Questions for Jesus-Freak

RationalReverend said:
Actually, no they are not, just as God's decision to punish does not negate his omni benevolence, but rather his attributes mitigate each other.
Click to expand...
Actually, yes they are, because mercy is inherently unfair to the wronged. Justice mitigated is not justice.
 
Lonewulf said:
None at all?

None, period?

No matter how many others wrote down about God, or claimed to be prophets or to have revelations? What about the Qu'ran? Mohamad claimed to be a prophet of God. Why do you doubt him, but not doubt, say, Jesus' apostles?

Is there some form you have to fill out to be a "true" Revealer, or is there some kind of sign somewhere?
Click to expand...

Islam is a Christian based heresy. There is a lot of evidence that Mo was exposed to Christianity and Gnosticism, the three biggest being his employment as a trader, the stories in the hadith that say so, and the passages in the Quran that are perverted versions of stories in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Gnostic works. It is painfully obvious that he borrowed his stories, and the errors in them prove them less than genuine. If you want to make an argument about what is revelation the Quran is the last place you want to look. Especially since it contains such golden nuggets of awesome as telling his followers to test what he said by the Bible. He failed the test.
 
RationalReverend said:
Well, they tend to be pretty obvious. If you read the Joshua passage in context he can continue fighting because the sun is still up. It is painful obvious that it is meant literally. In Ecclesiastes the way it is written makes it obvious that it is a poetic device. If you cannot see the difference you are being willfully ignorant. But since that probably won't satisfy you, let me also say that even if it weren't just obvious, the study of it in the original Hebrew, as well as general knowledge of the text itself would help greatly. For example, Ecclesiastes is in the style of Wisdom literature and it is given over to poetic devices. Ta-dah!
Click to expand...

OK, so when "sun stood still" in Joshua it is literally true, then that implies that the sun is "moving" at all other times, so in a sense, this is still a figure of speech or literary device. I mean, the sun is somewhat always "standing still" relative to earth.

Regarding the rest of this response, it is easy to say that I am willfully ignorant, but what about people who are truly ignorant through no fault of their own? How will they know which parts of the bible to trust? Also, what about those of us who have not read the original Hebrew (or Aramaic or Greek where that may apply)? How can we possibly know which portions to take literally?

This is the problem I have with literal interpretation of the bible. Figures of speech change over time, and there are no big "Poetry Here" flags. We are left to interpret the words as best we can. I have seen two people who's opinions I trust (my father's pastor and my father) completely disagree over interpretation. If it were all poetry, or all literal, these kinds of discussions wouldn't happen, and we could all agree when science and religion diverge.
 
jesus_freak said:
I don't know. All I know is that God could make it appear that the sun stopped moving, or seem like he stoped the sun from moving...I think by reading the whole Bible I realized it is true, and most non beleivers like to take verses out of context or try and focus on a few verses that if read a certain way seem to be wrong. I just continue to study the Word and go from there.
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree with you here, but it is hard to have a discussion over an Internet forum without picking selective quotes. I have found that when reading the bible in context, the bits that "seem to be wrong" tend to stand out to me. There are sections of the bible that illustrate this better, but since I had started out with earth/sun-centered universe, I was trying to stay on topic rather than jumping all over the place. I have to head to bed now, but will try to address this better when I have a chance. Thanks for your honest replies on this.
 
RationalReverend said:
Islam is a Christian based heresy. There is a lot of evidence that Mo was exposed to Christianity and Gnosticism, the three biggest being his employment as a trader, the stories in the hadith that say so, and the passages in the Quran that are perverted versions of stories in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Gnostic works. It is painfully obvious that he borrowed his stories, and the errors in them prove them less than genuine. If you want to make an argument about what is revelation the Quran is the last place you want to look. Especially since it contains such golden nuggets of awesome as telling his followers to test what he said by the Bible. He failed the test.
Click to expand...

How do you succeed this "test", then?
 
Hokulele said:
OK, so when "sun stood still" in Joshua it is literally true, then that implies that the sun is "moving" at all other times, so in a sense, this is still a figure of speech or literary device. I mean, the sun is somewhat always "standing still" relative to earth.
Click to expand...

wonders never cease. The sun stood still. It is written from their perspective, we still say sunrise and sunset, to demand otherwise or pretend you don't understand is to manufacture an argument out of nothing. The obvious idea is that they had more daylight to continue fighting. Period. End of story.

