 |
The Pharisees taught the scriptures.Not at all the same thing. I hope one day you will know the difference.Quote:
The apostles’ teaching
You don't believe the scriptures so you will never see it, even if it was pointed out to you. You need Aks God to reveal.Quote:
How is -"the Church in trouble (according to Scripture)"?
Jesus taught the Scriptures. John the Baptist taught the Scriptures. Paul taught the Scriptures. Peter taught the Scriptures. James taught the Scriptures. John taught the Scriptures. Apollos taught the Scriptures. The entire first century church taught and believed the Scriptures, so it would be good for Walter to simply acknowledge he posted yet another non-Biblical idea.Quote:
Not at all the same thing. I hope one day you will know the difference.
As to the Pharisees, their problem was in not realizing WHO the scriptures they were teaching pointed to. "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me." The Bible acts a giant signpost pointing to the very source of life, and that is Christ Himself.
I am suggesting that, with a kind of worldly wisdom, we have been approaching the World on the grounds of apologetics instead of (which the apostle Paul), determining not to know anything "save Crist crucified".
We assert him, we proclaim him, we start with him because he is the center of the whole of our position.
I think we have become too familiar with the bible.
You do realize you are teaching the scriptures? At any rate, we most certainly should be proclaiming Christ. That was well said. But as to the rest, please read and consider Titus 1:9.
Too familiar with the Bible? Our problem is unfamiliarity.
Not according to apologetics.Quote:
Our problem is unfamiliarity.
When I said I had to come to a conscious decision to simply believe in a Rock (Bible) for no other reason; I know and I Believe.
Others have stated that Apologetics (what we have studied and learned to know) Has saved them.
Who has become more familiar? Who's an idiot that has no reason?
Only those of us who have become too familiar...will always present itself having issue.
And please don't hang your hat on how well you know the Bible. The one thing that is needed in this world is love. God loves us, and we are to gladly share that love, in Jesus' name, with others.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Tell me about it.Quote:
please don't hang your hat on how well you know the Bible.
Knowledge won't get you anywhere. It's what you do with that knowledge that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
An answer to a question on Quora:
The Bible is a mix of myths, parables, poetry, allegories, wisdom literature, oratory, epistles, and stories with a moral. It's a beautiful interpretation of human experience from a divine perspective -- man does wrong, repents, and God forgives. Is it true? It definitely isn't a science or history textbook! The most useful life-changing instruction and truth to take from it are Jesus' words, "Love one another." Or, in other words, the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
The question then becomes what does it mean to, "Love one another."Quote:
The most useful life-changing instruction and truth to take from it are Jesus' words, "Love one another." Or, in other words, the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
I always find it interesting when someone says, "And please don't hang your hat on how well you know the Bible," but then claims to know that, "The Bible is a mix of myths, parables, poetry, allegories, wisdom literature, oratory, epistles, and stories with a moral." You can't have it both ways. And I can add that at no place in the NT is any part of the OT said to be mythical. Hmmm.
I would agree that simply knowing the Bible well is not enough, but when a person chooses to ignore large portions of the Bible simply because he/she doesn't like the message, or presents a message that is at variance with Bible teaching, then you have a serious problem.
No one here has stated that or said anything to that effect.Quote:
Others have stated that Apologetics (what we have studied and learned to know) Has saved them.
What??Quote:
Only those of us who have become too familiar...will always present itself having issue.
I like that statement. That's a great comment.Quote:
We assert him, we proclaim him, we start with him because he is the center of the whole of our position.
You might want to look again.Quote:
No one here has stated that or said anything to that effect.
That is one of the main reasons why you have no comprehension of what it is I'm telling you.
Just like some of the earlier statements/quotes. You quoted somebody. I read the quote, followed by much of your response. After which I responded, thinking it was a quote from you. How could one make such a mistake? Maybe because you are living the Quote that you just posted. from much (all) of your responses, this topic (quote) might as well originated from you. And it doesn't help your case when - Of course, you are always saying one thing while claiming to mean another.
Similar to a previous discussion that took place here. Somebody Asked a Question regarding authority, only to say his question had nothing to do with authority??? Not to mention another issue He had with said Question even being a question. I happen to mention that I didn't think this was a (honest) question, Only for the questioner to come back and say it was an honest question. then when we got down to the matter, he said, it's not even a question??? I pointed these facts out and you were all so enraged that you couldn't see beyond your own anger and frustration.
Earlier in this post I mentioned we (some) have become too familar with the Bible. You can take that to mean what ever you like or don't like. What I think I mean by it is; Those of us (when I say us, I mean you) who speak Apologetics.
