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

[Alien826]

Santa and the moon are the same? Okay then...

You gotta play fair as well.

Two different examples. The moon circles the Earth (true) and is made of green cheese (false). Santa doesn't exist, but sleds and reindeer do.

And to get back to your claim, it's quite possible that the Bible contains both true and false statements. Why not?

 

[Ignatius A]

Two different examples. The moon circles the Earth (true) and is made of green cheese (false). Santa doesn't exist, but sleds and reindeer do.

And to get back to your claim, it's quite possible that the Bible contains both true and false statements. Why not?

Do you have an example of a false statement from the Bible?

 

[2ndpillar]

So you can't back up your claim. That's what I thought but as I always say it's good to get confirmation.

What claim is that? Are you saying that Paul's gospel of grace is false? Are you saying that the pope and his priest can forgive your sins, yet you walk saddled with your plagues, in confirmation that your sins remain with you? You come across as a Roman Catholic, which has traditionally assumed that the pope via Peter's ability to shut and no one open (Mt 16:19), can forgive your sins, which historically has been done according to Martin Luther, by selling the forgiveness of sins for money. Keep in mind, you can still buy a book of indulgences on Amazon, but apparently, the money spent is for prayers. This of course obfuscate the fact that God does not listen to the prayers of sinners (John 9:31), nor has money been able to buy forgiveness.

1. Origins and Historical Context:
   • The practice of indulgences dates back centuries. In the 11th century, the church began offering indulgences to those who participated in the Crusades.
   • Later, certificates of indulgences were sold to raise funds, which led to abusive marketing tactics and criticism by reformers like Martin Luther.
   • Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church did not completely abandon indulgences after Luther’s critique. Pope Pius V stopped their sale but affirmed their validity as long as no money was exchanged.
   • By 1563, the Council of Trent endorsed a comprehensive doctrine on indulgences, which remains part of the church’s teachings to this day2.

 

[Ignatius A]

What claim is that? Are you saying that Paul's gospel of grace is false? Are you saying that the pope and his priest can forgive your sins, yet you walk saddled with your plagues, in confirmation that your sins remain with you? You come across as a Roman Catholic, which has traditionally assumed that the pope via Peter's ability to shut and no one open (Mt 16:19), can forgive your sins, which historically has been done according to Martin Luther, by selling the forgiveness of sins for money. Keep in mind, you can still buy a book of indulgences on Amazon, but apparently, the money spent is for prayers. This of course obfuscate the fact that God does not listen to the prayers of sinners (John 9:31), nor has money been able to buy forgiveness.

Microsoft Copilot in Bing

Chat, get answers, create amazing content, and discover information effortlessly with Bing's AI-powered chat. Transform the way you search and get answers with Microsoft Copilot in Bing.

www.bing.com

1. Origins and Historical Context:
   • The practice of indulgences dates back centuries. In the 11th century, the church began offering indulgences to those who participated in the Crusades.
   • Later, certificates of indulgences were sold to raise funds, which led to abusive marketing tactics and criticism by reformers like Martin Luther.
   • Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church did not completely abandon indulgences after Luther’s critique. Pope Pius V stopped their sale but affirmed their validity as long as no money was exchanged.
   • By 1563, the Council of Trent endorsed a comprehensive doctrine on indulgences, which remains part of the church’s teachings to this day2.

I like how you can't follow the discussion.

 

[2ndpillar]

I like how you can't follow the discussion.

I like how you try to remain behind the curtain. What size ladder are you standing on?

 

[Ignatius A]

I like how you try to remain behind the curtain. What size ladder are you standing on?

You should give up.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you have an example of a false statement from the Bible?

I do not believe that the following verses are false, but if they are true that means Jesus is not going to return to this world, as Christians believe.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

No more means no further, never again.

no more

1. nothing further.
   "there was no more to be said about it"
2. no further.
   "you must have some soup, but no more wine"
3. exist no longer.
   "the patch of ground was overgrown and the hut was no more"
4. never again.
   "mention his name no more to me"
5. neither.
   "I had no complaints and no more did Tom"

Definitions from Oxford Languages

 

[Ignatius A]

I do not believe that the following verses are false, but if they are true that means Jesus is not going to return to this world, as Christians believe.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

No more means no further, never again.

no more

1. nothing further.
   "there was no more to be said about it"
2. no further.
   "you must have some soup, but no more wine"
3. exist no longer.
   "the patch of ground was overgrown and the hut was no more"
4. never again.
   "mention his name no more to me"
5. neither.
   "I had no complaints and no more did Tom"

Definitions from Oxford Languages

That's seeing time as man sees time.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's seeing time as man sees time.

