How do you know what you believe?

[milovany]

Actually, I would love it if you started an "Ask an..." thread.  I think that would be fantastic and I would love reading it.  At this point, I don't think I have wholly rejected the POSSIBILITY of ANY belief so I would welcome this type of thread.

 

Okay, there's one there now. 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/513000-ask-an-orthodox-christian/

 

 

[Heidi]

The OP asked "How do you KNOW what you believe."

That is where I have been coming from in my posts, because I believe I do know and do have evidence for my faith. I'm not asking for anyone to believe as I do, and I hope I am not coming across as threatening others that they must believe the same.

 

I am interested in hearing how others "know" what they believe as well. It may not sound like I am listening from your end, but I am.

 

I mean no harm.

 

I don't know why people are picking on you, Teannika.  I've enjoyed your posts, even though I don't believe the same things you do.  You have conviction and you're sharing it.  There's nothing wrong with that.  I feel just as much conviction as you do and I'm not offended or threatened or turned off at all by yours.  I don't get what the problem is.

 

ETA: it is no different than Albeto posting in every single religious thread to declare that any believer cannot possibly "know" anything of themselves on the topic of religion.  She is right and we are wrong.  No debate unless we have scientific evidence to back up our knowledge.  I don't see anyone insisting that she keep quiet.  Nor do I want her to keep quiet.  I enjoy her posts too!

 

[Heidi]

Thus far there exists no historical record of the works of Jesus, the events that surrounded his death and resurrection outside the bible.

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ makes a pretty huge claim to be an ancient record of the people who lived on the American continent, with whom God also conversed and gave His gospel to. There is an account of signs given of His birth and death, as well as the resurrected Christ ascending out of heaven and ministering among the people, healing their sick and raising their dead. They write that they felt the prints of the nails in hands and feet. The Book of Mormon record supports and clarifies the Biblical record.

 

I don't expect this to be proof to you any more than the Bible is proof, but I did want to point out there is another record that claims to have documented testimonies of the event.

 

You can learn more about it at www.mormon.org

[Elfknitter.#]

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ makes a pretty huge claim to be an ancient record of the people who lived on the American continent, with whom God also conversed and gave His gospel to. There is an account of signs given of His birth and death, as well as the resurrected Christ ascending out of heaven and ministering among the people, healing their sick and raising their dead. They write that they felt the prints of the nails in hands and feet. The Book of Mormon record supports and clarifies the Biblical record.

 

I don't expect this to be proof to you any more than the Bible is proof, but I did want to point out there is another record that claims to have documented testimonies of the event.

 

You can learn more about it at www.mormon.org

A claim is just that, a claim. Do you have a link or some bibliography to these references from the indigenous peoples?

[Heidi]

A claim is just that, a claim. Do you have a link or some bibliography to these references from the indigenous peoples?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11?lang=eng

 

http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/book-of-mormon

[Elfknitter.#]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11?lang=eng

Okay. Now how about something from the indigenous peoples' perspective? An event in their recorded histories. Something from their end that says that, "wow, hey, this great thing happened!" that we can read about in their voice and not from the Book of Mormon or the bible?

[Heidi]

Okay. Now how about something from the indigenous peoples' perspective? An event in their recorded histories. Something from their end that says that, "wow, hey, this great thing happened!" that we can read about in their voice and not from the Book of Mormon or the bible?

The Book of Mormon is an abridged record of the history of those people over a time span of 800 years. It was abridged by a prophet named Mormon who lived in 400 ad, thus the title of his abridgment. However, his son Moroni also wrote in the record in first person before he hid the record in a hill. I will link that book. It is the last book in The Book of Mormon.

 

ETA; the Book of Mormon IS the record. It was translated into English by the power of God by Joseph Smith in 1824. I recommend browsing www.mormon.org for better understanding.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10?lang=eng

 

Edited link

[Elfknitter.#]

The Book of Mormon is an abridged record of the history of those people over a time span of 800 years. It was abridged by a prophet named Mormon who lived in 400 ad, thus the title of his abridgment. However, his son Moroni also wrote in the record in first person before he hid the record in a hill. I will link that book. It is the last book in The Book of Mormon.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10?lang=eng

 

Edited link

Okay. How about a non-Mormon based historical record? Like something from a college paper that can confirm or refute this? There are historians who study ancient American history. Have any of them published something to confirm the Book of Mormon's views?

[Heidi]

Okay. How about a non-Mormon based historical record? Like something from a college paper that can confirm or refute this? There are historians who study ancient American history. Have any of them published something to confirm the Book of Mormon's views?

Confirmation on whether or not a record that has come forth by miraculous means, a record whose purpose is to witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ and to persuade people to have FAITH in Him, because it is by faith we are saved, most likely will not have evidence that will destroy The requirement of faith. However, by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things. You have to read it, study it out in your mind, ask God, believing that He will answer, and He will tell you.

That is better evidence than a college paper.

[Elfknitter.#]

Confirmation on whether or not a record that has come forth by miraculous means, a record whose purpose is to witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ and to persuade people to have FAITH in Him, because it is by faith we are saved, most likely will not have evidence that will destroy faith. However, by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things. You have to read it, study it out in your mind, ask God, believing that He will answer, and He will tell you.

That is better evidence than a college paper.

That may be enough for you, but not for me. I'm guessing the answer to my questions is no.

 

Not sure how that helps the OP. Seems more like proselytizing to me.

[Hoot]

Confirmation on whether or not a record that has come forth by miraculous means, a record whose purpose is to witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ and to persuade people to have FAITH in Him, because it is by faith we are saved, most likely will not have evidence that will destroy The requirement of faith. However, by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things. You have to read it, study it out in your mind, ask God, believing that He will answer, and He will tell you.

That is better evidence than a college paper.

 

It seems to me that an all-powerful, all-knowing god who loves his creation and KNOWS that there are many whose only stumbling block to a relationship would be some semblance of logical proof would have made that available rather than relying on nothing but simple faith and ambiguity.  I know many will say that their faith is based on reality, but at the end of the day, it's still just faith or belief not evidence.  And I think we have proven well enough thus far in this thread that absolutely certain faith or belief looks completely different, often contradictory, to each person.  You may believe that the holy spirit has told you that the Book of Mormon is truth, but I know a lot of people who will say thta the holy spirit has told them that the Book of Mormon is an abomination.  Both can't be right.

 

And therein lies my original issue. 

[Heidi]

That may be enough for you, but not for me. I'm guessing the answer to my questions is no.

. You can look. And what good would it do if you found it? Addressing the whole theme of this thread and a need for documented scientific proof: if science proved it was all true and you knew, rather than just had faith, you would be accountable to that knowledge.

 

In our homes we have rules, and we discipline our children according to their understanding. Your two year old flushes your diamond ring down the potty verses your 17 year old flushing your diamond ring down the potty. The two year old maybe knew it was wrong, but didn't understand completely why, verses your 17 year old knew exactly what he was doing. The consequence is different according to their understanding.

