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

[Shadow Wolf]

Say what? Can you be any more off-topic?

 

[Sargonski]

That's there, too, but to call them untrue, they have to be clear. I was addressing reasons why scripture might be unclear - vague and ambiguous language and containing contradictory statements.

What about them? They're useless, since they need to be confirmed empirically to be elevated from claim to truth, in which case what did we need the scripture for? Archeology has confirmed that there was a historical David. Only then did we know that he wasn't mythical like Adam and Noah. But we can't confirm that he was a shepherd or a psalmist or that he killed a giant Phillistine with a slingshot without evidence, and then, once again, what part does scripture play in acquiring that knowledge?

Who said they were not confirmed empirically .. or that we needed them in scripture ? The point is that the truth is there . .. whether or not you need it .. and one supports the other .. and adds to the other .. for example .. the finding of the Ugarit library greatly enhanced our underestanding of the religious beliefs of the Patriarchs and Israelites.

 

[2ndpillar]

I didn't contradict myself. Needing something like a dictionary doesn't necessarily up the difficulty.

What Reading Level Is The Bible? - Christian Website

The Bible is one of the most influential books in human history, with billions of copies sold over thousands of years. But with its ancient language and

www.christianwebsite.com

Try Moby Dick if you want something on the hard side.

The kingdom of heaven was presented by Yeshua in parables, so only those with ears to hear could understand it (Isaiah 6:9 & Mt 13:13-14). It was for the little children (1 John 2:27-28), whereas it is not for those who consider themselves wise and intelligent/education Mt 11:25. Your religious school degrees will be of no help.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The kingdom of heaven was presented by Yeshua in parables, so only those with ears to hear could understand it (Isaiah 6:9 & Mt 13:13-14). It was for the little children (1 John 2:27-28), whereas it is not for those who consider themselves wise and intelligent/education Mt 11:25. Your religious school degrees will be of no help.

That is wrong as the Gospels are for everyone. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son..." His Apostles were charged with being fishermen of men and spread the Gospels to all the Kingdoms. And his Apostles did include some brainiacs.
Amd for those you mentioned and everyone you didn't.

 

[Niatero]

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.

Do you think you know if an interpretation is from God or not? If so, how do you know?

 

[2ndpillar]

That is wrong as the Gospels are for everyone. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son..." His Apostles were charged with being fishermen of men and spread the Gospels to all the Kingdoms. And his Apostles did include some brainiacs.
Amd for those you mentioned and everyone you didn't.

Apart from Matthew, it is doubtful that any of the apostles could read or write. As for Peter, he was a man that fished for fish, and not a scholar. And apart from Paul, claiming to be an apostle, it was an uncorroborated claim, and therefore is not true (John 5:31). As for "fishers of men", well that comes from Jeremiah 16:16, whereas "I am going to send for many fishermen", and then "hunters", who will fish for "Israel", and bring them back to the "land which I gave to their Fathers", which would be Judea and Samaria, land, that falls within the borders of present day Israel..

John 5:31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Apart from Matthew, it is doubtful that any of the apostles could read or write. As for Peter, he was a man that fished for fish, and not a scholar. And apart from Paul, claiming to be an apostle, it was an uncorroborated claim, and therefore is not true (John 5:31). As for "fishers of men", well that comes from Jeremiah 16:16, whereas "I am going to send for many fishermen", and then "hunters", who will fish for "Israel", and bring them back to the "land which I gave to their Fathers", which would be Judea and Samaria, land, that falls within the borders of present day Israel..

John 5:31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.

Zacchius was a tax collector. John was a writer. Matthew was a customs official. That's at least a fourth of the Apostles.

 

[2ndpillar]

Zacchius was a tax collector. John was a writer. Matthew was a customs official. That's at least a fourth of the Apostles.

John son of Zebedee and Peter are specifically said to be “uneducated, common men” by Luke (Acts 4:13). This despite they healed men by the power of God, not by the power of their "brainiac" brains.

Mt 9:17 As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he arose and followed Him. Being a tax collector does not make a person a "brainiac". It only shows that they could most likely read and write, otherwise they would always have a scribe with them, which would probably only occur among rich appointees, but not among a common man.

As for Zaccheus being a tax collector, that does not make him a "brainiac" but that he could probably read and write, but I have seen nothing written by Zacheus. 2nd graders can read and write, and while they may be bright, they are rarely brainiacs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

John son of Zebedee and Peter are specifically said to be “uneducated, common men” by Luke (Acts 4:13). This despite they healed men by the power of God, not by the power of their "brainiac" brains.

Michael Faraday had zero formal scientific education. Jane Goodall had very little.
And, yes, read and write. You said at most only one could. That is clearly wrong. Jesus had some Apostles who were above average with brains.

 

[jimb]

Zacchius was a tax collector. John was a writer. Matthew was a customs official. That's at least a fourth of the Apostles.

And Paul was obviously extremely literate and educated.

 

[2ndpillar]

Michael Faraday had zero formal scientific education. Jane Goodall had very little.
And, yes, read and write. You said at most only one could. That is clearly wrong. Jesus had some Apostles who were above average with brains.

