Why Christianity? discussion
Major topics
>
Why is "Why Christianity" not about Christ's Teaching?
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Alexandra - 2000 years ago the Old Testament was all we had so of course Jesus taught from it. He didn't even have a condensed Reader's Digest! Why are you so reluctant to accept your New Covenant? Is it because you can't understand anything about the natural law as it pertains to scientific discoveries so you can only mingle in the arts and show what little knowledge you possess through Bible thumping?
Robert wrote: "Alexandra - 2000 years ago the Old Testament was all we had so of course Jesus taught from it. He didn't even have a condensed Reader's Digest! Why are you so reluctant to accept your New Covenant?..."That Jesus used the OT as authoritative regarding his message and teaching should be a clue for you.
Understanding the OT doesn’t require or infer rejection of the New Covenant, just more crap you’re making up out of nothing. Same with the other accusations you hurl at me that have nothing to do with me.
And still you avoid the true issue, but you’ll continue in in your stubborn self righteousness - it’s what you do.
Alexandra - and you'll continue in your ignorance of the physical world and your blind faith - it's what you do.
This is bordering on being ridiculous. Let's not resort to hurling insults which is clearly non-Christian. That goes way beyond discussion and honest debate. Why does this continue to happen in these threads?Those of us who believe Christ is in the Old Testament will continue to do so, and those who don't, won't.
Mod
I think they both fit together perfectly. And indeed need each other.
Rod wrote: "I think they both fit together perfectly. And indeed need each other."Indeed... you cannot have the New without the Old. And... clearly Jesus quoted scripture a lot during his time on Earth... so he clearly didn't ignore it.
The Old Testament lays the foundation for the teachings and events found in the New Testament. The Bible is a progressive revelation. If you skip the first half of any good book and try to finish it, you will have a hard time understanding the characters, the plot, and the ending. In the same way, the New Testament is only completely understood when we see its foundation of the events, characters, laws, sacrificial system, covenants, and promises of the Old Testament.
If we only had the New Testament, we would come to the Gospels and not know why the Jews were looking for a Messiah (a Savior King). We would not understand why this Messiah was coming (see Isaiah 53), and we would not have been able to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah through the many detailed prophecies that were given concerning Him [e.g., His birth place (Micah 5:2), His manner of death (Psalm 22, especially verses 1, 7–8, 14–18; 69:21), His resurrection (Psalm 16:10), and many more details of His ministry (Isaiah 9:2; 52:3)].
A study of the Old Testament is also important for understanding the Jewish customs mentioned in passing in the New Testament. We would not understand the way the Pharisees had perverted God’s law by adding their own traditions to it, or why Jesus was so upset as He cleansed the temple courtyard, or where Jesus got the words He used in His many replies to adversaries.
The Old Testament records numerous detailed prophecies that could only have come true if the Bible is God’s Word, not man’s (e.g., Daniel 7 and the following chapters). Daniel’s prophecies give specific details about the rise and fall of nations. These prophecies are so accurate, in fact, that skeptics choose to believe they were written after the fact.
We should study the Old Testament because of the countless lessons it contains for us. By observing the lives of the characters of the Old Testament, we find guidance for our own lives. We are exhorted to trust God no matter what (Daniel 3). We learn to stand firm in our convictions (Daniel 1) and to await the reward of faithfulness (Daniel 6). We learn it is best to confess sin early and sincerely instead of shifting blame (1 Samuel 15). We learn not to toy with sin, because it will find us out (Judges 13—16). We learn that our sin has consequences not only for ourselves but for our loved ones (Genesis 3) and, conversely, that our good behavior has rewards for us and those around us (Exodus 20:5–6).
A study of the Old Testament also helps us understand prophecy. The Old Testament contains many promises that God will yet fulfill for the Jewish nation. The Old Testament reveals such things as the length of the Tribulation, how Christ’s future 1,000-year reign fulfills His promises to the Jews, and how the conclusion of the Bible ties up the loose ends that were unraveled in the beginning of time.
In summary, the Old Testament allows us to learn how to love and serve God, and it reveals more about God’s character. It shows through repeatedly fulfilled prophecy why the Bible is unique among holy books—it alone is able to demonstrate that it is what it claims to be: the inspired Word of God.
Robert wrote: "Alexandra - and you'll continue in your ignorance of the physical world and your blind faith - it's what you do."More false accusations based upon nothing whatsoever. It's quite interesting how you just make crap up about people, but it's not an uncommon deflationary tactic.