 

I believe it is the same with spiritual laws. We are given knowledge as we have faith and a willingness to act on that knowledge. Greater knowledge gives greater joy, but with it comes greater condemnation if we act against that knowledge. I believe we have a loving Heavenly Father that will make all things known to us, but because He loves us and wants the best for us, He requires faith first.

 

Something to think about anyway.

[Heidi]

You may believe that the holy spirit has told you that the Book of Mormon is truth, but I know a lot of people who will say thta the holy spirit has told them that the Book of Mormon is an abomination. Both can't be right.

 

And therein lies my original issue.

It is easily solved. Find out for yourself. Get your knowledge from God, not the majority.

[Elfknitter.#]

. You can look. And what good would it do if you found it? Addressing the whole theme of this thread and a need for documented scientific proof: if science proved it was all true and you knew, rather than just had faith, you would be accountable to that knowledge.

 

In our homes we have rules, and we discipline our children according to their understanding. Your two year old flushes your diamond ring down the potty verses your 17 year old flushing your diamond ring down the potty. The two year old maybe knew it was wrong, but didn't understand completely why, verses your 17 year old knew exactly what he was doing. The consequence is different according to their understanding.

 

I believe it is the same with spiritual laws. We are given knowledge as we have faith and a willingness to act on that knowledge. Greater knowledge gives greater joy, but with it comes greater condemnation if we act against that knowledge. I believe we have a loving Heavenly Father that will make all things known to us, but because He loves us and wants the best for us, He requires faith first.

 

Something to think about anyway.

No, not really.

 

There are laws for religion, science, nature... A family might have its own laws.

 

I don't understand what a 2 yo flushing a ring down a toilet has to do with Jesus supposedly preaching in the Ancient Americas. I also don't accept Christian based theology purely on faith.

 

As to what good would SCIENTIFIC evidence versus a book of words would do me? Well, I'll take quantifiable proof that can be retested within a hypothesis as great proof. So forgive me if I feel that your answer is one sided. If this great miracle happened in America, where are the records from those who this message touched?

[Heidi]

Not sure how that helps the OP. Seems more like proselytizing to me.

I was answering your questions, not the op's.

[Hoot]

It is easily solved. Find out for yourself. Get your knowledge from God, not the majority.

 

Not so easily solved when god doesn't actually speak to us verbally.  And I don't mean to say that flippantly, only that I can't physically sit down with god and ask him questions like I would a real, live person.  Getting knowledge from god, and I say this because I have BEEN a Christian, is a lot of praying, reading, and assuming you're getting the "right" answer in return.  When this "knowledge from god" is literally all in your head and based on ambiguous signs, the message comes through differently for everyone.  There is no continuity, and for a god who supposedly doesn't change, I find that a bit disconcerting.  If there is a god then SOMEONE is hearing him wrong and there is no way on earth to know who it is.

[Elfknitter.#]

I was answering your questions, not the op's.

But yet you did not answer or address the rest of my post.

[Heidi]

No, not really.

 

There are laws for religion, science, nature... A family might have its own laws.

 

I don't understand what a 2 yo flushing a ring down a toilet has to do with Jesus supposedly preaching in the Ancient Americas. I also don't accept Christian based theology purely on faith.

 

As to what good would SCIENTIFIC evidence versus a book of words would do me? Well, I'll take quantifiable proof that can be retested within a hypothesis as great proof. So forgive me if I feel that your answer is one sided. If this great miracle happened in America, where are the records from those who this message touched?

Sorry I can't proselytize. It's against board rules. Have a blessed day!!!

[Elfknitter.#]

Sorry I can't proselytize. It's against board rules. Have a blessed day!!!

Nice. One minute it's go on faith, my book tells me what what is right, what to think... The next we admit to trying to proselytize on a thread of someone who is questioning.

 

All the same, have a great day!

[TracyP]

 

 

ETA: it is no different than Albeto posting in every single religious thread to declare that any believer cannot possibly "know" anything of themselves on the topic of religion.  She is right and we are wrong.  No debate unless we have scientific evidence to back up our knowledge.  I don't see anyone insisting that she keep quiet.  Nor do I want her to keep quiet.  I enjoy her posts too!

 

I have seen several posters encourage others not to reply to Albeto's posts, tell her to take her comments to a different thread, and a couple lovely, thoughtful posts of hers have been deleted. Just saying...

[awisha.]

Sorry I can't proselytize. It's against board rules. Have a blessed day!!!

 

 

What do you call all this then??

 

 

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ makes a pretty huge claim to be an ancient record of the people who lived on the American continent, with whom God also conversed and gave His gospel to. There is an account of signs given of His birth and death, as well as the resurrected Christ ascending out of heaven and ministering among the people, healing their sick and raising their dead. They write that they felt the prints of the nails in hands and feet. The Book of Mormon record supports and clarifies the Biblical record.

I don't expect this to be proof to you any more than the Bible is proof, but I did want to point out there is another record that claims to have documented testimonies of the event.

You can learn more about it at www.mormon.org

  

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11?lang=enghttp://www.mormon.org/beliefs/book-of-mormon

  

The Book of Mormon is an abridged record of the history of those people over a time span of 800 years. It was abridged by a prophet named Mormon who lived in 400 ad, thus the title of his abridgment. However, his son Moroni also wrote in the record in first person before he hid the record in a hill. I will link that book. It is the last book in The Book of Mormon.

ETA; the Book of Mormon IS the record. It was translated into English by the power of God by Joseph Smith in 1824. I recommend browsing www.mormon.org for better understanding.https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10?lang=eng

Edited link

  

Confirmation on whether or not a record that has come forth by miraculous means, a record whose purpose is to witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ and to persuade people to have FAITH in Him, because it is by faith we are saved, most likely will not have evidence that will destroy The requirement of faith. However, by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things. You have to read it, study it out in your mind, ask God, believing that He will answer, and He will tell you.

That is better evidence than a college paper.

[Joanne]

That's too bad. I was enjoying this thread.

[Mandylubug]

It saddens me it has taken a negative turn. Cupcakes anyone?

[elegantlion]

Not so easily solved when god doesn't actually speak to us verbally.  And I don't mean to say that flippantly, only that I can't physically sit down with god and ask him questions like I would a real, live person.  Getting knowledge from god, and I say this because I have BEEN a Christian, is a lot of praying, reading, and assuming you're getting the "right" answer in return.  When this "knowledge from god" is literally all in your head and based on ambiguous signs, the message comes through differently for everyone.  There is no continuity, and for a god who supposedly doesn't change, I find that a bit disconcerting.  If there is a god then SOMEONE is hearing him wrong and there is no way on earth to know who it is.

 

 

And if you choose to question, many will simply cast you into the lot of people that never really "got it" "believed it" "were saved" in the first place. 

