Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 93
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rotorua NZ
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    You are not understanding what I have said. Jesus is the Word of God. The Scriptures are a measure of the Word of God, that is, they provide a 100% accurate standard of God's Word which IS life and who IS Jesus. A bit like the metre bar (locked in some French vault, if I remember correctly) is the standard against which all metres are measured. The Bible is the standard against which all life is measured. God is Spirit and is expressed in God's Word, who IS Jesus (the Word is the substance of Spirit making visible that which is invisible.) While Jesus lived on this earth He was seen in human form. Now that He is "seated at the right hand of the Father" we do not see Him, but He has given us His Spirit to guide us into all truth. It is by His Spirit that we know that the Scriptures ARE the measuring standard of life. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Romans 8:9.
    The difficulty with this, however, is that the books of the New Testament do not form a complete divine measure, 'against which life should be measured', they are incomplete, and many of the prospective works of the New Testament were turned down. Why do you think that is? And you don't need to be qualified in 'apologetics' to answer this, you follow this book as much as the next Christian, you must have analysed its contents enough before.

    IF the Bible is confirmed by Christ, by that are you saying that the Spirit has confirmed to you personally that that was the case through some personal revelation, or that the church leaders at the Council of Rome were spiritually inspired by the Spirit to select the few chosen books of the New Testament, rather than being pressured by external secular pressures?

    IF the above is the case, then how would you explain the discrepancies between the Roman Catholic Canon and the Protestant Canon (which I am assuming you are under, given your religious affiliation symbol.) Were the reforming ministers also inspired by the Spirit when they schismed from the church and culled a few books from the Bible?
    IF this is the case there is a clear contradiction:

    On one hand we have the early Church fathers at the Council of Nicea being inspired by Spirit to compile said list of books into the Bible...

    Then we have, over a thousand years later, some church reformists being inspired by the Spirit to change the works which were apparently inspired by said spirit in the first place.

    How can we trust such contradictions?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    The difficulty is that these are spiritual truths that cannot be discerned by the natural man. They are "foolishness" to him.

    "But God has revealed them to us by His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things— even the deep things of God. For who among men understands the things of man except by the spirit of man which is in him? In the same way also, the things of God no one under*stands except by the Spirit of God. Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is of God, so that we might know the things graciously given to us by God; which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit in order to communicate spiritual things by spiritual means. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot un*derstand them because they are spiritually discerned' " (I Cor. 2:9-14).
    By 'us' who is he referring to? Is it every Christian through some personal revelation (which I have to say I have not recieved, or if I have then God is a master of subtlty), or is he predicting the future and talking about the council of Nicea.

    The thing is, Paul was writing before the first known copies of the gospel were available, so he could not possibly be referring to these when he was talking about revelation confirmed by Spirit. Also what do you say about those works that did not make it into the Canon, I would argue that they would have felt their beliefs strongly confirmed by Spirit when they penned their versions of the life of Christ, especially when considering the effort it took to record such events in the ancient world.

    It is the Spirit of Christ in a man that brings unity to the Body of Christ - One Spirit, many members. Many who label themselves Christian do not have Christ's Spirit - hence the disunity.
    Which denominations would you think this would be?
    In order to be consistent with the above statements you would have to argue that the Catholics are the ones with Christ's Spirit, as they have not culled out books from the Canon, which you claim was confirmed by Spirit at the Council of Rome. If this is the case, I wonder why you are not a Catholic.


    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    I'm afraid I shall not be responding to the OP concerning the Canon of Scripture and its authenticity as I am not a Christian apologist either by gifting or training. All I am able to do is give an account of my faith and the reasons for it.
    This is quite a disingeneous cop-out don't you think? What does it mean to be qualified as a Christian apologist? I think because you base your life on the words of this Canon, its make up should be extremely pertinent to you, and hence you are as qualified as the next person.

    To try and break it down:

    -You believe that Christ is Lord, and that God is the key to salvation (along with all the rest of the teachings included in the NT)

    -Your knowledge of Christ, the Holy Spirit and the like, is based solely on the Bible.

    -This Bible was compiled by men in the fourth century, well after the quotes you are providing from Paul that says they are confirmed by Spirit. When Paul was writing this even he didnt know what this would truly mean.

    -IF they were compiled under divine revelation/spiritual inspiration, then how did the church reformers come to cull some of these same books out in the Reformation? Did the Spirit get it wrong at first?


    This is why this discussion is easily accessible by you, you do not need a theology degree or whatever to discuss them.

