God allows the most evil and horrible act to demonstrate forgiveness and all you can say is
It needn’t have happened!
Brilliant
Richard
1 Like
No. All you say is that scientists are atheists. Not brilliant.
This has nothing to do with science!
Heaven = reward
Heli = punishment
Justice!
We still don’t get it!
Richard
Quoting eccesiasties has nothing to do with historical biblical statements…eccesiasties is not claiming to be historical.
Sure its writer is real, and its aimed presnting oracles if you like to his students/subjects who are real people, but its not an historical account of times, dates, places, people…these are complety different writers intentions there as Ecclesiasties has no intention of narrating history in the manner that Genesis, which does include time/places/people, very obviously does.
St Roymond is a good one at trying to use the context argument…funny thing is, he ciites unrelated contexts from completely different books of the bible in order to try to stich his idea tue earth is old together.
‘If it’s not American literature, it can have no meaning to Americans.’
Is that really true? Can Americans really find no meaning in the works of Shakespeare, Gibbon, Darwin, Einstein or Milton, none of which are American literature? What about the writings of Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Voltaire, Plato, Descartes, Aristotle, Orwell or Frank? All meaningless to Americans? How about Kant, Beckett, Dickens, Saint-Exupery, Carroll, Tolkein or Rowling? Most of these don’t even need translating. Then there’s the Bible. That’s literature, but not American literature - so you’re effectively saying that the Bible can have no meaning to Americans.
You may need to clarify.
(As an aside, American literature is a lot more barren than I thought. Only one American book makes it into the top ten best-sellers (at #10), the second highest American book is probably there only because it’s frequently banned, and only two Americans are in the top ten fiction authors. US authors do better in non-fiction, though, thanks to Spock)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy
You seem to have missed the point I was making. My anecdote was meant to illustrate how difficulty in reading the Bible as either divine revelation or as human literature but not both goes beyond the debate over whether Genesis 1-11 is historical. It also touches other genres within scripture. For example, whether quoting Biblical wisdom literature counts as preaching or if it can just be quoting literature the way you would quote a non-Biblical source.
1 Like
Is this your answer to my questions about the canon, specifically how you decided which canon is the “right one” and whether it was divinely identified.
Since scripture, graphe in Koine Greek just means writings and was used to refer to secular and sacred writings, your post does not say anything definitive. The question is how you define scripture.
But you took this out of context. Here is more of the passage:
But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.
15 And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
In context, this is about the sacred writings Timothy had known from his youth. That was the Septuagint, since Timothy was from a Greek area.
So, two posts and you haven’t answered my questions about the canon.
I know those are hard questions, and it’s ok if you just don’t know why you accept the canon that you use.
Indeed. Heaven and hell has nothing to do with justice, rewards, or punishment. Otherwise Christianity is an insane/evil product of Gnostic entitlement.
It is about being willing to change and accepting the help of God to do so. That is a Christianity I can see some value in.
i actually did answer your question in what I wrote yesterday.
I read back through yesterday’s posts, and you provided no answer.
I won’t ask again, as it appears to be something you aren’t ready to deal with.
May God bless you.
Good point! You can add this to the list of reasons why I have judged only 90% is from God. The point is not that we can discount 10% of it, but that human culture, human language, and human decisions are a part of what scripture consists of.
Jesus upholds scripture even though He also said there are limits to this and He never defines it (never says what scripture consists of). To me this suggests that consensus is a good measure, which also suggests that contested books should be taken with a grain of salt (Revelation being a good example).
1 Like
Yes that is the orthodox Christian humility but it smacks of self defeat. or an excuse to fail.
Like Original Sin, it does not look good on God to create us to fail (without Him)
Social Christianity is not rocket science, nor does it need continual prompting from God.
Richard
This seems to be a perpetual irritant in the theological development of specific denominations. I have seen it firsthand in the Church of the Nazarene (which I am now attending). It separated from other Methodists in the Holiness movement, which is essentially the sentiment you are expressing. Now it seems to be leaning more in the other direction of grace. It must be careful that this doesn’t become entitlement. I like to reiterate one of Jesus’ most common refrains, “Your sins are forgiven, so go and sin no more.” It is always both of these.
I quite agree. It is a tightrope and a loose one at that. Reconciling humility, with grace and entitlement would seem to be an almost impossible conundrum.
On this occasion I am throwing up questions rather than answers, and the answers will be individual understanding and faith. I think the underlying problem is that we do not always recognise when God is helping or prompting because it comes from within rather than something we can sense.
Perhaps this is one of those times when we can over think things? There are still things we do not know no matter how much we would like to and such things can stick in the craw, especially for the scientific mind. (No offense intended)
Richard
1 Like
That is what scripture says.
You don’t understand that a thing can have multiple causes? You skip all the parts where God uses wicked people to accomplish things?
No it does not. Nowhere in the Bible does it say God demands an innocent person die in order to have mercy on the guilty. That is your conclusion and I think this conclusion is wrong.
Sure. I say the same thing all the time.
What I don’t believe is that God can accomplish things by whatever means He chooses. No I do not believe God can accomplish good by doing evil.
Nope. Sin makes us predictable, and there is no reason for God not to manipulate this predictability to accomplish his will. That is the story of pharoah. But the point of such things is instruction, making the difference between good and evil clear. But no I don’t believe you can accomplish good things by doing evil. And requiring the innocent to pay for the crimes of the guilty is just twisted and evil.
AND you didn’t answer my question.
Both of what is true?
Up until the second century AD Isaiah 53 was frequently, even generally, taken to be about the Messiah. As with other interpretations, only once Christians began to use this one was there much movement against it.
The demand for death came from God. Jesus volunteered to take that penalty. It’s why the New Testament talks about Jesus dying in our place, about Him taking the penalty due us.
Peter says differently.
Only insofar as the culture and literature types overlap.
Think of Venn diagrams.
2 Likes
The Assyrians carrying off the inhabitants of the northern kingdom never to return was “instruction”? The prophets said it was punishment.
That unrighteous men and God both caused the Crucifixion.
1 Like
So if something is not American literature, it can have meaning to Americans if there is a cultural/literature overlap.
And if something is not human literature, it can have meaning to humans if there is a cultural/literature overlap.
You started the thread with this:
But that’s not true. Non-human literature now can communicate to humans - if there is enough of a cultural/literature overlap. Since ensuring that there is such an overlap wouldn’t be beyond God, this isn’t a reason to reject divine production of the bible.
(I’m not saying your conclusion is wrong - I also think the Bible is human literature - I’m just pointing out that this argument against divine origin doesn’t stand up to scrutiny)