Can you explain what you mean by that?
How else can man see time except how man sees time?
Presumably the Bible was written in such a way that man would be able to understand it. Otherwise, what would be the point?.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, what is rational is a matter of consensus or mutual understanding?

Ideally yes. Provided that both sides are reasoning rationally. Courts of law have standards of evidence to try to minimize irrational thought.

I saw a bird yesterday. I know it. How do I demonstrate that I know it?

And now you continue to demonstrate an inability to reason rationally. Different events require different amounts of evidence. If all of your audience shares the same experiences the bar for evidence is very low. So is the bar for "knowledge". Almost everyone in their life that sees has seen a bird. Okay, new born babies . . No. Blind people . . No. Perhaps a few other examples, but you should understand that. But if I said "I saw a dragon" was made and claimed to know it the bar is raised quite a bit for "knowing" since it seems that no one else knows this. That odds appear to be on the face of it much higher that you would be simply wrong.

I understand what you're saying. There is no reason to go 'round and 'round here. I disagree that is it my burden to "demonstrate" God to you—or for you, just as it is not my burden to demonstrate to you the bird I saw yesterday.

No, it is not your burden to demonstrate your belief in a God. That I will accept. But if you cross the border to claiming to "know" that you there is a god you have crossed over into dragon territory.

Fair enough, but my observation is that your posts see-saw on this seemingly critical point (whether or not I know a thing or just believe it).

It is an important distinction.

Look back; you're the only one here talking about beliefs. I say I know something and you say I don't. You demand proof that is not mine to give and you confirm your bias with my failure to produce what is not mine to produce. I'm trying to figure out how that's rational.

That is because I want people to be honest and accurate. There is nothing wrong with saying "I believe". Claiming knowledge is adopting the burden of proof.

You could have just asked me if I understood that holy books are error free, and I'd have made it clear immediately that I don't believe that. I share what is written in holy books, but that I do not claim that what is written is evidence of anything other than that it's someone's testimony of what they claim to know.

True. But so many here deny that. And there is the misuse of the word "know" again. Also many of the holy books are not even that. They are simply oral tradition written down. Very very few of them are even close to "eyewitness testimony". They are records of what people believe.

Understood. There is, arguably, nothing that has been subject to human works that is perfect.

At your leisure.

I agree on that. Error is everywhere. That is recognized in he sciences where nothing is "proven". Everything is tentatively true at best. Scientific hypotheses have to be testable explanations. If one does not have a way to show that one's ideas are wrong it is not science. That is why "string theory" is not even a theory. It is a concept that is still being worked on. It has promise but no hard evidence yet. If a scientist were to cross the line and proclaim it was "true" with no further work he would have crossed over into pseudoscience.

 

[Ignatius A]

Can you explain what you mean by that?
How else can man see time except how man sees time?
Presumably the Bible was written in such a way that man would be able to understand it. Otherwise, what would be the point?.

It's straight forward. Scripture is quite clear we will all see Jesus again and it won't be in the "time" we think of as time. It will be in time as God/Jesus/Holy Spirit experience time. Do you think Matthew 25: 31-46 will happen on the corner of Main and Elm Sts at 11:32am on a specific date? I'm not sure what s confusing here.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's straight forward.

I am sorry, you still have not accounted for the verses where Jesus says that His work is finished here and He will be no more in this world
Yes, it is very straightforward that Jesus finished His work in this world and that Jesus will be no more in this world.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Scripture is quite clear we will all see Jesus again and it won't be in the "time" we think of as time. It will be in time as God/Jesus/Holy Spirit experience time.

Scripture is quite clear that we will never see Jesus in this world again (see verses above).
You were the one who claimed that Scripture is inerrant. Now explain why Jesus said what He said in the verses above.

What you just did was deflect. I expected that since that is what all Christians do.
This had NOTHING to do with time and when Jesus will return, it is about if Jesus will EVER return to this world again.

Do you think Matthew 25: 31-46 will happen on the corner of Main and Elm Sts at 11:32am on a specific date? I'm not sure what s confusing here.

No, I do not think that. I think that Christ has already returned, and it was not Jesus, since Jesus never promised to return to earth, He said He would not ever return.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

The Bible says Christ (not Jesus) would return with a new name, so we know he would not be called Jesus.

Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12-13 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

The new name means that the return of Christ would be another man. It would not be Jesus.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Are you telling me that you do not even understand the concept of the burden of proof? When a person makes a claim that others disagree with the person making the positive claim, such as "God said . . . " you have to be willing and able to defend that claim. Now if you want to use a holy book you could always add a qualifier. But then you would likely have to demonstrate that that holy book is reliable.

this would have to be one of the most unintelligent and ignorant responses i have read from you subduction...