    Cheers,

    Stormer
    Politics and the fate of mankind are formed by men without ideals and without greatness. Those who have greatness within them do not go in for politics- Albert Camus

    I say violence is necessary, it is about as American as cherry pie- Rap Brown

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    I agree that there has to be a witness to a book to assert its truth, which is what I have claimed there is - the Spirit of Truth, who IS GOd, who confirms His own word. God must swear by Himself, authenticate His own word, if He is the First Cause - above all, God of gods - since there IS no-one or no-thing higher by whom or which He can swear. Therefore, self-authentication as far as the written word of God is concerned is an essential mark of its truth.
    I'm not asking you who God is believed to swear by. I'm asserting that you can't use a book's own claim to correctness as evidence of its correctness. Any fraud could write any book and start off with "This book is true".



    Throughout the ages, in the heart and mind of every believer who is born of the Spirit of God.
    This doesn't support your claim. It means absolutely nothing. I now ask you to desist from again claiming that the selection of the books that now form the NT was a correct selection of works that constitute word of God. You were challenged to support it and you have failed.


    I have provided the answer. All that remains is whether you are able to accept the answer. And that is all that has ever divided Christians and atheists - those who are willing and able to accept the truth and those who are not. The truth itself does not change.
    You have not provided any answer that would support the claim. You were challenged to support that the New Testament is the Word of God. That claim stands unsupported. I now ask that you desist from again claiming that the New Testament is the Word of God. Of course, you can always say that it is believed by some (or that YOU believe it) to be the Word of God.

    The Spirit Himself testifies to the truth on a one to one basis.
    I think what you mean to say is that you and some people that you have spoken to believe that the Spirit has testified to you (them) on a one to one basis. Surely, you can't be saying that the Spirit testifies to EVERYONE.




    Apparent contradiction is always a possibility within incomplete knowledge. You prefer to see it as an absolute contradiction, I would see it as a contradiction (if indeed it is so, and I'm not going into specifics, and I personally don't believe it is) arising from incomplete knowledge. Much like Newtonian physics v Einsteinian physics. (And that's an analogy, not an ABSOLUTE, so don't hold me to it beyond its analogical usage).
    When line 1 says "A" and line 2 says "NOT A", it's not an apparent contradiction. If I told you I was at work at 9am today and then I told you I was at home at 9am today and that I don't work from home, you'd have enough knowledge to know that I'm lying. Right?

    These are true accounts. Neither is incorrect. They are eyewitness accounts of events.
    Please answer the following:

    1. Did Mary Magdalene first find out that Jesus had risen from two angels?

    2. Did Mary Magdalene first find out that Jesus had risen from Jesus himself?




    You know what, as a lawyer, I'd like to bet that if all the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection were identicial, you would be the first to claim collusion and a stitch-up!
    That's entirely irrelevant. As a lawyer I'm not claiming that the entire brief containing all eyewitness statements is 100% factually correct. You, on the other hand, have made such a claim about the entirety of the Bible.


    Everything, because all knowledge pertains to life, does it not? Even that which is inanimate can only be appreciated by the animate and sentient.
    I see. So you're saying that everything in the Bible is correct. Why then dress it up in ambiguous wording like "as it pertains to life"? Why not just say "the entire Bible is factually correct"? By the way, please do not say it as you have failed to support this upon challenge.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Right so the bible is 100% error free. Let me submit to you some direct quotes from the Bible it pertains to the family tree of Jesus.

    Luke 3:23-37
    Luke 3:23-37 (New International Version)

    23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
    the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
    the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
    the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
    25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
    the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
    the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
    the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
    the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
    27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
    the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
    the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
    the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
    the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
    29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
    the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
    the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
    the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
    the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
    31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
    the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
    the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
    the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
    the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,
    33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]
    the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
    the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
    the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
    the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
    35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
    the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
    the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
    the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
    the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
    37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
    the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

    And from Matthew 1:1-17

    1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
    2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
    Isaac the father of Jacob,
    Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
    3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
    Perez the father of Hezron,
    Hezron the father of Ram,
    4Ram the father of Amminadab,
    Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
    Nahshon the father of Salmon,
    5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
    Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
    Obed the father of Jesse,
    6and Jesse the father of King David.
    David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
    7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
    Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
    Abijah the father of Asa,
    8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
    Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
    Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
    9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
    Jotham the father of Ahaz,
    Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
    10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
    Manasseh the father of Amon,
    Amon the father of Josiah,
    11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
    12After the exile to Babylon:
    Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
    Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
    13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
    Abiud the father of Eliakim,
    Eliakim the father of Azor,
    14Azor the father of Zadok,
    Zadok the father of Akim,
    Akim the father of Eliud,
    15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
    Eleazar the father of Matthan,
    Matthan the father of Jacob,
    16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

    17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

    Now what I ask you to do disinterested is pay SPECIAL attention to the genealogy. Do you notice ANY differences at all?

