God-Inspired Scripture

[metis]

I get the feeling you're trying to put words into my mouth. Do you have any specific passage of scripture in mind?

It was not a specific passage I was referring to but an overview in general dealing with how Aquinas taught the Tanakh should be dealt with as a Christian.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My claim is based on the belief that the Holy Spirit has inspired the writing of the holy scriptures. Prove that the scriptures can 'be broken' and I will happily seek Truth elsewhere.

I understand that. It is also a personal claim. I guess another way to put it is, how is the scripture an authority based on what everyone on this planet knows exist in order to test its claim? (Taking yourself out of this, for a minute)

For example, my ancestors exist. I know they do because they have helped me, saved me, and they take care of me. The Spirits exist or I wouldn't even be alive, just ashes. We need the Spirits of all nature for us to survive within "her".
​

I can prove this true from my perspective; and, I can objectively too. (If you like, but really not the point)

However, the holy spirit is not universal as the energy that governs/moves our body and mind. We all know about energy in different names et cetera. We all know we have physical ancestors that are our family. We know.

Point: The Holy Spirit is not general knowledge. It's based on personal conviction; so, it cannot be a universal basis for proving the authenticity of the Bible. Question: Is there another way to prove the Bible is from god without referring to your personal conviction of the holy spirit, miracles that happen in many religions, and salvation that every other religion has in their own rights and words to express it?​

Let it be said, there are many truths in this world. They can be found in religious, moral and scientific spheres. But Truth is quite another thing. Truth with a big 'T' has to be true for all mankind, and that is the claim that Jesus made about himself. 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life'.

T-ruth isn't Jesus. (Thats one of many truths) That is a personal conviction. Truth is universal. It should apply to everyone; and to those who are aware of it, they will say yes even if they disagree.

For example, not everyone likes math and no one would deny the T-ruth two and two is four.

There are many truths:

2 + ___ is 4 (Muslim)

___ + 2 is 4 (Pagan)

4 - ___ = 2 (Buddhism)

and so on.

The universal truth is 2 + 2 is 4 (Life)

These equations all lead to universal truth in their own right. However, the confliction is not the answer, but people are arguing over who wrote the problem, who put in the numbers, which number is inspired, should there be numbers, the numbers/answers should come from the heart not man. The numbers should come from man (say people of the bible), not the heart. And so forth.

Saying scripture is authentic by its claim and your conviction of the Holy Spirit is like saying

There are many truths: ___ + ____ = _____ (Fill in the blank with any equation/truth its right)

However, in your (and many christians) view is

Truth: 2 + ____ = _____

You have the 2 (the bible)

You have your goal (+)

However, you depend on faith for the first line to define the second.

My point: Can you see how that doesn't make sense to claim the universal truth (2 and 2 is 4 [in bold])? You would have to trust a mathematician (although there are many) that the numbers he uses is correct. However, for years and years, people have tried to answer the nature of life (universal truth). No Christian (Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, etc) has a monopoly on it. We go by personal conviction. It may not be a fact to others but it is to those who believe it. It is alright that our personal convictions are not universal facts. That does not make it less worthy nor imperfect. The Bible isn't meant to be a book of facts.​

Your personal conviction that it does does not hold barring on what method (if there is any) to get to this universal truth. To many people, there are no numbers at all yet there is still a universal truth. They plug in their own numbers others make their own equation and disregard this one.

I hope you are following my analogy?

My point: Can you see that the Holy Spirit is a personal conviction, not something that can be used outside the Bible to authenticate it spiritually? and even less logical, historically as well?

 

[Redemptionsong]

The majority of those do nothing but parrot what Tanakh says.

And how exactly does a NEWER book, parroting an OLDER book, that Jesus whom was Jewish - as a teacher taught, - mean, "the New Testament is a natural continuation of God's revelation is the fulfilment of past scripture and the completion of divine purpose" ???

According to the Jews, whose book Tanakh is, - Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies for their Messiah.

And the Isaiah verses have been misunderstood/mistranslated by others after Jesus's death. No "virgin" birth there, etc.