I didn't say "at most", I said "probably". And Jane Goodall was a monkey/ape woman, not a brainiac. Sitting in the jungle with monkeys or apes, is not the epidemy of being a "brainiac". Isaac Newton was a father of science, not a student of scientific education, other than a student of Scripture, which is the well of scientific formulation of the earth. Faraday's faith contributed to his scientific insights.

Michael Faraday: his Christian faith influenced his science.

Brilliant people in all walks of life can inspire us, showing us the way to improve our own performance. It is natural that we want to try to elucidate how their minds work, to help us in our own quest for excellence.

www.christiantoday.com.au

 

[2ndpillar]

And Paul was obviously extremely literate and educated.

Paul was a self-proclaimed apostle, which makes that statement "untrue" (John 5:31). Paul is simply a guy who thought more of himself than he should have and is the representative of the "shepherd"/"staff" of Zechariah 11:7-10, who was called "Favor", as in a representation of his false gospel of Grace, which is as if one is found in the light of being in God's "favor". Biden, according to him, is highly educated, literate, and all knowing, but reality says differently. Supposedly, according to him, he graduated top in his class, with 4 degrees. According to records, he graduated bottom of his class, and with one degree.

 

[jimb]

I just want to remind everyone that I have 2ndpillar on "ignore" -- for obvious reasons. Having read his previous posts, I find it impossible to debate with someone who is clearly so negative.

 

[Ignatius A]

"Jesus" never said what you quoted him as saying. That was said by some guy named "Mark". Do you drink poison also and play with venomous snakes? Some so called "Christians" do, but I doubt that you follow that trend on your own volition. What Yeshua actually said, was that Simon Peter was "Satan" and a "stumbling block to me". It is reported on the grape vine, that Mark was associated with Peter. What does that make Peter's followers? Are they all following "Satan", and his associates, and heirs, such as the pope, in which the pope is a follower of Caesar and Constantine, the beast with two horns like a lamb", since Constantine and Caesar both held the status of Pontifex Maximus, the keeper of the gods and the Calendar, in which all changed the times (Daniel 7:25), which would put them in the "Christian" perceived role of the "antichrist".

Prove Jesus never said it. Saying some guy named Mark said it isn't proof. I'll wait here.

 

[2ndpillar]

Prove Jesus never said it. Saying some guy named Mark said it isn't proof. I'll wait here.

I am saying that some unknown guy Mark is quoted as giving your quote. You have to prove that Yeshua said it, or that is within the reach of the message of Yeshua, which is the "kingdom of heaven". Considering the source, I would assume it comes from the "message" of the "devil"/"enemy" (Matthew 13:24-30), or at least your interpretation. You can interpret anything, anyway you choose. Hopefully you are not holding your breathe while you waiting.

 

[Ignatius A]

I am saying that some unknown guy Mark is quoted as giving your quote. You have to prove that Yeshua said it, or that is within the reach of the message of Yeshua, which is the "kingdom of heaven". Considering the source, I would assume it comes from the "message" of the "devil"/"enemy" (Matthew 13:24-30), or at least your interpretation. You can interpret anything, anyway you choose. Hopefully you are not holding your breathe while you waiting.

I dont need to prove anything. You either believe the bible is the inerrant word of God or you don't. I don't have the power to influence you either way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is absurd to think that people abandoned Christianity because they read the Bible. They lost their faith in God by reading???

I went to the hospital because of a severe asthma attack. AT THE TIME I WAS A CONFIRMED ATHEIST! A pastor prayed for me and I was a) instantly healed and b) my entire body was filled with extreme love (that is the only way I can describe it.)

The quotes from the Bible closely describe what happened to me, except I wasn't anointed with oil.

Your memory may have been seriously affected by oxygen deprivation. You seem to forget that long before you saw the pastor they gave you various treatments. How do I know that? About 15 years ago that happened to me. Went into the ER. I talked with the intake nurse and was ready to wait for an hour or two. Instead I was taken in right away. It was almost as if it were an emergency or something. I was given a nebulizer treatment, then IV's some of them with rather strong steroids in them. And three days later I went home. I was not even at the "get pastor" state, but I know from experience that you do not see a pastor until well after the immediate treatments have been done. It appears that the pastor got the credit for the works of the works of the physicians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure where you're coming from; I didn't claim that. I have seconded what Paul taught on the foundation of my own experience, but neither he nor I have submitted the idea you just posted.

Let's go back to the title of the thread. The OP claims that understanding of the "holy scriptures", I assume that means "Bible", is impossible unless God gives the interpretation. Romans 1 20 says that unbelievers are without excuse when it comes to the teachings about God since they are so clear. If we cannot understand them without God's help then that gives nonbelievers a perfect excuse.

 

[jimb]

Let's go back to the title of the thread. The OP claims that understanding of the "holy scriptures", I assume that means "Bible", is impossible unless God gives the interpretation. Romans 1 20 says that unbelievers are without excuse when it comes to the teachings about God since they are so clear. If we cannot understand them without God's help then that gives nonbelievers a perfect excuse.

Romans 1:18-21 (with my emphases): "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. "

 

[Subduction Zone]

Romans 1:18-21 (with my emphases): "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. "

Okay then which one is it? Do nonbelievers understand or don't they? If it was made plain to nonbelievers then we would understand.