Oh...and no matter what you say, if you quote a scripture after it...I will totally drop on my knees and worship you because you obviously have "the tuth".
Regarding Quoting Scriptures All the Time
by AllTimeJeff 72 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
mraimondi
wow, you saw through my thinly veiled attempt i posted on a double dose of vicodin.
congrats, sherlock.
-
Chalam
Hi Stephen. I have to say, you are my favorite apologist..... (no sarcasm there....)
No problems Jeff, always cool to talk :)
Stephen, you do realize that this chapter is 2000 years old, describing events at least 1000 years older then that date, concerning "miracles" that occurred thanks to "faith"? This doesn't prove anything. It's a recap, and one anyone could have written.
I think you missed the point, but I could be wrong?! You were asking about the Israelites and what chance they had of salvation or something similar? The new testament says they are justified by faith, not by keeping the law. In fact, no-one can keep the law, it is just there to point out sin.
It doesn't surprise me that the concept of faith needs defending, evidentally, Paul saw that way back when. But again, the charecters Paul mentioned here are not the Israelites as a people, used as a guniea pig experiment on faith, sin and sacrifices.
I see it differently, the Israelites are the original people of God. The new testament says Christians are grafted into their promise.
It doesn't surprise me that you defend what brings peace to you. I hope you are not surprised that I point out what has not brought peace to me and others.
You were defending a different faith right? Faith in the WT, in the JW religion, in "jehovah", not Jesus? It might appear similar but we are radically different.
I read this chapter 11 so many times, and for my own reasons. not JW ones. Your point is lost on me.
OK, here we were "If Abraham got a free pass because of faith, why not the Israelites? That is the group that got the short end of the stick. I feel bad for them."
If you read the chapter, many other Israelites "got a free pass" because of their faith too. The interesting thing is there are Gentiles, pre Jesus who were also "justified by faith" in the list. So as you see, faith is key. I don't defend it, I just think you need it.
Yeah, you seem to love paradox's as if they prove your point.
Well I think it is just a good example of how God can be different things at the same time. You cannot put Him in a box, certainly not the one of human understanding. For example, God created time and space and He exists outside of it and within it, equally at every place at the same time. That is beyond my comprehension.
One or the other? What about the very real possibility of Jesus being a great man, whose myth and legend was blown out of proportion by his followers, like how the GOP treats Reagan?
I agree with C.S.Lewis on that score. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Either he was a deluded liar or He actually is. There is no middle ground I see.
By that count, thats at least 3 options right there. I don't think Jesus is a lie. I think how his legend has evolved is. Thats all.
So this third option would be that Jesus was just a nice guy but the things written about are lies? No miracles, no "Son of God". no "I am the way, the truth and the life", no resurrection in fact?
Well you have an option there, I agree. However, it is not for me. I have drunk the new wine and it is great! As I said, you need to order a glass or two. If you don't get intoxicated then fair enough, order a cocktail or whatever you fancy. You could always go teetotal and be an atheist?!
All the best,
Stephen
-
AllTimeJeff
Stephen
The new testament says they are justified by faith, not by keeping the law. In fact, no-one can keep the law, it is just there to point out sin.
I know you don't want to accept the fact that this is cruel, but this is cruel of "god". I know you won't question your invisible god's wisdom, but I will.
What faith was required of the Israelites? None. The law makes that very clear. Keep up with tithing, animal sacrifices, the keeping of the myriad of cruel laws, and you were ok. (don't forget to respect the priesthood....)
The fact that you acknowledge that according to Paul, the law was made to make sin manifest (i.e. give us an idea of what god didn't like) shows how uninspired it really is. This is not the wisdom from above. If it was your plan all along to have faith be your cornerstone, why put forth a Law that promoted works for close to 2,000 years.
Why say faith is so important, write Heb 11, and then have the entire OT promote a works based religion that supposedly appeased god? Only if faith wasn't the big deal that Paul says it is. Paul needed to claim the OT Law for HIS version of Christianity, that his law and version of Christianity was now foremost.
You could see that for yourself if you read up on it a little more, but you have made very clear that you are satisfied with a surface reading of the bible, and that you are willing to disregard clear history and scholarship regarding the origins of the NT letters of Paul, and the circumstances surrounding them.
This is why the simple quoting of scriptures is not satisfactory, other then to inform me of how you have limited yourself.
I see it differently, the Israelites are the original people of God. The new testament says Christians are grafted into their promise.
Thank goodness they weren't grafted into the cruel Law that YHWH made for them.
You were defending a different faith right? Faith in the WT, in the JW religion, in "jehovah", not Jesus? It might appear similar but we are radically different.
I don't say this to offend you, but what you defend is an interpretation of who "god" is to you, from the same book that JW's interpret their god from. Like JW's, you use the bible, even your own version of it, you take scriptures and quote them all the time as evidence, and interpret them in a manner that you see fit and are comfortable with.
JW's have a feel of superiority and certainty because their god is "Jehovah". You have a feel of superiority and certainty because your god is "Jesus". Both sides can quote scriptures, both sides seem unwilling to look at real history and instead feel just fine relying on the bible alone.
Bible advocates have had hundreds, thousands of years, to demonstrate the superiority of their book and their faith. HISTORY demonstrates the benefit to the world, or lack therof.
Stephen, the bible and your interpretation of it might make you a better person, and to this I congratulate you. My point is, you don't need the bible or faith to receive what you claim to have. Billions of people living right now bear eloquent testimony to this.
If you read the chapter, many other Israelites "got a free pass" because of their faith too. The interesting thing is there are Gentiles, pre Jesus who were also "justified by faith" in the list. So as you see, faith is key. I don't defend it, I just think you need it.
Funny, I don't need faith, and I think it is an impossible thing to defend. Such as it is.
Yeah, you seem to love paradox's as if they prove your point.
Well I think it is just a good example of how God can be different things at the same time. You cannot put Him in a box, certainly not the one of human understanding. For example, God created time and space and He exists outside of it and within it, equally at every place at the same time. That is beyond my comprehension.
These are your personal assertions without factual backup. It is also a cop out. Believe in him if you want, but don't make such claims, come up against the holes of your own explanations, then walk away saying that the invisible deity is "different things at different times" and that he is 'beyond human understanding'.
We don't know how time, space, matter etc came into existence. We do know that in the last 150 years that Science, freed from the fetters of biblical superstition, have made amazing strides in learning about and explaining these things. The bible can't hold a candle to it.
I agree with C.S.Lewis on that score. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Either he was a deluded liar or He actually is. There is no middle ground I see.
Yes there is. His adherants made him a legend, into something he wasn't. It explains a lot. Even the Pharissees in the Gospels thought that Jesus disciples would try to make good on the legend of his resurrection. An interesting inclusion of scripture in my view.
So this third option would be that Jesus was just a nice guy but the things written about are lies? No miracles, no "Son of God". no "I am the way, the truth and the life", no resurrection in fact?
Um, yes.
Well you have an option there, I agree. However, it is not for me. I have drunk the new wine and it is great! As I said, you need to order a glass or two. If you don't get intoxicated then fair enough, order a cocktail or whatever you fancy. You could always go teetotal and be an atheist?!
Um, no.
My point is, in the context of this thread, that your scriptures are indeed questionable, and to offer them as you do, (i.e. as an unquestioned fact that shouldn't be challenged) has certainly caught my crosshairs.
Or to quote that famous prophet WuzLuvDubs
Oh...and no matter what you say, if you quote a scripture after it...I will totally drop on my knees and worship you because you obviously have "the t(r)uth".
That about sums up my feelings....
PEACE!
-
Yizuman
AllTimeJeff,
I just think that "reading" the bible 20 times isn't that justifiable to be critique of the bible.
There's more to it than just reading, there's alot of studying as well. I've spent years grinding my nose into scripture, looking into all sorts of thing such as bible commentaries, atlases, outside history sources, archaeology sources, greek and hebrew concordances, etc.
There's prolly a more qualified person or persons, whether it be pro or con, but had at least know and understand the bible totally, irregardless if they agree with it or not.
I'm not trying to insult you personally, granted I don't know what you have read over the times since you left the Borg, so I would like to know what besides reading the bible 20 times have you done?
Yiz
-
AllTimeJeff
Yizuman
I didn't mean for that point to be a hang up for anyone. (re: my reading the bible 20 times) I was taking exception to Deputy Dog's assertion that somehow, I didn't understand the bible.
FYI, I used throughout my life, Vines, Strongs, Barclays, Hitchcocks, Grays and Henry's commentaries, while reading such works as Josephus to name a few. In my post JW existence, I have read several articles and books regarding the history of the bible, how the cannon came to be, etc.
It's not that I don't understand the bible, I have a difficult time in my post JW existence understanding how someone can leave JW's and then continue to ascribe to the bible value that it doesn't merit.
My discussion/debate here with Stephen is not to take away his personal faith. But it is an entirely different thing to offer it as if you, with total certainty, can offer your faith to others as if it were factual. It is anything but.
The way Stephen uses scriptures, as I have already commented on, is recognizeable in its use. Jehovah's Witnesses do exactly the same thing. Fundamentalists also offer scripture in a similar manner, as an answer to everything, as if that ends the discussion.
The bible might be ones personal final authority, but I for one will always draw out those that use it in a way as if to say that it is THE ultimate answer for all.
Again, though, I apologize for making my reading of the bible 20 times the paramount issue here. What is the real issue is the use of the bible, and the claim by its adherants that it is THE answer for all.
-
BurnTheShips
Deputy Dog, what I find interesting is that you and others would mock me for my reading the bible over TWENTY (20) TIMES and then have the balls to say that I have little understanding of what I am quoting.
Good luck on that one.
The unprovoked rude response to DD to one side, there is a large body of commentary and meta-text surrounding the core text that is necessary to at least be acquainted with. Simply reading can hurt as much as help. I should know, I read the book several times as a JW, and I didn't really begin to understand it until I was on my way to exiting.
Proverbs 29:20 There is more hope for a stupid fool than for someone who speaks without thinking.
BTS
-
AllTimeJeff
BTS
While I am sure that Deputy Dog can fight his own battles if he wishes to, I took his remark personally and responded to him in kind.
Pr 26:17. Yanking a dog's ears is as foolish as interfering in someone else's argument.
This brings out another smoke screen though for bible adherants. The "special training" that is required to understand it.
Jehovah's Witnesses for one claim that no one can understand the bible without their peculiar brand of help.
It seems common that when all else fails, don't look at the argument, question the qualifications of the one making the argument.
I don't disagree that as with any study of antiquities, the bible has layers to understand. I think Leolaia in particular on this board demonstrates the amount of study one can devote to the bible.
However, at the end of the day, it is the exegesis that is the criticial issue. Religions in our day use as literal a reading of the bible as they can come up with. Dogma itself comes from a reading of the passage and the appropriate interpretation that is given it. This is true of Catholics, JW's, Baptists, Episcopalians, or personal dogma as the case might be, such as with Stephen.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that your implication BTS is that only a scholar has the education necesarry to make such value judgments regarding bible exegesis and dogma?
That would make you and all Christians no different then anyone else, esp JW's. The effort is simply to get you to believe no matter what. And don't forget to turn off your questions when the inconsistencies and contradictions appear.
-
BurnTheShips
Religions in our day use as literal a reading of the bible as they can come up with.
Some do. Especially those you have had intimate acquaintance with. Regardless, all texts are open to interpretation. Especially religious texts. Without interpretation Scripture is a dead letter. Perhaps your disagreement is with a particular school of interpretation, and not the text itself. The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis. But there is the spiritual sense, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks of can be have meaning. There is the allegorical sense. As a Christian, I can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ. For example the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. Then there is the moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As Paul wrote, they were set down "for our instruction." Lastly there is an anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance.
We have a body of the highest legal scholars to simply interpret a relatively short legal document, the Constitution. Even they do not generally render a unanimous decision on interpretation.
Proverbs 14:1 Short bus kittehs sez "No Ceiling Cat!" Theyz bad. (LolCat Translation)
BTS
-
AllTimeJeff
Regardless, all texts are open to interpretation. Especially religious texts. Without interpretation Scripture is a dead letter.
BTS, we are in absolute agreement here. It is also this need for interpretation that calls into question all interpretation. One cannot be superior to another, esp where personal revelation is called upon as a way to interpret said scripture.
I concede that anything requiring interpretation involving law is going to draw out disagreements.
Personal interpretations are important, and I have no qualms with that. I will always raise issues where it is inferred that one personal take and faith trumps all.
I think one can use the quoting of scripture in a more tactful way then to imply that it is THE authority. JW's do that all the time, and it gets a bit frustrating, esp when you know better.