It does show, yet again, your complete inability to engage in a reasonable dialog, your pompous self-righteousness, your willingness to engage in false witness, and steadfast avoidance of the actual issue - which is your proven contempt of Scripture.
Tyrone wrote: "Why does this continue to happen in these threads?"I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question, because I think the answer is pretty obvious ;)
Chad wrote: "In summary, the Old Testament allows us to learn how to love and serve God, and it reveals more about God’s character. It shows through repeatedly fulfilled prophecy why the Bible is unique among holy books—it alone is able to demonstrate that it is what it claims to be: the inspired Word of God."Additionally, "We would not understand why this Messiah was coming (see Isaiah 53), and we would not have been able to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah through the many detailed prophecies that were given concerning Him", as you already pointed out.
Alexandra wrote: "Tyrone wrote: "Why does this continue to happen in these threads?"I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question, because I think the answer is pretty obvious ;)"
Yep ... it is.
Tyrone wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "Tyrone wrote: "Why does this continue to happen in these threads?"I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question, because I think the answer is pretty obvious ;)"
Yep ... it is."
I figured :D
Rod - yes, the OT and NT fit together perfectly, but for gentiles who wish to be Christians the NT supersedes the Old. There is a different way to look at the Ten Commandments, the Law, how to treat your enemies and even how to get right with God. The Torah is null and void for Christians - it's great drama and offers many a lesson as to how to worship the singular Yahweh. But Christ and the Holy Spirit take precedence now with the Father taking a back seat. Do you recognize this sea change or still sacrifice goats, hate your enemies like Alexandra and Robert D., and expect a New Jerusalem through good works and meaningless rituals?
Robert wrote: "Rod - yes, the OT and NT fit together perfectly, but for gentiles who wish to be Christians the NT supersedes the Old. "No, for Gentile Christians the OT and the NT fit together perfectly. And no, that's not implying Replacement Theology (which is heretical).
"The Torah is null and void for Christians"
No, it's not "null and void for Christians". The Torah is the first four books of the OT, they are not null and void, they're Scripture. Christ confirmed them as Scripture.
If you mean the Mosaic Law, it also isn't "null and void for Christians". Much of it applied only to Jews, never to Gentiles in any case. And in it's totality, that which applied to Jews, that which applied to everyone, it is what convicts us of our sin, demonstrates our need for a Savior, and brings us to repentance. Those who are willing. It's not "null and void", it's paid for and fulfilled. It still stands as witness against those who reject their need for a Savior.
This is affirmed in the NT, so you're ignorant of it as well. Not surprised, considering the source.
"But Christ and the Holy Spirit take precedence now with the Father taking a back seat."
Um, no The Father isn't "taking a back seat". God is in perfect harmony with Himself.
"Do you recognize this sea change or still sacrifice goats, hate your enemies like Alexandra and Robert D., and expect a New Jerusalem through good works and meaningless rituals?"
More crap you're pulling out of your rear about me, as I've never said anything of the sort.
But please do continue to demonstrate not only your contempt and ignorance of Scripture, but you're utter lack of ability to converse in a productive manner, as well as your habitual bearing false witness, it's quite amusing.
Alexandra - I'm glad you're amused. Christians don't usually accuse other Christians of "pulling something out of their rear". It's unseemly and doesn't suggest any attempt at fraternity. I see matters from the perspective of a scientist/Believer; you're on the philosophical/arts side of the ledger. Naturally, we'll probably frequently disagree, but neither of our heartfelt assertions reflects the whole or even prevailing wisdom so we should both keep a humble perspective on the efficacy of a loose tongue.
Mod
Some people can't read, so their Jesus comes from unspecified sermon points and mixed conversation. (This is probably most church goers). Others have limited text, and lucky to fully read the Gospel of John. A great foundation indeed.
And then there's us: swimming in scripture. Some even drowning.
True healthy Christians will have a hunger for God's Word.
Mod
Matthew 15:24
24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
You need the entire bible to understand Jesus' teachings.
Robert wrote: "Christians don't usually accuse other Christians of "pulling something out of their rear"."Sure they do, when it's true. We're not obligated to remain silent when make crap up about others.
What you should have done here is admit your error and apologize.
