|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 72 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Of course, this "proof" simply assumes that the name is meant literally and not symbolically. And that's a very big assumption. Indeed it relies on a particular reading of the name. If it is better rendered "God is our Righteousness" - and I see no reason why it should not - how can it be said to mean that the person bearing that name IS God ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Names with "God" in them, in one form or another, are fairly common in the Bible. Anything beginning or ending with "El", or beginning with "Je" or ending in "ja" or "jah" is likely to be an example (I'd be careful because we are dealing with transliterations here).
I think that if the Bible meant it to be clear that the Messiah was literally God it would say so clearly. As it is the Bible seems clear that the Messiah will be a restored monarch of the Davidic line, and by implication human. It seems to me that you need the idea of Jesus being both God and man to even make sense of the idea that the Messiah could be God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But you obviously didn't think of it when you touted your "proof".
quote: The mistake is yours. Do you really not understand that an intentionally veiled teaching isn't meant to be clear ?
quote: As you've admitted, these passages are NOT clear support for the Trinity.
quote: Well if your objective is to get people to believe that the Bible says what you say it does rather than what it actually says, then debate here will be pretty futile.
quote: Even if that is the case you still need to argue that it isn't a Theophoric name, especially in the light of the scriptures that imply that the Messiah will be a man. And really, you also need to explain why they chose that rendering and what it meant to them (Jacobean English is not identical to current usage and can easily lead you astray if you aren't careful).
quote: Err, even Christians agree that the Messiah is supposed to be of the line of David. Not that Christian interpretation is automatically better than Jewish - the Jewish interpretations are, after all, culturally closer to the OT texts, if nothing else.
quote: I don't intend to debate my personal beliefs here. But there's no agreement in the Bible on that issue.
quote: By which you mean that it is an idea that did not appear until centuries AFTER Jeremiah was written. If your argument depends on the assumption that Jeremiah intended to agree with your doctrine then you have more assumption than argument.
quote: Yawn. That's just an excuse to exalt your prejudices.
quote:I don't think that honestly trying to understand what the Bible says is anything that anyone should repent of. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And on what basis would it have been resolved ? By my understanding the underlying text gives you no basis for doing so.
quote: I said no such thing. Indeed, the point of the statement was that your argument assumed that it was clear when in fact it isn't.
quote: Of course all you've got is a circular argument based on your assumption that Jeremiah is talking about Jesus and Jesus is God. And the second assumption is absolutely inappropriate in this thread, for the simple reason that it begs the question. If you have any better reasons I'm willing to listen, but they need to be rational reasons.
quote: This discussion is about the OT. Assuming that it anticipates NT doctrines is a dubious basis for interpreting it. If we take Jeremiah straight then I have to say that your case rests solely on taking a rather questionable interpretation. I'd need more than that to say that you even had a decent argument, let alone a proof.
quote: That certainly isn't true, and since the Messianic prophecies still go unfulfilled Anna and Simeon would have been wrong to expect them to be fulfilled 2000 years ago.
quote: It's more of an assertion than an argument. And I would say that the evidence favours my diagnosis of the reality of it.
quote: The evidence of our past interaction - indeed of your own arguments - is very much against that. There's no evidence that you - or any other self-styled born-again has any special ability to interpret the Bible. Just the opposite in fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If you think that misrepresenting my position is going to convince me that I'm wrong, then you are sadly deluded.
quote: I'm discerning your pride and arrogance all too well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
If believing in your version of Biblical inerrancy, rather than the Catholic version, is so important where does the Bible say so ? Where does the Bible even claim to be entirely inerrant ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I can find plenty wrong with YOUR claim that it supports your ideas: First, it doesn't support your idea of inerrancy over the Catholic version. Second, it doesn't even specify what it means by "scripture". There's no way to tell if it includes any part of the NT. (If it was written by Paul - which I'm sure you'll insist on despite the evidence that suggests otherwise - then there is good reason to think that it did not !) And third. it doesn't specify that it's NECESSARY to believe it. Now, I have to say that a questionable interpretation of a vague verse in a letter of uncertain authorship is hardly a firm basis for an essential doctrine ! I think that a reasonable person could agree that there is room for Christians to take a different view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Wow! You must really hate the Protestant churches. Luther and Calvin certainly had their flaws but I think that they had rather better criticisms of the Catholic church than that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Fine. If you want to say that Protestantism was founded by crazy bigots then that's your decision. I think that it's a nasty insult to the Reformers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The idea that Ayn Rand is an authority on Catholicism is pretty dumb.
Have you checked out any of the quotes Robbins offers or are you just assuming that he has presented them accurately and in context ? And it must be said that the political power of the Roman Church continues to weaken. Claims of power are one thing. But if they are taking any steps to try to bring those claims to reality they aren't working very well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Perhaps you should drop the arrogance instead. Quite frankly for someone who claims "no authority" you do an awful lot of trying to dictate what people should believe - with no regard for the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Probably because they are the inventions of conspiracy theorists. And to return to Ayn Rand, arguing that she must have knowledge because you like what she says is a pretty clear example of begging the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Looks more like getting the existing religions to be friendlier to each other. Anything more is just wild speculation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024