 

Not speaking about anyone in this thread, but I've seen that mindset more than once in real life. I appreciate that some have sat on the questioning fence and fell back into Christianity with their faith and a sense of peace. Those of us that fall off the fence in different directions still find validity in our beliefs, still held christian beliefs and practices before, those can't just be negated after our search. 

 

I guess what I'm saying in my coffee still kickin' in moment, is that many of us have turned to God, prayed, sought, done  and heard or not heard a different reply. I'm still on the fence trying to observe and enjoy all of what I see as God's creation. I just have a different perspective than I did, that doesn't mean I was never a christian in the first place.  

[Elfknitter.#]

That's too bad. I was enjoying this thread.

  

And if you choose to question, many will simply cast you into the lot of people that never really "got it" "believed it" "were saved" in the first place. 

 

Not speaking about anyone in this thread, but I've seen that mindset more than once in real life. I appreciate that some have sat on the questioning fence and fell back into Christianity with their faith and a sense of peace. Those of us that fall off the fence in different directions still find validity in our beliefs, still held christian beliefs and practices before, those can't just be negated after our search. 

 

I guess what I'm saying in my coffee still kickin' in moment, is that many of us have turned to God, prayed, sought, done  and heard or not heard a different reply. I'm still on the fence trying to observe and enjoy all of what I see as God's creation. I just have a different perspective than I did, that doesn't mean I was never a christian in the first place.

 

It's still early. Do not give up so quickly ....

[albeto.]

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ makes a pretty huge claim to be an ancient record of the people who lived on the American continent, with whom God also conversed and gave His gospel to. There is an account of signs given of His birth and death, as well as the resurrected Christ ascending out of heaven and ministering among the people, healing their sick and raising their dead. They write that they felt the prints of the nails in hands and feet. The Book of Mormon record supports and clarifies the Biblical record.

 

I don't expect this to be proof to you any more than the Bible is proof, but I did want to point out there is another record that claims to have documented testimonies of the event.

 

You can learn more about it at www.mormon.org

 

The Book of Mormon is not a historical record of these events.

 

ETA: I don't mean this because it doesn't count "for me," but because a claim cannot be evidence of its own credibility. One of the ways in which anyone "knows" anything is corroborating evidence. We "know" education of children is directly correlated to higher standards of living as adults. We "know" education need not be in the conventional brick and mortar public school style, or old fashioned governess. We "know" these things because there exists corroborating evidence. We don't know the Book of Mormon's claims are credible because there does not as yet exist any corroborating evidence with regard to the historical record offered in the book. We do know, on the other hand, a different history is far more likely. It's so likely, in fact, that we can assume it's true. That's how we "know" what happened in Mexico in the first few centuries CE. 

[milovany]

A claim is just that, a claim. Do you have a link or some bibliography to these references from the indigenous peoples?

 

ETA; the Book of Mormon IS the record.

 

Heidi, I think the idea is something like this.  There are lots of written records outside the Bible that describe the early church. One doesn't have to go on Bible alone to read about what the early church did/believed (these things aren't canonized scripture, they can be seen as historical documents). From what I can tell, all we have for Mormonism is something the faith's own guy wrote, but if Jesus Christ had truly visited America and the indigenous people here, the indigenous people should have something (some little thing, any ol' thing, even an oral tradition/story would suffice) that corroborates this.  Especially if it was as big a deal as the LDS faith says it was.  Again, from what I understand, there's nothing.  Just pointing out what I think Elfknitter was getting at, not trying to criticize your message. 

[albeto.]

Confirmation on whether or not a record that has come forth by miraculous means, a record whose purpose is to witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ and to persuade people to have FAITH in Him, because it is by faith we are saved, most likely will not have evidence that will destroy The requirement of faith. However, by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things. You have to read it, study it out in your mind, ask God, believing that He will answer, and He will tell you.

That is better evidence than a college paper.

 

Well, and here is where it gets interesting. If I were to ask Teannika about this, I suspect she would not agree with you. I would ask her because she *knows* because she has been "born again." As she explains, she knows "firsthand what happens to you once you are. It is a spiritual change that takes place. I have only wanted to give a small witness to that experience that you can "know" truth. As per the OP." But I doubt the prophet Moroni is included in this knowledge. Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Teannika can answer this. 

 

If one were to determine which Christian understands the holy spirit correctly, how would one go about that? How do they find out? How would they know?

[Laurie4b]

Laurie,

There are times we disagree vehemently about issues. So I want to take this opportunity to thank you. Although I have dropped the faith, the words above encapsulate what I felt the last years I believe I was a Christian.

 

Jesus (myth, man, spirit, or savior) was about inclusiveness and the metaphoric meaning of spiritual truths. The irony of literalism is really a sad commentary on the god worshipped.

 

Joanne,

 

I didn't know we disagreed vehemently. I thought we often agree on threads. :) But it looks like I've been offensive at some point, for which I apologize. Thanks for the peace offering. I hope we can stay "good."

 

At the risk of provoking vehement disagreement, though, I do want to say that I am a literalist on many things and believe the creeds. The beliefs set forth in the creeds are where there is unity between Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant believers. (the fililoque being the only exception that I am aware of and I for one am not going to make a big deal about it) My theology is conversative and orthodox with a little "o." (As an aside: that says nothing about my politics. It surprised me to learn on this board that "conservative" as an adjective describing "Christian" was viewed as a political as well as theological statement. My politics are all over the board and don't fit anyone's boxes. Anyhoo....)

 

Inside the creeds, I will stake an "I believe." Outside the creeds, I apply the "Hmm. I could be the one who is wrong here. Let me listen and learn from other Christians now and in the past."  I believe the Bible is the word of God, and is authoritative. Though I am evangelical Protestant,  I think my brothers and sisters in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions have a major point and one has only to look around at the number of Protestant denominations to know for evidence that a typical Protestant misunderstanding of solo Scriptura (me and my Bible is enough) produces multitudes of interpretations. I believe I need my brothers and sisters around the world today and back through the ages to get closer to understanding. 

 

I do think that  Christians in the US err however, whenever we make faith more like answers to a test than about the deep beauty and mystery of a relationship with God. This is the way it is expressed in 1 Corinthians 8: Now concerning^[a] [a subject on which Christians of the time disagreed] we know that “all of us possess knowledge.†This “knowledge†puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.

 

That pretty much sums it up for me. I do believe there is something to know, and something that can be known. But love of God and love of other people must be present to "know" anything. As James later says in the Bible, the demons have a lot of factual theology correct. (my paraphrase). Getting propositional beliefs correct on some exam in your head may get one exactly at the place of demons unless all is permeated with love.

 

Or again from Corinthians: Love never ends.... For we know in part....For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

So I will appeal to the Bible to my fellow (almost always Protestants arguing that they are right) and say the Source itself says we only know now in part. We won't know fully until we are face to face with God. Faith and hope will pass away at that point because we will know. Love is for both now and then.