    Oh.....and I won't even take the obvious problem of the fact that this is all traced through Joseph.....who is of no blood relation to Jesus at all.

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
    The difficulty with this, however, is that the books of the New Testament do not form a complete divine measure, 'against which life should be measured', they are incomplete, and many of the prospective works of the New Testament were turned down. Why do you think that is? And you don't need to be qualified in 'apologetics' to answer this, you follow this book as much as the next Christian, you must have analysed its contents enough before.
    The Bible is sufficient a measure to instruct believers in all that pertains to life and righteousness. In a way, you are just arguing about the fineness of scale; centigrade v farenheit, for example. As long as the scale is sufficient for purpose it does not have to be the finest possible scale.

    IF the Bible is confirmed by Christ, by that are you saying that the Spirit has confirmed to you personally that that was the case through some personal revelation, or that the church leaders at the Council of Rome were spiritually inspired by the Spirit to select the few chosen books of the New Testament, rather than being pressured by external secular pressures?
    I really don't want to be drawn into the aplogetics argument re the Canon of Scripture and the various councils. As I keep repeating, I am neither gifted in, or trained in, Christian apologetics, and it would be very wrong of me to attempt to offer an apologetic. I can only comment on my personal experience of God and truth. I bow to no external pressure, only to the Holy Spirit. If my Pastor tells me such and such, I go back to the Bible to see if it is so. And I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me into the truth. To be frank, everything that is presented by any church authority has to pass the test of Scripture before I accede. I will only do what God Himself advocates, and that from love of Him because He first loved me, and not through fear of punishment. And the amazing thing is that God, in Jesus, offers only two commandments - love Me and love your neighbour (and the latter follows from the former). Therefore, I have total freedom in Christ. Everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial. What I do, I do from faith in and love for my Saviour, Jesus. This is not to promote licentiousness (an early heresy) but only to restate Jesus' words: you shall know the truth and will set you free.


    If the above is the case, then how would you explain the discrepancies between the Roman Catholic Canon and the Protestant Canon (which I am assuming you are under, given your religious affiliation symbol.) Were the reforming ministers also inspired by the Spirit when they schismed from the church and culled a few books from the Bible?
    IF this is the case there is a clear contradiction:

    On one hand we have the early Church fathers at the Council of Nicea being inspired by Spirit to compile said list of books into the Bible...

    Then we have, over a thousand years later, some church reformists being inspired by the Spirit to change the works which were apparently inspired by said spirit in the first place.

    How can we trust such contradictions?
    I cannot and do not accept the Roman Catholic canon. There are reasons which a reformed thoeologian will expound, but again I have to say, I am not qualified. I can only offer what I have - that is, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and an account of my faith. And I have enjoyed the "One Spirit" unity with some from the Roman Catholic church, some from the Church of England, and some from other denominations or non-denominational Christians. But the unity is in the One-Spiritness, not in the doctrinal statements of the institutions.

    By 'us' who is he referring to? Is it every Christian through some personal revelation (which I have to say I have not recieved, or if I have then God is a master of subtlty), or is he predicting the future and talking about the council of Nicea.
    All faith is by personal revelation. There is unity of Spirit to be found among those who share in the Spirit of Christ. Then there are the works of men......

    That is what the Holy Spirit's gift of "discernment of spirits" is all about.

    The thing is, Paul was writing before the first known copies of the gospel were available, so he could not possibly be referring to these when he was talking about revelation confirmed by Spirit. Also what do you say about those works that did not make it into the Canon, I would argue that they would have felt their beliefs strongly confirmed by Spirit when they penned their versions of the life of Christ, especially when considering the effort it took to record such events in the ancient world.



    Which denominations would you think this would be?
    In order to be consistent with the above statements you would have to argue that the Catholics are the ones with Christ's Spirit, as they have not culled out books from the Canon, which you claim was confirmed by Spirit at the Council of Rome. If this is the case, I wonder why you are not a Catholic.
    There is only one true church of Jesus Christ and that is the invisible church which is those who have the Spirit of Christ, and they can be found among all denominations.

    I am not a Roman Catholic because I consider it to be a repressive denomination that is mediated by priests and which does not offer the liberty in Jesus that is available.