Lets start with some simple ones:

Dead Sea scrolls
Hezekiahs Aquaducts
Jehu Relief depicting Jehu in front of Sennarcharib
Babylonian cuniforms that record King Jehoiachin and other royal hostages in Babylon (from 591 B.C)

One could fill this forum with evidences of the authenticity of the "Holy Book". Only a complete imbocile would be ignorant of overwhelming biblical evidence we can physcially see in museums all around the world.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I am sorry, you still have not accounted for the verses where Jesus says that His work is finished here and He will be no more in this world
Yes, it is very straightforward that Jesus finished His work in this world and that Jesus will be no more in this world.

i can help with this...

Acts Chapter 1
10They were looking intently into the sky as He was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.”

 

[Trailblazer]

i can help with this...

Acts Chapter 1
10They were looking intently into the sky as He was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.”

Acts 1:9-11. I have heard it 100 times if I have heard it once.

Acts 1:9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

The disciples (Men of Galilee) were staring up into the sky. The two men dressed in white (angels) came along and asked why they were staring up into the sky. The two men dressed in white (angels) then wondered why the disciples were staring up into the sky, and then they said that the same Jesus who was taken up to heaven will return as he went to heaven. The text does not say what the disciples saw going up to heaven, but presumably it was the spiritual body of Jesus, the body that Jesus had after he died physically and was resurrected (transformed).

1 Corinthians 15: 51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!

The angels said: This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven

That is not a reason to believe that the same Jesus will return as He ascended since angels carry no authority. Some angels 'believed' that Jesus was coming back to earth. So what?

Moreover, if it was the spiritual body of Jesus that ascended, that body would not come back to earth since spiritual bodies were made for heaven, not for earth. If Jesus returned to earth in a spiritual body nobody could see him, which contradicts all the other verses tat say that we will see him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am sorry, you still have not accounted for the verses where Jesus says that His work is finished here and He will be no more in this world
It is very straightforward that Jesus finished His work in this world and that Jesus will be no more in this world.

I am still asking how you explain these verses. You cannot explain them and still have Jesus coming back to earth.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

No more means no further, never again.

no more

1. nothing further.
   "there was no more to be said about it"
2. no further.
   "you must have some soup, but no more wine"
3. exist no longer.
   "the patch of ground was overgrown and the hut was no more"
4. never again.
   "mention his name no more to me"
5. neither.
   "I had no complaints and no more did Tom"

Definitions from Oxford Languages

 

[Subduction Zone]

this would have to be one of the most unintelligent and ignorant responses i have read from you subduction...

Lets start with some simple ones:

Dead Sea scrolls
Hezekiahs Aquaducts
Jehu Relief depicting Jehu in front of Sennarcharib
Babylonian cuniforms that record King Jehoiachin and other royal hostages in Babylon (from 591 B.C)

One could fill this forum with evidences of the authenticity of the "Holy Book". Only a complete imbocile would be ignorant of overwhelming biblical evidence we can physcially see in museums all around the world.

How does any of that help you? A Gish Gallop only looks like a list of lies and deception.

You clearly do not understand the burden of proof.

You may not even understand what was being discussed there. If you think that is "evidence for the Bible" that is all very weak evidence. You may be operating under a Black and White Fallacy, no one ever said that all of the Bible was wrong. I certainly never said that. I said that it has many errors in it and your post does not show that there are no errors. It only shows that some of the Bible is right. That is something that I never denied. But it is not evidence for it being never wrong.

 

[Unfettered]

Ideally yes. Provided that both sides are reasoning rationally. Courts of law have standards of evidence to try to minimize irrational thought.

Again, you and I may have a different understanding of what we're engaged in here. This isn't a court and no one is trying to convince anyone to make life-changing decisions. At least I'm not. It's an online discussion forum; the world doesn't hang on our posts.

That said, I don't think your stance regarding what is rational holds water. I've been a part of many discussions and situations where a position or response or reaction seemed irrational to someone involved, only for it to be shown later, once additional understanding was gained, that it was, indeed, rational. I'm sure you've experienced this as well, so I'm not sure why you're pushing so hard that my position is not rational. It is rational to me, who is in possession of all that makes it rational. You have none of what makes it rational, but rather than seek understanding, you dismiss and demand.

And now you continue to demonstrate an inability to reason rationally.

Yeah, I'm not going to address this. No point.