 

As Antoine de St. Exupery said, "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly" or another Frenchman Jacques Bénigne Bossuel: "The heart has reasons that reason does not understand." Logic is not the only way to "know" something and getting propositional beliefs right may miss the entire point, which is love.

[Mom-ninja.]

And if you choose to question, many will simply cast you into the lot of people that never really "got it" "believed it" "were saved" in the first place. 

 

 

Well, yeah. Don't you know that if you don't hear God's message then you didn't really open your heart, you didn't really want to know, you didn't really submit to his love. So, it's all your fault.

 

How many times have you heard that? Lots I bet. Yes, here on this board too.

 

I don't lose sleep about it. :)

[Hoot]

Well, yeah. Don't you know that if you don't hear God's message then you didn't really open your heart, you didn't really want to know, you didn't really submit to his love. So, it's all your fault.

 

How many times have you heard that? Lots I bet. Yes, here on this board too.

 

I don't lose sleep about it. :)

Yes, THIS! Except I DID lose sleep over it for a long time.

 

And as a side note, I really need my "like" capability to be replenished. :)

[Mom-ninja.]

Contessa, :grouphug: . I used to lose sleep too. I used to lose precious daytime hours as well. I'm thankfully past that and happy and at peace now. I wish the same for you. I hope you find peace and contentment soon. If your journey takes you to the land of non-believe then please know there are many who do not think that you are damned. You are and will continue to be a good person. You will still have morals. You will still have friends.

 

 

Edited to add: Ditto if you do decide you believe in a supernatural something or deity(ies). :D

[milovany]

....the fililoque being the only exception that I am aware of and I for one am not going to make a big deal about it...

 

Happy to explain why this is a big deal on the EO side of things (it's just as big a deal as the supreme authority of the Pope thing to me), but can do so in PM if you're interested.  Not trying to debate it, just say why it's more than a technical/wording issue. 

 

 

 

I do think that  Christians in the US err however, whenever we make faith more like answers to a test than about the deep beauty and mystery of a relationship with God.

 

I love this and was actually just thinking about it this weekend in regard to this thread. It was the whole "fear" aspect that I was thinking about (i.e., the idea that Christianity is based on fear -- "Repent or burn!" or even in a different way, "Have faith or be poor/sick!"). Because I have a long history as an evangelical, it's been difficult for me to shed this approach.  But what I realized this weekend is that I am learning to let go of this fear because the relationship with God isn't based on an implied (or direct) threat as noted above.  The goal isn't to stay out of hell and get into heaven.  The goal is to be in communion with God.  Our journey is to go through life, with our faces turned toward Him, becoming more and more Christ-like, receiving more of His grace through the sacraments, and thus becoming more and more united with God in theosis.  There's no threat involved, no consequence being hung over our heads. 

[Juniper]

And if you choose to question, many will simply cast you into the lot of people that never really "got it" "believed it" "were saved" in the first place. 

 

Not speaking about anyone in this thread, but I've seen that mindset more than once in real life. I appreciate that some have sat on the questioning fence and fell back into Christianity with their faith and a sense of peace. Those of us that fall off the fence in different directions still find validity in our beliefs, still held christian beliefs and practices before, those can't just be negated after our search. 

 

I guess what I'm saying in my coffee still kickin' in moment, is that many of us have turned to God, prayed, sought, done  and heard or not heard a different reply. I'm still on the fence trying to observe and enjoy all of what I see as God's creation. I just have a different perspective than I did, that doesn't mean I was never a christian in the first place.  

...and it does not mean your present position is fixed. ;) Heck, I have climbed myself on and off it more times than I can count in the last 7 years! :D

[Hoot]

I love this and was actually just thinking about it this weekend in regard to this thread. It was the whole "fear" aspect that I was thinking about (i.e., the idea that Christianity is based on fear -- "Repent or burn!" or even in a different way, "Have faith or be poor/sick!"). Because I have a long history as an evangelical, it's been difficult for me to shed this approach. But what I realized this weekend is that I am learning to let go of this fear because the relationship with God isn't based on an implied (or direct) threat as noted above. The goal isn't to stay out of hell and get into heaven. The goal is to be in communion with God. Our journey is to go through life, with our faces turned toward Him, becoming more and more Christ-like, receiving more of His grace through the sacraments, and thus becoming more and more united with God in theosis. There's no threat involved, no consequence being hung over our heads.

This literally does not compute for me. I'm truly not being deliberately dim or obtuse; I simply don't understand. I guess I can't separate one from the other. I know that the point is supposed to be a relationship or a communion with god, if you will, but the consequences are still there if you do not choose god. Right? Whether one chooses to focus on the negative portion, that doesn't mean it isn't there. Or are you saying that you don't believe in a literal hell or some sort of punishment for those who don't follow the god of the bible?

[Zebra]

I just wanted to say(and I haven't read EVERY word of this thread....so please forgive me!) that I really think that you need to start looking for a new job.   It seems like you are too immersed in the Christian culture right now to even think straight.  It's almost like you can't even begin to figure out what you believe until you get some space.  

 

I am not saying there is anything wrong with being completely immersed in the Christian culture if you really believe it all.   It's just, when you are having doubts you should find some space, get away from it so you can think clearly.

 

Maybe you can't look for a new job, but that is definitely where I would start if I were you.  

[LizzyBee]

A single source that falsifies each point of the bible? Off the top of my head I can't think of one. The entire scientific record debunks the first claims made in the bible, the one of the earth having been created in six days some few thousand years ago. Thus far there exists no historical record of the works of Jesus, the events that surrounded his death and resurrection outside the bible. The accounts of such people as Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Tacitus, etc, have been accounted for and do not support these claims. Perhaps Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Sam Harris' The End of Faith, or David Fitzgerald's Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All. You can watch a talk in which he introduces these things here (about an hour long, faster than reading a book ;-)).

 

Thank you. I bookmarked the video to watch later.  I don't expect to be convinced and I'm not looking for evidence against belief, but I do like to look at things from all angles.

 

[Hoot]

I do not disagree at all and I have actually been looking for awhile. What I have is very stable for me right now in that they would do almost anything to keep me (because I am incredibly good at it, responsible, trustworthy, and the bizarre hours that I work are actually quite perfect for me). I'm just having a hard time finding anything that will fit quite as well.

 

 

I just wanted to say(and I haven't read EVERY word of this thread....so please forgive me!) that I really think that you need to start looking for a new job. It seems like you are too immersed in the Christian culture right now to even think straight. It's almost like you can't even begin to figure out what you believe until you get some space.

 

I am not saying there is anything wrong with being completely immersed in the Christian culture if you really believe it all. It's just, when you are having doubts you should find some space, get away from it so you can think clearly.

 

Maybe you can't look for a new job, but that is definitely where I would start if I were you.

[Laurie4b]

Happy to explain why this is a big deal on the EO side of things (it's just as big a deal as the supreme authority of the Pope thing to me), but can do so in PM if you're interested.  Not trying to debate it, just say why it's more than a technical/wording issue. 

 

You've explained it before. ;)  I made the remark to be accurate in what I said about the unity given by the creeds to the EO, RC, and Protestant churches hoping to forestall a debate. When there is so much agreement, I prefer to stand within the agreement and save the disputed portions for later, between friends.

 

I love this and was actually just thinking about it this weekend in regard to this thread. It was the whole "fear" aspect that I was thinking about (i.e., the idea that Christianity is based on fear -- "Repent or burn!" or even in a different way, "Have faith or be poor/sick!"). Because I have a long history as an evangelical, it's been difficult for me to shed this approach.  But what I realized this weekend is that I am learning to let go of this fear because the relationship with God isn't based on an implied (or direct) threat as noted above.  The goal isn't to stay out of hell and get into heaven.  The goal is to be in communion with God.  Our journey is to go through life, with our faces turned toward Him, becoming more and more Christ-like, receiving more of His grace through the sacraments, and thus becoming more and more united with God in theosis.  There's no threat involved, no consequence being hung over our heads. Yes! Beautiful! I will answer your former inner evangelical with my inner evangelical, since that's what I've got. :)

Eternal life (heaven) is now. At the start of his prayer for unity, Jesus prayed: "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." It's about knowing God, about relationship, about loving God. So one might say that if a person had no interest in a relationship with God that "heaven" might in fact be experienced as "hell," kind of the way some people speak of holidays with certain extended family members only more so. ;) 

Hell in the Bible is nearly always presented in metaphor, but the place where it's least so says eternal destruction is "away from the presence of the Lord." (2 Thes.) 

 

Eternal life is about knowing/loving God from now on. And because each human being is created in the image of God, our relationships with people are a good barometer of our relationship with God (since we can easily fool ourselves about how much we love God, it's handy to have a concrete indicator.) Quoting John in his first letter: "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them....We love because he first loved us. Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister."

 

Truth separated out from love ceases to be truth.

[kubiac]

Travel and read.

 

Go out into the world and see how other people with other belief systems live and observe if their personhood seems radically different/better/worse than yours and what that can be traced to. Is it their faith? Is it family? Is it environment? Is it finances? Is it education?
 

Observe, make conclusions and then change your beliefs or your practices. Reassess as needed.

[SadieMarie]

I just ran across this piece on Salon and it seemed timely, http://www.salon.com/2014/04/28/christianitys_faith_based_freakouts_why_atheism_makes_believers_lose_their_minds_partner/

[Teannika]

What in the world? I confess, this is a new one for me in the world of apologetics.

 

1. First, as you said, the writer of Isaiah did not write into Chapters, so how can the coincidental number of chapters relative to books be proof of anything? I'm not sure who, historically, segmented chapters, but how can you assume their chapter-separating is divinely directed to give some interesting type of pattern?

 

2. Secondly, though I have never before heard about chapters being topically unified with books, I do know that once upon a time, I went looking in Isaiah for fulfillment of prophesies. (I was a big-time Christian at the time, so I went looking, expecting to be amazed.) i was wholly disappointed. It was no more remarkable than reading a Sunday-paper horoscope prediction that "comes true". "You will be faced with a decision between two equally-good options." Hmmm. So when I chose the Strawberry milkshake, instead of vanilla, did my horoscope come true? Very few of the supposed prophesies I read about were even mildly interesting.

 

3. Another time, I was looking for info about the history of Satan. I was very shocked to discover that the teachings about Satan's origin and purpose had very close to zero scriptural basis. We have a few poetic verses in Isaiah that church tradition interprets to mean Lucifer was an angel, became proud and was chucked out of heaven with a third of the angels. Again, despite being an intense Christian, I was almost embarrassed that THIS is how Christian tradition teaches Satan's origins. The supposedly relevant scriptures could mean practically anything, or might mean nothing whatsoever.

 

If I wasn't limited by being on an ipad, I would make some nice links and quotes to demonstrate this better.

 

4. Anyway, I heard so many times about how the Bible is so perfectly cohesive, and how that is so miraculous, given the span of years and geography represented, but I couldn't find it amazing even when it was in my best interest to do so. All I see are the many INconsistencies of the Bible. Does the God of the Old Testament seem remotely like Jesus? In the OT, God was always chastizing his disobedient nations, but after Jesus came, God is for both Jews and Gentiles. Check out the website Religious Tolerance . Org. I couldn't disagree with many things on that site, even when I wanted to.

 

 

 

Hi, I'm just on my ipad as well today, so instead of breaking up your quote to answer each part, I've just numbered the paragraphs inside your quote so that it can be seen which parts I am responding to.

 

1. I'm not assuming that there has been given a divinely inspired pattern, it is observable. I can just pick up my Bible and have a look for myself. Many people do not realise or consider that the Bible has been a work in progress. This is because they think that God's true words were somehow left back with the original manuscripts only. However, I believe that God did not stop with the men who originally penned his words. The scriptures went through different changes, changing form from a scroll to a book, and also changing from one language to another down throughout history. The whole time God was keeping his hand on his word, and it is he who ultimately kept it. Not men. He just worked through men to bring it through history as he wanted it to come through. And that includes his oversight on the books chosen, ordered, and as I have shown, even down to the chapter divisions which were added long after the originals had been penned.

 

Not everyone in history has had a "bible", a completed book of the holy scriptures. We are very blessed today to have one we can hold. And now that we have electronic Bibles, we have an even greater advantage when studying in being able to cross-reference to find connections and so forth.

 

2. Regarding the OT prophecies, from Isaiah and other OT books, the prophecies are written in such a way as they had to be hidden enough so at the time they were not completely understood. If they were, then Jesus would never have been crucified. Satan would not have had this happen if he knew the end result of it and would not have influenced it etc.

 

The way they are written is also quite similar to how Jesus spoke in parables. He tells us he did so so that the believers could know and understand, and at the same time so the spiritual truths be kept hidden from those who weren't believers and genuinely wanting to know.

 

I think one of the most impressive prophesies foretold in the OT is that of the method of death by crucifixion. Not just that Jesus was to be hung on the cross, but moreso that a method of death was foretold which wasn't to be invented until thousands of years later!

 

Ie.

Psalm 22:16 'For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.'

 

(What other method of death requires the piercing of hands and feet?)

 

Zechariah 12:10 'And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.'

 

(Another reference to Jesus being pierced)

 

Isaiah 53:5 'But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.'

 

(Stripes - from when he was whipped before the crucifixion)

 

Psalms 22:14 'I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.'

 

(Jesus bones would have been out of joint hanging on a cross. His side was also pierced and water rushed out)

 

Isaiah 52:14 'As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:'

 

(Death would also include a good beating so that his face would become unrecognisable, and his form distorted - which also happened with his body being at all sorts of angles with his bones sticking out on the cross.)

 

3. The origins of Satan is talked about, but yes not in a great deal. I guess for those who believe what is written only need to hear it written once. However, many references are mentioned about satan, and give us enough information. What God needs us to know. The Bible does not tell us everything that has gone on in heaven regarding angels etc. I think people tend to underestimate that there are things going on that our outside of our earth. We tend to have an egotistical viewpoint. Anyway, my point is God gives us enough about what he needs us to know now.

 

 

4. I don't label the differences between different parts of the bible as inconsistencies. I see them as different parts of God's plan that are being unfolded. And this gives us different angles and insights on God's person and character. Just as we as individuals are multifaceted and have many different characteristics that make us up. Sometimes we are hard on our children, sometimes we are soft. Sometimes we encourage, sometimes we correct.

 

God shows up in different times in different ways depending on what is needed at that time.

[Ipsey]

Ie.

Psalm 22:16 'For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.'

 

(What other method of death requires the piercing of hands and feet?)

 

Zechariah 12:10 'And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.'

 

(Another reference to Jesus being pierced)

 

Isaiah 53:5 'But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.'

 

(Stripes - from when he was whipped before the crucifixion)

 

Psalms 22:14 'I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.'

 

(Jesus bones would have been out of joint hanging on a cross. His side was also pierced and water rushed out)

 

Isaiah 52:14 'As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:'

 

(Death would also include a good beating so that his face would become unrecognisable, and his form distorted - which also happened with his body being at all sorts of angles with his bones sticking out on the cross.)

 

3. The origins of Satan is talked about, but yes not in a great deal. I guess for those who believe what is written only need to hear it written once. However, many references are mentioned about satan, and give us enough information. What God needs us to know. The Bible does not tell us everything that has gone on in heaven regarding angels etc. I think people tend to underestimate that there are things going on that our outside of our earth. We tend to have an egotistical viewpoint. Anyway, my point is God gives us enough about what he needs us to know now.

 

 

4. I don't label the differences between different parts of the bible as inconsistencies. I see them as different parts of God's plan that are being unfolded. And this gives us different angles and insights on God's person and character. Just as we as individuals are multifaceted and have many different characteristics that make us up. Sometimes we are hard on our children, sometimes we are soft. Sometimes we encourage, sometimes we correct.

 

God shows up in different times in different ways depending on what is needed at that time.

 

You are picking bits and pieces of the OT and calling them prophecies of the Messiah.  Jews never interpreted these verses this way. Those verses from Isaiah are not Messianic prophecies, and Jesus comes nowhere close to actually doing what the Messiah was supposed to do.

 

You are attaching your own religious faith to another group's scriptures and interpreting them in a way those first people never did in order to support your own religion. 

 

Similarly, I've heard Muslims point to the Bible to "prove" Islam. The NT scriptures they used were certainly not how Christians have accepted them. It's not too much different than what you're doing to the OT from a Jew's perspective. It's the same sort of idea. If you'll accept the Muslim interpretation of the Bible, I'll accept your interpretation of the OT.

[Guest]

Hi, I'm just on my ipad as well today, so instead of breaking up your quote to answer each part, I've just numbered the paragraphs inside your quote so that it can be seen which parts I am responding to.

 

1. I'm not assuming that there has been given a divinely inspired pattern, it is observable. I can just pick up my Bible and have a look for myself. Many people do not realise or consider that the Bible has been a work in progress. This is because they think that God's true words were somehow left back with the original manuscripts only. However, I believe that God did not stop with the men who originally penned his words. The scriptures went through different changes, changing form from a scroll to a book, and also changing from one language to another down throughout history. The whole time God was keeping his hand on his word, and it is he who ultimately kept it. Not men. He just worked through men to bring it through history as he wanted it to come through. And that includes his oversight on the books chosen, ordered, and as I have shown, even down to the chapter divisions which were added long after the originals had been penned.

 

Not everyone in history has had a "bible", a completed book of the holy scriptures. We are very blessed today to have one we can hold. And now that we have electronic Bibles, we have an even greater advantage when studying in being able to cross-reference to find connections and so forth.

 

2. Regarding the OT prophecies, from Isaiah and other OT books, the prophecies are written in such a way as they had to be hidden enough so at the time they were not completely understood. If they were, then Jesus would never have been crucified. Satan would not have had this happen if he knew the end result of it and would not have influenced it etc.

 

The way they are written is also quite similar to how Jesus spoke in parables. He tells us he did so so that the believers could know and understand, and at the same time so the spiritual truths be kept hidden from those who weren't believers and genuinely wanting to know.

 

I think one of the most impressive prophesies foretold in the OT is that of the method of death by crucifixion. Not just that Jesus was to be hung on the cross, but moreso that a method of death was foretold which wasn't to be invented until thousands of years later!

 

Ie.

Psalm 22:16 'For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.'

 

(What other method of death requires the piercing of hands and feet?)

 

Zechariah 12:10 'And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.'

 

(Another reference to Jesus being pierced)

 

Isaiah 53:5 'But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.'

 

(Stripes - from when he was whipped before the crucifixion)

 

Psalms 22:14 'I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.'

 

(Jesus bones would have been out of joint hanging on a cross. His side was also pierced and water rushed out)

 

Isaiah 52:14 'As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:'

 

(Death would also include a good beating so that his face would become unrecognisable, and his form distorted - which also happened with his body being at all sorts of angles with his bones sticking out on the cross.)

 

3. The origins of Satan is talked about, but yes not in a great deal. I guess for those who believe what is written only need to hear it written once. However, many references are mentioned about satan, and give us enough information. What God needs us to know. The Bible does not tell us everything that has gone on in heaven regarding angels etc. I think people tend to underestimate that there are things going on that our outside of our earth. We tend to have an egotistical viewpoint. Anyway, my point is God gives us enough about what he needs us to know now.

 

 

4. I don't label the differences between different parts of the bible as inconsistencies. I see them as different parts of God's plan that are being unfolded. And this gives us different angles and insights on God's person and character. Just as we as individuals are multifaceted and have many different characteristics that make us up. Sometimes we are hard on our children, sometimes we are soft. Sometimes we encourage, sometimes we correct.

 

God shows up in different times in different ways depending on what is needed at that time.

Tanneka, thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.

 

About the Bible being protected so that it would be the correct, complete Word of God: I understand this is the belief. This is how I was raised to believe. What I'm saying is there are numerous reasons I no longer believe this. At the heart of it is this: if the Supreme Being of the Universe wanted to consolidate the most important things for his creation to know, why choose a book? Why choose to "inspire" people over thousands of years to slowly compile this crucial information into a format so very limited as a book? For that matter, don't you find it strange that Jesus, as God Incarnate, would not pen a single verse? Would not collect some critical thoughts he wanted to last after his earthly time?

 

The Bible is full of some very useful advice and fascinating stories. One could hardly go wrong just by living their life in accordance with The Sermon on the Mount. But the Bible is also filled with awful stories. The OT especially records dozens of stories that I definitely hope do not represent any being I would worship. Abraham is "told" to murder his son. God drowns every creature because he "regrets" that he created them. God "worries" that proud tower-builders can build a tower to heaven, so he must AUTHOR confusion and racial disharmony. At minimum, we now know how utterly hilariously mistaken they would be to think heaven is just past that cloud, there. God hardens Pharoh's heart such that he doesn't relent until God murders every first-born child and creature not protected by sacrificial blood (more obvious pointing to ancient man's belief in sacrificial blood). God authorizes the keeping of virgins as spoils of war, but orders the murder of all animals, children and people that are not useful for sex or wealth-building. I could go on, but I'm sure these are not news to you.

 

About prophesies: I don't buy your explanation of a reason to be vague, just as I don't buy prophesies of other types, such as the famous nostradomus prophesies that say a bunch of gobbledygook, but also say "German" and a word that almost looks like " hitler", which some enjoy latching onto as if that one "came true". As for the scriptures you listed, those are exactly some of those I looked at years ago that failed to amaze me at all. Those which occur within Psalms have NO contextual indication of being a Messianic Prophecy! David was fleeing Saul! He spends Psalm after Psalm, asking God why his enemies succeed, that he is unwell in one way or another, that he is pursued by evil men. There is no indication of any type to suggest that he is about to prophesy about Jesus's method of death.

 

What I'm saying about scriptures in Isaiah supposedly about Satan: you can only draw the conclusion that that's what it means if you already have a view you're trying to support. There is no comprehensive explanation about Satan; just some scriptures you can *say* mean that if you already pre-suppose the story is correct. It's full of plot holes anyway; plot holes that bear a resemblance to other ancient myths!

 

I could say much more, but I don' t have another minute to spare.

[Teannika]

You are picking bits and pieces of the OT and calling them prophecies of the Messiah. Jews never interpreted these verses this way. Those verses from Isaiah are not Messianic prophecies, and Jesus comes nowhere close to actually doing what the Messiah was supposed to do.

 

You are attaching your own religious faith to another group's scriptures and interpreting them in a way those first people never did in order to support your own religion.

 

Similarly, I've heard Muslims point to the Bible to "prove" Islam. The NT scriptures they used were certainly not how Christians have accepted them. It's not too much different than what you're doing to the OT from a Jew's perspective. It's the same sort of idea. If you'll accept the Muslim interpretation of the Bible, I'll accept your interpretation of the OT.

 

 

I do agree that the scriptures can and are used in various ways by different groups. They have a big influence.

 

Obviously I do come from the point of view that the holy scriptures are a whole book. And that they are not just the OT scriptures that the Jews believe in. I see it as a whole story now complete, as the ending (Revelation) joins back up to the beginning (Genesis), coming full circle from the creation of this earth, to the creation of the new earth. The interconnectedness of the books knits it together as well.

 

The Jews don't accept the NT scriptures for good reason. But why they don't accept them only confirms the Christian belief. Both the OT and NT was penned by Jews. The ultimate meaning of the Bible is not favourable towards Jews at all. So why would Jews have written it if it condemned them? It says that they crucified their Messiah, and that they are now put on pause and blinded.

Because they don't believe in Jesus first coming, they do not know how to separate the verses that refer to his first coming from his second coming in the scriptures that they do use. And this is why you are also saying above that Jesus didn't come and fulfil what he had to do, and why he did not become their expected King on earth. He hasn't fulfilled all of the OT scriptures yet, but will when he comes back the second time.

 

I know that's not your main point, I just wanted to explain that small part about the Jews and scripture. You most likely understand that viewpoint anyway.

 

Thankyou for responding to my post, I do realise what you are saying and you are perfectly entitled to that understanding. For myself personally, it's always a process of deduction, coming back to "there can only be one truth", and that's a part of having to weigh up what the various religions claim. And having to weigh up what the bible really is.

 

If you are interested in answering, what do you make of why these writings were written by 40 different authors over thousands of years span in time?

[mamaraby]

If you are interested in answering, what do you make of why these writings were written by 40 different authors over thousands of years span in time?

I'm not Ipsey, but while we could quibble over the exact time frame and authorship (we'd probably disagree), I would consider the Bible to be among the oldest in the fan fiction genre. You start with one set of writings which is added to by others who enjoy and want to add to the story. It doesn't require any supernatural force to happen.

 

I have to admit, even when I was a Christian and studying many of the apologetics tactics as it relates to the Bible as "reliable word of god," I never found this particular tactic particularly compelleing. It smacks a bit of circular logic more than convincing proof.

[albeto.]

The Jews don't accept the NT scriptures for good reason. But why they don't accept them only confirms the Christian belief. Both the OT and NT was penned by Jews. The ultimate meaning of the Bible is not favourable towards Jews at all. So why would Jews have written it if it condemned them? It says that they crucified their Messiah, and that they are now put on pause and blinded.

Because they don't believe in Jesus first coming, they do not know how to separate the verses that refer to his first coming from his second coming in the scriptures that they do use. And this is why you are also saying above that Jesus didn't come and fulfil what he had to do, and why he did not become their expected King on earth. He hasn't fulfilled all of the OT scriptures yet, but will when he comes back the second time.

 

So what you're explaining is that the hearts of Jews are hardened like the Pharaoh's? I know in the bible Yahweh is a jealous god, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" (Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18), but I've never read about a 2000 year punishment. Can you share a scripture verse that explains his wrath against the Jews lasts this long? I'm curious because my understanding is that the bible doesn't say the Jews don't accept Jesus because they have been put on pause and blinded, but because they are followers of Satan (John 8:44 - which might explain how they could have committed deicide - Acts 3:15), and. In other words, modern day Jews are not being punished for the crime of being born to great great great great etc grandparents who killed Jesus 20 centuries ago, but will be punished for individually choosing to reject Jesus (Matthew 12:30; John 3:18). It seems to me it would be one or the other. Or is there a third explanation I'm missing?

 

In any case, the reason Jews say they don't accept the claims of Jesus as messiah is simply because Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. He didn't embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah, the biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations, and what most Christians may not know, this ancient Jewish belief is based on national revelation. You can read more here.

 

Thankyou for responding to my post, I do realise what you are saying and you are perfectly entitled to that understanding. For myself personally, it's always a process of deduction, coming back to "there can only be one truth", and that's a part of having to weigh up what the various religions claim. And having to weigh up what the bible really is.

 

In all this, you still operate under the mechanics of belief, though. These ideas you're sharing now are beliefs, because, how can one know that God really does harden the hearts of today's Jews worldwide? 

 

I have to say, Teannika, although I admire your courage to stand up for something you believe is profoundly good and necessary, I wonder if you can see the blatant anti semitism most readers of this post will see. The idea that "the Jews killed the Christ" is as outdated as registering Jews and keeping them safely segregated from Christian society (the Ukraine notwithstanding).  This kind of explanation is used as support for the kind of victim blaming of the Nazi Holocaust and really, centuries of horrifying massacres and forced exiles throughout Europe. I wonder if someone will report your post to the mods because regardless of the ignorance of the shocking nature of your post, it's really quite an offensive line of belief to be arguing. It villainizes an entire ethnicity for a crime that they could not have possibly committed. It's using belief qua evidence in a trial that is not only unjust, immoral, and illogical, but is irrational and dangerous. I hope it's not reported, because I think it should stand. Censorship, in my opinion, is not the answer. Exposing the flaws of an argument for it's ill-conceived foundations is. Reducing the power of those who act on behalf of the supposed will of one who by nature cannot be held accountable (Isaiah 55:8) is. I hope your post gets some good, thoughtful response because this is one avenue to which the OP's question naturally leads: What are the implications of belief without knowledge? One of the worrisome aspects about religion for me is the idea that one really cannot know, and yet they proceed as if they do. In other words, it doesn't matter that one cannot know, they believe, and that's enough. In my opinion, that puts us all as a society in jeopardy of being targets of some crime one cannot possibly defend themselves against. 

 

 

If you are interested in answering, what do you make of why these writings were written by 40 different authors over thousands of years span in time?

 

Oral traditions within one culture's religion written down by different people in different times.

[Teannika]

Tanneka, thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.

 

About the Bible being protected so that it would be the correct, complete Word of God: I understand this is the belief. This is how I was raised to believe. What I'm saying is there are numerous reasons I no longer believe this. At the heart of it is this: if the Supreme Being of the Universe wanted to consolidate the most important things for his creation to know, why choose a book? Why choose to "inspire" people over thousands of years to slowly compile this crucial information into a format so very limited as a book? For that matter, don't you find it strange that Jesus, as God Incarnate, would not pen a single verse? Would not collect some critical thoughts he wanted to last after his earthly time?

 

The Bible is full of some very useful advice and fascinating stories. One could hardly go wrong just by living their life in accordance with The Sermon on the Mount. But the Bible is also filled with awful stories. The OT especially records dozens of stories that I definitely hope do not represent any being I would worship. Abraham is "told" to murder his son. God drowns every creature because he "regrets" that he created them. God "worries" that proud tower-builders can build a tower to heaven, so he must AUTHOR confusion and racial disharmony. At minimum, we now know how utterly hilariously mistaken they would be to think heaven is just past that cloud, there. God hardens Pharoh's heart such that he doesn't relent until God murders every first-born child and creature not protected by sacrificial blood (more obvious pointing to ancient man's belief in sacrificial blood). God authorizes the keeping of virgins as spoils of war, but orders the murder of all animals, children and people that are not useful for sex or wealth-building. I could go on, but I'm sure these are not news to you.

 

About prophesies: I don't buy your explanation of a reason to be vague, just as I don't buy prophesies of other types, such as the famous nostradomus prophesies that say a bunch of gobbledygook, but also say "German" and a word that almost looks like " hitler", which some enjoy latching onto as if that one "came true". As for the scriptures you listed, those are exactly some of those I looked at years ago that failed to amaze me at all. Those which occur within Psalms have NO contextual indication of being a Messianic Prophecy! David was fleeing Saul! He spends Psalm after Psalm, asking God why his enemies succeed, that he is unwell in one way or another, that he is pursued by evil men. There is no indication of any type to suggest that he is about to prophesy about Jesus's method of death.

 

What I'm saying about scriptures in Isaiah supposedly about Satan: you can only draw the conclusion that that's what it means if you already have a view you're trying to support. There is no comprehensive explanation about Satan; just some scriptures you can *say* mean that if you already pre-suppose the story is correct. It's full of plot holes anyway; plot holes that bear a resemblance to other ancient myths!

 

I could say much more, but I don' t have another minute to spare.

 

I was planning to come back and respond to your points, but rethought that I'm happy to leave it there. I don't want to be annoying or overbearing in the thread.

 

And now I see that there are a few more comments from others, so I'll have a read soon and decide whether I should respond or not.

 

I also want to have some time to catch up on reading through the other threads on the forum. There's a wealth of information to be found here and I really enjoy reading along and learning.

[Joanne]

 

The Jews don't accept the NT scriptures for good reason. But why they don't accept them only confirms the Christian belief. Both the OT and NT was penned by Jews. The ultimate meaning of the Bible is not favourable towards Jews at all. So why would Jews have written it if it condemned them? It says that they crucified their Messiah, and that they are now put on pause and blinded.

Because they don't believe in Jesus first coming, they do not know how to separate the verses that refer to his first coming from his second coming in the scriptures that they do use. And this is why you are also saying above that Jesus didn't come and fulfil what he had to do, and why he did not become their expected King on earth. He hasn't fulfilled all of the OT scriptures yet, but will when he comes back the second time.

 

 

If you are interested in answering, what do you make of why these writings were written by 40 different authors over thousands of years span in time?

 

Paragraph 1: Terribly anti-Semitic. Like shockingly so.

 

Paragraph 2: Some etiology of any written story of ancients. Stories, legends, myths that were communicated orally and eventually captured in written form by human hands. The stories were used as parables, creation explanation, random event explanation, control of the masses, entertainment, existential satisfaction and because legending and story making is part of what humans DO.

[Ipsey]

I'm not Ipsey, but while we could quibble over the exact time frame and authorship (we'd probably disagree), I would consider the Bible to be among the oldest in the fan fiction genre. You start with one set of writings which is added to by others who enjoy and want to add to the story. It doesn't require any supernatural force to happen.

 

I have to admit, even when I was a Christian and studying many of the apologetics tactics as it relates to the Bible as "reliable word of god," I never found this particular tactic particularly compelleing. It smacks a bit of circular logic more than convincing proof.

 

Me, too. I have to say that really examining the apologetics that I had been using for years as a missionary was part of what helped undermine my faith. Allowing myself to really understand the depth of the circular reasoning and other fallacies took my breath away. I was honestly embarrassed that I had been promoting these things.

 

The "fact" that there are 40 authors who all say the same thing (they don't, but that's not my point here) is not at all compelling. There are dozens of gospels that didn't make it into the Bible. The Bible was compiled by sifting through these and selecting the ones that worked best to support the prevailing beliefs at the time. Some were even kicked out over the years. These 40 weren't miraculously written to make one perfect book. They were selected from among many, many "inspired writings" to create some sort of vaguely coherent whole.  

 

I think the "fan fiction" analogy is terrific.  Well, look! How can this Harry Potter fan fiction anthology all have the same basic characters and ideas and themes if it wasn't all directly managed/ghost-written by J.K. Rowling?   And, not one single Twilight story slipped in there!  It's clearly a miracle. :D

 

 

ETA: And none of this would prove that Hogwarts actually existed. :)