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

[3rdAngel]

No, when a person is rude and acts like a jerk others will simply not help him. Look at how many people put you on ignore. It is not because they could not refute your claims. Think about it. Change your attitude and people will help you. I have given you far more than you merit.

And you bore false witness against your neighbor again. If someone that I respected asked me I would gladly have dug it up. You want others to do your homework for you and you do not acknowledge it. That will not earn you any friends at a forum.

Then perhaps you should not do it and be respectful and nice to others. More Ad homs I see which is simply a tactic by those who do not want to address post content. Let me know when you wish to have a discussion and we will continue

 

[3rdAngel]

What ad homs? I don't think that you understand that term either. Observations are not ad homs. Unlike you where you quoted sources that you did not understand (your inability to understand the concept of "eyewitness" is truly amazing) I have supported my claims. Now you may disagree with them, but due to an your inability to understand simple concepts, such as "eyewitness" you cannot refute them.

Perhaps if you understood what "hearsay" is. Its meaning comes directly from its etymology. A person heard someone say something. Hearsay is not eyewitness evidence. It is not allowed in court. If you check out your sources carefully you will see that you can only claim that they are hearsay at best.

Read your posts. You even continue in the very post you are asking questions in and you say I do not understand what ad homs are? So what your really trying to argue now in this post is that History is hearsay despite it having methodologies for colaborating evidence of eye witness events so they are not hear say.

You were provided three different accounts from the JEWS, ROMANS and CHRISTIANS all fighting with each other and all agreeing to eyewitness events to the life of JESUS and this is not enough for you despite vitually every scholar agreeing to this a proof.

I only ask you what are you looking for that proves JESUS existed. You said to me that you believe JESUS does exist. Then I asked you why do you believe JESUS existed or how do you know JESUS existed? ........ silence...

Your amazing. Perhaps you should discuss your opinions with virtually every scholar and historian that disagrees with you .

Here is what you do not seem to understand, If the person writing the account is not talking to someone that saw the account he does not have eyewitness evidence.

Historian Flavius Josephus wrote one of the earliest non-biblical accounts of Jesus. (Source History linked)

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.

Thought to have been born a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus around 37 A.D., Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D. Although Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, “he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus,” Mykytiuk says.

In one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” While few scholars doubt the short account’s authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus’s lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage but did not insert it wholesale into the text.

..............

WOOPS! This only shows that you are not reading what has been sent to you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It hasn't worked yet. I'm ready for another approach. How about a compassion and reason-based approach? If we could get everybody on board there, I think we'd go further than religions have allowed.

I see that is inclusive of my Faith, so we welcome anyone else who is on that path to also help build strong loving virtuous communities, they do not have to be part of the Faith I have embraced.

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

AFAIK, revelation isn’t particularly made to individuals. Prophets prophesied to the nation of Israel. The “official” party line is that revelation comes through the church, i.e., the ekklesia, the body of Christ. We in the post-modern Western world don’t understand this particular sitz im leben.

And those of us on the outside of religious belief are flabbergasted by it!

Think, just think for a tiny moment about the absolute, inconceivable immensity and complexity of the cosmos and all within it -- supposed to be the creation of God. Within the cosmos -- like it or not -- this earth and everything in and on it amounts to almost literally nothing. So a person who accepts that God created everything, and sustains everything, implicitly grants God truly unfathomable abilities.

And then supposes, for some reason they can't explain, that this same God has a communication problem. That this same God can only get His important messages out through a most unreliable (as history comprehensively documents) mechanism. The sheer numbers of religions on earth, and the deadly schisms within each and every one of them, could not be clearer proof that the method is an utter failure, and God seems incapable of doing anything about it. (And I don't mean taking away free will -- I mean simply making what is desired by God completely clear to each and every one of us, and then letting us each decide what to do about it.)

This is simply incomprehensible

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then perhaps you should not do it and be respectful and nice to others. More Ad homs I see which is simply a tactic by those who do not want to address post content. Let me know when you wish to have a discussion and we will continue

I have been more than courteous to you and you once again are using a term improperly.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nonsense! If there are historical records then there are eyewitnesses. The fact that both the biblical records and sources outside of the biblical record testify to this fact is evidence of eye witness accounts. The information provided in posts # 342 linked and post # 348 linked proves you are in error here. You do know right that if there was no eyewitnesses to historical events there would be no historical records right?

Here's the problem with what you wrote:

1. If any described biblical event actually happened, then yes, there very likely were eyewitnesses
2. If we have an uncontested report directly from such an eyewitness, then that surely carries a great deal of weight (although of course, it's always possible that even an eyewitness can err -- or give an unreliable account for reasons we can't know)
3. But if all we have is the accounts -- who knows how many iterations away -- of what some listener heard some other listener say about what a presumed eyewitness said, then sorry, we have no eyewitness
4. And not only that, we have several opportunities for people with their own agendas to alter the stories at will

As you can surely see, this is pretty unreliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read your posts. You even continue in the very post you are asking questions in and you say I do not understand what ad homs are? So what your really trying to argue now in this post is that History is hearsay despite it having methodologies for colaborating evidence of eye witness events so they are not hear say.

You were provided three different accounts from the JEWS, ROMANS and CHRISTIANS all fighting with each other and all agreeing to eyewitness events to the life of JESUS and this is not enough for you despite vitually every scholar agreeing to this a proof.

I only ask you what are you looking for that proves JESUS existed. You said to me that you believe JESUS does exist. Then I asked you why do you believe JESUS existed or how do you know JESUS existed? ........ silence...

Your amazing. Perhaps you should discuss your opinions with virtually every scholar and historian that disagrees with you .



Historian Flavius Josephus wrote one of the earliest non-biblical accounts of Jesus. (Source History linked)

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.

Thought to have been born a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus around 37 A.D., Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D. Although Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, “he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus,” Mykytiuk says.

In one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” While few scholars doubt the short account’s authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus’s lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage but did not insert it wholesale into the text.

..............

WOOPS! This only shows that you are not reading what has been sent to you.

You misunderstood your source. It points out that the clearest writing of Josephus about Jesus was fake, and that Josephus may have known people that knew Jesus none of his works are examples of eyewitness evidence. You do not seem to understand that he would have had to question people thay knew him and wrote down what they said. He did not do this. He made a general statement for his existence. That is not eyewitness evidence. All he gave you was hearsay. Now I will grant that Josephus's work is evidence for the historical Jesus, whom I never denied. It is not evidence for your magical Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the problem with what you wrote:

1. If any described biblical event actually happened, then yes, there very likely were eyewitnesses
2. If we have an uncontested report directly from such an eyewitness, then that surely carries a great deal of weight (although of course, it's always possible that even an eyewitness can err -- or give an unreliable account for reasons we can't know)
3. But if all we have is the accounts -- who knows how many iterations away -- of what some listener heard some other listener say about what a presumed eyewitness said, then sorry, we have no eyewitness
4. And not only that, we have several opportunities for people with their own agendas to alter the stories at will

As you can surely see, this is pretty unreliable.

I don't think he will allow himself to understand this. He has a very strange notion of what eyewitness evidence is. He seems to think that if there was one eyewitness in the chain it counts as that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think he will allow himself to understand this. He has a very strange notion of what eyewitness evidence is. He seems to think that if there was one eyewitness in the chain it counts as that.

Then he's never played the "telephone game" (aka "Chinese whispers").

 

[sojourner]

And those of us on the outside of religious belief are flabbergasted by it!

Think, just think for a tiny moment about the absolute, inconceivable immensity and complexity of the cosmos and all within it -- supposed to be the creation of God. Within the cosmos -- like it or not -- this earth and everything in and on it amounts to almost literally nothing. So a person who accepts that God created everything, and sustains everything, implicitly grants God truly unfathomable abilities.

And then supposes, for some reason they can't explain, to suppose that this same God has a communication problem. That this same God can only get His important messages out through a most unreliable (as history comprehensively documents) mechanism. The sheer numbers of religions on earth, and the deadly schisms within each and every one of them, could not be clearer proof that the method is an utter failure, and God seems incapable of doing anything about it. (And I don't mean taking away free will -- I mean simply making what is desired by God completely clear to each and every one of us, and then letting us each decide what to do about it.)

This is simply incomprehensible

Yes. It is incomprehensible. And we are fallible humans. No wonder we get it wrong a lot. But we get it right sometimes, whenever we rise above and show love.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes. It is incomprehensible. And we are fallible humans. No wonder we get it wrong a lot. But we get it right sometimes, whenever we rise above and show love.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with prophets being God's messengers, does it?

 

[sojourner]

But that has absolutely nothing to do with prophets being God's messengers, does it?

Well, sure, because prophets are human too, and they prophesy through the lens of their own understanding and perspective.

 

[Audie]

And those of us on the outside of religious belief are flabbergasted by it!

