Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Audie]

Audie, for years -- at least years, maybe decades -- Paul has given me the same creepy feeling that I get when I see people I know to be predators grooming someone.

I used to frequent a coffee shop, the most popular in town at the time, that everyone from the mayor and city council members to a tenth of the local homeless population frequented. It numbered among its clientele a handful of pornographers and other predators who preyed on the kids. There was even one guy who'd had fake business cards printed up announcing he was a talent scout for a Hollywood studio! You can imagine what he used them for. At any rate, you get to know the 'type'.

And Paul gives me the vibe of being the type.

I read the Bible when I was 15 or so, decided it was not for me.

Too much nonsense, among other things.

I decided "Paul" was a self serving faker.

The snake story being a transparent example.

If I read his accounts again now I expect I'd have less good regard.

 

[Sunstone]

Audie, for years -- at least years, maybe decades -- Paul has given me the same creepy feeling that I get when I see people I know to be predators grooming someone.

I used to frequent a coffee shop, the most popular in town at the time, that everyone from the mayor and city council members to a tenth of the local homeless population frequented. It numbered among its clientele a handful of pornographers and other predators who preyed on the kids. There was even one guy who'd had fake business cards printed up announcing he was a talent scout for a Hollywood studio! You can imagine what he used them for. At any rate, you get to know the 'type'.

And Paul gives me the vibe of being the type.

I don't know if anyone cal tell, but I'm a wee little bit down on Paul.

 

[Sunstone]

I read the Bible when I was 15 or so, decided it was not for me.

Too much nonsense, among other things.

I decided "Paul" was a self serving faker.

The snake story being a transparent example.

If I read his accounts again now I expect I'd have less good regard.

Interesting! The thing about Paul is that folks usually begin by assuming he is some kind of holy man, spokesperson for God, etc. Then they read him through that lens -- which quite distorts what they see, I think. If you begin by simply assuming he's no different than anyone else, he comes across very differently. Much more of a "faker", to use your term, than perhaps anything else.

My view is a bit more complex than I have just represented it, but it's along those lines.

 

[Audie]

Interesting! The thing about Paul is that folks usually begin by assuming he is some kind of holy man, spokesperson for God, etc. Then they read him through that lens -- which quite distorts what they see, I think. If you begin by simply assuming he's no different than anyone else, he comes across very differently. Much more of a "faker", to use your term, than perhaps anything else.

My view is a bit more complex than I have just represented it, but it's along those lines.

Perhaps you know the Thoreau quote about the farmer who might have been born a wolf, the better to see the fields in which he was called to labour.

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps you know the Thoreau quote about the farmer who might have been born a wolf, the better to see the fields in which he was called to labour.

Actually no. I don't recall that one. It's quite interesting -- and appropriate, Thanks!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The beginning of the Andes’ orogenies are in dispute with the fossils’ ages.
The chronologies are at odds.

That was my point.

So, now it’s “definitive” evidence, is it?
Tell me, besides observation & experimentation supporting a concept, what really is definitive evidence?

It does not matter when the Andes were begun to be formed. Once again, the mountain range did not rise simultaneously along its whole range. Your argument fails once one realizes this.

 

[74x12]

It's long interested me what passages like that are referring to. If they are referring to anything, that is. My suspicion is Paul's "Spirit" is his term -- or, more precisely, his interpretation -- of a mystical experience, or something closely akin to a mystical experience.

If so, the most curious thing about the passage for me is Paul's apparently ridiculous claim that the "natural man" cannot have a mystical experience. Utter BS. The world's largest database of first hand accounts of mystical experiences -- which is kept at the University of Pennsylvania -- is 22.2% comprised of accounts of mystical experiences had by atheists. Pauline nonsense aside, the fact is there's ample evidence the "natural man" can and does have mystical experiences.

Of course, one might argue that Paul was not referring to mystical experiences, but to me, that would make the whole of his claims nonsense, and not just part of them.

By the way, if you can't tell, one of the things I really detest about Paul -- as quite distinct from Jesus -- is he was a snob.

Just mystical experiences are easy ... a lot of people think asmr is a mystical experience. Or you can take some kind of hallucigenic drug or whatever. But, the difference (in Biblical terms) between the natural man and the spiritual man is whether you're born again or not. So you either have only the natural birth or you have the spiritual rebirth. The spiritual born again experience is actually more than just an experience. It makes you a new creation in your spirit. Obviously your body is not new but your spirit is. This is why Jesus says you can't even see the kingdom of God unless you're born again. (John 3:3) So if anyone wants to see the things of God they need to be born again. It's not just an experience; it is supposed to really changer you permanently. However with the "Easy believism" teaching of many churches now it is misunderstood. Many people think they're born again but aren't.