    This is quite a disingeneous cop-out don't you think? What does it mean to be qualified as a Christian apologist? I think because you base your life on the words of this Canon, its make up should be extremely pertinent to you, and hence you are as qualified as the next person.

    To try and break it down:

    -You believe that Christ is Lord, and that God is the key to salvation (along with all the rest of the teachings included in the NT)

    -Your knowledge of Christ, the Holy Spirit and the like, is based solely on the Bible.
    No. my knowledge of Jesus is based on His Spirit in me revealing to me the truth contained in the Scriptures. The Bible is my yardstick.

    -This Bible was compiled by men in the fourth century, well after the quotes you are providing from Paul that says they are confirmed by Spirit. When Paul was writing this even he didnt know what this would truly mean.

    -IF they were compiled under divine revelation/spiritual inspiration, then how did the church reformers come to cull some of these same books out in the Reformation? Did the Spirit get it wrong at first?
    No. The Spirit of truth was not in the man-made traditions that formed the Roman Catholic church institution. The Spirit of Truth informed the Reformers hence the break from an institution that had become mired in human fallibility and foibles. I say this not from any historical context but because that is where the Spirit of Truth leads me - to reject the traditions of Rome and embrace the reformed faith which is but a return to the apostolic faith that I read of in the Bible - by grace, through faith, not of works lest any man should boast.

    Incidentally, in so doing, it could be said that I have acted according to RC diktat re contraception, for instance, but for a totally different reason. From my reading of the Bible I discovered that God says children are a blessing, they are an heritage of the Lord, and being a simple-minded person and not wanting to miss out on any of God's blessings, I decided to eschew contraception and allow God to bless me as many times as He would - which turned out to be nine times! I wasn't following any diktat, just trusting God's word on the matter and choosing to do in line with what He says. Not from fear of judgement or condemnation, just trust in Him. That is liberty. When the Pope says: thou shalt not, that's repression - putting me back under the law from which Christ died to free me, making His death of no account.

    This is why this discussion is easily accessible by you, you do not need a theology degree or whatever to discuss them.

    Cheers,

    Stormer
    It may be accessible to me but that does not mean that I should pronounce on it in an authoritative way. I am not qualified so to do. I can only give account of my faith and the reasons for it.

    ---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Cardinal View Post
    Right so the bible is 100% error free. Let me submit to you some direct quotes from the Bible it pertains to the family tree of Jesus.

    Luke 3:23-37
    Luke 3:23-37 (New International Version)

    23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
    the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
    the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
    the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
    25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
    the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
    the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
    the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
    the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
    27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
    the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
    the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
    the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
    the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
    29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
    the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
    the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
    the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
    the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
    31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
    the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
    the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
    the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
    the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,
    33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]
    the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
    the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
    the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
    the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
    35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
    the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
    the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
    the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
    the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
    37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
    the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

    And from Matthew 1:1-17

    1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
    2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
    Isaac the father of Jacob,
    Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
    3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
    Perez the father of Hezron,
    Hezron the father of Ram,
    4Ram the father of Amminadab,
    Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
    Nahshon the father of Salmon,
    5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
    Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
    Obed the father of Jesse,
    6and Jesse the father of King David.
    David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
    7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
    Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
    Abijah the father of Asa,
    8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
    Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
    Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
    9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
    Jotham the father of Ahaz,
    Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
    10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
    Manasseh the father of Amon,
    Amon the father of Josiah,
    11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
    12After the exile to Babylon:
    Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
    Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
    13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
    Abiud the father of Eliakim,
    Eliakim the father of Azor,
    14Azor the father of Zadok,
    Zadok the father of Akim,
    Akim the father of Eliud,
    15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
    Eleazar the father of Matthan,
    Matthan the father of Jacob,
    16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

    17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

    Now what I ask you to do disinterested is pay SPECIAL attention to the genealogy. Do you notice ANY differences at all?

    Oh.....and I won't even take the obvious problem of the fact that this is all traced through Joseph.....who is of no blood relation to Jesus at all.
    Female and male lines?

    Primogeniture and Matrilineality?

    These are the avenues I would pursue if I were a Christian apologist. As it is, I am not, and will therefore leave it to others.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  5. #25
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    584
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
    Thanks for being the first theist to take the stand though :
    She did not take a stand, she took a knee. She flat-out refuses to debate with valid logic and evidence. She does not hide it; she advertises it. Numerous members, including at least one mod, have noted this. Her posts read more like prayers than reasoned thoughts. She begs the question so much that one wonders if she types her posts while standing (perhaps kneeling) on a street corner with a change-rattling cup in her hand. Point out the fallacious – almost always circular - nature of her posts and she will retrench rather than rethink. Her posts bathe in this logical fallacy and lack a sense self-irony, which produces a foul arrogance - like a pig flopping in slop, who acts as if it is the one casting pearls before swine.

