• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Man Unleashes Profanity-Filled Tirade Against Peaceful Satanists in MN Park"

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
Your first statement, yes. It all hinges on the truth about God. My point was that the Bible does not allow any other way to be redeemed then that which it describes. (1 Tim. 2:5) I, as a believer, cannot toss out of the Bible what I don't like and just believe the things I do like. Which is why Bible study for the believer is never ending.

I disagree with your second statement. It is not an assumption. If the Jesus one follows is a Gandhi type, then he is not the Jesus of the Bible. You may not like the Jesus of the Bible but He is not a Gandhi type.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...
Of course you toss things out of the Bible. I am assuming that you are not a wanted psychopath.

By the way, you should find a way to properly test your beliefs. Don't set up a fake echo chamber. In a real test your idea has to have a reasonable chance to fail if it is wrong. Most fundamentalists are too afraid to test their faith. Probably because deep down they know that they are wrong. On the other hand a scientist wants to test his ideas. If he is wrong he wants to know it. Or do you want to keep your beliefs even if they are wrong?
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
(Luke 24:27) "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

(Luke 24:44) Jesus said, "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

No problem with the context. John is clear in what he said. Jesus is clear in what He said. The whole Scripture, at this time the Old Testament, is about Jesus Christ.

Concerning the Bible you have shown what you believe and what you know, or rather, what you don't believe and what you don't know.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...
If you want to stumble around in the dark, whacking your intellectual shins on the exegetical furniture, that’s your bidness. I’m just trying to give you a flashlight.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
The word 'doctrine' is not outdated. It speaks to teaching and instruction. Whether you want to say 'teaching' or 'doctrine' doesn't matter. Jesus had a 'doctrine' that he taught.

Doctrine can speak to the Church having it's beliefs. It can speak to an individual having his beliefs. Jesus doctrine was from the Father. And Jesus doctrine was from the Old Testament as I have showed you.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...
Jesus’ teaching was from God, not the OT.

According to what you posted.


You’re really all over the place with this stuff, aren’t you?
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
Jesus’ teaching was from God, not the OT.

According to what you posted.


You’re really all over the place with this stuff, aren’t you?
Click to expand...

(Matt. 4:4,7,10) "It is written"

(Matt. 19:4-5) "Have ye not read...." A reference to (Genesis)

(Matt. 8:4) "...and offer the gift that Moses commanded...." A reference to (Lev. 14:2)

(John 3:10) "...Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things." The things here are Jesus doctrine. Nicodemus should have known them as they came from the Old Testament. etc. etc. etc.

Point being, Jesus doctrine came from God, and the Old Testament is the Word of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
(Matt. 4:4,7,10) "It is written"

(Matt. 19:4-5) "Have ye not read...." A reference to (Genesis)

(Matt. 8:4) "...and offer the gift that Moses commanded...." A reference to (Lev. 14:2)

(John 3:10) "...Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things." The things here are Jesus doctrine. Nicodemus should have known them as they came from the Old Testament. etc. etc. etc.

Point being, Jesus doctrine came from God, and the Old Testament is the Word of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...
I disagree.
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf said:
The existence of god itself is a unprovable "if."

When you say "if the Jesus you follow," I follow no Jesus.
Click to expand...

You follow no Jesus...that is fine. My point was that the second statement you made about the 'if' was not an assumption on my part.

If you, or anyone, follow a Gandhi type Jesus, he is not Jesus.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Sand Dancer

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
My point was that the Bible is not 'biblical literature'. It is the Word of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...

And being written in a certain location in a certain time in history, it's good to know the context before trying to understand what it says. If you don't use context, you can make it mean anything you want.
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Thirza Fallen said:
And being written in a certain location in a certain time in history, it's good to know the context before trying to understand what it says. If you don't use context, you can make it mean anything you want.
Click to expand...

Actually not. Context is important as to the subject being discussed in the Bible. Where and when the Books of the Bible were written is good to know but does not affect the interpretation of the Bible. Some books you know the where and when, but some you don't. Some, you don't even know the human writer.

So, I have found that those who want to make the 'historical context' the key to interpretation, are those who want to change the meaning found in the Bible. My opinion. In other words it is they who want to make it mean anything they want to and they will use 'historical context' to do it. They say, "Yes the Bible says this but we know it really doesn't mean that because of 'historical context" (Gen. 3:1) "...yea hath God said...."

Because the Holy Spirit is the Author of the Bible, then the historical context does not change the interpretation of the Bible. It is good to know. It can help, if known, the purpose of the writing of the book or letter. But all that is usually found within the writing itself. Man was writing an individual book or letter. The Holy Spirit was adding another chapter to His Book, The Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf said:
I know what is based on. But it's unprovable. That's why it's called "faith" and "belief."
Click to expand...

Faith and belief are not the point here. That it is not provable is not the point here. Whether you believe it or not is not the point here.

The point is, Jesus as described in the Bible is not like a Gahndi.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Sand Dancer

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
Actually not. Context is important as to the subject being discussed in the Bible. Where and when the Books of the Bible were written is good to know but does not affect the interpretation of the Bible. Some books you know the where and when, but some you don't. Some, you don't even know the human writer.

So, I have found that those who want to make the 'historical context' the key to interpretation, are those who want to change the meaning found in the Bible. My opinion. In other words it is they who want to make it mean anything they want to and they will use 'historical context' to do it. They say, "Yes the Bible says this but we know it really doesn't mean that because of 'historical context" (Gen. 3:1) "...yea hath God said...."

Because the Holy Spirit is the Author of the Bible, then the historical context does not change the interpretation of the Bible. It is good to know. It can help, if known, the purpose of the writing of the book or letter. But all that is usually found within the writing itself. Man was writing an individual book or letter. The Holy Spirit was adding another chapter to His Book, The Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...

Where and when affects current knowledge and religious trends, which so affect the interpretation of the Bible. The meaning has been changed many times, as well as definitions and translations. Hebrew and other local languages were without vowels, so translation is not exact. Holy spirit should have better education than the locals, but I guess not.
 
Last edited:
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Thirza Fallen said:
Where and when affects current knowledge and religious trends, which so affect the interpretation of the Bible. The meaning has been changed many times, as well as definitions and translations. Hebrew and other local languages were without vowels, so translation is not exact. Holy spirit should have better education than the locals, but I guess not.
Click to expand...

Where and when doesn't affect the Holy Spirit's knowledge.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
(Matt. 4:4,7,10) "It is written"

(Matt. 19:4-5) "Have ye not read...." A reference to (Genesis)

(Matt. 8:4) "...and offer the gift that Moses commanded...." A reference to (Lev. 14:2)

(John 3:10) "...Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things." The things here are Jesus doctrine. Nicodemus should have known them as they came from the Old Testament. etc. etc. etc.

Point being, Jesus doctrine came from God, and the Old Testament is the Word of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...
Greetings.
We go by what Jesus says, [he is the "high priest". That takes precedence over other interpretations of the Bible. What that means is, your interpretation of the Old Testament, religiously, should match what Jesus says. Many churches don't do this, and they take 'different interpretation', 》》then Jesus's religion, and they try to mix it like a salad. Instead of gping by the religious precepts that are from Jesus.

Is there interpretation? Yes, however, that is why we don't interpret the "basics".
Matthew 22:37
John 10:30
1 Corinthians 8:6
2 Corinthians 6:18
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top