With bafflement upon bafflement!

[Redemptionsong]

The two contradicting nativity myths is a very good example.

That would fine if they were contradictory, but they are not.

Try showing the contradiction.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Of course. Your beliefs are not rational.

My beliefs may not appear rational to you, but your atheism is described as the belief of a fool by God!

Psalms 14 and 53. 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.'

 

[Redemptionsong]

matches perfectly with heaven's gate, and every other group out there.

Every supposed prophet/cultist/pope/bishop claims the same - God complex - "I'm just following god"

No, they are all following themselves, all following their own opinion of god.

God complex - Wikipedia

The scripture is there to provide a check on those who stray. All who stray are breaking the word of God in some way or another.

 

[blü 2]

What l believe, and what is written in the NT, is that 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is proftable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.'

As to 2 Timothy 3:16. just because such an opinion by an unknown hand is recorded in the NT doesn't alter its status as simply someone's opinion.

And. with respect, that doesn't address the question I put to you, which I think needs an answer if we're to try to understand the NT authors in their time and place.

 

[Redemptionsong]

As to 2 Timothy 3:16. just because such an opinion by an unknown hand is recorded in the NT doesn't alter its status as simply someone's opinion.

And. with respect, that doesn't address the question I put to you, which I think needs an answer if we're to try to understand the NT authors in their time and place.

You and l approach the study of the Bible very differently.

My starting point is to accept what is written, and to listen to what the prophets say.

The conlusion l have reached is that the NT cannot be dislocated from the OT. Jesus appears out of a long and prophetically recorded history of lsrael.

It appears to me that your approach is based on a biased reading from the start.

Why, l ask, do you reject first words of Genesis, 'ln the beginning God created the heaven and earth'?

 

[idea]

The scripture is there to provide a check on those who stray. All who stray are breaking the word of God in some way or another.

The scriptures are vague enough to allow all to follow their own opinions. The lack of clarity within scriptures is the reason so many different sects exist - each led by linguists, scholars, good-intensions.

Congitive dissonance is real, wanting something so badly you see what you want - I get it, losing a loved one, wanting to rationalize away pain and suffering - our mind takes us where we can escape reality. Sometimes we need to escape reality.

No little flock is "chosen" though, it is wrong for anyone to see themselves in a better light than everyone else. Much better to live side by side, equally yoked with others, than pridfully thinking anyone can lead. We're all just human, life is better for everyone without dogmas, without pride, without tribalism.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The scriptures are vague enough to allow all to follow their own opinions. The lack of clarity within scriptures is the reason so many different sects exist - each led by linguists, scholars, good-intensions.

Congitive dissonance is real, wanting something so badly you see what you want - I get it, losing a loved one, wanting to rationalize away pain and suffering - our mind takes us where we can escape reality. Sometimes we need to escape reality.

No little flock is "chosen" though, it is wrong for anyone to see themselves in a better light than everyone else. Much better to live side by side, equally yoked with others, than pridfully thinking anyone can lead. We're all just human, life is better for everyone without dogmas, without pride, without tribalism.

I disagree. The scriptures are not vague, they are precise, and baffle the limited intellect of man. This is why it takes a perfectly righteous mind to unlock them; and that perfectly righteous mind is Christ. If we do not allow the Holy Spirit to lead us into the truth, we cannot hope to see truth unveiled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What l believe, and what is written in the NT, is that 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is proftable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.'

And what do you think that refers to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would fine if they were contradictory, but they are not.

Try showing the contradiction.

You just told us that you are not a scholar of the Bible.

When does Matthew have the birth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. The scriptures are not vague, they are precise, and baffle the limited intellect of man. This is why it takes a perfectly righteous mind to unlock them; and that perfectly righteous mind is Christ. If we do not allow the Holy Spirit to lead us into the truth, we cannot hope to see truth unveiled.

If they "baffle the intellect of man" then they are vague. And you also just admitted that God did a poor job in inspiring scripture. You are trying to have it both ways and you can't.

 

[dybmh]

That remnant, to my understanding, are the ones who accept Jesus as the Christ,

100% false. Again. If you're getting this from a spirit, you should probably return that little beastie and get your money back.

The remnant CANNOT accept Jesus as Christ that violates God's law. If Jesus is God incarnate, then the remnant cannot accept him, because that violates Leviticus 18:3. The egyptians believed in Pharoah who was deemed to be God incarnate. Even if Jesus isn't believed to be God incarnate, the remnant cannot accept him, because worshipping a human is also an egyptian practice, and Jesus condoned people worshipping him.

3 Like the practice of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelled, you shall not do
​

If you believe that Jacob has already become the anointed servant of God, then the evidence should be that Jacob knows God through the Holy Spirit. But the only Jews who know God through the Holy Spirit are those who have received Jesus Christ as their Saviour.

Not even slightly scriptural. Failed again.

So let's review:

1) There are no reasons to believe that the story in Acts 2 is true.
2) Isaiah 29 says that the prophets were blind but not the nation.
3) The servant in Isaiah cannot be Jesus
4) Hosea, in spite of being a strong rebuke, ends with the Jewish people in God's good graces
5) The idea of the servant being a light to the nations is irrelevant
6) The only reason given to think that the Jewish people are currently spiritually blind comes from a very weak interpretation of the word "day".