    The disinterest amongst ODN Christians in replying to this thread - and disintersted's reply - result in the same conclusion: Your OP remains unchallenged. Well done.

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by HermanLeadread View Post

    The disinterest amongst ODN Christians in replying to this thread - and disintersted's reply - result in the same conclusion: Your OP remains unchallenged.[COLOR="red"]
    I think that I have said to you before that it is impossible to trade in words unless we have a common linguistic understanding.

    Here, for your information, is the definition of "disinterested", which is not to be confused with "uninterested" and is the reason I adopted the handle in the first instance - to weed out the genuinely literate from the intellectual posers, and thus have some kind of fore-warning of the latter.


    dis·in·ter·est·ed

    Free of bias and self-interest; impartial: "disinterested scientific opinion on fluorides in the water supply" (Ellen R. Shell).



    Usage Note: In traditional usage, disinterested can only mean "having no stake in an outcome," as in Since the judge stands to profit from the sale of the company, she cannot be considered a disinterested party in the dispute. This usage was acceptable to 97 percent of the Usage Panel in our 2001 survey. But despite critical disapproval, disinterested has come to be widely used by many educated writers to mean "uninterested" or "having lost interest," as in Since she discovered skiing, she is disinterested in her schoolwork. Oddly enough, "not interested" is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error. In our 2001 survey, 88 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence It is difficult to imagine an approach better designed to prevent disinterested students from developing any intellectual maturity. This is not a significantly different proportion from the 89 percent who disapproved of a similar usage in 1988.

    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  7. #27
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    584
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    I think that I have said to you before that it is impossible to trade in words unless we have a common linguistic understanding.

    Here, for your information, is the definition of "disinterested", which is not to be confused with "uninterested" and is the reason I adopted the handle in the first instance - to weed out the genuinely literate from the intellectual posers, and thus have some kind of fore-warning of the latter.


    dis·in·ter·est·ed

    Free of bias and self-interest; impartial: "disinterested scientific opinion on fluorides in the water supply" (Ellen R. Shell).



    Usage Note: In traditional usage, disinterested can only mean "having no stake in an outcome," as in Since the judge stands to profit from the sale of the company, she cannot be considered a disinterested party in the dispute. This usage was acceptable to 97 percent of the Usage Panel in our 2001 survey. But despite critical disapproval, disinterested has come to be widely used by many educated writers to mean "uninterested" or "having lost interest," as in Since she discovered skiing, she is disinterested in her schoolwork. Oddly enough, "not interested" is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error. In our 2001 survey, 88 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence It is difficult to imagine an approach better designed to prevent disinterested students from developing any intellectual maturity. This is not a significantly different proportion from the 89 percent who disapproved of a similar usage in 1988.

    *Uninterested*

    Obviously, I meant "disinterest" this way: "absence of interest; indifference."
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disinterest

  8. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by HermanLeadread View Post
    *Uninterested*
    Excellent!

    Then I hope to not see you return to this thread.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  9. #29
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    584
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Disinterested's words in a different thread...

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    If you wish to discuss the Canon of Scripture, that's for a different thread.

    However, I will tell you now that I would not join such a debate because I am not, by gifting of the Holy Spirit, or by education, a Bible teacher or a Christian apologist. I am called only to give account of my faith and the reason for my belief.



    Did she change her mind? Perhaps this was this another example of her Tourette's Syndrome typewriter getting the best of the situation.
    Last edited by sonofnietzsche; October 1st, 2009 at 08:49 AM.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Pasco Washington
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
    Well as I mentioned above there are discrepancies between major denominations concerning what is in their specific Bible, so I would imagine they were incorporated around the same time they (the newer denominations) split from the Catholic Church.

    As noted above though, the core of the current Bible was discussed at Nicea and then formalised at the Council of Rome in the fourth century, attending this Council were representatives from the Church, as is detailed in the article:


    Council of Rome: Wikipedia

    The Canon list was formalised by Pope Damasus in the Damasine list.
    Thanks for the info, I will put on my favorites. Well, it looks like you now have all the debate you want.

    ---------- Post added at 01:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    There is little point in debating the Word of God unless you understand what it actually is.