So I believe Paul was definitely talking about a specific Spirit rather than just any old "mystical experience". Because as you point out mystical experiences are common. In fact I don't think he's talking about only an experience. Jesus claims the "Spirit of truth" would be sent to lead and guide them into all truth. That is speaking of the holy Spirit that Jesus would send. (John 16:13) So the holy Spirit is not only given to make people born again or just experience something. It is more than that; it's sent to teach the truth of God. That is especially applicable when it comes to the scriptures. If we really believe scriptures are inspired by God; then it makes sense that we need the Spirit of God to understand them properly. Otherwise it's like a textbook without a teacher.

In Matthew 13:34 it claims Jesus only spoke to the people in parables. That is quite different than what many people; Christian or otherwise now teach about Jesus. They want people to think it's easy to understand what He's saying. But that doesn't really line up with what he says about it himself.

As for Paul being a snob; that's another debate. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I always took it to just be the sort of poisoning of the well often found in cults: "don't listen to outsiders; listen only to your leader. Any information that hasn't been vetted by me isn't to be trusted, because there's something horribly wrong with everyone not in our group."

That's exactly the opposite of my point actually. I don't mean everyone should blindly listen to me or anyone else. I advocate that the best way to know for yourself what God really wants is to be in touch with God for yourself. That way you can confirm or disregard the things that other people say. Following personalities is dangerous in my opinion because they may or may not be right. And even if they are right today that doesn't mean they will be right tomorrow because people change. People should follow God and listen to people that God tells them to listen to. Even then I never take everything anyone says. I always question it and seek to learn what they can teach me without accepting the things I clearly see as being incorrect. Because even when/if people are filled with the holy Spirit they're still just human and prone to mistakes.

So the best way to study the Bible is with prayer and careful attention to detail. Not just blindly accepting the teachings of others. Although their teachings can often be very beneficial you should still question it all.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It's long interested me what passages like that are referring to. If they are referring to anything, that is. My suspicion is Paul's "Spirit" is his term -- or, more precisely, his interpretation -- of a mystical experience, or something closely akin to a mystical experience.

If so, the most curious thing about the passage for me is Paul's apparently ridiculous claim that the "natural man" cannot have a mystical experience. Utter BS. The world's largest database of first hand accounts of mystical experiences -- which is kept at the University of Pennsylvania -- is 22.2% comprised of accounts of mystical experiences had by atheists. Pauline nonsense aside, the fact is there's ample evidence the "natural man" can and does have mystical experiences.

Of course, one might argue that Paul was not referring to mystical experiences, but to me, that would make the whole of his claims nonsense, and not just part of them.

By the way, if you can't tell, one of the things I really detest about Paul -- as quite distinct from Jesus -- is he was a snob.

Just my 2cents.....the Bible mentions two sources of “spiritual inspiration”. 1 Timothy 4:1
(Written by Paul, also, btw.)

 

[Sunstone]

Just my 2cents.....the Bible mentions two sources of “spiritual inspiration”. 1 Timothy 4:1
(Written by Paul, also, btw.)

Thanks! That's very interesting. The most charitable interpretation that I can think of to 'explain' the Bible's two sources of spiritual inspiration in the light of contemporary science is that one refers to a mystical experience, while the other perhaps refers to a psychotic break.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's exactly the opposite of my point actually. I don't mean everyone should blindly listen to me or anyone else. I advocate that the best way to know for yourself what God really wants is to be in touch with God for yourself. That way you can confirm or disregard the things that other people say.

My criticism was really for Paul, not you.

You have to agree that if someone were to want to be a cult leader, it would be very useful to them to get their followers to believe that any outsiders who criticize them can't be trusted (i.e. what Paul implies in the verse you quoted), right?

Following personalities is dangerous in my opinion because they may or may not be right. And even if they are right today that doesn't mean they will be right tomorrow because people change. People should follow God and listen to people that God tells them to listen to. Even then I never take everything anyone says. I always question it and seek to learn what they can teach me without accepting the things I clearly see as being incorrect. Because even when/if people are filled with the holy Spirit they're still just human and prone to mistakes.

So the best way to study the Bible is with prayer and careful attention to detail. Not just blindly accepting the teachings of others. Although their teachings can often be very beneficial you should still question it all.

If you were to get guidance directly from God, why would you need to study the Bible?

 

[Sunstone]

If you were to get guidance directly from God, why would you need to study the Bible?

Unlike the New Testament, the Bhagavad Gita makes precisely that point where it states (I'm paraphrasing) that a person who has experienced enlightenment (via a mystical experience or series of mystical experiences) has no more need of holy scriptures and gurus than a village sitting besides a river has need of digging wells for water.

 

[74x12]

My criticism was really for Paul, not you.

You have to agree that if someone were to want to be a cult leader, it would be very useful to them to get their followers to believe that any outsiders who criticize them can't be trusted (i.e. what Paul implies in the verse you quoted), right?

I believe Paul was talking to people who also had the Spirit. Like in 2 Cor. 13:5 Paul says to examine yourselves because you have the Spirit(talking to those with the Spirit). So, Paul is saying if they listen to the Spirit of God then they'll already know what God wants from them. And that's all we really need.

If you were to get guidance directly from God, why would you need to study the Bible?

Because it's a lot easier to learn with the Bible. God still uses the scriptures to teach us; but that doesn't mean you could not be saved without them. For example we have to take into account illiterate people. So of course not everyone has to read the Bible. But it's very useful to learn more about God and what God wants from us. So if people can read the Bible then they should. However, my point is that they should read it carefully with the guidance of the Spirit. Because if they read without understanding it then Jesus says the wicked one comes and takes the seed out of their heart before it can grow. (Matthew 13:19)

But what will the Bible tell people to do if they do understand it?

To walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16)
To worship in Spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24)

So that is what it's really all about or you could say that's how it all starts.

 

[Audie]

Walk in the spirit.

That is nonsense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe Paul was talking to people who also had the Spirit. Like in 2 Cor. 13:5 Paul says to examine yourselves because you have the Spirit(talking to those with the Spirit). So, Paul is saying if they listen to the Spirit of God then they'll already know what God wants from them. And that's all we really need.

You get that out of the passage you quoted? I don't. It's a warning about "the natural man."

I think there's room for discussion about what motivated Paul to give that warning, but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that it's not a warning at all.

Because it's a lot easier to learn with the Bible.

Why would it be easier to learn by reading the Bible than by listening to the direct guidance of the spirit of God?

God still uses the scriptures to teach us; but that doesn't mean you could not be saved without them. For example we have to take into account illiterate people. So of course not everyone has to read the Bible. But it's very useful to learn more about God and what God wants from us. So if people can read the Bible then they should.

From what I understand, the Biblical canon was originally intended as, roughly, the collection of things that were good for reading aloud in church.

However, my point is that they should read it carefully with the guidance of the Spirit. Because if they read without understanding it then Jesus says the wicked one comes and takes the seed out of their heart before it can grow. (Matthew 13:19)

So atheists like me, say, shouldn't read the Bible?

You started this thread - to an audience of many beliefs - with a Bible verse. Why would you do that if you really thought that you were inviting "the wicked one" to "take the seed out of our hearts?"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just my 2cents.....the Bible mentions two sources of “spiritual inspiration”. 1 Timothy 4:1
(Written by Paul, also, btw.)

From Wikipedia: First Epistle to Timothy ...

The actual author of First Timothy has been traditionally identified as the Apostle Paul. He is named as the author of the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but rather are unattributable Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd centuries.[1] Most scholars now affirm this view.[2][3]
​

btw

 

[Muffled]

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I believe there are plenty of things in the Bible that are not of the Spirit of God and are easily understood.

 

[Muffled]

Which basically means only the Messiah can truly reveal the scriptures (Isaiah 29:18).

In my opinion.

I believe that only works if the Messiah is God. God is omniscient after all.

 

[Muffled]

And each Mr UNatural gets a different reading.
Funny god, that one.

I believe one must have the gift of discernment to perceive who has spiritual guidance and who does not.

 

[Audie]

I believe one must have the gift of discernment to perceive who has spiritual guidance and who does not.

Its what your faith told you to believe.

It hss, btw, nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

[Muffled]

Its what your faith told you to believe.

It hss, btw, nothing to do with what I wrote.

I believe that is what the scripture teaches.

I believed you were saying that different interpretations could not have come from the same God and I agree which is why I provided the reason why they don't come from the dame God.