BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Non Christian Perspective => Topic started by: DavidGYoung on August 10, 2023, 03:21:05 AM
-
Imagine that a person has just converted to Christianity. They believe the central tenet of Christianity, about salvation through faith in Jesus, but they do not remotely believe the Bible to be divinely authored or inspired.
Would you attempt to persuade this Christian otherwise? If so, what lines of argument would you use?
-
Why would someone become a Christian if they didn't remotely believe the Bible?
-
You can't believe A and non-A to be true at the same time with any level of integrity.
Faith is not a buffet where you pick what you want and avoid what you do not want.
It is categorically impossible to believe salvation through faith in Jesus in the absence of belief in the authority of a divinely authored and inspired text and you cannot have sufficient revelation of the person of Jesus and salvation through faith without divinely originated communication.
That said, we are not saved because of our doctrine or by out ability to comprehend or explain orthodox theology. We are saved because, as Alistair Begg so wonderfully states it, "The Man on the Middle Cross, He said I could come."
-
The Bible, particularly the NT, is the source of the Gospel message. How can a person believe a tenet of a faith when he rejects the validity of the text it is predicated on? As to persuading such a person of the truth of the Bible, there is always prophecy. When specific events transpire that were foretold centuries earlier, there can be little doubt about the divine origin of the text. Only God truly sees and foretells the future.
-
Why would someone become a Christian if they didn't remotely believe the Bible?
I mean I could see it happening in principle.
Secular (and invariably) left-wing Jews identify as "Jewish" although they do not (as is my understanding) believe that the bible is of divine origin. Just a book of "good messages" or whatever. What becomes amusing is that they have the ability to find "proof" for left wing causes in the bible. Any left wing cause; whatever is popular today. Abortion. Socialism. Environmentalism. God is transgender. Assisted suicide. Whatever.
-
Many who convert to Christianity as a result of the resurrection argument are persuaded that the parts of the New Testament which are sound when viewed through a historian's lens are sufficient to demonstrate the basis of Christianity. It is quite a step to go from there to believing that anything from the 66-book to the 81-book canon of the Bible is divinely authored.
Also it is worth remembering that for the most part of Christianity's two-thousand-year history most Christians had no access to any part of the Bible and they still believed in Christianity.
-
It is quite a step to go from there to believing that anything from the 66-book to the 81-book canon of the Bible is divinely authored.
It might help if more people of faith actually took the time to read the bible. How many nominally religious people are biblically ignorant? Not just Christians, mind.
-
Christian, but not 'Bible-believing
ox·y·mo·ron
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction
-
Christian, but not 'Bible-believing
ox·y·mo·ron
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction
I think it depends on how one defines "Christian".
-
Imagine that a person has just converted to Christianity. They believe the central tenet of Christianity, about salvation through faith in Jesus, but they do not remotely believe the Bible to be divinely authored or inspired.
Would you attempt to persuade this Christian otherwise? If so, what lines of argument would you use?
There is only two sentences you have to believe -
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
-
Christian, but not 'Bible-believing
ox·y·mo·ron
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction
I think it depends on how one defines "Christian".
The word Christian gets defined in many ways. The definition which fits best, to me, is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ would believe
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
among others but that one covers a lot of ground.
-
Why would someone become a Christian if they didn't remotely believe the Bible?
I mean I could see it happening in principle.
Secular (and invariably) left-wing Jews identify as "Jewish" although they do not (as is my understanding) believe that the bible is of divine origin. Just a book of "good messages" or whatever. What becomes amusing is that they have the ability to find "proof" for left wing causes in the bible. Any left wing cause; whatever is popular today. Abortion. Socialism. Environmentalism. God is transgender. Assisted suicide. Whatever.
"Christian" in a cultural sense, indeed. They wouldn't be considered actually Christian within Christianity.
-
Here in the USA Christians are very complacent . As a group we have zero idea of how to stand for Christ. We have hugged tolerance to the point we have no deep and real identity. We allow sin of all kinds in the door. The stupid line " love the sinner hate the sin" has turned to accepting sin. We see God as teddy bear soft & cuddly. He is the Lion of Judah. Yes He loves, He is also :
Exo_20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
He is also angry.
We go around quoting Mat_7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Choosing to overlook:
Joh_7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
We seem to have forgotten warning folks about hell is very loving. Jesus spoke often about hell.
We give our children to the state . Look hard people look deep . Looking out the window i wonder when it comes where will my heart be?
Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
-
Anyone can claim to be a Christian, even if they live a life contrary to their profession of faith. Christianity is as much a relationship with God through His Christ as it is a faith, and that relationship determines the integrity of one's faith. True Christians always strive to live a moral, godly life, letting their life serve as a testimony before those around them, going the second mile to love those who may hate them. But they recognize that their most sincere attempts at righteousness cannot measure up to God's standard of holiness, and look to Jesus as the kinsman-redeemer who paid the sin price they cannot. In a violent and corrupt world in a downward spiral, His victory over death and hell give us the hope of glory, peace and righteousness in the eternal kingdom of God
-
The stupid line " love the sinner hate the sin" has turned to accepting sin.
Even before that, it was a statement that said little more than "I'm better than you".
-
Who is “we” and who is letting what sin in what door?
I just need to know how much guilt I should feel over what and who I’m supposed to berate and yell at…
I want to do it right, you know??
-
We meaning Churches in general. Sin into the doors of the churches.
Sin in the doors of the churches could also be allowing sin in the hearts of pew sitters.
It might be nice to have a conversation, I dont believe i am a bad guy. Not good at writing not real educated what did i say to set you so against me? I doubt i am reading you wrong.
-
In response to this, from the third post:
"It is categorically impossible to believe salvation through faith in Jesus in the absence of belief in the authority of a divinely authored and inspired text and you cannot have sufficient revelation of the person of Jesus and salvation through faith without divinely originated communication."
Seriously?
What on earth do you think was going on in the first generation of Christian converts, before even the Pauline epistles were written? They themselves predate the Gospels and are long before the idea of adopting a canon by the name of the New Testament.
For gentile converts, neither the Tanakh nor the Septuagint would have been regarded as a divine authority before conversion, regardless of what beliefs they may have adopted afterwards.
There are people who believe the central tenet of Christianity without believing in the inspiration of the Bible, some of whom are converts. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. My original question is about those people.
-
Does a new convert need to know what the Scriptures ? No. I also believe a new convert would what to know about what he is believing in. Who is this Jesus what is/was He about? Our Christianity goes beyond/deeper then initial feel good.
-
Imagine that a person has just converted to Christianity. They believe the central tenet of Christianity, about salvation through faith in Jesus, but they do not remotely believe the Bible to be divinely authored or inspired.
Would you attempt to persuade this Christian otherwise? If so, what lines of argument would you use?
I would begin with where/what parts of God's Word the person says is/are not inspired. If they cannot express specifics, I would begin with prophecy revealed in the Old Testament that has come to pass (completely) and even partially has come to pass.
-
If you are trying to persuade someone who does not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired that it is, I would suggest you shouldn't use loaded terms like 'God's Word' when asking them about it. It's similar to the 'When are you going to stop beating your wife?' question.
You probably won't persuade them that it contains any fulfilled prophecy, as that argument really doesn't wash unless you start with the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired in the first place, or if they know practically nothing about Biblical scholarship.
-
David if you want us to convince you, you don't have to create hypothetical questions.
-
If you are trying to persuade someone who does not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired that it is, I would suggest you shouldn't use loaded terms like 'God's Word' when asking them about it. It's similar to the 'When are you going to stop beating your wife?' question.
You probably won't persuade them that it contains any fulfilled prophecy, as that argument really doesn't wash unless you start with the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired in the first place, or if they know practically nothing about Biblical scholarship.
How do I prove the metaphysical by reliance on the physical?
-
If you are trying to persuade someone who does not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired that it is, I would suggest you shouldn't use loaded terms like 'God's Word' when asking them about it. It's similar to the 'When are you going to stop beating your wife?' question.
You probably won't persuade them that it contains any fulfilled prophecy, as that argument really doesn't wash unless you start with the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired in the first place, or if they know practically nothing about Biblical scholarship.
I think you are underestimating the work of the Holy Spirit, people (and I am just one of the many examples) who became a believer without hardly knowing the Bible, that came afterwards.
-
If you are trying to persuade someone who does not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired that it is, I would suggest you shouldn't use loaded terms like 'God's Word' when asking them about it. It's similar to the 'When are you going to stop beating your wife?' question.
You probably won't persuade them that it contains any fulfilled prophecy, as that argument really doesn't wash unless you start with the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired in the first place, or if they know practically nothing about Biblical scholarship.
I'll have to disagree for this specific reason: if any person who doesn't believe that the Bible or God's Word is not inspired, is their unbelief due to a subjective position of belief (or lack of), or due to an objective position of belief (or lack of).
Once it can be determined how their unbelief is based on subjective or objective reasons (their position), then you will know where to begin helping them by producing evidence to correct any error.
-
Hey, Sluggo!
[waves]
-
I'll have to disagree for this specific reason: if any person who doesn't believe that the Bible or God's Word is not inspired, is their unbelief due to a subjective position of belief (or lack of), or due to an objective position of belief (or lack of).