So when you said "we", you didn't include yourself, and when you say "us", you only mean me. Do you wonder why your posts are difficult to follow?Quote:
Earlier in this post I mentioned we (some) have become too familar with the Bible. You can take that to mean what ever you like or don't like. What I think I mean by it is; Those of us (when I say us, I mean you) who speak Apologetics.
As to the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you can point to something specific, then we can discuss it, but a long statement about a quote followed by my response and then you thought the quote was from me? There is no way to answer that since there is no way to know what you are referring to.
I don't think that a Christian can become too familiar with the Bible. It's like suggesting that a mathematician can become too familiar with math, or a librarian can become too familiar with books.
I posted, "No one here has stated that or said anything to that effect." Your reply was, "You might want to look again." So you want me to find support for a statement you made for which you have no support? Uhmmm...think I'll pass on that.
Honestly Walter, I have no clue as to what it is that you are objecting to. Perhaps you can state it plainly.
Okay, let us go back.
Post 156
Quote:
Why do I Trust the Bible
Quote:
Because I trust God.
Quote:
Circular reasoning, is it not?
Does that not work for you?Quote:
Sertainly is
To convince the unconverted is going to take much more than you could ever know of the Bible.
If you go by this you are going about it the wrong way.Quote:
Happily, the textual and historical evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is really good.
This is post 156.It does not contain any of the quotes you have above as supposedly coming from post 156, so no, that does not work for me.Quote:
@JL: I don't think that post is the one I was referring to.
If you are going to quote someone, then you should know.
as far as WG, "she was referring to a response from another website." The fact is, she has said as much in many of her posts here.
Maybe so, but you claimed it was a quote by her when, in fact, it was not.
I don't know what your argument is about John 3:16. Love is a major theme of the verse and think that is clear from the text. Is it unconditional love? Hard to say, but I'm honestly not even clear on what it is you object to.
I have no reason to trust in the Bible.
I do, and it makes great sense to me, but I'm fine with you having your own position on the subject.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...78#post3892278
I also don't know why you would object to this.Quote:
Happily, the textual and historical evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is really good.
This is Peter's first sermon to a Gentile. I have underlined the portions where Peter makes an appeal to the historical truth of his message, thus engaging in apologetics. It is not a new idea.
You can readily see that nearly all of it was pointing out the historical truth of the Gospel message. "You know the events," "We ourselves are witnesses," and pointing out that God "caused him to be seen," are all appeals to known history.Quote:
37 You know the events that took place throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good and healing all who were under the tyranny of the devil, because God was with him. 39 We ourselves are witnesses of everything he did in both the Judean country and in Jerusalem, and yet they killed him by hanging him on a tree. 40 God raised up this man on the third day and caused him to be seen, 41 not by all the people, but by us whom God appointed as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that through his name everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins.”
Happily, the textual and historical evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is really good.
If you go by this you are going about it the wrong way.
waltero, what is the right way?
Great question.Quote:
waltero, what is the right way?
Sorry, my mistake. I think it was post --
Regardless, I posted some quotes. If you were to have gone with that (that should have been enough for you to know what was going on.
You posted quotes but you can't even say who wrote them and are unable to give the context of the quotes, and yet that is "enough for you to know"? Walter, my friend, we are not mind-readers here.Quote:
Regardless, I posted some quotes. If you were to have gone with that (that should have been enough for you to know what was going on.
Maybe you are trying to make the point that you believe the Bible because you trust in God? If so, then that's fine with me.
I think you meant post 44 where you posted this. "You read it, you eat it, you speak it, and you live and breathe the word of God. The word of God has not only been spoken from the lips of man. His words have been written down. It is in writing, a legal document as it were."
I think that's a good comment. I guess I just don't know why you think I would not agree with it.
I had mentioned that I made a continuous decision to trust that the Bible is it. To the point that It makes no sense, sounds so ridiculous. There is no more that need be said. I don't need to explain...there is no explanation. Just as there is no explanation for why God loves you. There is no explanation why I believe the Bible to be accurate and true. I simply made a conscious decision to believe. Listening to you guys argue and fight and discuss whether the bible is a proper and accurate translation of the living God made me realize that I, here and Now (back when) had to make a conscious decision to trust that God is capable of keeping "His" world whole. So at that time, such as now, I believe. I know for a fact that the Bible is the accurate transition...why would I want to think any other way? why would I think God would speak and have his word in writing and then throw a monkey wrench in?
And that's fine. It is sufficient for you. There are many others who, before they trust their lives to the text of a book, want to be do some checking first. In my case, I trusted the Bible from my childhood, but it has been reassuring and a great joy to discover that the text of the Bible is very reliable from the perspective of history (look back at the post concerning Peter preaching to Cornelius) and has been faithfully transmitted and preserved over the many centuries. It has enriched my confidence and gives me even more solid reasons to preach the Bible and to recommend the teachings of the Bible to others.