I agree, there are many passages in the New Testament that 'parrot' what the Tanach says. This is because there is compatibility between the two Testaments. Apart from direct quotations, there are many types and illustrations of the coming Messiah - as in Noah, Isaac, Joseph, David, Joshua, Melchisedek, Elijah etc etc.

As I suggested earlier, the deeper you go the more astonishing the testimony to Christ.

Let's look at the passages from Isaiah and see what they say. It's time we looked at some specific examples and evidence! Which passages do you want to look at?

 

[blue taylor]

Your answer assumes facts that are not in evidence.

Which facts are not in evidence?

 

[Riverwolf]

I suggest you look into this a bit more closely. The Hindu scriptures are not 'one scripture', with a common or consistent theme.

I know plenty of Hindus who would very much beg to differ, there.

 

[Riverwolf]

As already stated, God supplies the evidence in the form of a consistent prophecy. My evidence for God is His Word.

That's just circular logic. "I believe X because the X says so." Insert anything you want into "X", and it's equally valid.

As for those "prophecies", most of them are either self-fulfilling, or could easily have been written after the fact.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Point: The Holy Spirit is not general knowledge. It's based on personal conviction; so, it cannot be a universal basis for proving the authenticity of the Bible. Question: Is there another way to prove the Bible is from god without referring to your personal conviction of the holy spirit, miracles that happen in many religions, and salvation that every other religion has in their own rights and words to express it?

The God of the Bible is both transcendent and immanent. He is, as the scriptures say, 'above all, and through all, and in you all.' (Speaking to the Ephesian Church) This means that God is not known only in a subjective manner. He is also known objectively as the universal Truth. Furthermore, as a universal unlike all other universals, God is able to supply us with a standard of truth that is worthy of belief. Yet I can, and do, know him personally as well.

The one premise that has to be accepted before all else is Genesis 1:1, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'. I do accept this because it makes greater sense than all the alternatives. For something to come from nothing is illogical, but for something to come from God is totally logical. God is spirit and, being one God, is omnipresent. God creates because his nature is good.

 

[Redemptionsong]

My point: Can you see how that doesn't make sense to claim the universal truth (2 and 2 is 4 [in bold])? You would have to trust a mathematician (although there are many) that the numbers he uses is correct. However, for years and years, people have tried to answer the nature of life (universal truth). No Christian (Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, etc) has a monopoly on it. We go by personal conviction. It may not be a fact to others but it is to those who believe it. It is alright that our personal convictions are not universal facts. That does not make it less worthy nor imperfect. The Bible isn't meant to be a book of facts.

Nowhere do I say that the Bible is a book of facts, but I am happy to acknowledge that there are facts in it.

Faith and reason are very much an issue in the pursuit of truth. Mankind have been blessed with the power of reason, and they use natural reason to explore the truths of the universe. But natural reason does not provide illumination of the spiritual realm. Faith is the individual response to God's revelation. Without faith we have no entrance into the mind of God. As it says in 1 Corinthians 2:15,16:, 'But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.'

 

[Redemptionsong]

That's just circular logic. "I believe X because the X says so." Insert anything you want into "X", and it's equally valid.

As for those "prophecies", most of them are either self-fulfilling, or could easily have been written after the fact.

We'll let the Hindus speak for themselves.

As for circular logic, I would argue that this must be perfect logic. If the logic is universal (from God) then you have no outlet - you have oneness and Truth.

Do you have a particular prophecy in mind?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The God of the Bible is both transcendent and immanent. He is, as the scriptures say, 'above all, and through all, and in you all.' (Speaking to the Ephesian Church) This means that God is not known only in a subjective manner. He is also known objectively as the universal Truth. Furthermore, as a universal unlike all other universals, God is able to supply us with a standard of truth that is worthy of belief. Yet I can, and do, know him personally as well.

The one premise that has to be accepted before all else is Genesis 1:1, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'. I do accept this because it makes greater sense than all the alternatives. For something to come from nothing is illogical, but for something to come from God is totally logical. God is spirit and, being one God, is omnipresent. God creates because his nature is good.

I honestly, and no offense, don't think you can understand that objectivity does not involve god.

If you can follow my short example with the math.