Once it can be determined how their unbelief is based on subjective or objective reasons (their position), then you will know where to begin helping them by producing evidence to correct any error.
As a person of faith who is not a Christian, I have to disagree with this premise. I don't think a person's belief or lack thereof is something that can be "fixed" as such. I've been here a long time and have dealt with innumerable attempts to "fix" my "unbelief".
-
I'll have to disagree for this specific reason: if any person who doesn't believe that the Bible or God's Word is not inspired, is their unbelief due to a subjective position of belief (or lack of), or due to an objective position of belief (or lack of).
Once it can be determined how their unbelief is based on subjective or objective reasons (their position), then you will know where to begin helping them by producing evidence to correct any error.
As a person of faith who is not a Christian, I have to disagree with this premise. I don't think a person's belief or lack thereof is something that can be "fixed" as such. I've been here a long time and have dealt with innumerable attempts to "fix" my "unbelief".
I'll have to disagree for this specific reason: if any person who doesn't believe that the Bible or God's Word is not inspired, is their unbelief due to a subjective position of belief (or lack of), or due to an objective position of belief (or lack of).
Once it can be determined how their unbelief is based on subjective or objective reasons (their position), then you will know where to begin helping them by producing evidence to correct any error.
As a person of faith who is not a Christian, I have to disagree with this premise. I don't think a person's belief or lack thereof is something that can be "fixed" as such. I've been here a long time and have dealt with innumerable attempts to "fix" my "unbelief".
Well, it's not about fixing at all. Learning is always objective or subjective. In my opinion, objective fact gathering and weighing of facts puts a person into a position of choice, true choice. Not based on a feeling, not based on other peoples positions/understanding but based on one's "own" position that begins to build based on the truth's they've weighed/evaluated and once a choice is made, experience through relationship, in the case for Christ, begins.
I can't fix a person, most people can't fix themselves. If they could, no need for recovery ministries and recovery of either secular or faith based means.
When it comes to Scripture, the Holy Spirit does the leading and as a person allows Him to lead, then He can also provide a "means" that will "fix."
-
In my opinion, objective fact gathering
There are no objective facts when it comes to religious belief.
Wikipedia's definition is pretty good: A belief is a subjective attitude that a proposition is true or a state of affairs is the case.
-
In my opinion, objective fact gathering
There are no objective facts when it comes to religious belief.
Wikipedia's definition is pretty good: A belief is a subjective attitude that a proposition is true or a state of affairs is the case.
On what basis would one determine that a proposition is true, etc.? Possibly, "objective fact gathering"? Or is that objectively not the subjective case?
-
On what basis would one determine that a proposition is true, etc.? Possibly, "objective fact gathering"? Or is that objectively not the subjective case?
One can't "fact gather" about entities that cannot be seen. All religious belief is subjective. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus... whoever.
-
In my opinion, objective fact gathering
There are no objective facts when it comes to religious belief.
Wikipedia's definition is pretty good: A belief is a subjective attitude that a proposition is true or a state of affairs is the case.
Many may accept this as a definition. However, while a belief can be "subjective" when does a belief transition to being "objective?" Case in point, if I say that I believe in Jesus and because of this belief, I experience salvation. To me, my personal salvation becomes an objective truth despite any denial from anyone who does not believe I am saved by Christ.
If I was to testify to a group of deniers and speak to them about Christ (spreading the Gospel message of Christ) and the Holy Spirit manifests. I pray over and layon of hands of one who has a nasty bruise due to an injury and the Holy Spirit heals that person. Is the healing "subjective" or "objective" evidence of the power of Christ that is in me? Also, does that evidence make my belief I am saved by Christ, "subjective" or "objective?"
Point being, we all can say that a fact is only subjective but when we fail to recognize at which point a fact becomes objective, then all we experience will only be subjective in our minds.
Faith is what allows us to take what we believe is ONLY subjective and realize/experience what is/has been objective all along, when it comes to Christ and faith (believing) in Him.
-
On what basis would one determine that a proposition is true, etc.? Possibly, "objective fact gathering"? Or is that objectively not the subjective case?
One can't "fact gather" about entities that cannot be seen. All religious belief is subjective. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus... whoever.
Is that a fact?
-
Many may accept this as a definition. However, while a belief can be "subjective" when does a belief transition to being "objective?" Case in point, if I say that I believe in Jesus and because of this belief, I experience salvation. To me, my personal salvation becomes an objective truth despite any denial from anyone who does not believe I am saved by Christ.
What is this "personal salvation"? Can you show it to me? Can it be shared with others? No, you can't. The very phrase " To me, my personal salvation becomes an objective truth" means that it is subjective.
If I was to testify to a group of deniers and speak to them about Christ (spreading the Gospel message of Christ) and the Holy Spirit manifests. I pray over and layon of hands of one who has a nasty bruise due to an injury and the Holy Spirit heals that person. Is the healing "subjective" or "objective" evidence of the power of Christ that is in me?
Disappearing bruise? I'd love to see that.
Point being, we all can say that a fact is only subjective but when we fail to recognize at which point a fact becomes objective, then all we experience will only be subjective in our minds.
The fact that it's in your mind (or mine, or anyone else's) means it is subjective.
-
Is that a fact?
Ahhh I see what you did there.
-
Many may accept this as a definition. However, while a belief can be "subjective" when does a belief transition to being "objective?" Case in point, if I say that I believe in Jesus and because of this belief, I experience salvation. To me, my personal salvation becomes an objective truth despite any denial from anyone who does not believe I am saved by Christ.
What is this "personal salvation"? Can you show it to me? Can it be shared with others? No, you can't. The very phrase " To me, my personal salvation becomes an objective truth" means that it is subjective.
If I was to testify to a group of deniers and speak to them about Christ (spreading the Gospel message of Christ) and the Holy Spirit manifests. I pray over and layon of hands of one who has a nasty bruise due to an injury and the Holy Spirit heals that person. Is the healing "subjective" or "objective" evidence of the power of Christ that is in me?
Disappearing bruise? I'd love to see that.
Point being, we all can say that a fact is only subjective but when we fail to recognize at which point a fact becomes objective, then all we experience will only be subjective in our minds.
The fact that it's in your mind (or mine, or anyone else's) means it is subjective.
Everything I said, when does what can be subjective, become objective?
Long time ago, God told Abraham that he was gonna have a child in his and Sarah old age. Was this fact subjective or objective? If subjective, when did the fact become objective?
This is why I originally brought up Scriptural prophecy as a means to help a person choose to believe whether or not God's Word is "inspired."
-
Everything I said, when does what can be subjective, become objective?
When it takes place someplace else aside form inside one's head?
Long time ago, God told Abraham that he was gonna have a child in his and Sarah old age. Was this fact subjective or objective? If subjective, when did the fact become objective?
It became objective when he had a child that everyone could see.
This is why I originally brought up Scriptural prophecy as a means to help a person choose to believe whether or not God's Word is "inspired."
But being "saved" is not visible.
-
Everything I said, when does what can be subjective, become objective?
When it takes place someplace else aside form inside one's head?
Long time ago, God told Abraham that he was gonna have a child in his and Sarah old age. Was this fact subjective or objective? If subjective, when did the fact become objective?
It became objective when he had a child that everyone could see.
This is why I originally brought up Scriptural prophecy as a means to help a person choose to believe whether or not God's Word is "inspired."
But being "saved" is not visible.
But how did the birth of Issac become "objective" for you, when the element of "seeing" must happen for a truth to go from subjective to objective?
edit: If I don't respond for several days it's due to a road trip, visiting my daughter and travel begins Thursday :-)
-
On what basis would one determine that a proposition is true, etc.? Possibly, "objective fact gathering"? Or is that objectively not the subjective case?
One can't "fact gather" about entities that cannot be seen. All religious belief is subjective. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus... whoever.
I would say, though, that one could gather compelling evidence. That an entity cannot be seen doesn't mean that an entity has not acted in the world in ways that - arguably - can be seen.
That is, there has to be something that separates faith from blind faith. It should probably also be acknowledged that faith as knowledge of propositions isn't the whole of faith and that faith, in the sense we mean will necessarily be relational. One could, in theory in this sense, know propositions but reject relationship, with faith being more about the latter than the former thing, even as it's about both.
-
But how did the birth of Issac become "objective" for you, when the element of "seeing" must happen for a truth to go from subjective to objective?
Because a person being born can be seen by others. Your personal feeling of being "saved" is not visible to anyone else, only felt by yourself.
edit: If I don't respond for several days it's due to a road trip, visiting my daughter and travel begins Thursday :-)
Enjoy! We'll continue when you return.
-
I would say, though, that one could gather compelling evidence. That an entity cannot be seen doesn't mean that an entity has not acted in the world in ways that - arguably - can be seen.
Yes but the interpretation of such events would itself be subjective.
A simple example. The reestablishment of the state of Israel after 2000 years. I see that as God acting in history. As the literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy. As proof that God's covenant at Sinai remains in effect. As proof that the Jewish faith is correct.
Nobody else here believes that. And yet it seems completely obvious to me. But I don't expect anyone to believe it because I understand that my view of these historical events are in fact subjective even as Israel's existence is objective.
