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

[3rdAngel]

I refuse to debate with people that cannot understand their own sources and the call others "dishonest". Have fun.

It is more likely that you cannot, not that you refuse to. Your ad hom comments are simply disrespectful and unproductive to a discussion. The sources are clear and they do not agree with you. Neither do the scholars that support them. You simply hand waive the content of the posts and sources provide to you and ignore them neither will you answer the questions asked of you that show why you are in error here. All your doing is closing your eyes and ears to anything that disagrees with your faith (athiesm). I guess the JEWS did the same thing when talking to JESUS. Have fun

 

[Samael_Khan]

Uh, no.

Yes only one can be true. For instance either one has to follow the Mosaic Law, one cannot follow the mosaic law or one can do both to be saved. Only one of those three is true. That is logic. If one person says that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved and another person says the opposite, only one interpretation is correct.

Uh, no.

Not necessarily. My denomination sees other viewpoints and doesn’t use that term. And truth is in the perspective of the observer. Truth and fact are two different things.


I don’t think it does affect salvation. Unless one is not true to one’s faith.[/QUOTE] That is your denomination. If your denomination interprets the Bible to say that multiple interpretations do not block salvation then that is fine for your belief. But if another groups says that only their view is right and people can only attain salvation through embracing their interpretation and nothing else, then that contradicts your view. If they are right then your denomination is wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi Dan nice to see you. I agree with you, but that said there still is evidence outside of the bible and all scholars agree to this fact. These have been shared in a bit more detail in posts # 342 linked and post # 348 linked. I know of other JEWISH sources but have not provided them there. What make these sources more convincing IMO is that the sources are provided from three opposing sources known to be around in the days of JESUS and are verified within JEWISH, ROMAN and CHRISTIAN writings all of whom agree and have recorded different aspects of the life of JESUS. There is no bias there and they were all fighting with each other.

Outside of the Bible there is limited information regarding Christ. I believe scholars recognize he existed, as do I, but there is not much of an archaeological trail to follow.

Some of the external writings were just the repetition of older clsims and those too often being uncorroborated.

Anyway, I am not interesting in the argument so much as some of the points raised. Is the Bible eyewitness testimony or accounts of testimony claimed to be eyewitness testimony? I don't know, but I would have to weigh it critically. The discussion is about more than what is believed.

Would Jewish leaders condemn the actions of a person they did not believe existed. This goes to support the existence of Christ, but is neither eyewitness testimony or testimony beyond the actions condemned. Questions like this fascinate me. As well as some of the answers that are raised.

 

[McBell]

I refuse to debate with people that cannot understand their own sources and the call others "dishonest". Have fun.

Pigeon Chess is ok to relieve boredom.
But it can still get old.

 

[Samael_Khan]

We don’t need to know a “correct” exegesis — just a reasonable one.

I would agree to a certain extent regarding interpretations that aren't vital for salvation. Although the implications of the OP is that reason doesn't lead to understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pigeon Chess is ok to relieve boredom.
But it can still get old.

Yep. When it is combined with endless personal attacks it is better to simply leave.

 

[3rdAngel]

Outside of the Bible there is limited information regarding Christ. I believe scholars recognize he existed, as do I, but there is not much of an archaeological trail to follow.

Some of the external writings were just the repetition of older clsims and those too often being uncorroborated.

Anyway, I am not interesting in the argument so much as some of the points raised. Is the Bible eyewitness testimony or accounts of testimony claimed to be eyewitness testimony? I don't know, but I would have to weigh it critically. The discussion is about more than what is believed.

Would Jewish leaders condemn the actions of a person they did not believe existed. This goes to support the existence of Christ, but is neither eyewitness testimony or testimony beyond the actions condemned. Questions like this fascinate me. As well as some of the answers that are raised.

