wonder so many people love the Bible so much. Whatever your particular position is, you can always find support for it in the Bible.

Even hard-core atheists! Since the Bible does say "There is no God". OK, you have to quote-mine the Bible to get that admission, but if creationists and "true Christians" feel so free and self-justified to resort to quote-mining, why can't hard-core atheists do it too? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 10-09-2014 9:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 8:35 PM dwise1 has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 2241 (738455)
10-10-2014 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
10-10-2014 1:07 PM


Re: 3 in one
If you really think that I would expect that you'd take a look at that link you refused to look at because that would tell you what the Bible says about the Trinity.

I'm fully aware of the arguments and verses most people cite. That only reason for following your link would be to discuss the particular arguments found at that site and you have already said you are not interested in the discussion.

My point for pointing to the previous discussion with Alter2Ego was apparently missed. You engaged in exactly the same kind of non-discussion in that thread that you are engaging in here. Providing a link, barely addressing points made in rebuttal if at all, and then claiming that people who disagree with you don't understand you or are lacking common sense.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 1:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4960
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 168 of 2241 (738456)
10-10-2014 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by jar
10-10-2014 6:35 PM


Re: 3 in one
jar writes:

How can you get any reference to Jesus from Daniel 7 without totally taking material out of context and adding stuff not found there?

Jesus often referred to Himself as the "Son of Man". In the context of all that we have of what He said and did, I think that it is pretty clear that He was referring to the "Son of Man" as depicted by Daniel and that He was one being presented to the "Ancient of Days" and given dominion over an Earthly and eternal Kingdom. I believe that Jesus, as an act of faith, came to this conclusion through His understanding of the Jewish scriptures and prayer.

Of course this is only meaningful if the resurrection of Jesus is truly historical, which gives credence to the idea that God has validated Christ's life and message.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 10-10-2014 6:35 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 10-10-2014 7:36 PM GDR has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31262
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 169 of 2241 (738457)
10-10-2014 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by GDR
10-10-2014 7:07 PM


Re: 3 in one
But where is there any indication that the author of Daniel had any intention of referring to Jesus? There is little doubt that later authors picked pieces out of context and inserted them into what they wrote Jesus said or did.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by GDR, posted 10-10-2014 7:07 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by GDR, posted 10-10-2014 8:04 PM jar has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 170 of 2241 (738458)
10-10-2014 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
10-10-2014 1:29 PM


Re: 3 in one
Many heresies are the result of taking a concept out of context.

I'm sorry, could you say that again?

Sorry, could you say it louder?

Could you please say it even louder? I don't think you could hear it yet.

OK, just joking. You have clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to say anything loud enough for you to hear it.

On the question of Trinitarianism, it would truly be interesting to trace through the history of that idea. After the "original Christ event"* congregations formed and developed as did theological ideas about the Christ. Ideas quickly diverged into a variety of churches, many of which imported pagan ideas as they consisted mainly of Gentiles. After a few centuries, several conflicting Christian theologies existed. It was the Council of Nicea that took all those disparate theologies and created out of them one single universal (AKA "Catholic") theology which became the official one. Ah! Christianity! A religion created by committee!

Trinitarianism became official at the Council of Nicea. Certain theologies which pre-date Nicea had incorporated that idea, but when and from where? Others didn't (eg, Arianism), but then they lost, didn't they? Though later independently formed Unitarian churches would claim to trace their tradition back to Arianism, which the Catholic Church had declared to be heretical (Faith, are you siding with the Catholics now? When did you have a change of heart?) -- eg, English Unitarianism, our tradition, was different from Transylvanian Unitarianism, as pointed out by an actual Translyvannian Unitarian challenging our minister in the middle of a service.

So then, just where did this idea of Trinitarianism come from? What or which early Christian church(es) incorporated that idea in their theology? From what sources? I immediately think of Hinduism and the concept of Brahman-Atman, the universal substance of which everything is made, including the gods, such that any idea of being something or someone separate is purely illusionary, AKA "Maya"** -- of possible interest, "Atman" is philologically related to the German "atmen" (both languages are Indo-European ***) which means "to breath".