    If I am a person dying of thirst and am presented with a pint of water, what will save my life - the pint or the water?

    The Scriptures are the measure of the life contained in them - the LIVING WORD which is Jesus Christ.

    John 1

    The Eternal Word

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

    The Bible is a 100% accurate measure by which we may evaluate all things pertaining to life. Thus in 2 Timothy 3:16 we read that: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Note, reading the Bible does not confer eternal life, it instructs concerning eternal life and how and where it may be found and how it should be lived to its fullest potential. Life itself is in the Living Word which is Jesus. Jesus says that HE is the water of life, and all who drink of Him will never thirst again.
    But your "word of God" was cobbled together by disputing Christian sects centuries after these events took place. The bible is a Catholic book, and the Catholic church back then was not really the most saintly there was.
    Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

  11. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rotorua NZ
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    The Bible is sufficient a measure to instruct believers in all that pertains to life and righteousness. In a way, you are just arguing about the fineness of scale; centigrade v farenheit, for example. As long as the scale is sufficient for purpose it does not have to be the finest possible scale.
    So you are saying the discrepencies in religious canon between denominations, or the fact that many potential canononical works were left out is not important?

    The thing is, if these works were incorporated they would change a lot of what has been held to be classic Christian doctrine. Your whole belief system would be affected. I'm afraid it is more than just 'fineness of scale.'
    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    I really don't want to be drawn into the aplogetics argument re the Canon of Scripture and the various councils. As I keep repeating, I am neither gifted in, or trained in, Christian apologetics, and it would be very wrong of me to attempt to offer an apologetic. I can only comment on my personal experience of God and truth. I bow to no external pressure, only to the Holy Spirit. If my Pastor tells me such and such, I go back to the Bible to see if it is so. And I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me into the truth. To be frank, everything that is presented by any church authority has to pass the test of Scripture before I accede. I will only do what God Himself advocates, and that from love of Him because He first loved me, and not through fear of punishment. And the amazing thing is that God, in Jesus, offers only two commandments - love Me and love your neighbour (and the latter follows from the former). Therefore, I have total freedom in Christ. Everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial. What I do, I do from faith in and love for my Saviour, Jesus. This is not to promote licentiousness (an early heresy) but only to restate Jesus' words: you shall know the truth and will set you free.
    What I am getting from your argument is that you believe the current form of Scripture because of some personal revelation through the Holy Spirit, rather than being convinced through secular reflection and logical analysis. I must ask how does one spread the word of the Lord if all you have to back up what you think is the 'Word of God' is personal supernatural revelation? Such a position relies on your own testimony, which is not debatable, because I do not know the particulars of said revelation, or your other spiritual experiences.

    Just to clarify, are you saying that the Holy Sprit has personally told you that the Bible you follow is the correct word of God? Have you really been gifted by such a miracle? If so what would be the point of your pastor?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    I cannot and do not accept the Roman Catholic canon. There are reasons which a reformed thoeologian will expound, but again I have to say, I am not qualified.
    You must have reasons to reject such canon out of hand however, or is this another case of the Holy Spirit personally telling you that they are false?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    I can only offer what I have - that is, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and an account of my faith. And I have enjoyed the "One Spirit" unity with some from the Roman Catholic church, some from the Church of England, and some from other denominations or non-denominational Christians. But the unity is in the One-Spiritness, not in the doctrinal statements of the institutions.
    Can you elaborate on what 'one-spiritness' is? Could you share it with other theists, for example Latter-Day Saints, Muslims, or Jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    All faith is by personal revelation. There is unity of Spirit to be found among those who share in the Spirit of Christ. Then there are the works of men......
    OK I think now would be a good time for you to elaborate on what personal revelation means, because your entire argument rests on it. Is it the case that you had a vision of the Holy Spirit, who told you specifically what was and what was not the word of God? If not, what is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    That is what the Holy Spirit's gift of "discernment of spirits" is all about.
    Do you believe that everyone possesses this gift? On a side note, do you believe in predestination?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    There is only one true church of Jesus Christ and that is the invisible church which is those who have the Spirit of Christ, and they can be found among all denominations.
    Again, could everyone possess this invisible Church? Or is it predestined for the chosen, gifted few?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    I am not a Roman Catholic because I consider it to be a repressive denomination that is mediated by priests and which does not offer the liberty in Jesus that is available.
    Is this from your own personal, secular analysis, or from what the Holy Spirit has personally revealed to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    No. my knowledge of Jesus is based on His Spirit in me revealing to me the truth contained in the Scriptures. The Bible is my yardstick.
    So is this a restatement of your original argument that your spiritual reliance on the canon you currently follow is from a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    No. The Spirit of truth was not in the man-made traditions that formed the Roman Catholic church institution. The Spirit of Truth informed the Reformers hence the break from an institution that had become mired in human fallibility and foibles. I say this not from any historical context but because that is where the Spirit of Truth leads me - to reject the traditions of Rome and embrace the reformed faith which is but a return to the apostolic faith that I read of in the Bible - by grace, through faith, not of works lest any man should boast.
    Again, the Holy Spirit specifically revealed this to you?