That is, there has to be something that separates faith from blind faith.
I am certain that everyone finds their own personal evidence, whatever it may be, to support their beliefs. But its subjective.
-
I would say, though, that one could gather compelling evidence. That an entity cannot be seen doesn't mean that an entity has not acted in the world in ways that - arguably - can be seen.
Yes but the interpretation of such events would itself be subjective.
A simple example. The reestablishment of the state of Israel after 2000 years. I see that as God acting in history. As the literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy. As proof that God's covenant at Sinai remains in effect. As proof that the Jewish faith is correct.
Nobody else here believes that. And yet it seems completely obvious to me. But I don't expect anyone to believe it because I understand that my view of these historical events are in fact subjective even as Israel's existence is objective.
That is, there has to be something that separates faith from blind faith.
I am certain that everyone finds their own personal evidence, whatever it may be, to support their beliefs. But its subjective.
So one can "fact gather", then. What's in question is how the fact is interpreted. Or said another way, proof of God's covenant at Sinai is proof even if someone doesn't believe it is. Their subjectivity doesn't override the fact, which is out there in the world.
-
Or said another way, proof of God's covenant at Sinai is proof even if someone doesn't believe it is.
No... Belief that a covenant even took place at Sinai is in fact subjective.
-
Or said another way, proof of God's covenant at Sinai is proof even if someone doesn't believe it is.
No... Belief that a covenant even took place at Sinai is in fact subjective.
I'm not talking about the belief that a covenant took place, I'm talking about the proof of the covenant.
-
I'm not talking about the belief that a covenant took place, I'm talking about the proof of the covenant.
The proof of the covenant is also subjective. It requires that one believe the veracity of the bible.
-
I'm not talking about the belief that a covenant took place, I'm talking about the proof of the covenant.
The proof of the covenant is also subjective. It requires that one believe the veracity of the bible.
I'm talking about the proof of the covenant, as in the proof itself that would exist out there in the world independent of human minds. Do you believe such a thing has never existed?
-
as in the proof itself that would exist out there in the world independent of human minds.
I don't understand what this means "independent of human minds."
-
Doctrinal differences aside, I think we can agree that the design and workings of God can exist even without someone to believe in them. Yet, I think we can also agree that faith is fundamental to our relationship with God and that without it, there would be a basis for neither Judaism nor Christianity. The provenience upon which both faiths are founded is God's personal word, and our convictions regarding it. If we did not believe in our hearts what we believe about God, we would not concern ourselves with spiritual matters.
Consider that Abram was born and raised in an environment steeped in paganism and idolatry, and knew nothing about the one true God of Creation until God revealed Himself by means of His word. That was the origin of Judaism, as well as that of Christianity and Islam, which sprouted from the same Abrahamic roots. Whether God reveals Himself interactively as He did with Abram, by means of His recorded word, or through the testimony of someone else, the bedrock of our relationship with God is His grace, our confidence in the veracity of that revelation, and the under girding strength of our convictions.
Jews cannot prove Abram actually existed 4000 years ago, or that God established a covenant with him. All beliefs are predicated on the record of the torah. There are historical accounts of Jesus as leader of a Jewish sect, but Christians cannot prove He is the messiah, or that He was resurrected after being dead for 3 days. We must rely on the written account of the NT for the supernatural aspects of His person. In the final analysis, each faith is on an equal footing, drawing upon an unwavering faith in the God we trust. The truths we hold onto will one day be either justified or corrected.
-
Jews cannot prove Abram actually existed 4000 years ago, or that God established a covenant with him. All beliefs are predicated on the record of the torah. There are historical accounts of Jesus as leader of a Jewish sect, but Christians cannot prove He is the messiah, or that He was resurrected after being dead for 3 days. We must rely on the written account of the NT for the supernatural aspects of His person. In the final analysis, each faith is on an equal footing, drawing upon an unwavering faith in the God we trust.
I agree. And I'll go one step further. I believe that it is also impossible to prove God's existence. And that all this is by design. God has created a playground, if you will, to give humanity the greatest possible freedom in which to exercise our free will.
-
Jews cannot prove Abram actually existed 4000 years ago, or that God established a covenant with him. All beliefs are predicated on the record of the torah. There are historical accounts of Jesus as leader of a Jewish sect, but Christians cannot prove He is the messiah, or that He was resurrected after being dead for 3 days. We must rely on the written account of the NT for the supernatural aspects of His person. In the final analysis, each faith is on an equal footing, drawing upon an unwavering faith in the God we trust.
I agree. And I'll go one step further. I believe that it is also impossible to prove God's existence. And that all this is by design. God has created a playground, if you will, to give humanity the greatest possible freedom in which to exercise our free will.
We are created for His pleasure.
-
Jews cannot prove Abram actually existed 4000 years ago, or that God established a covenant with him. All beliefs are predicated on the record of the torah. There are historical accounts of Jesus as leader of a Jewish sect, but Christians cannot prove He is the messiah, or that He was resurrected after being dead for 3 days. We must rely on the written account of the NT for the supernatural aspects of His person. In the final analysis, each faith is on an equal footing, drawing upon an unwavering faith in the God we trust.
I agree. And I'll go one step further. I believe that it is also impossible to prove God's existence. And that all this is by design. God has created a playground, if you will, to give humanity the greatest possible freedom in which to exercise our free will.
Very true. Out of 8 billion people, only a tiny fraction believes in the one true God, and and we can but maintain our convictions and stand on our faith when the unbelieving world questions the reality of His existence. It's even more challenging to validate our faith to the unbelieving when we face unrelenting sorrow, sickness, and death. "Where is your God, now?" Yet, true faith is unwavering and unconditional, and as gold is tried by fire, faith is purified and proven genuine in the fires of adversity.
-
as in the proof itself that would exist out there in the world independent of human minds.
I don't understand what this means "independent of human minds."
It exists - or existed - in the world objectively, like a tree might.
-
Yet, true faith is unwavering and unconditional, and as gold is tried by fire, faith is purified and proven genuine in the fires of adversity.
It isn't faith that matters, but our actions. However, I suppose this is another one of those instances in which we must agree to disagree...
-
It exists - or existed - in the world objectively, like a tree might.
But a tree's existence is provable. One can see it. "Ligget se'".
-
It exists - or existed - in the world objectively, like a tree might.
But a tree's existence is provable. One can see it. "Ligget se'".
Yes, and back when the covenant with Abraham was made, the voice Abraham heard was just as real as the thicket he saw?
-
Yet, true faith is unwavering and unconditional, and as gold is tried by fire, faith is purified and proven genuine in the fires of adversity.
It isn't faith that matters, but our actions. However, I suppose this is another one of those instances in which we must agree to disagree...
Well, I would hope you agree it doesn't make sense to obey God's commandments unless you first believe He exists. And that my friend, requires faith.
-
Eyewitness or ear witness testimony is evidence.
-
Yes, and back when the covenant with Abraham was made, the voice Abraham heard was just as real as the thicket he saw?
It was real to him. But that's subjective.
-
Well, I would hope you agree it doesn't make sense to obey God's commandments unless you first believe He exists
What if one isn't sure, but does it out of caution? Or what if one thinks they're a good idea even if they don't believe in God?
-
Eyewitness or ear witness testimony is evidence.
In a court of law.
And that doesn't apply to supernatural or extraordinary claims.
And where religion is concerned, we don't even have that. What we have are books, which, (being the good lawyer that you are) know can't be cross examined.
-
But how did the birth of Issac become "objective" for you, when the element of "seeing" must happen for a truth to go from subjective to objective?
Because a person being born can be seen by others. Your personal feeling of being "saved" is not visible to anyone else, only felt by yourself.
edit: If I don't respond for several days it's due to a road trip, visiting my daughter and travel begins Thursday :-)
Enjoy! We'll continue when you return.
OK, I'm back and read your response here. I'll raise the issue of salvation in a moment.
Yes, "a" person or many person's saw Issac as Abraham's son. We have written record of eyewitness account all throughout the Old Testament (and NT concerning Abraham and Issac), that due to that eyewitness account(s) and written record of the many experiences, eyewitness accounts, testimonies, etc... has made truths found all throughout the Old Testament to be "objective" facts/truths for you. Correct? I can assume that you believe ALL written accounts found in the Old Testament as factual and thus produce belief in both your mind and your heart and that you hold faithfully to those truths as objective evidence. Which you would utilize as evidence if speaking to a person who does not believe Abraham was ever led/told by God to do all that he did in obedience to God?
With that raised, why is written record of the many experiences, eyewitness accounts, testimonies, etc has made truths found all throughout the New Testament to be only "subjective" facts/truths for you?
I ask this because you say my salvation is not visible, yet if I was to produce a written record or all my personal experiences concerning how Jesus has changed me, led me and used me, add to this a written record of all my experiences that are witnessed by others and they write testimony of how they have seen change and how they have seen Jesus work in me and through me... why can't such eyewitness account be objective?