1. one and one will always equal two. It is universal and it is a fact. One thing on either side put together doubles.

a. There is no cultural influence that makes this wrong or different.
b. There is no misconceptions and ways to see this problem to make it different than how another person sees it (all cultures understand this)
c. There does not need to be a math specialist to confirm or even quote that one and one is two. It is a fact outside of our existence.

THAT is a universal fact.

What you are describing is a subjective fact.

1. Your claim is "God exists and sent the Holy Spirit to authenticate the Bible as True" (Paraphrasing)

a. There is cultural influence that can make this statement wrong or metaphorical.
b. There are misconceptions and different ways (say biblical translations and denominations) that cause one person to see X is true while the other claims Y is true
c. There does need to be a specialist (a creator) in order for your claim to be your fact.

Objective statements and things of that nature are the former.
Subjective statements and things of that nature are the latter.

One is a fact.
The other is an opinion/belief.

There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

My point in our conversation is:

Since there is cultural influence, misconceptions that create differing views, and a need for a source, then it is subjective. It is a fact based on a person's personal conviction.

We are talking about objectivity: The latter.

Can you provide a basis to which the Bible is an authority and universal fact (above) outside of

1. Personal conviction
2. Cultural influence
3. Differing views
4. Needing a source

And by what support can you use? It can't be

1. The Bible (it claims itself like the guilty claiming himself innocent without jury)
2. The Holy Spirit (That is a personal conviction. It is not universal. Not everyone even knows what a Holy Spirit is)
3. God (It is not universal. A lot of cultures do not even believe in a creator more less the abrahamic one)
4. Your personal conviction (Since convictions and our personal beliefs are not universal. That's like claiming my family is someone else's family)

There is nothing wrong with a non-objective faith.

Presenting it as a fact is illogical unless you say you are speaking from your perspective (truth) not an objective Truth.



Actually, this is the best I can explain it. Hopefully it is short; but, please read it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nowhere do I say that the Bible is a book of facts, but I am happy to acknowledge that there are facts in it.

Faith and reason are very much an issue in the pursuit of truth. Mankind have been blessed with the power of reason, and they use natural reason to explore the truths of the universe. But natural reason does not provide illumination of the spiritual realm. Faith is the individual response to God's revelation. Without faith we have no entrance into the mind of God. As it says in 1 Corinthians 2:15,16:, 'But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.'

One question. Why would you believe in a false book?

If, to you, it is not a book of facts, its a lie.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Redemptionsong

This will be short. The "Circular logic" is one of the biggest points I am getting.

1. I commit a crime.
2. There is no evidence supporting this fact
3. I go to court. The judge ask me if I want to plead innocent or guilty

In US Law, the guilty can claim he is guilty for a lesser charge.

4. I say I am innocent.

5. You are part of the jury.

In order to be charged guilty, I think 12 people must come to a consensus that I am.
They must weigh the evidence (if there is any)
They must weigh what both the prosecutor (the one charging the person guilty) and the defender (the one defending the person charged) said.

6. The evidence the jury has to decide is from

a. What is at the scene of the crime
b. Associations the charged person had
c. The relationship between the two people
d. What evidence not related to the crime that can give perspective on how the charged should be convicted
e. Testimonies from people who been there, people the charged knew, people he didnt know, businesses, and so forth.

They have to consider it all.

7. THEN their decision determines what he is convicted of and the consequence.

Circular logic is when the person charged with the crime says: "I am innocent because there I see there is no evidence convicting me."

Let's compare this to Christianity and scripture authority

1. You say the Bible has authority because of the Holy Spirit
2. There is no evidence supporting this claim. (Remember. We are finding evidence from the Holy Spirit not historical evidence and subjective conclusions written by people with whom anyone else can do likewise)
3. You come here to RF. You tell me it is true, that the Bible's authority is from the Holy Spirit
4. Why? Because I said it is true (circular logic)
5. I am part of the jury
6. I have to come to a consensus with other people that what you said is based on the evidence (a-e) above
7. That decision (not your claim) determines whether you are telling the truth or not

So far no Christian has ever gave me (and the rest of the jury) evidence that does not say "I am right because I say so".

Once you find that, we have a place to start. Until then, I honestly feel you and many will always say "because it came from god, it is true" while, again, that is not objective. That is a personal conviction.