{FOOTNOTE *
Ed Babinski is a former fundamentalist Christian; I have no idea whether he is still a Christian. He had been the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists, but then he started reading and thinking and he finally left the fold. He has written some books that you can find on amazon.com, most of which contain the testimonials of many others who have also left the fold. He is on FaceBook, mainly linking to blogs about people leaving the fold.

In the 1980's, NCSE's Creation/Evolution Newsletter reprinted and "evolutionary tree of Christianity", at the root of which was "the original Christ event". He then parodied a very common creationist claim, that extremely wide variance of the resultant religions could not possibly be descended from a single "Christ event". I could eventually find that graphic, if there is interest.
}

{FOOTNOTE **
For a direct treatment of Maya, refer to the appendix in Hermann Hesse's Das Glasperlenspiel (translated into English either as The Glass Bead Game or Magister Ludi ("Master of the Game") which would be referred to as "The Indian Life".

Another famous treatment was by Ambrose Pierce, An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, wherein a Confederate sympathizer is hanged at a bridge, but the rope breaks and he escapes by being swept downstream. The rest of the story follows him as he evades Union soldiers while running to return to home. A short French film (with no dialog) based on the story was shown on The Twilight Zone (hosted by a Unitarian); (view it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuP5kUQro40 or else do your own search for it), which I watch in the original broadcast, so that is my primary source. He returns home, sees his wife waiting for him on the porch. He runs towards her and she towards him. And at the last moment, the rope tightens and he dies.

There is another classic example that "everybody" knows, but of which I had only heard reference to by a guest speaker in a graduate German class. A sailor falls overboard, but is rescued by a mermaid and then goes through a long series of fantastic adventures, at the end of which he finally finishes drowning. I have no idea what story that is.
}

{FOOTNOTE ***
Eg, in a 1980's TV mini-series about a British officer (Ben Cross) in India also raised as a Muslim (female lead was Amy Irving), I recognized the Hindu-ish word for fire, something like "agni", since it is related to the Russian ("agon", "agni" (pl)) and even to the Latin ("ignis", from which we get igneous rock, ignite, etc)).

The reason why these languages are even called "Indo-European" is because British philologists studying the languages in the newly-acquired India discovered the very striking similarities between the languages in India and most of the languages in Europe (though not Finnish, Hungarian (which is related to Finnish), Basque). Though the Germans refer to them as "Indo-Germanisch" -- rather ethnocentric of the Germans, don't you think?
}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 1:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 8:11 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Theodoric, posted 10-10-2014 8:11 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 171 of 2241 (738459)
10-10-2014 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
10-10-2014 4:12 PM


Re: 3 in one
Faith writes:

By the way, Islam holds that the concept of the Trinity is a denial of monotheism, which makes perfect sense to me and was my original point to Djufo.

But it isn't a denial of Monotheism, it's just one of the ways you misunderstand the Trinity.

Christianity has apologetics in favor of the Trinity, Islam has apologetics against the Trinity, and both base their arguments on holy texts based upon myths and unevidenced claims.

Of course the Islamic view makes sense to you, the Trinity is counterintuitive and difficult to grasp.

The Trinity isn't at all difficult to grasp. What's difficult to grasp is the tortured rationales, and even if there were an internally consistent explanation you still have the problem that the foundation is a book of myths and legends with no connection to reality. Why would I care any more about the rationale for the Christian Trinity than about the details of how Harry Potter flies his broom? You haven't taken the first step of showing a connection to anything real.

Why not admit that Unitarianism has no basis in anything at all...

I'm making no claims for Unitarianism, and it doesn't really fit in this discussion. I was raised Unitarian, and I feel most comfortable in a Unitarian church, but as an adult my beliefs don't really align with any established religion.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 4:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 9:16 PM Percy has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4960
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 172 of 2241 (738460)
10-10-2014 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
10-10-2014 7:36 PM


Re: 3 in one
jar writes:

But where is there any indication that the author of Daniel had any intention of referring to Jesus? There is little doubt that later authors picked pieces out of context and inserted them into what they wrote Jesus said or did.

