I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
No, never. Good heavens!Quote:
And not permit it to degenerate to a mere expression of my opinion versus the opinions of others.
|
I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
No, never. Good heavens!Quote:
And not permit it to degenerate to a mere expression of my opinion versus the opinions of others.
And how exactly did he make known which were which?Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
I'm not sure what the names of the books have to do with anything, but the dictation idea is ridiculous. If God dictated word for word, then he couldn't make up his mind what kind of writing style to use, and in the case of Revelation, apparently he barely knew Greek at all, though he knew it quite well when he dictated Luke and Hebrews.Quote:
Because God is the actual author of the Bible, and the various names given to the various books are only the names of people that God used as scribes that took His dictation.
So what? Your point wasQuote:
It is also true that many people were saved without having access to the complete Bible as we do today. But the fact remains that WE DO HAVE ACCESS to the complete Bible.
You said several times that it requires the entire Bible to understand and achieve salvation. Fr. Chuck pointed out that plenty of people were saved without any Bible at all, or just bits and pieces, and you have completely sidestepped that. I have to wonder why you don't address the point that you yourself made.Quote:
There is no salvation other than from the Bible.
Same problem. As Fr. Chuck already pointed out, and you agreed, plenty of people were saved without access to the whole Bible, so your reasoning doesn't hold up, because reality contradicts it.Quote:
And it is a wonderful blessing from God. And He expects His people to appreciate it, and to respect it, and to make EVERY EFFORT to keep learning more and more truth from His word. And the plain fact is that the Bible is NOT a SIMPLE BOOK. So to try and simplify God's message by ignoring the Bible is NOT the best approach to understanding salvation.
Quoting dwashbur:
"How exactly...etc.?"
How He makes it known to us today is through the harmony that the included books have with one another. And the excluded books do not harmonize.
"I'm not sure what the names...etc."
As you well know the names of the books are often used by theologians to indicate AUTHORSHIP. For example Matthew wrote the book called Matthew, John wrote the book called John, etc.
"the dictation idea is ridiculous...etc."
The differences in style you correctly point out do NOT eliminate the idea of dictation. Why is it not possible that God could use the styles of the various individuals AND YET express EXACTLY the words HE wanted them to say ? There is no reason that such a thing would be impossible for God.
"So what ? Your point was...etc."
The point of HAVING access to the completed Bible is that we are to make use of it, and to CONTINUE TO STUDY PARTICULARLY THOSE PARTS THAT ARE NOT YET UNDERSTOOD BY US. And there is NO WAY that you can honestly tell ME that you currently understand ALL OF IT. NO WAY !!!
"You said several times...etc."
I still maintain that it is necessary to look at everything in the whole Bible to come to a proper understanding of God's plan of salavation. But... understanding salvation is NOT THE SAME AS ACHIEVING SALVATION. I would NEVER make such a statement. We CAN UNDERSTAND, but that is mere KNOWLEDGE. God Himself is still in charge of actually saving ANYONE. So, therefore understanding His plan, while important and necessary for those who claim to follow the Bible PARTICULARLY, it still does not GET US SAVED. God Himself MUST do that. And He has done it for many that do not understand very much about the Bible. See the distinction ?
So God willy-nilly rejects some of humankind?Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
I thought the bible told us that Jesus died, so that all can be saved. He did not say those that he choice could be saved
But how did they get collected? Who did it and how did they know? That's the question, and you haven't answered it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
And by the way, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and several other "excluded books" harmonize quite nicely with the books that were judged canonical. So your supposed criterion doesn't work. And even supposing it did, you still had to have SOMEBODY decide which ones harmonized and which ones didn't. Who was it, and how do you know they were right?
But what does it have to do with the subject at hand? Answer: nothing.Quote:
"I'm not sure what the names...etc."
As you well know the names of the books are often used by theologians to indicate AUTHORSHIP. For example Matthew wrote the book called Matthew, John wrote the book called John, etc.
There is no reason for God to do it this way, either. If you read a book like Isaiah or Ezekiel, you realize that many of the things God revealed to the prophets came in the form of visual images, not words, and the prophets wrote down what they saw as best they could. You really need to check out some basic books on Bible interpretation, because your idea was debunked centuries ago.Quote:
"the dictation idea is ridiculous...etc."
The differences in style you correctly point out do NOT eliminate the idea of dictation. Why is it not possible that God could use the styles of the various individuals AND YET express EXACTLY the words HE wanted them to say ? There is no reason that such a thing would be impossible for God.
This is another dodge. You said that a person had to have the entire Bible to be saved. Now you're changing your tune. I'm asking you to back up your own words with something tangible, and I'm still waiting for you to do so.Quote:
"So what ? Your point was...etc."
