Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 173 of 385 (696397)
04-15-2013 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
04-15-2013 4:59 PM


Re: The OT prophesied the Messiah to be Jehovah God
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 04-15-2013 4:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 04-16-2013 1:52 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 182 of 385 (696435)
04-16-2013 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
04-16-2013 1:52 AM


Re: The OT prophesied the Messiah to be Jehovah God
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 04-16-2013 1:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 04-16-2013 2:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 185 of 385 (696438)
04-16-2013 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
04-16-2013 2:17 AM


Re: The OT prophesied the Messiah to be Jehovah God
quote:
Christians DO study these things, and pastors DO preach with such things in mind.
But you obviously didn't think of it when you touted your "proof".
quote:
Big mistake. The Bible speaks in a veiled way about many things, requiring a spiritual understanding to get the message.
The mistake is yours. Do you really not understand that an intentionally veiled teaching isn't meant to be clear ?
quote:
I think the passages that underlie the Trinity are quite obvious myself, especially all in relation to each other, they build on each other, but if one is of the mind to deny the Bible or anything supernatural you CAN find ways to interpret them another way.
As you've admitted, these passages are NOT clear support for the Trinity.
quote:
This in fact is probably a good reason why debating the Bible is a lost cause.
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:
To my mind if the KJV translators, building I assume on Tyndale and all the other translations before them, chose to render the phrase "God our righteousness" their understanding should be considered the correct one.
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:
Pretty much what the Jews believe who haven't a clue about the depths of the OT.
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:
So, watch for it. When is this merely human monarch to appear as you understand it?
I don't intend to debate my personal beliefs here. But there's no agreement in the Bible on that issue.
quote:
Yes you do need that idea and that IS the orthodox understanding. Time-honored, affirmed by Bible believers for 2000 years (meaning believers in the FULL Bible of course, for all those who think they are Bible believers but only believe part of it)
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:
You must be born again. That's the bottom line. The unregenerate mind can't grasp these things.
Yawn. That's just an excuse to exalt your prejudices.
quote:
Repent and believe.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 04-16-2013 2:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 04-16-2013 5:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 190 of 385 (696446)
04-16-2013 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
04-16-2013 5:21 AM


Re: The OT prophesied the Messiah to be Jehovah God
quote:
I assume it to have been resolved in the translation so that your raising such issues is just the endless objections of an unbeliever.
And on what basis would it have been resolved ? By my understanding the underlying text gives you no basis for doing so.
quote:
You said you expect the Bible to be clear, I said oh but it isn't, it is veiled.
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:
Cleverly put. Of course the Trinity is based on what the Bible actually says, attested by millions down the centuries too, and that is what I am trying to show, and think I HAVE shown. I do think it's quite obvious really, and that it takes twisting to see it some other way. Which is what unbelievers do. There MIGHT be a few here who get the argument, despite what you say, but over all I agree with you that it is futile
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:
Not interested in that kind of debate. That's why I shouldn't even try. The scripture is self explanatory if you just take it straight and stop second guessing it and looking for ways the KJV translators got it wrong, and the New Testament reading of the Old is clear that Jesus is God, and theologians and believers, Creeds and Confessions down the centuries understood it that way, and having to argue it beyond these points is not interesting to me. Take it or leave it.
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:
The timing of the coming of the Messiah was clear enough from the OT, for those with an "ear to hear," and some of the Jews DID know He was due in Jesus' time. Anna and Simeon certainly
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 actually an argument for why you don't see the obviousness of the Trinity.
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:
You COULD consider that I'm right, and that unless you approach it believingly, and in fact are born again, you really CAN'T understand it no matter how much effort you put into it-- especially if you keep questioning it all, raising other translational possibilities instead of just taking it as written. THAT way will only get you into deep darkness.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 04-16-2013 5:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 04-16-2013 11:12 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 196 of 385 (696469)
04-16-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
04-16-2013 11:12 AM


Re: The OT prophesied the Messiah to be Jehovah God
quote:
Why, because technically it COULD be a mere name and not a literal prophecy of God incarnate therefore it MUST be that? No wonder you'll never get it.
If you think that misrepresenting my position is going to convince me that I'm wrong, then you are sadly deluded.
quote:
So much for your discernment.
I'm discerning your pride and arrogance all too well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 04-16-2013 11:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 248 of 385 (696747)
04-18-2013 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Faith
04-18-2013 2:12 PM


Re: The Fallacy of the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 04-18-2013 2:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 04-18-2013 3:32 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 266 of 385 (696778)
04-18-2013 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
04-18-2013 3:32 PM


Re: The Fallacy of the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy
quote:
I'm sure you can find something wrong with it of course instead of receiving it as information.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 04-18-2013 3:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 271 of 385 (696786)
04-18-2013 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
04-18-2013 3:55 PM


Re: The Fallacy of the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy
quote:
The ex-Catholic Protestant Reformers came to realize from their study of the Bible, independently of each other, that the Roman Church, specifically the papacy, is well described as the Harlot Church of the Book of Revelation and the Papacy is the Antichrist system.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 04-18-2013 3:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 04-18-2013 4:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 274 of 385 (696791)
04-18-2013 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
04-18-2013 4:34 PM


Re: The Fallacy of the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy
quote:
Oh they had lots of good criticisms, but this one rather sums them all up, and it's SUCH a neat match between the Roman Church and the scripture too.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 04-18-2013 4:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 04-18-2013 8:52 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 290 of 385 (696839)
04-19-2013 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
04-19-2013 1:21 AM


Re: Does Rome Aim at World Domination?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 04-19-2013 1:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 04-19-2013 2:56 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 04-19-2013 2:56 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 291 of 385 (696840)
04-19-2013 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
04-19-2013 1:25 AM


Re: The Fallacy of the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy
quote:
Perhaps I'll have to decide to stop posting on EvC or anywhere, stay home and just pray my heart out about all this stuff instead.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 04-19-2013 1:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 296 of 385 (696847)
04-19-2013 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
04-19-2013 2:56 AM


Re: Does Rome Aim at World Domination?
quote:
The steps are not out in the open.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 04-19-2013 2:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 301 of 385 (696859)
04-19-2013 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Faith
04-19-2013 9:03 AM


Re: Does Rome Aim at World Domination?
Looks more like getting the existing religions to be friendlier to each other. Anything more is just wild speculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Faith, posted 04-19-2013 9:03 AM Faith 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