Think, just think for a tiny moment about the absolute, inconceivable immensity and complexity of the cosmos and all within it -- supposed to be the creation of God. Within the cosmos -- like it or not -- this earth and everything in and on it amounts to almost literally nothing. So a person who accepts that God created everything, and sustains everything, implicitly grants God truly unfathomable abilities.

And then supposes, for some reason they can't explain, that this same God has a communication problem. That this same God can only get His important messages out through a most unreliable (as history comprehensively documents) mechanism. The sheer numbers of religions on earth, and the deadly schisms within each and every one of them, could not be clearer proof that the method is an utter failure, and God seems incapable of doing anything about it. (And I don't mean taking away free will -- I mean simply making what is desired by God completely clear to each and every one of us, and then letting us each decide what to do about it.)

This is simply incomprehensible

It all exactly as it would be “if”.
there is no god.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, sure, because prophets are human too, and they prophesy through the lens of their own understanding and perspective.

It all exactly as it would be “if”.
there is no god.

Just what I've been saying all along...

 

[74x12]

Why do you think that an atheist cannot have a working term for evil?

Because it would be ultimately an empty and meaningless claim supported by nothing substantial.

For example if you think that societies decide what is evil and good; the problem with that is that society Y could completely disagree with the morality of society X. So they have no objective standard. It's just what they decided. Ultimately empty and meaningless.

If you think but nature and evolution have basically shown us right and wrong. To go against it is to go against our own nature. Right, but what if I disagree? Who is to say I'm wrong? The individual can easily go against the established system and no one can truly think it's evil. For he has taken it as his right to go against the established and he has taken it upon himself to be his own law.

So, society must respond against the "evil" (so they claim) actions of lawless and uncaring individuals. That is individuals who will not conform but make their own rules. Society has no choice but to respond with force in order to maintain itself in peace and tranquility. And so this brings us full circle back to the old adage. "Might makes right." They have effectively exercised their "right" to overpower the individual by their collective might. And that is the law of the jungle.

But on the other hand; if you believe like me; then you believe that God made all things by the Word and so everything exists by the Word of God. And the Word of God is basically the source code of the universe. Therefore evil can be defined as whatever goes against it. And so to be evil is to undo yourself. To go against the very thing that is holding you together. And therefore by being "evil" people destroy themselves. So, whether or not they are ever dealt with in this life; yet the universe itself and all reality will count them as wicked. And there is no escape from that ultimate truth.

So we have true morality. True difference between good and evil which is literally encoded into the fabric of reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it would be ultimately an empty and meaningless claim supported by nothing substantial.

For example if you think that societies decide what is evil and good; the problem with that is that society Y could completely disagree with the morality of society X. So they have no objective standard. It's just what they decided. Ultimately empty and meaningless.

If you think but nature and evolution have basically shown us right and wrong. To go against it is to go against our own nature. Right, but what if I disagree? Who is to say I'm wrong? The individual can easily go against the established system and no one can truly think it's evil. For he has taken it as his right to go against the established and he has taken it upon himself to be his own law.

So, society must respond against the "evil" (so they claim) actions of lawless and uncaring individuals. That is individuals who will not conform but make their own rules. Society has no choice but to respond with force in order to maintain itself in peace and tranquility. And so this brings us full circle back to the old adage. "Might makes right." They have effectively exercised their "right" to overpower the individual by their collective might. And that is the law of the jungle.

But on the other hand; if you believe like me; then you believe that God made all things by the Word and so everything exists by the Word of God. And the Word of God is basically the source code of the universe. Therefore evil can be defined as whatever goes against it. And so to be evil is to undo yourself. To go against the very thing that is holding you together. And therefore by being "evil" people destroy themselves. So, whether or not they are ever dealt with in this life; yet the universe itself and all reality will count them as wicked. And there is no escape from that ultimate truth.

So we have true morality. True difference between good and evil which is literally encoded into the fabric of reality.

Much the same could be said about the basis of your morals. In fact secular morals can have an objective base. You simply do not know what it is or do not understand it. Morals can be based on actions that give the most freedom and the least harm. In other words a person can swing his arm as much as he likes, as long as he doesn't hit the face of another.

 

[McBell]

Because it would be ultimately an empty and meaningless claim supported by nothing substantial.

For example if you think that societies decide what is evil and good; the problem with that is that society Y could completely disagree with the morality of society X. So they have no objective standard. It's just what they decided. Ultimately empty and meaningless.

If you think but nature and evolution have basically shown us right and wrong. To go against it is to go against our own nature. Right, but what if I disagree? Who is to say I'm wrong? The individual can easily go against the established system and no one can truly think it's evil. For he has taken it as his right to go against the established and he has taken it upon himself to be his own law.