The point of HAVING access to the completed Bible is that we are to make use of it, and to CONTINUE TO STUDY PARTICULARLY THOSE PARTS THAT ARE NOT YET UNDERSTOOD BY US. And there is NO WAY that you can honestly tell ME that you currently understand ALL OF IT. NO WAY !!!
That makes as much sense as the average political speech. You said the entire Bible is required for salvation. Fr. Chuck and others pointed out that countless people have been saved without it, many because it hadn't been written yet. The thief on the cross was saved before Jesus even died. Now you want to make some kind of distinction between understanding and achieving, and you're just going in circles. And if it's all God and nothing of man, then nobody can really "achieve" salvation anyway, so your distinction is between nothing and... nothing. If the whole Bible is necessary for salvation, then it is. But if it isn't, then it isn't. I don't think you really have a clue what you're actually trying to say. Perhaps a bit more of a teachable spirit is in order.Quote:
"You said several times...etc."
I still maintain that it is necessary to look at everything in the whole Bible to come to a proper understanding of God's plan of salavation. But... understanding salvation is NOT THE SAME AS ACHIEVING SALVATION. I would NEVER make such a statement. We CAN UNDERSTAND, but that is mere KNOWLEDGE. God Himself is still in charge of actually saving ANYONE. So, therefore understanding His plan, while important and necessary for those who claim to follow the Bible PARTICULARLY, it still does not GET US SAVED. God Himself MUST do that. And He has done it for many that do not understand very much about the Bible. See the distinction ?
Quoting Wondergirl:
"So God willy-nilly rejects...etc."
Not at all ! God is able to accept or to reject ONLY ACCORDING TO HIS OWN LAW.
Those who are rejected SIMPLY HAVE NOT HAD THEIR SINS PAYED FOR. Which is a fact you do not accept as true. Therefore you cannot see the "LEGALITY" of God's choices.
You are making a very simple concept extremely complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
See post number 33 by WG, citing several verses that say in so many words that Jesus died for EVERYBODY, which means he "payed" for everyone's sins. So you're the one not seeing what the Bible actually says.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
Dwashbur, I'm familiar with the Bible verses that you refer to. God wrote them deliberately that way to make it possible to interpret them that way IF one does not follow the rule of VERY CAREFULLY LOOKING AT ALL THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT THAT SUBJECT.
And I further am aware that I am NOT the only one who understands the question in that way. Though on this particular forum, if anybody DOES DARE to think or believe differently than the CONSENSUS, they will very quickly be made to feel very frustrated and perhaps want to give up sharing knowledge with such stubborn and closed minded people as yourself.
I have, for years and years -- since I was about four years old. You (and some others) have a secret understanding?Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
So the "consensus" is wrong, and you are correct?Quote:
if anybody DOES DARE to think or believe differently than the CONSENSUS
So, let me get this straight. All those people who didn't have ALL of the Bible didn't have a snowball's chance of getting statements like those correct because God was trying to fool them? Your statement doesn't make any sense. God, by direct word for word dictation, made deliberately misleading statements? So your God is a borderline liar, based on what you just said. Is that really where you want to end up?Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
And using a bunch of capitals and underlines and all that stuff doesn't help your case. It just makes you look childish.
If you really spent any time on this forum, you'd realize that there is no "consensus" about much of anything. That's one of the fun things about it, as long as you're willing to consider other people's points of view. I find it laughable that you call me "closed minded," when all I have said is "there are other points of view, and yours has holes in it" while you are pounding the pulpit and shouting and underlining to insist that there is one, and only one, point of view, and yours is right and anybody who doesn't agree with you probably isn't saved. So we can add hypocrisy to everything else, because that is the definition of "closed minded."Quote:
And I further am aware that I am NOT the only one who understands the question in that way. Though on this particular forum, if anybody DOES DARE to think or believe differently than the CONSENSUS, they will very quickly be made to feel very frustrated and perhaps want to give up sharing knowledge with such stubborn and closed minded people as yourself.
I have suggested that you need a more teachable spirit, and I will suggest it again. There are lots of people here who have a lot more experience and knowledge of the Bible and Christianity than you have; I've been reading the Bible in its original languages for over 40 years, and we have ministers, scholars, informed lay people, and a huge spectrum of viewpoints and insights. Instead of ridiculing them all and insisting that yours is the only view, why don't you try exploring some of those viewpoints and insights and see what you can learn?
Quoting dwashbur:
"So let me get this straight....etc."
You do have it PARTLY correct. God wasn't trying to fool them (and us) in the same sense that a human being would try to fool somebody. Because God is NOT human at all. And He CANNOT lie. But... HE CAN and HE DOES CONCEAL truth IN HIS WORD. And YES by word for word dictation HE HAS made deliberately misleading statements. That is His privilege. One of the purposes of these misleading statements is that the information relating to the end of time and to judgment could NOT be found out by human effort UNTIL God made that knowledge available (in our time).