I didn't say that Daniel had specific knowledge of Jesus. It was a dream that Daniel had that depicted a "Son of Man", presumably a messianic figure being presented to the "Ancient of Days". Jesus took that dream to represent some how what it was that He was about. His message all the way through is a Kingdom message and that Israel was in some way a foreshadowing of that Kingdom. I am not saying that Jesus knew that He was right but that He took it on faith and ultimately God vindicated that faith by resurrecting Him.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 10-10-2014 7:36 PM jar has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 173 of 2241 (738462)
10-10-2014 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by dwise1
10-10-2014 7:42 PM


Re: 3 in one
Sigh, the usual bogus history there, dwise. There were some pagan ideas that got mixed into some of the early churches, yes, principally Gnosticism, but those were even identified in scripture as well as by early church fathers. There was nothing resembling a "committee" about the Council of Nicea, it was convened to resolve some issues, it heard arguments and it formulated official doctrine, which was already held by a majority of the churches anyway, though the Council refined it. The criteria for officializing doctrine was of course its authority from scripture, and you can see the Biblical sources for the Trinity at the link I provided. The ablest theologians made the case for the Trinity, from scripture and only scripture, and showed Arianism to be a heresy. Again, based on scripture. There is no other basis for doctrine than scripture.

No, there was not yet a Roman Catholic Church by the time of Nicea; the papacy was not officially formed until 606, when Emperor Phocas bestowed primacy of spiritual authority on the Bishop of Rome, who before had been merely one among other bishops. There were already signs of apostasy in the Roman See and they only increased down the centuries after that. There were groups of Bible-based Christians outside the official church too, though, from very early on, groups that recognized the Antichrist in the papacy.

I guess you are attracted to the anti-Christians and that's your choice, though of course a dangerous one. I started out my belief in things supernatural by reading Hinduism and Buddhism and a bunch of occultic stuff and continued reading until I was a Christian, took maybe two or three years, so your ponderings about Eastern religion don't hold any attraction for me. I understand scripture to be God-breathed and everything I have experienced since becoming a Christian only confirms it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by dwise1, posted 10-10-2014 7:42 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 174 of 2241 (738463)
10-10-2014 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by dwise1
10-10-2014 7:42 PM


Re: 3 in one
One quibble it is Ambrose Bierce not Pierce.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by dwise1, posted 10-10-2014 7:42 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 175 of 2241 (738464)
10-10-2014 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by GDR
10-10-2014 5:43 PM


Re: 3 in one
I don't have the slightest clue what you are trying to say, GDR, sorry.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by GDR, posted 10-10-2014 5:43 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 176 of 2241 (738465)
10-10-2014 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jar
10-10-2014 6:04 PM


Re: 3 in one
I couldn't have faith in anything I didn't regard as reasonable, logical, rational, understandable in at least its basics, and above all true.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 10-10-2014 6:04 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 10-10-2014 8:53 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 177 of 2241 (738466)
10-10-2014 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by dwise1
10-10-2014 6:36 PM


Re: 3 in one
Those who formulated the Trinity weren't looking for it, why should they? What would they get out of picking and choosing scriptures to come up with such a difficult doctrine as the Trinity? They observed it in scripture and arrived at the only reasonable concept of what they found there by studying the verses in relation to each other.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by dwise1, posted 10-10-2014 6:36 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by dwise1, posted 10-10-2014 9:25 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 183 by dwise1, posted 10-10-2014 9:29 PM Faith has responded
 Message 184 by dwise1, posted 10-10-2014 9:34 PM Faith has responded
 Message 193 by dwise1, posted 10-10-2014 11:07 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31262
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 178 of 2241 (738468)
10-10-2014 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
10-10-2014 8:32 PM


Re: 3 in one
But can you present any argument that can make the Trinity concept look reasonable, logical, rational or understandable?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 8:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 8:56 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 179 of 2241 (738469)
10-10-2014 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jar
10-10-2014 8:53 PM


Re: 3 in one
Apparently not to you if you reject the Bible verses it's based on. C'est la vie.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 10-10-2014 8:53 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 10-10-2014 8:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31262
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 180 of 2241 (738470)
10-10-2014 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Faith
10-10-2014 8:56 PM


Re: 3 in one
I don't reject Bible verses; I just point out that the way people use them does not lead to something reasonable, logical understandable or rational.

Now would you like to try to present a reasonable, logical, rational and understandable explanation of the concept of Trinity?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 8:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019