Point to consider, "love" between a man and a woman. That love is completely invisible. If the husband or the wife is to tell you they "love" each other, is that love subjective or objective to you? Initially, the logical answer is the love is subjective because it's just as invisible as salvation. YET, if you are to read a hand written account of what their love has produced, how they held to each other, supported each other through the worst of times, forgave each other of mistakes, defended each other, etc... can or should the love they have for each other become "objective" and you can believe they are actually in love with each other because while the love remains invisible, the evidence OF that love, is visible and accounted for?
If the answer is yes, then why is it that for any Christian, their salvation can ONLY be subjective and any evidence will never result in objective truth?
-
Well, I would hope you agree it doesn't make sense to obey God's commandments unless you first believe He exists
What if one isn't sure, but does it out of caution? Or what if one thinks they're a good idea even if they don't believe in God?
Along the lines of "Christian, but not Bible-believing?"
"Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Sounds like faith figured in prominently when the covenant was established.
-
It isn't faith that matters, but our actions. However, I suppose this is another one of those instances in which we must agree to disagree...
Given the tragic history of Jewish affliction that culminated in 6 million of them being exterminated, why do Jews continue worshiping and obeying God? Is it simply blind obedience, rather faith in the immutable truth of His promises? I'm sure you're thinking of faith in the context of salvation, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
-
It isn't faith that matters, but our actions. However, I suppose this is another one of those instances in which we must agree to disagree...
Given the tragic history of Jewish affliction that culminated in 6 million of them being exterminated, why do Jews continue worshiping and obeying God? Is it simply blind obedience, rather faith in the immutable truth of His promises? I'm sure you're thinking of faith in the context of salvation, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
The holocaust was unspeakably ugly terrible.
As a religion Judaism does not worship the Christian God . Our God has a Son theirs does not.
2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
Please look up the context.
-
OK, I'm back and read your response here.
Welcome back!
Yes, "a" person or many person's saw Issac as Abraham's son. We have written record of eyewitness account all throughout the Old Testament (and NT concerning Abraham and Issac), that due to that eyewitness account(s) and written record of the many experiences, eyewitness accounts, testimonies, etc... has made truths found all throughout the Old Testament to be "objective" facts/truths for you. Correct? I can assume that you believe ALL written accounts found in the Old Testament as factual and thus produce belief in both your mind and your heart and that you hold faithfully to those truths as objective evidence.
I mean you just said it right there. "you believe ALL written accounts". Yes, I believe that they are all true. But that doesn't make them factual accounts. They are subjective evidence. I didn't see those things happen. I can't use the bible as evidence to a nonbeliever.
Which you would utilize as evidence if speaking to a person who does not believe Abraham was ever led/told by God to do all that he did in obedience to God?
No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even try. It's not my job to turn the world into believers. At most, it's my job to lead a moral life and perhaps set an example to others.
With that raised, why is written record of the many experiences, eyewitness accounts, testimonies, etc has made truths found all throughout the New Testament to be only "subjective" facts/truths for you?
Because as I explained above, I even take my own bible to be only subjective evidence.
I ask this because you say my salvation is not visible, yet if I was to produce a written record or all my personal experiences concerning how Jesus has changed me, led me and used me, add to this a written record of all my experiences that are witnessed by others and they write testimony of how they have seen change and how they have seen Jesus work in me and through me... why can't such eyewitness account be objective?
There are many problems with this approach. For starters, a person of any faith could say this; I myself say this. God has acted in my life many times and altered the outcome. In some instances, those moments were a true inflection point where a different outcome would have radically changed my life. Would you accept my testimony as evidence of my faith being correct? Why not?
Point to consider, "love" between a man and a woman. That love is completely invisible. If the husband or the wife is to tell you they "love" each other, is that love subjective or objective to you? Initially, the logical answer is the love is subjective because it's just as invisible as salvation. YET, if you are to read a hand written account of what their love has produced, how they held to each other, supported each other through the worst of times, forgave each other of mistakes, defended each other, etc... can or should the love they have for each other become "objective" and you can believe they are actually in love with each other because while the love remains invisible, the evidence OF that love, is visible and accounted for?
Feelings are completely subjective. All we can record is what people do.
If the answer is yes, then why is it that for any Christian, their salvation can ONLY be subjective and any evidence will never result in objective truth?
Because your personal feeling of being "saved" does not objectively mean that you are actually, indeed, saved.
-
"Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Sounds like faith figured in prominently when the covenant was established.
I consider this a very out of context use of the verse.
Let's cite it with the previous verse first.
And the LORD took him outside and said, “Now look to the heavens and count the stars, if you are able.” Then He told him, “So shall your offspring be.” Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness.
Abram believed in a specific promise that God was making to him. That's not the same as believing in God, because if there was no God, who was Abram talking to?
Secondarily, the grammar of the verse is unclear. The verse could also read as Abram was crediting God to be righteous. Lest you ask how this can be possible I will direct you to Genesis 18. When God informs Abraham that He is going to destroy Sodom, what does Abraham say? "Will the Judge of the entire earth not perform justice?" So yes, Abraham does pass judgement on God's actions.
Thirdly, the bible tells us why God chose Abraham, also in Gen 18:
For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just
By doing what is right and just. Not for having faith.
And lastly, I'm going to share a very Jewish concept with you: It's the deed that's important. Not the motive.
-
Given the tragic history of Jewish affliction that culminated in 6 million of them being exterminated, why do Jews continue worshiping and obeying God? Is it simply blind obedience, rather faith in the immutable truth of His promises?
What if it's neither of those? What if we serve God simply because it is a privilege to be His servants and to carry out His will in this world?
Our rabbi was giving a sermon a few weeks ago. He told us "We don't have to keep the sabbath. We get to keep the sabbath. We don't have to keep kosher. We get to keep kosher."
None of it is a burden. It's a privilge.
-
As a religion Judaism does not worship the Christian God . Our God has a Son theirs does not.
Do you believe that Judaism is idolatry?
-
Yes, and back when the covenant with Abraham was made, the voice Abraham heard was just as real as the thicket he saw?
It was real to him. But that's subjective.
What's the "that"?
I think you've realised you'd have to say Abraham didn't act out of faith with the faith/knowledge schema you've established.
-
What's the "that"?
I think you've realised you'd have to say Abraham didn't act out of faith with the faith/knowledge schema you've established.
You're not understanding me.
"Subjective" means that it's real to that person even if it isn't real to us. I can even watch someone do something and tell me that they're acting out of faith. But it still doesn't make their faith objective. It's something that the feel.
Suicide bombers blow themselves up out of faith. Does that make their faith objectively real?
-
What if it's neither of those? What if we serve God simply because it is a privilege to be His servants and to carry out His will in this world?
Our rabbi was giving a sermon a few weeks ago. He told us "We don't have to keep the sabbath. We get to keep the sabbath. We don't have to keep kosher. We get to keep kosher."
None of it is a burden. It's a privilge.
Point taken. With regard to faith in God, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Different theology, different mindset.
-
As a religion Judaism does not worship the Christian God . Our God has a Son theirs does not.
Do you believe that Judaism is idolatry?
I believe you and i had this discussion a while back the answer to your question is , yes.
https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=307.msg8316#msg8316
-
I believe you and i had this discussion a while back the answer to your question is , yes.
I gotta admit, I find this answer amusing.
-
What's the "that"?
I think you've realised you'd have to say Abraham didn't act out of faith with the faith/knowledge schema you've established.
You're not understanding me.
"Subjective" means that it's real to that person even if it isn't real to us. I can even watch someone do something and tell me that they're acting out of faith. But it still doesn't make their faith objective. It's something that the feel.
Suicide bombers blow themselves up out of faith. Does that make their faith objectively real?
I've read Kierkegaard; I understand what you're saying.
I asked you about Abraham's experience. Did Abraham hear a voice just as he saw a ram in a thicket? Abraham experienced these things in his subjectivity, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if these were things out there, in the world, external to Abraham and existing independently of any human mind. Or, are you supposing that for the whole of his life Abraham believed he heard the voice of the Lord, but he might not have, and coincidentally it guided him his entire life?
-
I've read Kierkegaard; I understand what you're saying.
I asked you about Abraham's experience. Did Abraham hear a voice just as he saw a ram in a thicket?
Did Abraham even exist? I believe that he did, but my evidence is subjective- belief in the veracity of the bible.
I'm asking if these were things out there, in the world, external to Abraham and existing independently of any human mind.
In 1931, mathematician and philosopher Kurt Godel formally proved that there are statements in math that are true but unprovable. So yes, there are things that are true and exist independently of the human mind. That doesn't mean that they can ever be proved. (And I do not believe that God's existence is provable, let alone that the correctness of any one religion can be proved.)
Or, are you supposing that for the whole of his life Abraham believed he heard the voice of the Lord
I believe that he heard it. But I can't prove that to you or anyone else.
-
Did Abraham even exist? I believe that he did, but my evidence is subjective- belief in the veracity of the bible.
You're arguing for too much. Does anything exist, or is it just your subjective belief?
In 1931, mathematician and philosopher Kurt Godel formally proved that there are statements in math that are true but unprovable. So yes, there are things that are true and exist independently of the human mind. That doesn't mean that they can ever be proved. (And I do not believe that God's existence is provable, let alone that the correctness of any one religion can be proved.)