 

[Sapiens]

As already stated, God supplies the evidence in the form of a consistent prophecy. My evidence for God is His Word.

All you have to do is prove the Bible to be a lie and I'll be satisfied that God does not exist.

That's easy ... how many "lies" must I document?

 

[Sapiens]

Which facts are not in evidence?

It is rather presumptuous to ascribe actions and motivations to a construct that you cannot demonstrate exists.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Presenting it as a fact is illogical unless you say you are speaking from your perspective (truth) not an objective Truth.

In philosophy classes I was taught that there are two main methods of reasoning. One is called induction, and the other is called deduction. Inductive reasoning involves starting with particulars ('some') and working towards a universal conclusion ('all'). The conclusion reached can only ever be a probability, unless we have evidence that every possibility has been taken into account. The alternative method of reasoning involves deduction. According to this method you begin with a universal and work to a conclusion that is a proof. Mathematics allows this form of reasoning because it creates artificial universals.

I am saying that both deductive (objective) and inductive (subjective) reasoning can be applied to the Bible. God is the universal spirit. He can make himself known. Like a deductive argument God can descend to earth and make himself known to human beings. He can also dwell within a man, giving a man a knowledge that is not subjective. This is described in the Bible as the indwelling Holy Spirit, or Comforter. This spirit can reside in 1000 people at one time. This means it is no longer a purely subjective experience. It's a shared experience, and one that allows the Church to call itself the Body of Christ on earth.

So when I talk to another believer, born-again of God's spirit, they should understand what it means to experience the 'fruits of the spirit' (Galatians 5:22). This makes my subjective experience a shared experience.

 

[Redemptionsong]

One question. Why would you believe in a false book?

If, to you, it is not a book of facts, its a lie.

That all depends on how you define 'a fact'.

 

[McBell]

That all depends on how you define 'a fact'.

How do you define "fact"?

 

[McBell]

This means it is no longer a purely subjective experience. It's a shared experience, and one that allows the Church to call itself the Body of Christ on earth.

It is still a subjective experience.
It is now a SHARED subjective experience.

Being shared does not make it objective.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It is rather presumptuous to ascribe actions and motivations to a construct that you cannot demonstrate exists.

God demonstrates his own existence. He does so through his Word.

As stated in another post, there is a first underlying premise that I accept as true and which leads me to receive God's Word by faith. It's the statement made in Genesis 1:1, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' How does God create? He does so through his Word (verse 3).

You, Sapiens, seem to think that to accept God as the creator is foolishness. I see only two alternatives. Either our universe has existed eternally (which science denies), or there was a beginning. If there was a beginning, it makes no logical sense to say that it came from nothing. Nothing is not a concept, and nothing comes from nothing. Yet from an eternal spirit it is possible to have a creation, just as an embryo is created within a mother. To me, creation is not a nonsense. It explains our place in the universe.

I wonder at your world. Is it an accidental world without meaning or purpose? Are you fighting for survival without a care for your neighbour?

 

[McBell]

As stated in another post, there is a first underlying premise that I accept as true and which leads me to receive God's Word by faith. It's the statement made in Genesis 1:1, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' How does God create? He does so through his Word (verse 3).

Yes,
You have to believe in order to believe.
That is fine for the choir, but it does nothing for those outside the choir.

I see only two alternatives. Either our universe has existed eternally (which science denies), or there was a beginning. If there was a beginning, it makes no logical sense to say that it came from nothing. Nothing is not a concept, and nothing comes from nothing. Yet from an eternal spirit it is possible to have a creation, just as an embryo is created within a mother. To me, creation is not a nonsense. It explains our place in the universe.

Creation does not "explain" anything.
It is nothing more than saying "GodDidIt".

Now I understand that there are millions of people who are fine with intellectually dishonest answer.
But it still does not answer anything.

I wonder at your world. Is it an accidental world without meaning or purpose? Are you blindly fighting for survival without a care for your neighbour?

The fact that you are reliant upon an assumed deity in order to have meaning and purpose in your life does not mean any one else shares your dependency.

Again, it works fine for the choir, not so much for those not in your choir.