Hello Dan, this I already agreed to. However as shown earlier there are historical sources such as Josephus that was around and wrote within a few decades after the death of JESUS that scholars believe recieved eyewitness accounts and testimonies from those who knew JESUS personally that verify the biblical record and had no bias not being Christian being a prominent JEW at the time. I believe just because there are few records it should not be an excuse to deny them. Virtually all scholars and historians use all sources to determine credability even the very existence of JESUS.

 

[3rdAngel]

Yep. When it is combined with endless personal attacks it is better to simply leave.

Then do not do it. I would say that would be the best solution don't you?

 

[McBell]

Yep. When it is combined with endless personal attacks it is better to simply leave.

Good luck.
I bet he will still have to have the last word

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep. When it is combined with endless personal attacks it is better to simply leave.

I am comfortable enough in my belief that questions do not disturb me. In fact, I can learn from them. From since I was a child, I know that not everyone is comfortable with that. Questions or facts are seen as an attack on faith. This gets to be the only way that some can see it after a while.

 

[3rdAngel]

I am comfortable enough in my belief that questions do not disturb me. In fact, I can learn from them. From since I was a child, I know that not everyone is comfortable with that. Questions or facts are seen as an attack on faith. This gets to be the only way that some can see it after a while.

Then again it is hard for some to see things clearly when they do not want to I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am comfortable enough in my belief that questions do not disturb me. In fact, I can learn from them. From since I was a child, I know that not everyone is comfortable with that. Questions or facts are seen as an attack on faith. This gets to be the only way that some can see it after a while.

They shouldn't. Expecting eyewitness accounts is expecting too much. I too accept that Jesus was probably a real person, and a teacher, but that is about as far as I go. It is the weak in faith that have to try to make the evidence more than it is.

 

[McBell]

I am comfortable enough in my belief that questions do not disturb me. In fact, I can learn from them. From since I was a child, I know that not everyone is comfortable with that. Questions or facts are seen as an attack on faith. This gets to be the only way that some can see it after a while.

Even though it can comical at first, the continued transference can annoying pretty quick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good luck.
I bet he will still have to have the last word

Of course, he already has. I am done responding to him, But thanks. I now join the ranks of quite a few others that have realized that having a discussion with some posters is a waste of time.

 

[McBell]

They shouldn't. Expecting eyewitness accounts is expecting too much. I too accept that Jesus was probably a real person, and a teacher, but that is about as far as I go. It is the weak in faith that have to try to make the evidence more than it is.

I can't help but wonder if it is perhaps himself he is trying to convince more so than anyone else.

 

[3rdAngel]

They shouldn't. Expecting eyewitness accounts is expecting too much. I too accept that Jesus was probably a real person, and a teacher, but that is about as far as I go. It is the weak in faith that have to try to make the evidence more than it is.

I would say you have your faith as an athiest but the fact you spend much of your time in a religious forum is only evidence I believe that you are questioning what you believe

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nonsense this is what the historical records are based on from Josephus and others that verify the biblical records

While the writings of Flavius Josephus are not eyewitness testimony, most scholars conclude it as evidence of the existence of Christ. However, there are questions about potential redaction and editing that limit consensus about the evidential value of his statements regarding Christ.

 

[3rdAngel]

I can't help but wonder if it is perhaps himself he is trying to convince more so than anyone else.

No need for convicing. You have already been provided evidence. Do you believe JESUS existed?

 

[3rdAngel]

While the writings of Flavius Josephus are not eyewitness testimony, most scholars conclude it as evidence of the existence of Christ. However, there are questions about potential redaction and editing that limit consensus about the evidential value of his statements regarding Christ.

If it was the only reference alone perhaps but not when you have three sources from different opossing sources all agreeing together which include the JEWS, ROMANS, and CHRISTIANS all verifying the life of JESUS. This is the real reason these sources prove the biblical record not one historical account. It is the collective evidence, not one source.

 

[McBell]

Of course, he already has. I am done responding to him, But thanks. I now join the ranks of quite a few others that have realized that having a discussion with some posters is a waste of time.

Hey, you lasted a lot longer than me.
I had to stop responding to him once it dawned on me I was merely using him for cheap target practice.