No, it is not your burden to demonstrate your belief in a God. That I will accept. But if you cross the border to claiming to "know" that you there is a god you have crossed over into dragon territory.

What I believe and what I know are both mine. They are not subject to your comprehension or approval. I don't know how I can get you to understand this. <shrug>

That is because I want people to be honest and accurate. There is nothing wrong with saying "I believe". Claiming knowledge is adopting the burden of proof.

Only when you are trying to convince someone to believe you. I am not. I owe you nothing. If you want to come to understanding, you have to seek to understand, rather than compare everything said to you against a preconception.

True. But so many here deny that.

No doubt. Rather than stereotype away people's contributions, seek to come to know who you're talking to?

And there is the misuse of the word "know" again.

No, it is again your prejudice. You do not know what another person knows. You are wholly ignorant of it. Yet you are certain that you know they merely believe! Your prejudice could not be any clearer. And when I say prejudice, I don't intend to attach malice; simply the idea of the word itself—to judge without knowledge. It is an irony, for sure!

Also many of the holy books are not even that. They are simply oral tradition written down. Very very few of them are even close to "eyewitness testimony". They are records of what people believe.

They are many things, including what people believe. They are also what people claimed to know. They are testimonies, as in records of what they witnessed (from testis "a witness, one who attests").

I agree on that. Error is everywhere. That is recognized in he sciences where nothing is "proven". Everything is tentatively true at best. Scientific hypotheses have to be testable explanations. If one does not have a way to show that one's ideas are wrong it is not science. That is why "string theory" is not even a theory. It is a concept that is still being worked on. It has promise but no hard evidence yet. If a scientist were to cross the line and proclaim it was "true" with no further work he would have crossed over into pseudoscience.

Understood. We're not talking about science. We're having a discussion about the necessity of revelation when science is 100% inadequate to provide illumination. That's what Paul was talking about. That's what he had experience with. That's what he witnessed. That's what his testimony was. And I echo it, for my experience is akin to his. That is what this thread is about; not using science to discern spiritual truth. Science is impotent in that field. Wholly impotent. It is the wrong tool entirely.

 

[Ignatius A]

I am sorry, you still have not accounted for the verses where Jesus says that His work is finished here and He will be no more in this world
Yes, it is very straightforward that Jesus finished His work in this world and that Jesus will be no more in this world.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Scripture is quite clear that we will never see Jesus in this world again (see verses above).
You were the one who claimed that Scripture is inerrant. Now explain why Jesus said what He said in the verses above.

What you just did was deflect. I expected that since that is what all Christians do.
This had NOTHING to do with time and when Jesus will return, it is about if Jesus will EVER return to this world again.

No, I do not think that. I think that Christ has already returned, and it was not Jesus, since Jesus never promised to return to earth, He said He would not ever return.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

The Bible says Christ (not Jesus) would return with a new name, so we know he would not be called Jesus.

Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12-13 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

The new name means that the return of Christ would be another man. It would not be Jesus.

No I did account for it. I wont answer the same question a second time. It's a waste of my time.

 

[Trailblazer]

No I did account for it. I wont answer the same question a second time. It's a waste of my time.

You did not answer my question, you deflected away from it by bringing up another unrelated verse.

What is meaning by deflection?

1. : a turning aside or off course : deviation. 2. : the departure of an indicator or pointer from the zero reading on the scale of an instrument.

Deflection Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster​

 

[Trailblazer]

It's straight forward. Scripture is quite clear we will all see Jesus again and it won't be in the "time" we think of as time.'

You were correct about that. Those of us who loved Jesus we will see Jesus in heaven, which does not exist in time as we think if time.

It will be in time as God/Jesus/Holy Spirit experience time. Do you think Matthew 25: 31-46 will happen on the corner of Main and Elm Sts at 11:32am on a specific date? I'm not sure what s confusing here.

You were incorrect about that because Matthew 25: 31-46 is not referring to Jesus. Jesus said He was NO MORE in this world (John 14:19, John 16:10, John 17:11) so if the Bible is inerrant, it is logically impossible for Jesus to come to earth in his glory and sit upon a throne of glory.

That means the following verse cannot be about about Jesus.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Jesus rules in heaven eternally but Jesus will never rule on earth.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

The meaning of that verse is as follows:

“The Throne upon which He sat is the Eternal Throne from which Christ reigns for ever, a heavenly throne, not an earthly one, for the things of earth pass away but heavenly things pass not away. He re-interpreted and completed the Law of Moses and fulfilled the Law of the Prophets. His word conquered the East and the West. His Kingdom is everlasting.”
Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks

From: THE TRUE MEANING OF THE PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE COMING OF CHRIST