We aren't talking about the incompleteness theorum or anything related to it. We aren't talking about whether God's existence can be proved but whether the search for facts is possible.
-
You're arguing for too much.
I don't think so.
The things I see around me every day? The people I interact with every day? They exist. People mentioned in a religious text having lived thousands of years ago? Up for grabs.
We aren't talking about the incompleteness theorum or anything related to it. We aren't talking about whether God's existence can be proved but whether the search for facts is possible.
The search for evidence is possible. But facts that would convince a non believer? I think probably not.
-
OK, I'm back and read your response here.
Welcome back!
Yes, "a" person or many person's saw Issac as Abraham's son. We have written record of eyewitness account all throughout the Old Testament (and NT concerning Abraham and Issac), that due to that eyewitness account(s) and written record of the many experiences, eyewitness accounts, testimonies, etc... has made truths found all throughout the Old Testament to be "objective" facts/truths for you. Correct? I can assume that you believe ALL written accounts found in the Old Testament as factual and thus produce belief in both your mind and your heart and that you hold faithfully to those truths as objective evidence.
I mean you just said it right there. "you believe ALL written accounts". Yes, I believe that they are all true. But that doesn't make them factual accounts. They are subjective evidence. I didn't see those things happen. I can't use the bible as evidence to a nonbeliever.
Which you would utilize as evidence if speaking to a person who does not believe Abraham was ever led/told by God to do all that he did in obedience to God?
No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even try. It's not my job to turn the world into believers. At most, it's my job to lead a moral life and perhaps set an example to others.
With that raised, why is written record of the many experiences, eyewitness accounts, testimonies, etc has made truths found all throughout the New Testament to be only "subjective" facts/truths for you?
Because as I explained above, I even take my own bible to be only subjective evidence.
I ask this because you say my salvation is not visible, yet if I was to produce a written record or all my personal experiences concerning how Jesus has changed me, led me and used me, add to this a written record of all my experiences that are witnessed by others and they write testimony of how they have seen change and how they have seen Jesus work in me and through me... why can't such eyewitness account be objective?
There are many problems with this approach. For starters, a person of any faith could say this; I myself say this. God has acted in my life many times and altered the outcome. In some instances, those moments were a true inflection point where a different outcome would have radically changed my life. Would you accept my testimony as evidence of my faith being correct? Why not?
Point to consider, "love" between a man and a woman. That love is completely invisible. If the husband or the wife is to tell you they "love" each other, is that love subjective or objective to you? Initially, the logical answer is the love is subjective because it's just as invisible as salvation. YET, if you are to read a hand written account of what their love has produced, how they held to each other, supported each other through the worst of times, forgave each other of mistakes, defended each other, etc... can or should the love they have for each other become "objective" and you can believe they are actually in love with each other because while the love remains invisible, the evidence OF that love, is visible and accounted for?
Feelings are completely subjective. All we can record is what people do.
If the answer is yes, then why is it that for any Christian, their salvation can ONLY be subjective and any evidence will never result in objective truth?
Because your personal feeling of being "saved" does not objectively mean that you are actually, indeed, saved.
I read through your response the other day a few times now. I have to ask, is there any scripture, or any part of the Bible that you hold in your mind and heart, as believable objective factual truth?
-
I read through your response the other day a few times now. I have to ask, is there any scripture, or any part of the Bible that you hold in your mind and heart, as believable objective factual truth?
I believe that my bible is the truth.
But because I have to include that word "believe", I don't think I can use it as evidence or prove that to someone else.
I've had the pleasure of delivering sermons. Sometimes to learned people, and sometimes to people who were not yet believers. In either case, my objective was never to make someone "believe". It was always to share the power of a message from the bible. The listener is free to accept or reject it. They usually seem to like it, though.
-
I don't think so.
The things I see around me every day? The people I interact with every day? They exist. People mentioned in a religious text having lived thousands of years ago? Up for grabs.
Your evidence here is subjective, too.
The search for evidence is possible. But facts that would convince a non believer? I think probably not.
That a thing is a fact, and that it is compelling, are two different things.
-
Your evidence here is subjective, too.
Ahhh John Carpenter. A genius.
That a thing is a fact, and that it is compelling, are two different things.
Yes.
-
Returning to the original topic, the way some Christians talk about the Bible, you would be forgiven for thinking that Jesus of Nazareth himself had said something about it.
-
I read through your response the other day a few times now. I have to ask, is there any scripture, or any part of the Bible that you hold in your mind and heart, as believable objective factual truth?
I believe that my bible is the truth.
But because I have to include that word "believe", I don't think I can use it as evidence or prove that to someone else.
I've had the pleasure of delivering sermons. Sometimes to learned people, and sometimes to people who were not yet believers. In either case, my objective was never to make someone "believe". It was always to share the power of a message from the bible. The listener is free to accept or reject it. They usually seem to like it, though.
My question is... is the truth found in "your" Bible, objective truth?
At the end of the day, whether or not truth is believed or not believed, is what God says and what is found in His Word, objective or not objective?
-
My question is... is the truth found in "your" Bible, objective truth?
Nope.
At the end of the day, whether or not truth is believed or not believed, is what God says and what is found in His Word, objective or not objective?
In the messianic era, it will be objective. In today's fallen world, it remains subjective.
-
In the messianic era, it will be objective. In today's fallen world, it remains subjective.
Subjective because of unbelief in the minds and hearts of mankind or subjective because what God says, isn't truth?
-
Subjective because of unbelief in the minds and hearts of mankind
To speak of belief or unbelief already means that it is subjective. Facts are not subject to belief.
or subjective because what God says, isn't truth?
Who gets to determine which of God's words are the truth? Which words are the truth? My Bible? Yours? The Koran? The Book of Mormon? The Bhagavad Gita?
-
Why do I mention clarity in the messianic era? Because the events that the bible describe say there will be clarity. For example-
Isaiah 11: the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the sea is full of water.
Isaiah 40: the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all humanity together will see it
Habakkuk 2: For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
Ezekiel 37: Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.
Now, if my belief is wrong and my bible isn't correct, then obviously none of these things will happen.
-
Some folks understand His Kingdom like this:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
-
Some folks understand His Kingdom like this:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
"We're in the messianic era because I feel joy in my heart" is not falsifiable. That also means it is not provable.
-
Reminds me of a joke.
A man dies without a will and his two sons are squabbling over a particularly valued possession. They go to the village elder and each make their case. They each make good points, and the elder says that he needs a day or two to think about it.
The next day, one of the sons goes to the elder and says that the matter is solved. His father appeared to him in a dream and told him that he was entitled to the valued object. The elder laughed. "If he wanted you to have the object, your father should have appeared to me in a dream."
-
Facts are not subject to belief.
Since I can interpret this statement in multiple ways, the fact is, that a fact cannot be made into something that is nonfactual, simply by unbelief.
Who gets to determine which of God's words are the truth? Which words are the truth? My Bible? Yours? The Koran? The Book of Mormon? The Bhagavad Gita?
Well, God revealed per His words, actions, etc in your Bible is the same God revealed in what I say is my Bible. As for The Koran, Book of the Mormon, The Bhagavad Gita, God doesn't speak nor is revealed through His actions. Point blank, these three writings are against God who is revealed.
Why do I mention clarity in the messianic era? Because the events that the bible describe say there will be clarity. For example-
Isaiah 11: the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the sea is full of water.
Isaiah 40: the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all humanity together will see it
Habakkuk 2: For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
Ezekiel 37: Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.
Now, if my belief is wrong and my bible isn't correct, then obviously none of these things will happen.
Hooah! When Jesus returns such prophecy will come to pass.
-
Since I can interpret this statement in multiple ways, the fact is, that a fact cannot be made into something that is nonfactual, simply by unbelief.
I don't think you're understanding the distinction I'm trying to make here.
Fact: The sun is shining in the sky. Why is this a fact? Because I can look up in the sky and see it.
Not a fact: God gave Moses the Ten Commandments at Sinai. We may both believe this to be true, but we can't prove that it happened to someone who does not believe it. Their unbelief doesn't make it nonfactual; it is nonfactual.
Well, God revealed per His words, actions, etc in your Bible is the same God revealed in what I say is my Bible. As for The Koran, Book of the Mormon, The Bhagavad Gita, God doesn't speak nor is revealed through His actions.
This is all only valid from within your belief system. A Mormon or Muslim would say that their view of their bible is God's revelation.
Point blank, these three writings are against God who is revealed.
And I think that the NT is against what God revealed in my bible. So where does that leave us?
Hooah! When Jesus returns such prophecy will come to pass.
So we can agree that in the messianic era the truth will be revealed to everyone. But that hasn't happened yet.
-
Since I can interpret this statement in multiple ways, the fact is, that a fact cannot be made into something that is nonfactual, simply by unbelief.
I don't think you're understanding the distinction I'm trying to make here.
Fact: The sun is shining in the sky. Why is this a fact? Because I can look up in the sky and see it.
Not a fact: God gave Moses the Ten Commandments at Sinai. We may both believe this to be true, but we can't prove that it happened to someone who does not believe it. Their unbelief doesn't make it nonfactual; it is nonfactual.
Your example actually support's the distinction I am making. Using your example, I am trying to say that the sun shining is a factual truth no matter what a person believes.
Your sun example proves my point because if I was to get on the phone with someone on the other side of the earth and say the sun is shining, their denial that the sun is shining does not "make" the fact, nonfactual. The sun IS shining.
-
Your example actually support's the distinction I am making. Using your example, I am trying to say that the sun shining is a factual truth no matter what a person believes.
The sunshining is a verifiable fact. Just look up in the sky.
Your sun example proves my point because if I was to get on the phone with someone on the other side of the earth and say the sun is shining, their denial that the sun is shining does not "make" the fact, nonfactual. The sun IS shining.
This is not a serious example. They would agree that the sun is shining where you are, just not where they are.
-
Some folks understand His Kingdom like this:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
"We're in the messianic era because I feel joy in my heart" is not falsifiable. That also means it is not provable.
Provable to the believing, unprovable to the heathen.
Pro_14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Joh_8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
-
Provable to the believing, unprovable to the heathen.
Nothing needs to be "proved" to the "believing". They already "believe". But their "belief" does not make what they believe in either true or factual.
-
Kind of an open question for Christians generally, why do you think that because your beliefs are obvious to you, they should be obvious to everyone else? Why do you think that your religious beliefs should constitute facts?
-
Kind of an open question for Christians generally, why do you think that because your beliefs are obvious to you, they should be obvious to everyone else? Why do you think that your religious beliefs should constitute facts?
"Kind of an open question for Christians generally, why do you think that because your beliefs are obvious to you, they should be obvious to everyone else?"
Why do you think all Christians think that?
Why do you think that your religious beliefs should constitute facts?
Facts as to what ? 2+2=4 that is a fact a fact that has nothing to do with Christianity. Betting most folks who post in a Christian forum are posting believing the other posters are also believers . Often how one speaks to a similar group is different then to general public. ie Posting differently in open facebook then a Christian Bible Forum.
-
Kind of an open question for Christians generally, why do you think that because your beliefs are obvious to you, they should be obvious to everyone else? Why do you think that your religious beliefs should constitute facts?
Kind of an open question to Jews generally, why do you think that because your beliefs aren't obvious to you, they shouldn't be obvious to everyone else? Why do you think that your religious beliefs shouldn't constitute facts?
-
Why do you think all Christians think that?
Because you like to describe your beliefs as being "facts".
-
Kind of an open question to Jews generally, why do you think that because your beliefs aren't obvious to you, they shouldn't be obvious to everyone else?
Jews don't, though. I don't expect anyone to find my beliefs obvious.
Why do you think that your religious beliefs shouldn't constitute facts?
I have never presented my beliefs as facts.
-
Why do you think all Christians think that?
Because you like to describe your beliefs as being "facts".
Which posts are you speaking of?
-
Which posts are you speaking of?
"Provable to the believing, unprovable to the heathen."
-
Kind of an open question to Jews generally, why do you think that because your beliefs aren't obvious to you, they shouldn't be obvious to everyone else?
Jews don't, though. I don't expect anyone to find my beliefs obvious.
Why do you think that your religious beliefs shouldn't constitute facts?
I have never presented my beliefs as facts.
I just thought you'd be okay answering for some other Jewish believers I know, or, like, maybe we shouldn't ask less-than-stellar general questions.
-
I just thought you'd be okay answering for some other Jewish believers I know, or, like, maybe we shouldn't ask less-than-stellar general questions.
What made the questions "less than stellar"? I'm genuinely curious how people can present their religious beliefs as "facts".
-
I just thought you'd be okay answering for some other Jewish believers I know, or, like, maybe we shouldn't ask less-than-stellar general questions.
What made the questions "less than stellar"? I'm genuinely curious how people can present their religious beliefs as "facts".
Who has done that?
-
Who has done that?
Seriously? Who hasn't.
Slug1: I ask this because you say my salvation is not visible, yet if I was to produce a written record or all my personal experiences concerning how Jesus has changed me, led me and used me, add to this a written record of all my experiences that are witnessed by others and they write testimony of how they have seen change and how they have seen Jesus work in me and through me... why can't such eyewitness account be objective?
you: It exists - or existed - in the world objectively, like a tree might.
Rebecca: Provable to the believing, unprovable to the heathen.
You are all arguing that your religious beliefs are factual and based on facts, when they are actually beliefs that are based on faith.
-
Who has done that?
Seriously? Who hasn't.
Slug1: I ask this because you say my salvation is not visible, yet if I was to produce a written record or all my personal experiences concerning how Jesus has changed me, led me and used me, add to this a written record of all my experiences that are witnessed by others and they write testimony of how they have seen change and how they have seen Jesus work in me and through me... why can't such eyewitness account be objective?
you: It exists - or existed - in the world objectively, like a tree might.
Rebecca: Provable to the believing, unprovable to the heathen.
You are all arguing that your religious beliefs are factual and based on facts, when they are actually beliefs that are based on faith.
Your understandings are not facts.
-
Your understandings are not facts.
Umm ok, I don't see how this pertains to what I said, or the statements that I am quoting for that matter.
-
Who has done that?
Seriously? Who hasn't.
Slug1: I ask this because you say my salvation is not visible, yet if I was to produce a written record or all my personal experiences concerning how Jesus has changed me, led me and used me, add to this a written record of all my experiences that are witnessed by others and they write testimony of how they have seen change and how they have seen Jesus work in me and through me... why can't such eyewitness account be objective?
you: It exists - or existed - in the world objectively, like a tree might.
Rebecca: Provable to the believing, unprovable to the heathen.
You are all arguing that your religious beliefs are factual and based on facts, when they are actually beliefs that are based on faith.
These quotes don't show anyone saying our beliefs are "facts". They're saying exactly what you said, replying to me about Abraham.
As for what Slug1 is saying, or my quote -- these pertain to evidence gathering, not "faith is fact".
-
As for what Slug1 is saying, or my quote -- these pertain to evidence gathering, not "faith is fact".
I'm going to quote Slug1 again:
I ask this because you say my salvation is not visible, yet if I was to produce a written record or all my personal experiences concerning how Jesus has changed me, led me and used me, add to this a written record of all my experiences that are witnessed by others and they write testimony of how they have seen change and how they have seen Jesus work in me and through me... why can't such eyewitness account be objective?
Now I may be misunderstanding him. But it sounds to me like he's saying that his faith in his salvation, while not being visible, should be considered "objective" because he says that it is.
Perhaps he can come and clarify this for us.
-
As for what Slug1 is saying, or my quote -- these pertain to evidence gathering, not "faith is fact".
I'm going to quote Slug1 again:
I ask this because you say my salvation is not visible, yet if I was to produce a written record or all my personal experiences concerning how Jesus has changed me, led me and used me, add to this a written record of all my experiences that are witnessed by others and they write testimony of how they have seen change and how they have seen Jesus work in me and through me... why can't such eyewitness account be objective?
Now I may be misunderstanding him. But it sounds to me like he's saying that his faith in his salvation, while not being visible, should be considered "objective" because he says that it is.
Perhaps he can come and clarify this for us.
He's asking why "such eyewitness account" [sic] couldn't be considered objective, which is different from saying it should be considered objective. So, why not?
To put it another way: did the Biblical authors write purely subjectively about subjective things that only ever subjectively happened, objectively speaking? That's what Slug1 is speaking to if I'm not mistaken. If it's not, it works out that way anyway.
-
As for what Slug1 is saying, or my quote -- these pertain to evidence gathering, not "faith is fact".
I'm going to quote Slug1 again:
I ask this because you say my salvation is not visible, yet if I was to produce a written record or all my personal experiences concerning how Jesus has changed me, led me and used me, add to this a written record of all my experiences that are witnessed by others and they write testimony of how they have seen change and how they have seen Jesus work in me and through me... why can't such eyewitness account be objective?
Now I may be misunderstanding him. But it sounds to me like he's saying that his faith in his salvation, while not being visible, should be considered "objective" because he says that it is.
Perhaps he can come and clarify this for us.
My point in the quoted part, is faith in Christ and that He has saved any believer, can be verifiable = evidence, produce, fruit, or whatever term anyone can utilize as a "proof" must cause any skeptic to pause and honestly evaluate the evidence.
Years back I made a comment about being found innocent or guilty in a court of law concerning ones salvation, if they "are" a Christian. However, in such a case a prosecutor must prove the Christian innocent and the defense must prove the Christian guilty.
Anyway, if one (a Christian) was to be able to document all the faith based works that the Holy Spirit has led them to do, compound this with documented eye witness accounts. As all the documented eyewitness accounts are presented, compound this with eyewitness testimony, as well as the direct testimony of the Christian on trial... the process of proving all accounts as false or truth, if honestly pursued, will render a truth that is objective. Be it either innocent (not saved) or guilty (is saved).
Faith, while invisible does produce very visible evidence(s).
Abraham, his faith is invisible but look at all the faithful works produced DUE to faith. His faith cannot be denied as the fruit is very visible.
Years later, all of Israel faithfully obeyed God when they followed His instructions on how to defeat Jericho. Their faith, while invisible, produced a very visible victory as God did His part DUE to their faithful obedience.
Gideon's faith, is invisible, yet DUE to the faith, He trusted God when led to choose only 300 warriors.
Yes, faith is invisible but BY faith, anyone faithful to God is led to do works that are visible and thus, objectifies faith.
-
Right, which doesn't speak to whether a certain person finds those accounts compelling. We're not talking objective as in, 2 + 2 = 4.
-
My point in the quoted part,
Ah. Thanks for returning to clarify!
is faith in Christ and that He has saved any believer, can be verifiable = evidence
This is exactly what I said, and also what I took issue with.
No, your faith is not "verifiable evidence". Your faith is something that you feel. Your feeling of being "saved" is also something that you feel. A such, it is completely and totally subjective. The fact that you say you have this feeling does not make it objective.
Years back I made a comment about being found innocent or guilty in a court of law concerning ones salvation, if they "are" a Christian. However, in such a case a prosecutor must prove the Christian innocent and the defense must prove the Christian guilty.
The legal weight of evidence to prove guilt in a criminal court is called "beyond a reasonable doubt". One's religion or faith are not the kind of things that can be proved to this sort of standard (the Inquisition notwithstanding).
Anyway, if one (a Christian) was to be able to document all the faith based works that the Holy Spirit has led them to do, compound this with documented eye witness accounts.
And yet people who were ostensibly Christian did some very terrible things. And I'm told this doesn't matter, because their faith alone saves them.
Faith, while invisible does produce very visible evidence(s).
This is true of any faith. It doesn't mean that feeling of faith is correct or that the religion that inspired that feeling of faith is correct.
Look at the millions of Jews martyred through the centuries. (Primarily by people claiming to be Christian, by the way). Most could have avoided that fate by converting to Christianity. And yet they did not. Their faith also produced what you would call "physical evidence". Does that count?
Abraham, his faith is invisible but look at all the faithful works produced DUE to faith. His faith cannot be denied as the fruit is very visible.
Years later, all of Israel faithfully obeyed God when they followed His instructions on how to defeat Jericho. Their faith, while invisible, produced a very visible victory as God did His part DUE to their faithful obedience.
Gideon's faith, is invisible, yet DUE to the faith, He trusted God when led to choose only 300 warriors.
Why do you cite the behavior of Jews in the bible but not Jews that lived after the bible? The IDF has pulled off some pretty dramatic upsets on the battlefield. Yet I don't see one Christian using that fact as evidence that Judaism is the correct faith.
-
He's asking why "such eyewitness account" [sic] couldn't be considered objective, which is different from saying it should be considered objective. So, why not?
Because his eyewitness account is of something that he felt. That is by definition subjective.
To put it another way: did the Biblical authors write purely subjectively about subjective things that only ever subjectively happened
Physical events that other people could see are not subjective. On the other hand, the bible itself is not an objective work. It is a series of books written by believers, for believers. I'm not going to whip out the book of Genesis while having a discussion with an astrophysicist as proof that God created the universe in 6 days.
-
....Judaism is the correct faith.
is that a fact?
-
....Judaism is the correct faith.
is that a fact?
It's subjective, not objective. Just like Christianity, eh?
-
My point in the quoted part,
Ah. Thanks for returning to clarify!
is faith in Christ and that He has saved any believer, can be verifiable = evidence
This is exactly what I said, and also what I took issue with.
No, your faith is not "verifiable evidence". Your faith is something that you feel. Your feeling of being "saved" is also something that you feel. A such, it is completely and totally subjective. The fact that you say you have this feeling does not make it objective.
Years back I made a comment about being found innocent or guilty in a court of law concerning ones salvation, if they "are" a Christian. However, in such a case a prosecutor must prove the Christian innocent and the defense must prove the Christian guilty.
The legal weight of evidence to prove guilt in a criminal court is called "beyond a reasonable doubt". One's religion or faith are not the kind of things that can be proved to this sort of standard (the Inquisition notwithstanding).
Anyway, if one (a Christian) was to be able to document all the faith based works that the Holy Spirit has led them to do, compound this with documented eye witness accounts.
And yet people who were ostensibly Christian did some very terrible things. And I'm told this doesn't matter, because their faith alone saves them.
Faith, while invisible does produce very visible evidence(s).
This is true of any faith. It doesn't mean that feeling of faith is correct or that the religion that inspired that feeling of faith is correct.
Look at the millions of Jews martyred through the centuries. (Primarily by people claiming to be Christian, by the way). Most could have avoided that fate by converting to Christianity. And yet they did not. Their faith also produced what you would call "physical evidence". Does that count?
Abraham, his faith is invisible but look at all the faithful works produced DUE to faith. His faith cannot be denied as the fruit is very visible.
Years later, all of Israel faithfully obeyed God when they followed His instructions on how to defeat Jericho. Their faith, while invisible, produced a very visible victory as God did His part DUE to their faithful obedience.
Gideon's faith, is invisible, yet DUE to the faith, He trusted God when led to choose only 300 warriors.
Why do you cite the behavior of Jews in the bible but not Jews that lived after the bible? The IDF has pulled off some pretty dramatic upsets on the battlefield. Yet I don't see one Christian using that fact as evidence that Judaism is the correct faith.
I have to ask a simple question, did King David write all those Psalms because he "felt" saved by God, or did he "know" he was saved by God?
Edit: Let me add, did all the prophets of the Old Testament "feel" like God was speaking to them, or did they "know" God was speaking to them?
-
Because his eyewitness account is of something that he felt. That is by definition subjective.
Something observed, hence, eyewitness.
Physical events that other people could see are not subjective. On the other hand, the bible itself is not an objective work. It is a series of books written by believers, for believers. I'm not going to whip out the book of Genesis while having a discussion with an astrophysicist as proof that God created the universe in 6 days.
Of course.
-
Something observed, hence, eyewitness.
Something felt. "Observed" would imply that someone standing next to that person would see the same thing. This is not the case.
-
I have to ask a simple question, did King David write all those Psalms because he "felt" saved by God, or did he "know" he was saved by God?
I don't think that king David was "saved" by God. That is a Christian concept.
Let me add, did all the prophets of the Old Testament "feel" like God was speaking to them, or did they "know" God was speaking to them?
That's actually not relevant. The issue is whether or not we believe what the bible says happened.
Do I believe in the revelation at Sinai? Yes. Because I believe the bible's description of millions of people hearing God speak "אָֽנֹכִ֨י יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֽוֹצֵאתִ֩יךָ֩ מֵאֶ֨רֶץ מִצְרַ֜יִם מִבֵּ֣ית עֲבָדִ֗ים"
-
I have to ask a simple question, did King David write all those Psalms because he "felt" saved by God, or did he "know" he was saved by God?
I don't think that king David was "saved" by God. That is a Christian concept.
Due to Psalm 51 and 32, I can't agree with you. Salvation is more than any feeling and anyone who God has saved actually fellowships with God. Not by a feeling but by experiential knowledge through receiving (personal relationship) from God.
In those Psalms, we have evidence of what a personal relationship with God does, to those who are saved.
That's actually not relevant. The issue is whether or not we believe what the bible says happened.
Do I believe in the revelation at Sinai? Yes. Because I believe the bible's description of millions of people hearing God speak "אָֽנֹכִ֨י יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֽוֹצֵאתִ֩יךָ֩ מֵאֶ֨רֶץ מִצְרַ֜יִם מִבֵּ֣ית עֲבָדִ֗ים"
So your belief in the revelation at Sinai is based on an objective truth (God spoke), even though others my not believe in the objective truth that God can and has spoken physically to people?
-
Due to Psalm 51 and 32, I can't agree with you.
Psalms are poems. If you want to base your theology on a poem, have at it. It means ignoring the exhaustive list of laws in the bible that God commands.
How do Christians reconcile this?
Psalm 51:18 For You do not wish a sacrifice, or I should give it; You do not desire a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; O God, You will not despise a broken and crushed heart.
Or this: Psalm 32:5 I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and You forgave the iniquity of my sin forever.
They both say that sacrifice is not necessary. Merely confessing one's sin to God and feeling contrite seem to be sufficient.
Salvation is more than any feeling and anyone who God has saved actually fellowships with God. Not by a feeling but by experiential knowledge through receiving (personal relationship) from God.
It's a feeling. Like the way I feel at the end of Yom Kippur. I've fasted and prayed all day and I feel forgiven for my sins of the past year. Thats my experiential knowledge.
So your belief in the revelation at Sinai is based on an objective truth (God spoke), even though others my not believe in the objective truth that God can and has spoken physically to people?
No, my belief in the revelation at Sinai is based on a book that claims an objective proof. Belief in this book itself is subjective however.
-
Due to Psalm 51 and 32, I can't agree with you.
Psalms are poems. If you want to base your theology on a poem, have at it. It means ignoring the exhaustive list of laws in the bible that God commands.
How do Christians reconcile this?
Psalm 51:18 For You do not wish a sacrifice, or I should give it; You do not desire a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; O God, You will not despise a broken and crushed heart.
Or this: Psalm 32:5 I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and You forgave the iniquity of my sin forever.
They both say that sacrifice is not necessary. Merely confessing one's sin to God and feeling contrite seem to be sufficient.
Yes, but it's not about feeling contrite, it's about the struggle between flesh and spirit and the "conviction" that leads a person who has sinned, to humble themselves before God, and they repent. For King David, God is his Savior, it's not about any feeling, it's all about truth about what God's revealed in both the OT and the NT, and experiential relationship WITH a sovereign God and the salvation He's provided for those who believe in Him.
King David was saved, many years before him, the prostitute Rehab was spiritually saved due to her belief in the Israeli God. Not a feeling at all, but a spiritual change from death to life (spiritually).
It's a feeling. Like the way I feel at the end of Yom Kippur. I've fasted and prayed all day and I feel forgiven for my sins of the past year. Thats my experiential knowledge.
Salvation is more than a feeling. In the simplest of terms, it's an "event" and "change" from spiritual death to spiritual life. If one "feels" something, it's a product of their salvation. I say this because if one isn't feeling it, say due to a hardship, that does not mean salvation has stopped, or restarted when a feeling is there, again.
Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; ‘For YAH, the LORD, is my strength and song; He also has become my salvation.’ ”
Not about feeling at all my friend, all about what God does and what we reap due to His action of saving believers (those who respond to God's grace), be they Jew or Gentile.
No, my belief in the revelation at Sinai is based on a book that claims an objective proof. Belief in this book itself is subjective however.
This is where you and I will be on opposite ends of what is objective or subjective. All Scripture is truth and while all Scripture can be debated due to interpretation, believed, not believed, Scripture will always be objective because all Scripture is always truth, despite our personal understanding, or acceptance.
-
Feelings as opposed to knowledge. David said "and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever". Pretty bold statement for someone relying on his feelings.
-
Feelings as opposed to knowledge. David said "and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever". Pretty bold statement for someone relying on his feelings.
Amen and Hooah!!
He even "knew" that when he got to heaven, he'd see his lost son again. No way was he speaking on feelings! He was speaking on revealed knowledge of the relationship we have (he had) with God and he knew all about God's salvation.
-
Yes, but it's not about feeling contrite, it's about the struggle between flesh and spirit and the "conviction" that leads a person who has sinned, to humble themselves before God, and they repent.
This begs questions.
What is a "sin"?
Are you saying that repentance is sufficient, without sacrifice, as these Psalms are telling us?
For King David, God is his Savior, it's not about any feeling, it's all about truth about what God's revealed in both the OT and the NT
The NT was not yet written when king David lived. It seems rather anachronistic to apply any of its concepts to people who lived a thousand years earlier.
King David was saved
"Saved" from what?
Not a feeling at all, but a spiritual change from death to life (spiritually).
That's... a feeling.
Salvation is more than a feeling. In the simplest of terms, it's an "event" and "change" from spiritual death to spiritual life. If one "feels" something, it's a product of their salvation.
It's more than a feeling, but it's also just a feeling. OK.
Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; ‘For YAH, the LORD, is my strength and song; He also has become my salvation.’ ”
"Salvation" from what?
Not about feeling at all my friend, all about what God does and what we reap due to His action of saving believers (those who respond to God's grace), be they Jew or Gentile.
And yet Isaiah begins with a lesson on a change in behavior, not belief or "God's grace".
Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
This is where you and I will be on opposite ends of what is objective or subjective. All Scripture is truth and while all Scripture can be debated due to interpretation, believed, not believed, Scripture will always be objective because all Scripture is always truth, despite our personal understanding, or acceptance.
Sure, scripture is "truth" to the believer.
-
Feelings as opposed to knowledge. David said "and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever". Pretty bold statement for someone relying on his feelings.
Umm he's writing a poem. Of course it's about his feelings. What's more, it doesn't say "forever", it says "long days". And David didn't dwell in "the house of the Lord", he was a shepherd and a soldier and finally a king. He dwelled in the world. So perhaps this means that he wants to see God in the world, regardless of his physical location...
-
He even "knew" that when he got to heaven, he'd see his lost son again. No way was he speaking on feelings! He was speaking on revealed knowledge of the relationship we have (he had) with God and he knew all about God's salvation.
How do you know this? I understand that it's something that you believe to be true (there's that word again) but this goes beyond what the text says.
-
Feelings as opposed to knowledge. David said "and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever". Pretty bold statement for someone relying on his feelings.
Umm he's writing a poem. Of course it's about his feelings. What's more, it doesn't say "forever", it says "long days". And David didn't dwell in "the house of the Lord", he was a shepherd and a soldier and finally a king. He dwelled in the world. So perhaps this means that he wants to see God in the world, regardless of his physical location...
Aw, cut it out Fenrus. I will dwell, future tense...
-
Aw, cut it out Fenrus. I will dwell, future tense...
As I said, he's asking that he dwell "in the house of the Lord" wherever he finds himself. It's a very nice poem, don't you think?
-
Aw, cut it out Fenrus. I will dwell, future tense...
As I said, he's asking that he dwell "in the house of the Lord" wherever he finds himself. It's a very nice poem, don't you think?
Reads like you really dont even like God. Which fits in the 2John
-
Reads like you really dont even like God.
Which shows how little you know about me.
-
Be careful with the words FOREVER | EVERLASTING | ALL
Examples -
Deut 15:16 - But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, 17 then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever
Here forever means till one of them dies.
John 12:32 - And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
Here all refers to v19 - the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”
Of course the Pharisees exaggerated with "the whole world" and Jesus used the superlative with "all", meaning, wait till you [Pharisees] have crucified me, even more people will come and see.
-
Reads like you really dont even like God.
Which shows how little you know about me.
What you/we post shows our thoughts. Yours become more clear with every reading.
-
Be careful with the words FOREVER | EVERLASTING | ALL
Not sure what your point here is, or who you're saying this to.
wait till you [Pharisees] have crucified me
The Romans crucified Jesus.
-
What you/we post shows our thoughts. Yours become more clear with every reading.
I've been here a long time. I don't think any of the regulars here would accuse me of "not liking God". Stick around a while and get to know me better.
-
Jesus gave His live . Via God's hand, the romans did the dirty work at the request of the Jewish leadership. He died for our sins. The Lamb of God. again my view
-
Jesus gave His live . Via God's hand, the romans did the dirty work at the request of the Jewish leadership. He died for our sins. The Lamb of God. again my view
Yes. You are a Christian.
-
Be careful with the words FOREVER | EVERLASTING | ALL
Not sure what your point here is, or who you're saying this to.
wait till you [Pharisees] have crucified me
The Romans crucified Jesus.
I was replying to post #132, King David using figure of speech.
Luke 22:13 - Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. 15 Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him. 16 I will therefore punish and release him.” 17 ---
18 But they all cried out together, “Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas”— 19 a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder. 20 Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, 21 but they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” 22 A third time he said to them, “Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release him.” 23 But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus over to their will.
10 verses later -
Luke 22:34 - And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
The Romans were forgiven.
-
10 verses later -
Luke 22:34 - And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
The Romans were forgiven.
How peculiar. So he forgave the people who literally killed him but not the people who didn't believe him?
-
10 verses later -
Luke 22:34 - And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
The Romans were forgiven.
How peculiar. So he forgave the people who literally killed him but not the people who didn't believe him?
Yes.
-
The people that literally killed him didn't know what they were doing, as he said.
-
The people that literally killed him didn't know what they were doing, as he said.
OK so we can at least agree that it was the Romans that crucified him. It's a start.
-
It certainly wasn't the Romulans!
-
It certainly wasn't the Romulans!
Well yeah, they haven't met humans yet.
-
It certainly wasn't the Romulans!
Or the Romanians, although there was that who impaling stick sort of concept...
-
Or the Romanians, although there was that who impaling stick sort of concept...
Ah, a fellow man of culture I see...
-
It certainly wasn't the Romulans!
Or the Romanians, although there was that who impaling stick sort of concept...
-
...
I enjoyed that way too much.
-
Vlad the FLYING impaler!!!!
That was awesome
-
I know, right? I feel like I need more Vlad in my life. 8)
-
Wasn't there a song about "a little bit of __________ in my life"?
Don't remember "a little bit of Vladimir" being in there, but it was probably a hit in eastern Europe.
-
If you haven't already, I recommend checking out "Dracula Untold" from 2014. Starring Luke Evans, it's a different take on the Drac saga, portraying the ordeal by which Vlad was transformed into the fabled vampire.
-
If you haven't already, I recommend checking out "Dracula Untold" from 2014.
I caught it on Netflix at one point or another. It was entertaining enough. I enjoyed the "Underworld" film series more (although Kate Beckinsale may have had something to do with that).
-
If you haven't already, I recommend checking out "Dracula Untold" from 2014.
I caught it on Netflix at one point or another. It was entertaining enough. I enjoyed the "Underworld" film series more (although Kate Beckinsale may have had something to do with that).
Careful… I’m sure that last comment was just speculative hypothecating…
-
I mean, I'm not certain. Perhaps some more "research" is in order.
-
Good to hear that you are a thorough investigator and want to avoid jumping to conclusions…
-
Good to hear that you are a thorough investigator and want to avoid jumping to conclusions…
My time as an NYPD detective was not wasted. I learned to pay attention to every detail, no matter how minute...