Have you made any correct assertions about scripture in this thread?

 

[idea]

I disagree. The scriptures are not vague, they are precise, and baffle the limited intellect of man. This is why it takes a perfectly righteous mind to unlock them; and that perfectly righteous mind is Christ. If we do not allow the Holy Spirit to lead us into the truth, we cannot hope to see truth unveiled.

That's the claim of every different religious group out there, all claim the same thing.

Me personally, I'm not worried about which group is "true", I've learned to stay far away from all the different dictator/controlling/power-hungry heirarchies out there.

The best people are those with kind, humble hearts - not the dogmatic Pharisees. I do what I can to promote kindness, education, and self-reliance.

 

[dybmh]

Eh? How does one make the LORD God into an idol?

Imagining God as a sacrificial lamb

The oneness of God makes idolatry impossible.

This is a scriptural debate. Bring a verse, otherwise it looks like you're making stuff up.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And what do you think that refers to?

It refers to all the words of prophecy, from Genesis to Revelation, lMO.

 

[blü 2]

You and l approach the study of the Bible very differently.

That certainly appears to be the case.

My starting point is to accept what is written, and to listen to what the prophets say.

My starting point with the books of the bible is the same as I'd use for any other ancient document ─ what, when, where, who, why?

The conlusion l have reached is that the NT cannot be dislocated from the OT. Jesus appears out of a long and prophetically recorded history of lsrael.

The conclusion I've reached, which is consistent with the historical approach I mentioned, and thus by no means a view confined to me, is that Jesus is nowhere mentioned in the Tanakh, that 'prophecy' was a tool employed by writers in the politics of the bible's world, and that folk tales and folk histories are not at all confined to the bible but are found in various forms across all ancient cultures who have left us records.

It appears to me that your approach is based on a biased reading from the start.

My view is unbiased, in the sense that my concern with the bible, as with any other ancient document, is to see what it actually says, and when it makes historical claims, to see how well those claims fit with the evidence of other ancient writers, and of archaeology, and so on. Within that frame I don't wish the bible to say any particular thing or to be silent about any particular thing. If it foresaw Jesus, I'd find that interesting, and certainly not a matter to be avoided. But of course it doesn't.

And as you know, when we use reasoned enquiry to explore and seek to understand the past, we use historical method. Thus supernatural claims in the bible are not of themselves more credible than supernatural claims of any other culture.

Why, l ask, do you reject first words of Genesis, 'ln the beginning God created the heaven and earth'?

Because I'm familiar (in outline) with the evidence by which modern cosmology seeks to explore, describe and explain the nature and origins of the universe from examinable evidence; and with the facts and modern theory of evolution. Thus I understand the Genesis account to be another creation myth, dependent on magic (ie the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality). And as you know, the number of authenticated examples of magic is presently zero.

Creation myths and stories of magic illuminate our understanding of the various cultural strands of ancient thought. They don't illuminate our modern understanding of the physical or biological sciences as such.

Here's a link (which I posted some time ago) to the >cosmology of the bible<. You'll note that it contains no concept of heliocentry, gravity, orbits, the nature of stars or planets or satellites, no understanding of deep space or galaxies, the cosmic microwave background radiation, on and on ─ and why should we expect anything else? It's basically the cosmology of Babylon in the first millennium BCE.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You just told us that you are not a scholar of the Bible.

When does Matthew have the birth?

I study the scriptures. Does that make me a scholar?

Did Jesus choose his disciples based on their scholarly record?

The body of Christ is made up of a great variety of folk, each with a talent that contributes to the whole.

When you ask, 'When does Matthew have the birth?', what do you mean?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I study the scriptures. Does that make me a scholar?

Did Jesus choose his disciples based on their scholarly record?

The body of Christ is made up of a great variety of folk, each with a talent that contributes to the whole.

When you ask, 'When does Matthew have the birth?', what do you mean?

No. It doesn't. You need to go deeper than that to be a scholar. If you were you would have known what I was talking about.

And to answer your question, when does Matthew have Jesus born? Roughly what year is what I would like to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It refers to all the words of prophecy, from Genesis to Revelation, lMO.

Nope That is clearly wrong. Do you know who wrote it and when?

Once again you are taking too shallow of a look at the Bible.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If they "baffle the intellect of man" then they are vague. And you also just admitted that God did a poor job in inspiring scripture. You are trying to have it both ways and you can't.

What you say demonstrates how far you are from understanding God.

The reason that the intellect of man finds it difficult to penetrate God's word is because God calls people to faith, not to philosophy.

The Bible is a revelation from God to man, not a book of philosophical puzzles.

Maybe you've never read the words of Paul to the Colossians: 'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.'

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you say demonstrates how far you are from understanding God.

The reason that the intellect of man finds it difficult to penetrate God's word is because God calls people to faith, not to philosophy.

The Bible is a revelation from God to man, not a book of philosophical puzzles.

Maybe you've never read the words of Paul to the Colossians: 'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.'

Nonsensical word salad. I am sure that it is comforting to you, but it does not appear to have any basis in reality.

Let's get back to the flaws in the Bible. Oh, and no apologetics allowed in trying to refute the errors.