So, society must respond against the "evil" (so they claim) actions of lawless and uncaring individuals. That is individuals who will not conform but make their own rules. Society has no choice but to respond with force in order to maintain itself in peace and tranquility. And so this brings us full circle back to the old adage. "Might makes right." They have effectively exercised their "right" to overpower the individual by their collective might. And that is the law of the jungle.

But on the other hand; if you believe like me; then you believe that God made all things by the Word and so everything exists by the Word of God. And the Word of God is basically the source code of the universe. Therefore evil can be defined as whatever goes against it. And so to be evil is to undo yourself. To go against the very thing that is holding you together. And therefore by being "evil" people destroy themselves. So, whether or not they are ever dealt with in this life; yet the universe itself and all reality will count them as wicked. And there is no escape from that ultimate truth.

So we have true morality. True difference between good and evil which is literally encoded into the fabric of reality.

Except that you provided nothing more than lip service to an idealistic claim that reality shows is nothing more than wishful thinking in practice.

Merely claiming to have some "absolute" moral standard is much different than actually having said "absolute" moral standard.
Hells bells, you cannot even get members of the same church to agree in practice on which of the morals they claim are from god are "absolute" and which ones are merely suggestions...
Fornication
Adultry
Prostitution
Cursing
lying

So all you have done is present a dream as though it is reality.

 

[3rdAngel]

Here's the problem with what you wrote:

1. If any described biblical event actually happened, then yes, there very likely were eyewitnesses
2. If we have an uncontested report directly from such an eyewitness, then that surely carries a great deal of weight (although of course, it's always possible that even an eyewitness can err -- or give an unreliable account for reasons we can't know)
3. But if all we have is the accounts -- who knows how many iterations away -- of what some listener heard some other listener say about what a presumed eyewitness said, then sorry, we have no eyewitness
4. And not only that, we have several opportunities for people with their own agendas to alter the stories at will

As you can surely see, this is pretty unreliable.

Hello EH, how are you

Sorry but I would have to disagree with you. There is no problem whatsoever with anything that I have provided. Virtually all scholars agree that the accounts of the biblical eyewitness records of JESUS is verified from not only the biblical records but also sources outside of the biblical records. This has ben verified by the accounts of the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote of JESUS only decades after his death. Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D.

Josephus was a JEW and wrote JEWISH History and was not a follower of Jesus, “he was however around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people were first hand eyewitnesses who had seen and heard Jesus. So here we have JEWISH historical records bearing witness to the bibical historical records. Then later we have the Roman Senator and historian Tacitus connecting Jesus to his execution by Pontius Pilate in the Annals of Imperial Rome written around 116 AD

None of the above had any Christian biases in their historical recordings and all of them were fighting against each other yet here we are all three sources;

1. JEWS,
2. ROMANS and
3. CHRISTIANS

All of whom agreeing from first hand eye witness sources that JESUS existed and recorded various aspects of his life.

Virtually every scholar agrees that this evidence is true and supports the biblical record. If there was only one record you could question it but we have three separate sources from, all the major groups of people known to be present inthe life of JESUS and written in the biblical records verified as credible by nearly all academic scholarship.

Are you saying JESUS did not exist? If you are all the evidence and academic scholarship is against you. If you are not and you believe JESUS existed why do you believe JESUS existed or how do you know JESUS existed?

 

[3rdAngel]

You misunderstood your source. It points out that the clearest writing of Josephus about Jesus was fake, and that Josephus may have known people that knew Jesus none of his works are examples of eyewitness evidence. You do not seem to understand that he would have had to question people thay knew him and wrote down what they said. He did not do this. He made a general statement for his existence. That is not eyewitness evidence. All he gave you was hearsay. Now I will grant that Josephus's work is evidence for the historical Jesus, whom I never denied. It is not evidence for your magical Jesus.

Nonsense! The source says Josephus was a JEW and wrote JEWISH History and was not a follower of Jesus, he was however around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who were first hand eyewitnesses who had seen and heard Jesus bearing witness to the bibical historical records. What is there to misunderstand except your denial of what is written?

 

[sojourner]

Just what I've been saying all along...

Depends on how you want to define “God.” If God is a particularity with a personality who uses specific grammar, terms and syntax, AND, if that’s how one defines “truth,” then fine. But I don’t think that’s how Divinity presents. There’s always room for interpretation — even when dealing with truth. I don’t think we can limit God only to “what can be known.”