    If the reformed church is a return to the apostolic faith do you have any idea why they did not accept any of the other texts that expound the faith of some of the apostles, or the other letters from Paul?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    Incidentally, in so doing, it could be said that I have acted according to RC diktat re contraception, for instance, but for a totally different reason. From my reading of the Bible I discovered that God says children are a blessing, they are an heritage of the Lord, and being a simple-minded person and not wanting to miss out on any of God's blessings, I decided to eschew contraception and allow God to bless me as many times as He would - which turned out to be nine times! I wasn't following any diktat, just trusting God's word on the matter and choosing to do in line with what He says. Not from fear of judgement or condemnation, just trust in Him. That is liberty. When the Pope says: thou shalt not, that's repression - putting me back under the law from which Christ died to free me, making His death of no account.
    I'm sorry but when you are referring to the law that 'Christ died to free you from', what are you referring to? The Jewish relgious laws?


    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    It may be accessible to me but that does not mean that I should pronounce on it in an authoritative way. I am not qualified so to do. I can only give account of my faith and the reasons for it.
    I am correct in understanding that your reason for faith is solely the fact that you have been gifted by a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit?

    Cheers,

    Stormer
    Politics and the fate of mankind are formed by men without ideals and without greatness. Those who have greatness within them do not go in for politics- Albert Camus

    I say violence is necessary, it is about as American as cherry pie- Rap Brown

  12. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post

    Female and male lines?

    Primogeniture and Matrilineality?

    These are the avenues I would pursue if I were a Christian apologist. As it is, I am not, and will therefore leave it to others.
    Well you are right in that these are the avenues that apologist try to travel up. But the problem is what the bible says and what they try to make their argument. An argument that takes a pretty twisted up faith to believe. There are some apologist that try to make these genealogy's work by actually having Mary and Joseph being cousins! Incest bad......

    I also don't think you mean "primogeniture" I think you mean Patrilineal.

    At any rate...each of the lists.....mention Joseph...not Mary.

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


  13. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Cardinal View Post
    Well you are right in that these are the avenues that apologist try to travel up. But the problem is what the bible says and what they try to make their argument. An argument that takes a pretty twisted up faith to believe. There are some apologist that try to make these genealogy's work by actually having Mary and Joseph being cousins! Incest bad......

    I also don't think you mean "primogeniture" I think you mean Patrilineal.

    At any rate...each of the lists.....mention Joseph...not Mary.
    Jewish family lines when being traced back were seldom considered exhaustive lists. People listed as a matter of preference those who were considered the more important ancestors. Given this factor it is very hard to say lines contradict except for when more is known about the ancestors and we know that two people happen to have been near exact contemporaries and yet ancestry is traced through both. We have no such information for Jesus' ancestors unfortunatley.
    -=]Eliotitus[=-
    "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

  14. #34
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    Jewish family lines when being traced back were seldom considered exhaustive lists. People listed as a matter of preference those who were considered the more important ancestors. Given this factor it is very hard to say lines contradict except for when more is known about the ancestors and we know that two people happen to have been near exact contemporaries and yet ancestry is traced through both. We have no such information for Jesus' ancestors unfortunatley.
    Yup, that's the standard explanation.
    Which of the following two hypotheses is it more consistent with?

    a) The Bible is the word of the perfect Creator of the Universe.

    b) The Bible is Jewish mythology.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  15. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Yup, that's the standard explanation.
    Which of the following two hypotheses is it more consistent with?

    a) The Bible is the word of the perfect Creator of the Universe.

    b) The Bible is Jewish mythology.
    Looking purely at this dispute. The two are not mutually exclusive...
    -=]Eliotitus[=-
    "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

  16. #36
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    Looking purely at this dispute. The two are not mutually exclusive...
    I think they are. But I'm happy to change (b) to say:

    (b) the Bible is Jewish mythology, created entirely by the Jews with no divine inspiration from any perfect being. It's written based on Jewish cultural customs of the time.