I might add that I don't recall anyone here suggesting that your view you stated above, "makes no sense, sounds so ridiculous." I know I haven't, so I'm not sure where you are getting that from.
If you read the conversation starting at post #46 you might better understand what it is I talking about.
It's not about trying to convince the unconverted.Quote:
Walter, you are still using the approach that you know the Bible is trustworthy because the God you read about in the trustworthy Bible is...trustworthy. Now that works for you and me as Christians, but for the unconverted, it would generally be unconvincing.
This is similar to the response I get when I use to tell people (mainly Christians); I am not required to do anything, all I am required to do is believe in the Name of Jesus. that statement always got a response yah, but, but, but its not that easy...my retort was; that's what I read, that's the way I read it, and that's what I believe...just believing in his name is all I am required to do.
That never went well, I suppose cuz it sounds too easy...this has never been enough for Christians...while it's all I ever needed.
Post #49
threw me for a loop. it was not at all what I was talking about. and that is what I meant when I said "We have become too familiar with the Bible."
I said; once I made a conscious decision on trusting the Bible unconditionally, I never ever have any doubts. no confusion, no debate, no convincing. Once I made a conscious decision, to believe in the name of Jesus, I was Golden.
Can you be specific as to where you read that?Quote:
..my retort was; that's what I read, that's the way I read it, and that's what I believe...just believing in his name is all I am required to do.
Perhaps it isn't for you, but I assure you it very much is for me. It was for Peter as well. "But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you."Quote:
It's not about trying to convince the unconverted.
Perhaps I mistook your meaning.
I don't think you understand. It has nothing to do with you. nothing to do with "your" convincing anybody of anything.
I guess not. Perhaps that's why your statements are unconvincing?Quote:
Can you be specific as to where you read that?
It is, of course, the Holy Spirit who does the convincing, but to think that I can therefore be lazy and empty in my thinking and knowledge is far from the truth. Read Peter's sermon in Acts 2, or the first several chapters of Romans, and see how God used men who were well-prepared to be used. Uninformed, strictly personal comments won't be effective.Quote:
nothing to do with "your" convincing anybody of anything.
Sometimes it seems you are unmoved by scripture, but I keep trying regardless.
Ezra 7:10. For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to practice it.
2 Timothy 2:15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
That's good enough for me.Quote:
your statements are unconvincing?
So for your ideas to be foundationless and thus unconvincing is good enough? Well, so be it. But I can't believe that's really how you look at this.Quote:
That's good enough for me.
((I am convinced)) The fact that you continue to exclaim; "not very convincing." Shows that you are still trying to convince yourself.
As I mentioned earlier. I am not about convincing anybody...and here you are, telling me it's not very convincing?
Believing the Bible (as it is today) is the living Word, will take faith...you can't convince a person into believing. Example: how many years have you and WG been going at this? It would be like; trying to convince somebody that a Rock can speak.
“I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” Luke 19:37-40. Are you convinced, now that rocks speak?
You don't even believe that yourself. If you did, you would not spend so much time here trying to convince us that your ideas are correct. If you really believed that, you would never discuss religion with anyone since, after all, "you can't convince a person into believing." So why do you carry on these discussions???Quote:
Believing the Bible (as it is today) is the living Word, will take faith...you can't convince a person into believing. Example: how many years have you and WG been going at this? It would be like; trying to convince somebody that a Rock can speak.
Your text does not say that rocks speak.
Yes, I spend so much time here, trying to convince you. I'm simply quoting Scripture as it means to me. You are wanting to be convinced. Similar to when the Jews asked for a sign...then they would believe.
What gets me is when the two of you go off on some cockamamy discussions about God married Mary, Adom was non-binary.My text doesn't have to. It's straight out of the Bible. It's right there in the Book!Quote:
Your text does not say that rocks speak
But you just said you can't convince a person into believing, so why are you trying to do the very thing you claim can't be done?Quote:
Yes, I spend so much time here, trying to convince you.
"As I mentioned earlier. I am not about convincing anybody."
"...you can't convince a person into believing."
The primary issue is what the scripture means, and not simply what you might think it means.Quote:
I'm simply quoting Scripture as it means to me.
So you think you can apply any meaning you want to any scripture?Quote:
My text doesn't have to. It's straight out of the Bible. It's right there in the Book!
No one here has ever claimed either of those to be the case, so I have no idea where you got that from.Quote:
discussions about God married Mary, Adom was non-binary.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 AM. |