Regarding the rest of this response, it is easy to say that I am willfully ignorant, but what about people who are truly ignorant through no fault of their own? How will they know which parts of the bible to trust? Also, what about those of us who have not read the original Hebrew (or Aramaic or Greek where that may apply)? How can we possibly know which portions to take literally?
Click to expand...

What about people who are truly ignorant, if I read the Chronicles of Narnia and totally misunderstand the meaning of the whole thing, how can that possibly effect the integrity of the work itself! That is like saying if I speak, but am misunderstood, then I did not in fact speak correctly. That is fallacious logic. However, this kind of ignorance does exist, and that is why we instruct. Crazy people like me go to school and learn old dead languages so they can instruct others.

This is the problem I have with literal interpretation of the bible. Figures of speech change over time, and there are no big "Poetry Here" flags. We are left to interpret the words as best we can. I have seen two people who's opinions I trust (my father's pastor and my father) completely disagree over interpretation. If it were all poetry, or all literal, these kinds of discussions wouldn't happen, and we could all agree when science and religion diverge.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old "There are varied opinions about interpretation so it can't be literal and true!" People disagree, sometimes an author says something and we must try to understand exactly exactly exactly what he meant, and that process of examination does not mean he didn't speak literally. People tend to disagree on certain specifics, but on the whole, the core is pretty unanimous. Disagreement over interpretation also does not disprove the literal/truthful quality of the text for the same reason as stated in my last example.

As for figures of speech, again, we have people who study the old languages, and they would find your challenges pointless. Let me be plain: 1)We know a great deal about Biblical Hebrew 2) We can easily identify poetic structures and figures of speech
 
Beleth said:
Actually, yes they are, because mercy is inherently unfair to the wronged. Justice mitigated is not justice.
Click to expand...

Why not? because you say so? The satisfaction of their guilt was already paid by Christ, so their is nothing for the wronged to seek. The debt of the sinner to the wronged has been paid in God's blood. When God's mercy mitigates his justice and he makes anew a sinner, then the satisfaction of his Justice was met by his own blood.
 
RationalReverend said:
1) By coming from an Apostle (there aren't any anymore) or a Prophet (not any of these anymore either in the OT sense)
Click to expand...

How do you verify that the Apostles were speaking the truth?

2) by being totally compatible with the Bible as we have it
Click to expand...

I am dubious that "as we have it" is even a reliable source from the original, even if the original was fictitious or trustworthy.
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
How do you verify that the Apostles were speaking the truth?
Click to expand...

They were entrusted the Church by Christ.


I am dubious that "as we have it" is even a reliable source from the original, even if the original was fictitious or trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Then you don't know much about textual criticism or you have been listening to too much Ehrman.
 
RationalReverend said:
That is like saying if I speak, but am misunderstood, then I did not in fact speak correctly. That is fallacious logic.
Click to expand...
It's not definite, but it's certainly possible that you did not in fact speak correctly, which led to the misunderstanding.

But here, we're talking about the Bible, which contains God's words. God of course would speak so as to not be misunderstood. And yet, here we are, with almost as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are readers of the Bible. This suggests one of three things to me:
1) God is unable to speak so as to not be misunderstood.
2) God wanted to be misunderstood.
3) God did not speak at all; men did.

If you have a fourth possibility, I'd love to hear it.
 
Beleth said:
But here, we're talking about the Bible, which contains God's words. God of course would speak so as to not be misunderstood. And yet, here we are, with almost as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are readers of the Bible.
Click to expand...
God spoke through the prophets to the people in a specific time and a specific context. They understood just fine. If God speaks in a language I do not know, if I want to know what he said, I learn the language. To satisfy your argumentation, everyone in the world would have to speak the same language or God would need to make some magic bibles! Neither requirement is fair. God spoke clearly, if people cannot hear, then that does not call into question God's ability to speak. You are slavishly attempting to turn the faults of our race into the faults of God.


This suggests one of three things to me:
1) God is unable to speak so as to not be misunderstood.
2) God wanted to be misunderstood.
3) God did not speak at all; men did.

If you have a fourth possibility, I'd love to hear it.
Click to expand...

4) God spoke clearly and was understood in the time that he spoke. Our job as Christians is to examine the text in light of that context and thereby understand God.

Again for your claims to be satisfied God would have to forcibly take hold of anyone who read the Bible and feed them the meaning of every text, and your demand is ridiculous and unreasonable.
 
RationalReverend said:
Why not? because you say so?
Click to expand...
No, because words mean things, and I know what those meanings are.

The satisfaction of their guilt was already paid by Christ, so their is nothing for the wronged to seek. The debt of the sinner to the wronged has been paid in God's blood.
Click to expand...
So the debt has been paid. That's justice; that's not mercy.

When God's mercy mitigates his justice and he makes anew a sinner, then the satisfaction of his Justice was met by his own blood.
Click to expand...
If God is satisfied, then again, that's justice, not mercy.
Mercy would be God making anew a sinner without being paid.
 
Beleth said:
No, because words mean things, and I know what those meanings are.
Click to expand...

So do I, and you are irrationally bending mercy into meaning injustice.

So the debt has been paid. That's justice; that's not mercy.
If God is satisfied, then again, that's justice, not mercy.
Mercy would be God making anew a sinner without being paid.
Click to expand...

Uh no, it is mercy because God does not make them pay for their own crimes. He maintains His justice, however, with his own blood.
 
RationalReverend said:
They were entrusted the Church by Christ.
Click to expand...

Ah, right, okay.

Then you don't know much about textual criticism or you have been listening to too much Ehrman.
Click to expand...

Haven't ever heard of Ehrman, nor have I ever heard what he had to say. Your claim is not based on anything but a presumption (prejudice, I guess?)

Ah well, it was a mistake to try to start up a debate with a theologian.
 
RationalReverend, I feel I may be getting repetitive on the religion boards, but what do you make of Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38. Please note that these are not passages which can concievably be put forth as poetic, unless the almighty is a truely crappy poet, and that these passages contradict each other directly in revealing the lineage of Jesus. One of the few things these passages agree on is the patrimony of Jesus being worldly.

This is not poetic license.
This is not a case of the lineages being confused by the Greek tradition of male lines v. the Jewish tradition of female lines. If that was all it was, the ancestors of Jesus often interbred.
This is a direct argument, stated twice, concerning the fulfillment of specific necessities of messiah-hood.
 
RationalReverend said:
God spoke through the prophets to the people in a specific time and a specific context. They understood just fine. If God speaks in a language I do not know, if I want to know what he said, I learn the language.
Click to expand...
But what if God wants you to understand what He said, instead of you wanting to understand God? Does God not want His meaning to be known to us today?

To satisfy your argumentation, everyone in the world would have to speak the same language or God would need to make some magic bibles! Neither requirement is fair.
Click to expand...
Why? Because you say so? Why is it unfair for everyone to speak the same language?

God spoke clearly, if people cannot hear, then that does not call into question God's ability to speak. You are slavishly attempting to turn the faults of our race into the faults of God.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm the slavish one? Really. You fall down before some being who hasn't bothered to do anything for at least two thousand years, whereas I have spent my life looking into what's really going on in the universe so that I can come to an informed opinion, and I'm the slavish one. I see.

Perhaps you should think more before you speak.

4) God spoke clearly and was understood in the time that he spoke. Our job as Christians is to examine the text in light of that context and thereby understand God.
Click to expand...
But that's simply not Yahweh's modus operandi. When He wants someone to listen, He goes and talks to that person. The Bible is full of first- and second-hand accounts of people "touched by God". Yet He hasn't sent down a prophet you agree with since Jesus.

Again for your claims to be satisfied God would have to forcibly take hold of anyone who read the Bible and feed them the meaning of every text, and your demand is ridiculous and unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Again, why? Because you say so? Is it more reasonable for countless billions of people to learn three ancient languages and still not come to the same conclusion about what the texts mean?
 
jesus_freak said:
I think these questions [about animal DNA] are answered in that article.
Click to expand...
The question was directed towards you, so I would appreciate an answer from you.

I can also read and quote all sorts of books about stuff I don't understand, but does that make them valid? If they happen to confirm my prejudices, does that make them right?

Incidentally, AnswersInGenesis are a pathetically inept crowd of bunglers masquerading as scientists. The vast majority of them (and there are pitiful few as it is) have no qualifications to speak of, on any subject they propound on. Those few that do are either deluded soft-heads, or they are actually "real" scientists in their day-jobs weekdays, and cynically evangelistic (and money-grubbing) creationists only on Sundays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom