by tootired2care 327 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
So tell me, which parts of the Bible aren't inspired?
To quote you: " Scripture is distinguished from non scripture by it's usefullness especially across generations."
Something that was useful generations ago could have been said to be inspired but now because it is no longer useful, it isn't inspired?
I wasn't referring to THIS debate, but to YOUR claim that there were OTHER "intense debates" amongst believers over whether the animals in Genesis were 'spiritual animals' vs 'physical animals' (a silly argument, quite analogous to the "intense debates" over dancing angels from the Middle Ages).
Because the Garden of Eden is a fable all imagery therein is subject to interpretation. The nature of the creatures of the story will determine how they are interpreted. Are SOME of the animals in the Garden of Eden spirit creatures? That is what Christian Scripture claims. It's not a silly argument, that's just how you are perceiving it. " The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. "
So tell me, which parts of the Bible aren't inspired?
All 66 books are God-breathed.
Something that was useful generations ago could have been said to be inspired but now because it is no longer useful, it isn't inspired?
The Torah and the Talmud still hold lasting value even for people today. They have stood the test of time and should rightly be considered God-breathed. You can confirm this yourself if you choose to put in the work.
Paul's claim was that divine scripture is defined by it's timeless usability, which is a very practicle approach. He was a Jew, after all.
Actually, Paul simply said what scripture is good FOR; he did not attempt to define it other than to say that it was inspired. Though, in the Timothy verse, he did leave the very thing out that Christ said scripture DID do... which was point to Him as the Christ.
Peace,
tammy
A good number of comments on this thread suggest that many bible versus can be safely discarded or outright ignored based on criteria such as a mass killing. I don't understand this thought process, because you would know nothing about Jesus if it were not for that book. So how can it be anything other than all or nothing?
The bible states that Jesus studied the old texts thoroughy and endorsed the principals and laws of the OT rather than rejecting any of it. So when he makes the statements:
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." - Matthew 5:17
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
It's a leap of logic to say that he didn't mean the to include the expressions of Jeremiah, Ezekial (quoted at the outset) and others.
I get the sense from some of the comments so far from those who profess belief in the bible and Jesus, somehow doubt that he is capable of such mass slaughter, yet alone destined for such slaughter in the realm of bible lore. Yet this is what's said of him in Rev, not so warm and fuzzy.
Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in[a] blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. - Rev 19:11-16
Blaming humans for not warning the wicked before a mass annihilation which they have no idea of when it's coming (2,000 years and counting) is just beyond the pale of twisted, sick and evil. Furthermore, I've pondered for many years that if god were to kill all the bad people how is anyone to have confidence that it will be any better than it is now? The god of the bible's track record on new beginnings doesn't inspire any confidence. There is a reason 1/3 of the angels left and the Isrealites refused to do it his way. I think being a witness provided a taste of what the thought controlled paradise might be like.
I'm happy that many believers can still believe and be peaceful and happy despite what the immense guilt the bible ladens on. Jesus load is not light, just ponder how foolish his advice in Matt 6:33 is in practice. I tried for 30+ years and could no longer stomach it, uncertainty, ambiguity, and lack of tangible evidence, is a terrible foundation for a relasionship. Since I've stopped worrying about trying to please the ever watchful high command I have never been happier. If there is a diety out there that does requires worship from humans than it needs to do a much better job of explaining things to earn it IMO.
Lastly, regarding the point about people that don't really believe in the god of the bible not having the right to discuss these topics is nonsense. When arguing about god, the implied meaning from the non-believers side is simply the the concept of god. It's much like going into J.R. Tolkien's world and discussing the characters like Sauron (as Beks alluded to).
Some additonal things for you to consider, Tootired.
"Robe dipped in blood"... "blood of the lamb". (not dipped in blood of the nations) Just as Revelation also says that those who wash their robes in the blood of the lamb may enter the Kingdom.
He does not strike down nations with a literal sword (An actual sword coming from his mouth? I'm not sure how that works). But it is what comes out of his mouth that "strikes down" the nations. Truth comes out of his mouth. My Lord reminds me of this verse:
"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say ahd how to say it."
There is also the parallel in the parable of the sheep and the goats, to show what happens TO the nations: When Christ returns (and all the angels with him... compare to armies of heaven, in Revelation)... he gathers all the nations before Him, separating sheep from goat, and invites the sheep into the kingdom, and the goats are told to depart from Him and cast outside of the Kingdom.
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his thrown in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separatees the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left..." Matthew 25: 31-46
Peace to you,
tammy
Also, I don't think Christ did not mean to include any passges from any of the prophets. They just are not always so well understood... by the scribes and/or by the readers today.
Peace,
tammy
He does not strike down nations with a literal sword (An actual sword coming from his mouth? I'm not sure how that works). But it is what comes out of his mouth that "strikes down" the nations . Truth comes out of his mouth.
Tammy, That's beautiful, are you sure about that?
this immense guilt that you mention. i don't feel it. when i was a Jehovah's Witness and believed as they do i pioneered. now i'm not i tell people i'm a christian and believe in Christ. i've told people on this site of my experieces with having ghosts in the house, i've mentioned that answers to prayers have helped my faith. i don't expect God to make people grow new arms or legs or stop people dying anymore than he stopped bad things happening to the apostle Paul. As a witness i wasn't ignorant of the views about the flood and evolution the age of the earth etc, these weren't new to me when i left. I only left because i don't agree with 1914.
I believe the God of the bible is portrayed as the creator, a righteous God. Righteous in everything he does and in so being if this God exists i feel no need to defend him and no guilt at what he does. my guilt feeling would only come if i felt i should do something and didn't do it.
Please tell me what you meant by this statement: " Scripture is distinguished from non scripture by it's usefullness especially across generations."
There are plenty of things written a long long long time ago that are still useful today. That doesn't mean it originated from a deity.
There are plenty of things written a long long long time ago that are still useful today. That doesn't mean it originated from a deity.
Well, let me rephrase. Scripture is defined by it's usefulness for training in righteousness (keyword). It's supposed to aid us in our understanding of right and wrong. For example, lots of self help books have been published, but not all of them stand the test of time. What people believed was the "right" thing to do at one point in time may not be what they believe in the future. If a self help book never stops being useful then it was written by someone who was in tune with the Spirit (God) and should be considered the gospel truth.