In case you're interested, this "case" as you call it is not mine at all. But by using capitals and underlines it helps me to express the EMPHASIS I think is required to make my points. If you consider that childish, so be it. Perhaps what is required of us by God is a child-like approach to trusting the complete accuracy of His word in the original languages and in its ENTIRETY. I refer to the original King James version.
Headstrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
WOW! According to the scriptures Jesus is the last Adam, he came and died for the entire world and WHOSOEVER will may come. God rejects no one... WHOSOEVER wants to call upon the name of the Lord SHALL BE SAVED... hello? The message is a very simple thing on PURPOSE! Is the Bible simple... no WAY. It takes the Holy Spirit to understand the Word. There is so much in the Bible I suppose we will be learning new things forever about it. But the Gospel is simple... WhoSOEVER will may come. Nothing tricky ricky about that.
Incidentally, Ephesians was written directly to the church, or directly to Christians who are already saved. Paul is speaking to the church about our POSITION in Christ, our walk and then spirtual warfare... is isn't a book about HOW to get saved.
I'm really confused about who you think can be saved.. and exactly who you think Jesus died for. You keep talking about reading the entire bible. I'm all for that. But when you DO, learn to rightly divide it like Paul taught. Who is it written directly to, when was written, why it was written and how it applies to you. Otherwise it causes confusion and error in doctrine. Also never mix law with grace. I'm sure my advice will go over like a led balloon but what the heck... I will give it a whirl anyway.
One last thought, God is a JUST God. If he didn't send Jesus to die for ALL of mankind then he doesn't sound too just to me. When the people he DIDN'T die for stand before the Great White Throne and the Lord judges them... what will they say? It is your fault God, Jesus didn't die for my sins.. he didn't pay for me. It makes no sense headstrong.
Any way you slice it, this makes him a liar. The supposedly concealed things are most often presented in visual metaphoric images. That's something very different than what you're claiming for those verses. If you're going to compare things, compare apples to apples, not apples to rabbits. The verses in question are very plain and very clear. They are simple, declarative sentences that state a truth. If they are "deliberatly [sic] misleading" then your God is a liar. There's no way around it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
The "original King James version," eh? Would it interest you to know that the King James version you claim as the "original" is actually a 1789 revision of the original 1611 text, made primarily by Mr. Webster of dictionary fame? You're not using the "original KJ, you're using a revision made over 150 years after the "original." And the " And the " King James itself was not a translation, but a revision of two earlier English versions, the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. The list of revision goes on and on, until we finally get back to the actual original, the Greek text of the New Testament and the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament. There's nothing original at all about the King James.Quote:
In case you're interested, this "case" as you call it is not mine at all. But by using capitals and underlines it helps me to express the EMPHASIS I think is required to make my points. If you consider that childish, so be it. Perhaps what is required of us by God is a child-like approach to trusting the complete accuracy of His word in the original languages and in its ENTIRETY. I refer to the original King James version.
And yes, the shouting etc. makes you look childish. If you can't show your emphasis without it, then you need a better command of the English language. Your appeal to "child-like approach" King James itself was not a translation, but a revision of two earlier English versions, the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. The list of revision goes on and on, until we finally get back to the actual original, the Greek text of the New Testament and the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament. There's nothing original at all about the King James.
And yes, the shouting etc. makes you look childish. If you can't show your emphasis without it, then you need a better command of the English language. Your appeal to "it's okay to remain ignorant." The Bible is firmly against that, and I think you know it. All this is nothing but a cop-out. The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you can start to make some real progress in your understanding of the Scriptures.
Agreed, the King James is by far not the best translation available. The use of old English is one issue, many terms need more modern translation to be clear. But if one wants to really study to "pick apart verses" you have to go back to the Greek, There is nothing special about the King James version that makes it better, if it was written today, one would challenge its translators as people challenge the ones today as having their own agenda. One may want to go back to the Latin verson ( much older translation) to come back to the English.
What I see as a real problem and I will say problem is that headstrong looks or wants legalism to be a issue, that nothing is easy, and simple, and that God is playing some funny game with humans for his enjoyment. He seems to have accepted every bad belief of various christian groups into one belief ( assuming he really believes this and is not merely being trollish for his enjoyment) From the law, to predestined to works, every blockade to salvation is given by him. Which of course leads to the issue, that one can not be saved if you feel that it is all for things you do,
Headstrong,
I'm not picking on you... just curious and trying to understand what you believe. Do you consider yourself saved? Why or why not.
From what I've gleaned from his posts, he believes he is saved, but has suggested that few, including us ("the consensus"), are (yet we think we are).Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
WG-
Gotcha. Thanks!
Headstrong - according to your understanding of the King James version of the Bible can you tell me what I must do to be saved.
Hey classyT,
I tried to send you a PM and got a message that you're not receiving them any more. Que pasa, amiga??
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36 PM. |