    The pertinent issue is that, in my opinion, a perfect creator of the universe would be unlikely to make a divine message (intended for billions of people and thousands of years) that would be inaccurate and incomplete merely because a particular culture within a particular period of time had a practice of making such inaccurate and incomplete accounts.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  17. #37
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Again for the purposes of this discussion you must completely divorce yourself from all knowledge or belief with regard to anything else in the bible. The two lineages do not contradict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I think they are. But I'm happy to change (b) to say:

    (b) the Bible is Jewish mythology, created entirely by the Jews with no divine inspiration from any perfect being. It's written based on Jewish cultural customs of the time.

    The pertinent issue is that, in my opinion, a perfect creator of the universe would be unlikely to make a divine message (intended for billions of people and thousands of years) that would be inaccurate and incomplete merely because a particular culture within a particular period of time had a practice of making such inaccurate and incomplete accounts.
    Please note you said divine message with reference to these two statements. Firstly you have no evidence the genealogiesare innacurate. Thus your accusation of them being so is based off your personal opinion that the source as a whole cannot be trusted. If it can, then it is likely that the genealogies are likewise accurate as they would be contained within a reputable source.

    Furthermore you must look at the purpose of them. They were designed to trace Jesus' line back to David, they both fulfill that purpose finding David as an ancestor of Jesus through Joseph. Thus in what way are they incomplete? They fulfilled the task they were designed to do...
    -=]Eliotitus[=-
    "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

  18. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    Again for the purposes of this discussion you must completely divorce yourself from all knowledge or belief with regard to anything else in the bible. The two lineages do not contradict.



    Please note you said divine message with reference to these two statements. Firstly you have no evidence the genealogiesare innacurate. Thus your accusation of them being so is based off your personal opinion that the source as a whole cannot be trusted. If it can, then it is likely that the genealogies are likewise accurate as they would be contained within a reputable source.

    Furthermore you must look at the purpose of them. They were designed to trace Jesus' line back to David, they both fulfill that purpose finding David as an ancestor of Jesus through Joseph. Thus in what way are they incomplete? They fulfilled the task they were designed to do...
    When you trace someone's ancestry back to a particular individual, a single gap is fatal.

    You'd expect a perfect being to provide a perfect account of facts. An incomplete account is not a perfect account. What's more, the entire idea is of dubious utility, given the obvious fact that Joseph was not Christ's father. Christ was NOT in the line of David. At all.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  19. #39
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    When you trace someone's ancestry back to a particular individual, a single gap is fatal.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    You'd expect a perfect being to provide a perfect account of facts.An incomplete account is not a perfect account.
    This'll be my second why of the post

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    What's more, the entire idea is of dubious utility, given the obvious fact that Joseph was not Christ's father. Christ was NOT in the line of David. At all.
    Legal dynasty was of far more importance than a blood line. Jesus is indeed of the house of david as the prophecy suggests:

    Isaiah 16:5 In love a throne will be established; in faithfulness a man will sit on it--one from the house of David--one who in judging seeks justice and speeds the cause of righteousness

    In a culture where it was considered acceptable for the wealthy to "adopt" heirs the fact that his bloodline cannot be traced back to David is an irrelevance. His "household" can and was traced back to David. Looking soley at these passages assuming they are in an otherwise impecable book insofar as accuracy goes, they cannot be considered contradictory.
    -=]Eliotitus[=-
    "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

  20. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Word of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    Why?
    Because a single gap breaks the chain.


    This'll be my second why of the post
    Because a perfect being does everything perfectly.


    Legal dynasty was of far more importance than a blood line. Jesus is indeed of the house of david as the prophecy suggests:

    Isaiah 16:5 In love a throne will be established; in faithfulness a man will sit on it--one from the house of David--one who in judging seeks justice and speeds the cause of righteousness

    In a culture where it was considered acceptable for the wealthy to "adopt" heirs the fact that his bloodline cannot be traced back to David is an irrelevance. His "household" can and was traced back to David. Looking soley at these passages assuming they are in an otherwise impecable book insofar as accuracy goes, they cannot be considered contradictory.
    Well no, it wasn't because there are obvious inconsistencies in the chain. And since there are inconsistencies, there are GAPS.

    Skeptics say that the reason why the writers of the New Testament wrote these lineages was to manufacture an account of the prophecy being fulfilled in the first place. Pious fraud, one might say. I have to say that regrettably that makes sense, given the inconsistency between the accounts.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •