Jim made a great statement earlier in this thread. His point was "how can I prove the Bible is true to someone who doesn't give it any validity"?

Steve; I have what is called 'faith'. I have faith that God is infallible & beyond reproach. I have faith that anything that God does is perfect (and this includes the completed canon of scripture). God is infallible & His doctrine is perfect. Yes, I admit that it does take a little faith to accept this, but not much. The 1st thing one must do is repent (change your mind concerning God & His plan). After this God will give you the faith you need to believe in His Son & His plan.....Eph. 2:8-9.

It is your choice Steve, may you choose correctly.

quote:

---

If you are such a babe that has no knowledge of the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah, I'm not gonna waste my time with you.

---

Pretend I am such a babe, even after 40 years boy and man in the church, like Will, I can't think of any.

I can think of passages, such as the Servant passages in Isaiah, e.g. ch42,49,52,53, which have been interpreted in the light of the NT as referring to Jesus. But I see nothing in them to suggest that the writers of Isaiah were aware of this. They seem to think they were writing about the Exile and the return to Jerusalem.

If these passages were regarded at the time as clear references to the coming Messiah, the Jews in the intertestimental period would have expected a Jesus type figure (the suffering servant) rather than the great leader who would lead Israel out of suppression. The fact is that Jesus did not fulfil any of their expectations of what the Messiah would be.

So, where are the passages that don't require us to re-interpret the OT through the light of the NT?

Max, if you want to pull the kind of crap you just pulled with Will then take it to Hell where it belongs. I've about had it with the tone of your posts that basically says "if you don't believe what I believe you are an idiot".

The Occamian understanding of this proof text is that all of the dead are insensate, unconscious, oblivious.

To interpret this to mean that the dead are aware, sentient, alive but unknowing is a wonderful double paradox.

One can easily and more elegantly reconcile the nicely ambiguous references to the afterlife to this, with the (second?) resurrection, in which those not aware of salvation, the vast majority of humanity, are evangelized for the first and most effective, inexorably gracious and last time.

Thank God it isn't down to the Church!

Salvation is Christ and the faith in him that will come in the resurrection.

Because if it only comes to the paltry few fundies, then it's Hell for me please, along with 99.9999% of humanity. And God is a useless, racist, sadist.

What worries me about the exclusivist, esoteric, elite, elect, is that they will choose Hell rather than share God's grace in the resurrection with scum like me, or Jews, homosexuals, Moslems, Timothy McVeigh, Hindus, Neanderthals, pagans, animists, Catholics etc, etc.

I fear for their lives when they find God accepting anyone who loves Him on sight.

quote:

---

Ecc. 9:5 has made a distinction. Job helps to clarify the distinction. Eventhough the exact words 'lost' do not appear in Ecc. 9:5. Those without Christ are spiritually dead (lost) and when they die in this state, they are in pain & torment & have no knowledge of Earthly things. In order to come to this conclusion, one must have a sound knowledge of scripture to help 'tie-in' the Bible as a whole

---

I agree but if you look at Ecc verses in there literal sense and if you include the Job verses we can only conclude all who die are dead.

But if you follow a non literal approach ie using other scripture to interpret the passage then you could come to the conclusion that you have arrived at but other conclusions are possible.

Max C you have agreed that to truly understand the Bible it must be interpreted in the Light of other scripture but this method is not literalism it is saying a bible passage striaght forward meaning can be changed so 'truth' is found after this process is gone through not when reading the Bible.

The only point I am trying to make is to make the Bible into the form of 'truth we want' we all come to it with a preconcieved ideas some people are willing to realiserthat there approach to bible needs to change and some people don't

A true literalist would be confused

It is a pity MC that you were unable to enter a discussion with Will and his post but I guess you may not have understood it.

Jim you said

quote:

---

Moses,Paul,Peter,David,Daniel,John,James,I think these believers were all fundies dont you?

---

Just considering the time of Jesus Peter and Paul I suspect the fundementalists of that time were the Sadducees who did not believe in the ressurection of the dead and who held to the literal idea of Ecclesiastees that when some is dead they are dead the good and the bad. The Pharisees may also have been considered fundemetalists in there interpretation of the law but they were a broard church which almost certianly included Jesus.

Peter, paul and jesus were the rebellious or liberals since they believed in the ressurection, the fact that Torah did not have to be kept literally. They were also really liberal in the fact that God's grace went beyond the Jewish people which went agianst the fundementals of Jewish faith at theat time.

A couple of things. First the oft-misunderstood nature of the Bible and the Word of God (Sam alluded to this a ways back).

The WORD of God (the Logos) is Jesus Christ. In our religion we worship the Logos -- Christ. The Bible is a record of the Logos. The Bible is NOT istelf the Logos. We do not worship the Bible (this is Orthodox Christianity 101). Contrast this with the Muslim understanding. Muslims believe that the Koran is the Logos, that God dictated it. Christians do not believe that God dictated the Bible. Christians believe the Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but I hope the difference between "inspiration" and "dictation" is obvious enough not to be belaboured here.

Secondly, the Bible, in part and whole, is a foundational text of two world religions (Judaism and Christianity), it is a history book, a piece of literature, a theological work, an example of ancient Greco-Roman epistolary practice, as well as containing all things necessary to salvation.

Now, in the nineteenth century many very intelligent and well-educated German scholars began a systematic study of the Bible to which we refer as "Higher Criticism" (they were later joined by well-respected English and American scholars). Higher Criticism is an attempt to understand the Bible in its context AND form as literature, poetry, history, theology, politics, as well as to apply the basic tools of textual understanding. Before spouting off about the intention of ancient writers, or about prophecy fulfillments and what not, I very strongly suggest a little light reading in any of the excellent scholarly treatments of criticism of the Bible.

A very good introduction is "The New Testament : a historical introduction to the early Christian writings" by Bart Ehrman.

I can never understand why anyone who claims the Bible as the source of their faith and salvation wouldn't want to learn a little more about it.

Knowledge is power, use it wisely.

It's a pity really.

Jim, I don't know what it is that makes you need such a sense of security that you would sacrifice your freedom to explore the alternatives you have been presented. My concern is that a need for such security conceals a lot of pain.

I went through a period of fundamentalist belief. Looking back on it I think it was a natural result of being brought up in an abusive family. I think I wanted the security of a set of beliefs I didn't question, and of knowing that I was in, safe.

Everyone who argues with you is give proof texts. Believe me Jim, the reason you do not get proof texts back is because most people do not use the Bible in this way. Nobody likes talking to one who does not engage with their argument and they get annoyed with you. You may interpret this as persecution, but really it's because your behaviour comes over as dismissive and arrogant.

If you persist in pushing arguments that I for one have heard varients of for the last twenty years, without intending to grow in knowledge or faith then I would suggest that everyone leaves you alone.

Experience tells me that you may be ready to talk again some time.

Not angry, just sad. I thought for a moment I saw a spark in you, but you seem to have retreated into your "certainties".

Christ said know the truth and the truth will make you free.Free from the power of the sin nature ,and from Satanic slavery.

I have total confidence in the Integrity of God,yes I am certain of my position in Christ,and do not live my life under the power of fear.Fear is not the plan of God.

You claim I am threatened by this Liberal garbage that is posted on here,Not so!You are judgeing me by your own feeble standards.

That God is most gracious?

That all sin from and to the figurative ends of time is forgiven in Christ and will be revealed to humanity in the resurrection?

That your definition of truth is personally limited, unchallenged, unexamined, epistemologically narrower than even mine? That you cannot and will not come down to our gutter and lift us up from it, stoop to conquer?

Am I on dangerous ground here Admin?

That your truth of the Bible isn't the same as my truth which isn't the same as woolly liberal rationalist, touchy feely, truth?

I have in common with you a conservative approach to much but I'm so liberal on grace I frighten liberals.

Whose truth is right Jim? Whose truth is true, truer, truest?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Stowaway, You are 100% wrong !

---

quote:

---

You call me arrogant

---

quote:

---

You claim I am threatened by this Liberal garbage that is posted on here

---

quote:

---

You are judgeing me by your own feeble standards.

---

You have said before that you think this is not a forum for debate where you are comfortable, and that you are leaving. Perhaps it would be best if you did that, and save us the trouble of getting rid of you ourselves.

Alan

But that's the only apologies you are going to get. You seem to be implying that I am not a Christian. Well, I resent that. You are obviously incapable of arguing without descending to personal abuse.

I have been a Christian for over twenty years and I've also got a brain, which I use as much as I can in the service of truth. I moght be right, I might be wrong; but I sure as hell will not have someone else telling me what I do and do not believe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will:
G-d gave us 10 simple rules to follow, later narrowed to a very acceptable 2 by Jesus. If we can do this, why is not that not good enough?

---

I'm with you, Will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Chapman:
...when the book of Revelation was written, there was no way for the entire world to witness an event at the same time it was happening. For years this prophesy has 'stumped' scholars as to the meaning of the 2 prophets being resurrected in front of the whole world, these scholars had no idea of the coming technology to equip the world with tv's & satelites, but God knew it.

---

So, do we assume that it's our mission to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth and to equip everyone with a TV before this prophecy is fulfilled? Or is this not a literal "whole world", Max?

Hmmm. You may have to reconsider this one, don't you reckon? Or think these things thru' for yourself rather than just accept what you're taught.

quote:

---

Max, Jim - I Wonder which definition the author intended?

---

Jim, I appreciate that you don't follow or adhere to any of the preachers I mentioned however your overall tone and belief system reflects their wildly. Which leads me to believe that some things just get regurgitated as long as somebody believes it.

A few questions for both you and Max:

Why did you come here if not to debate?
Why do you feel the need to convince everyone of what you believe?
What does the word 'Grace' mean to you?

Having been where you are at I have some idea where you are coming from but I'd like to hear you articulate it anyway.

quote:

---

Jim, I appreciate that you don't follow or adhere to any of the preachers I mentioned however your overall tone and belief system reflects their wildly.

---

It is very bad form when I have to correct myself. ::sigh::

What I meant to say above was that even though Jim stated that he did not listen to or adhere to any of the teachers / teachings I mentioned in my earlier post, his beliefs and slant on things very much stems from this camp of fundamentalism.

Does that make sense?

You say: "I have faith that anything that God does is perfect (and this includes the completed canon of scripture). God is infallible & His doctrine is perfect".

I have no quarm with the assertion that God in infallible but the fact remains that the Bible was written through humans and so is, by definition, imperfect.

Whilst everything that God does is perfect, this does not meant that the end product is. For instance, though God created us in His image, we are imperfect. In the same way, whilst those writing scripture were called to do so by the Holy Spirit, the writers created a text in their own words, imposing their own interpretations and social contexts upon the work. For this reason, the Bible is a flawed text, albeit a very useful guide in how one might follow God's law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm with you, Will.

I really think that this is what Scripture is about, and all the rest of it just supports and explains those simple rules.

---

A rabbi declared that he could recite the whole of the Law while standing on his head. His students were impressed, and asked him to demonstrate. So he stood on his head, and said:

"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and your neighbour as yourself"

Then he stood on his feet and said: "The rest is just application"

Here is just a small sample of the OT prophecies concerning various things of the Messiah. (which you all said didn't exist)

1) Ex. 12:46..Num. 9:12...Psalm 34:12 Not a bone in Christ's body shall be broken...ties into John 19:36

2) Hos. 11:1 God's Son is called out of Egypt. ties in with Matt.2:15

3) Isaiah 7:14 Virgin birth prophesied.

4) Micah 5:2...Jesus comes out of Bethlehem.

5) Psalm 22:16-18...Christ's hands and feet are pierced on the Cross & the gambling for His clothes foretold.

6) Isaiah 50:6..Christ's beating by the Roman soldiers foretold. Spitting is His face foretold......

It is a historical fact that Jesus Christ was indeed here on Earth. It is a historical fact that He was indeed Crucified.

Hey all you hosts....I believe that commandment #5 should be upheld. These passages have proven many of you wrong, now it's time to own up to it......On 2nd thought, forget it. I don't need any accolades from a bunch of idiotic, arrogant, self-righteous losers such as yall.

That's right. You can't be a Christian & doubt the validity of the Bible.

Repent or keep a lot of ice handy. From what I understand, Hell is quite warm

Have fun,
Max C.

I have no problem with the prophesies you quote. . .I have just checked them all and my NIV Study Bible makes exactly the same OT to NT connections you pointed out. (I can't see where Psalm 34:12 fits in though - a typo perhaps?).

Having made a perfectly good point, you then launch into a tirade of abuse against other shipmates for no other reason than that you thought that they might, just possibly, disagree with you. (Not that they did disagree with you, you just misread their posts!) By so doing you have broken commandments 3 & 6 - are you going for the set?

I am enormously amused that you think Erin should take your side for no other reason than her geographical proximity to you!

YIC

All right, y'all, Max is gone. I don't mind leaving this thread open to continue the discussion of the original subject. However, I don't want to see any piling on someone who can no longer defend himself. Neither do I want to see comments directed towards someone who can’t answer.

Let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we? Otherwise I’ll close this thread.

Max' list: (my comments in bold)
Here is just a small sample of the OT prophecies concerning various things of the Messiah. (which you all said didn't exist)

1) Ex. 12:46..Num. 9:12...Psalm 34:12 Not a bone in Christ's body shall be broken...ties into John 19:36

Exodus passage is simply rules for the passover lamb. Same for Numbers. As for the Psalm, I do not see the connection? Somebody help me out here?
Sorry, but none of that ties in with John 19:36. One is talking about the passover lamb and rules for same. Explain how that would tie in to John without some mighty liberal interpretation.

2) Hos. 11:1 God's Son is called out of Egypt. ties in with Matt.2:15

Isn't that a metaphor which clearly refers to the entire people of Israel leaving Egypt? Hosiah continues on to say, "He shall not return to Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his King." Hosiah 11.5. This is clearly referring to the conquest of Israel by Assyria, or did Jesus become an Assyrian citizen?
Same thing with Matthew's interpretation. How does this become a fulfilled prophecy of Messiah?

3) Isaiah 7:14 Virgin birth prophesied.

Ah, my favorite misinterpretation. For one thing the verse should saythe virgin, not a virgin. I believe the RSV has made this correction. The prophet is speaking to King Ahaz here of his new bride. He was simply saying if the King had faith in the L-rd and guts enough to name his child what G-d commanded, then he would be a mighty king and be delivered from certain defeat.
Further reading of the chapter shows all things Ahaz could bring about with faith. None of these things happened after Jesus' birth. Quite the opposite in fact. I suggest reading the whole chapter in context and not picking out one verse.
I also did not see a "fulfillment" verse.
This one?
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
When was he ever called Immanuel? Also, right before that in verse 21, it says his name will be called Jesus. Explain, please?

Also, Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Could someone show me where in Tanakh this fulfillment comes from?

4) Micah 5:2...Jesus comes out of Bethlehem.

Finally a Messianic prophecy, but where is the fulfillment?
Perhaps Mat 2:6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
No that could not be it because Jesus did not govern anything. Explain please?

5) Psalm 22:16-18...Christ's hands and feet are pierced on the Cross & the gambling for His clothes foretold.

I will not quibble much with this one. It is a song. The author also speaks of unicorns and lions and bulls of Bashar(am). None of these things are mentioned in the gospels.

6) Isaiah 50:6..Christ's beating by the Roman soldiers foretold. Spitting is His face foretold......

Once more a single verse plucked from the chapter. Reading in context shows once again He is speaking to the people of Israel

Ruth, I do remember that you said something about it being unnecessary to read the Bible straight through. True, it is 66 books (the Protestant one anyway..) but it reads beautifully like one continuous story. Besides, it's easier to see the progression of events, if it is read continuously. Yes, I trudged through Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy (great for insomnia!) but it was worth it. Seriously, try it! It makes so much more sense when read straight through, at least it did to me.

I would say that the Bible is like anything else - the amount of time you spend on it depends upon your interest in it. I don't believe that a person's theological correctness with get them in/keep them out of heaven. How much does a person want to learn about God/Jesus? The Bible will teach you. I have tried to learn the Bible well, so that when it is discussed, I can discern for myself what statements agree/disagree with the Bible, as I understand it.

My habit has been to staunchly defend the truth of the Bible. But to those who say, "define truth" - Jesus said He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.. beyond that, I can't tell you a definition. And to those who say that the Bible can't be totally true, or words to that effect - well, we can keep searching the Bible or any other source, as long as we are living on this earth we will never know God 100%, not even through Jesus because He was limited by His humanity. The Bible, as dearly as I love it, was limited by its human writers. Some day we'll know the real Truth.

Just a word of encouragement.
I'm finding your posts fascinating and stimulating, and I'm sure many others are too. You're very welcome here!
(even if your perspective sometimes makes things a little uncomfortable for us "comfortable Christians"!)

Keep on postin', friend!

I really can't improve on the argument that says that if The Bible was inspired by God (i.e. God didn't use a dictaphone) and thus seen through a glass darkly, then how can we expect to get the interpretation 100% right ourselves? So no, I can't accept scripture as truth, merely as containing (some) truth and pointing to God, The Truth.

If our God is one who demands we get straight A's in exegesis and hermeneutics, then heaven is going to be verrrrry quiet.

The problem with relying on one perspective when it comes to understanding and interpreting The Bible (as, I'm afraid it appears Jim and Max do) is that you rely on one person's infallibility. And no-one is infallible, so you create a house of cards that you end up defending till it finally crumbles. And, trust me, I've been there... and don't want to go there again.

I'm from an evangelical background, as are many here from what I know and have seen here. Some remain firmly of that "persuasion" (for want of a better word - sorry, it is 12.50 AM), and some , like me, aren't sure quite what they are any more. But evangelicalism is a broad church, despite what many may say within and without that label.

Despite our differences can, I hope, learn from each others' perspectives and traditions, even if we vehemently disagree. That's why I welcome Will's presence here in particular, as I've already said.

Enough for now...

The fact is that the NT writers use OT texts in ways that are not pointed to by their context. This points to an understanding of the texts that they are not simple prophecies, but inspired writings containing almost subtextual truths that the writers couldn't have known about - themes that are brought to fruition in Jesus - virgin born, suffering servants, unblemished lamb, pierced God.

Interestingly, these themes also appear in other texts and religious stories - Odin pinned to a tree by a spear to win wisdom for mankind, the dying god Balder (who I suspect originally returned to life in the spring and was slain in the autumn), the triune goddesses Matrones, the resurrected Osiris, and so on and so forth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Pikachu -- Actually, what I'd like to do sometime is read the OT in chronological order; read along in the history books, switching over to each of the prophets at the appropriate times.

---

How about (as a slightly different tack) reading them in the approximate order in which they were written? Find out from a good book on the bible when most people think each book came into being and read them in that order, to see how the development of religious thought happened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveWal:
Could get very complicated, Groucho. Especially in the first five books. I mean, you'd have to read Gen 2 before Gen 1, for a start.

---

You would also have the problem of the psalms!

quote:

---

Originally posted by faintsaint:
Will

Just a word of encouragement.
I'm finding your posts fascinating and stimulating, and I'm sure many others are too. You're very welcome here!
(even if your perspective sometimes makes things a little uncomfortable for us "comfortable Christians"!)

Keep on postin', friend!

fs

---

Firstly can I agree with fs here and secondly can I say that if reading these discussions in Purgatory doesn't regularly make "comfortable Christians" a little less comfortable then we are not doing things properly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve_R:
Following Christ should never be a comfortable option, but a permanent challenge.

---

Exactly. That's why I value Will's posts, because they give me at least a totally new perspective on things, and make me uneasy.

Time and time again, I hear someone else's slant (usually some reknowned or not-so-reknowned theologian or denominational absolute] on things, recycled as if it's the person's own fresh idea.

To hear from a Jewish perspective is a totally new experience for me... maybe I'm just an iconoclast? But it rings my bell.

And Will, James sounds like an excellent choice for your Bible study. It can be seen a contentious if read as "works not faith" (which I'm sure you already realise).

You could have a thread here in Purgatory running alongside it perhaps?

quote:

---

You could have a thread here in Purgatory running alongside it perhaps?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stowaway:
Isn't one of the problems with saying that the Bible is 100% true that, in the end, you are only able to work with the part of it that you understand and are able to agree with. If I do not agree with it then maybe I don't understand it!

---

This is a great comment. I believe that the Bible is 100% true, but only in a certain sense. It is true only if you understand it properly.

I think that the Bible needs to be seen as a divinely magical entity - a book that in a miraculous way is the actual presence of God on earth.

According to this view, the Bible becomes a book which is open or closed, true or false, depending on how it is approached and understood. Fundamentally it is a book about God and heaven, and it is open only to people who go to it wanting to know how to have heaven in their life. The key to the book is in the heart of the reader. It is a genuine magical object right out of the fairy tales.

quote:

---

..can I say that if reading these discussions in Purgatory doesn't regularly make "comfortable Christians" a little less comfortable then we are not doing things properly.

Following Christ should never be a comfortable option, but a permanent challenge.

---

As an old southern evangelist once said,

quote:

---

A minister's job is to comfort the
afflicted; an evangelist's job is to afflict the comfortable.

---

It has to be said that it is amazing that so much heat, with at least one person being fed to the sharks, can be generated by such an apparently trivial subject. Why should this be? And why should threats of hellfire be dished out to those who disagree? It's weird.

I have to say that for me the bible is so full of so full of gratituous and bizarre contradictions and absurdities that I don't see how anyone can think of any of it is inspired.

Just to take one example, consider the two accounts of the Census taken by David (this has been referred to on another thread). In 2 Samuel it's God who gets David to take it, in 1 Chronicles it's Satan. Figures and totals are different, including in particular the price paid for the threshing floor, paid for in silver in one case and (much more) gold in the other case.

It seems to me that when you've got duplicated accounts there are discrepancies between the versions as here, various other places and of course over the ressurection story.

Why then should we take "as gospel" the rest of it?

Moreover the selection of the canon seems a bit dubious to me. In particular the Christian books which talk about it explain why the OT apocrypha was discounted but gloss quickly over the NT one. One has to go elsewhere to learn, for example, that the Shepherd of Hermas nearly made it whilst 2 Peter nearly didn't. Also Jude's quotation of an apocryphal OT book does surely suggest that Jude was wrongly included or the OT book wrongly excluded?

Two uninspired observations on what Mr. Collins brought up:

In the OT, there is often a sense where both God and Satan act. One example is the evil spirit that God let torment Saul. Or God allowing Satan to mess with Job. Later on, God is no way denies He was behind Job's suffering. MUCH more could be written on this thorny subject, of course.

Jude quoted the Apocalypse of Enoch. (I'm good sometimes!) Quoting something does not necessarily mean that all of what is quoted is inspired truth. Paul quoted a pagan Cretan poet, you might remember.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:

Two uninspired observations on what Mr. Collins brought up:

In the OT, there is often a sense where both God and Satan act. One example is the evil spirit that God let torment Saul. Or God allowing Satan to mess with Job. Later on, God is no way denies He was behind Job's suffering. MUCH more could be written on this thorny subject, of course.

Jude quoted the Apocalypse of Enoch. (I'm good sometimes!) Quoting something does not necessarily mean that all of what is quoted is inspired truth. Paul quoted a pagan Cretan poet, you might remember.

---

To which I'd reply in the first case that (the book of) Job says what's going on. It doesn't say in one place that God did something and in another parallel report of the same event that Satan did something.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Collins:
In the second, Paul quoted a pagan poet, yes, but he wasn't making out that the said poet was inspired in some way - unlike the quotation from Enoch in Jude.

---