But as you're habitually accusing other Christians of things they haven't actually said or implied you'd be wise to refrain from complaining about accusations - it demonstrates your hypocrisy.
It also demonstrates your judgemental, self-righteous attitude. Which is amusing considering how much you love to accuse others of being self-righteous.
And of course the fact that you can dish it out, but can't take it ;)
"It's unseemly and doesn't suggest any attempt at fraternity. "
You really need to find yourself a mirror.
"I see matters from the perspective of a scientist/Believer;"
So you say.
"you're on the philosophical/arts side of the ledger."
Nope, that is merely your assumption about me based on nothing. I've stated very little of what my beliefs are. In fact, all you truly know is that I affirm all the essential doctrines of Christianity, and understand the Biblical account of Creation is consistent with the scientific record. And of course that I respect the Scripture you hold in contempt.
The rest you accuse me of are just blatherings you pull out whole cloth out of your rear, and which demonstrates your tendency of giving false witness against Christians, as well as your hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Additionally it shows you're incapable of productive and honest dialog.
"but neither of our heartfelt assertions reflects the whole or even prevailing wisdom so we should both keep a humble perspective on the efficacy of a loose tongue."
Do as you say, not as you do, eh Robert? LOL
Try this - don't state things as fact, most especially regarding what others believe, unless you can actually demonstrate, with evidence, that it actually is fact.
And try to refrain from ordering others to be "humble" and not have a "loose tongue" until you at least make an actual effort to master those things yourself.
Don't like me? I can live with that. But don't delude yourself into believing you have authority over me. I'm sure not gonna cower in submission to you simply because you have different plumbing. And if you think Christian women are obligated to obey all men who claim to be Christians you're wacked.
And if that's "unseemly" in your opinion, I'm ok with that :D
Rod wrote: "It is amazing how many people read the Bible and confuse the Israelites with Christians. Yes, they often overlap---- but there's a huge difference. "True. It is also amazing how many people pull things out of context then proceed to apply them to themselves when they don't apply to them at all.
"You need the entire bible to understand Jesus' teachings."
Yup. You also need the entire Bible to understand Jesus, as well as to have a legitimate basis for accepting He is Who He claimed to be.
So, now that Robert is so obviously trying hard to deflect away from the fact that his earlier posts demonstrate an utter contempt of Scripture, perhaps we can now get back to that topic :DRobert wrote: "His teachings don't require ANY prerequisite courses in tedious Old Testament Jewish angst. "
Wow. That's quite a derogatory attitude for someone who professes to be a Christian to have regarding Scripture.
The entire Bible, OT included, is about Jesus. As a Christian you should know that, if you don't - and apparently you don't - you need to learn it.
Additionally, Christ affirmed that "Old Testament Jewish angst" as Scripture, and clearly held it in high regard.
"Conversely, if sanctification is your goal, then you probably need to ingest the whole nine yards of Scriptural rigamarole."
Your contempt for Scripture is truly amazing.
"So, I'll take the gift provided by Jesus and leave the self-righteous OT sniveling to all the rest on this board who are contending for sainthood."
It's well past time you took a look in a mirror ;)
Robert wrote: "who "needs" salvation for everyday existence? That's an afterlife phenomenon most either disregard or consider, but it has little effect on their lifestyle."
And you call me a "nutjob". SMH.
But this does show your contempt for Scripture.
Robert wrote: "Christanity, presumably about Jesus' sacrifice for our sins, is largely independent of the Old Testament."
No, it isn’t. But given your contempt for Scripture and your ignorance of it, it’s no surprise you think so.
Jesus taught building on the understanding of Scripture, which at the time was the OT.
Without the OT there would be no reason to listen to Jesus.
“ You are saved if you believe in him.”
The demons believe in Him.
“This shameless flattery about Christ being the whole purpose of the OT shows ingratitude for the New Covenant we gentiles were provided.”
Nope. And what was said is that the OT is about Jesus, which is true.
Has nothing to do with Replacement Theology, that just another thing you’ve pulled out of your rear.
Robert wrote: "Alexandra - 2000 years ago the Old Testament was all we had so of course Jesus taught from it. He didn't even have a condensed Reader's Digest! Why are you so reluctant to accept your New Covenant?..."
That Jesus used the OT as authoritative regarding his message and teaching should be a clue for you.
Understanding the OT doesn’t require or infer rejection of the New Covenant, just more crap you’re making up out of nothing. Same with the other accusations you hurl at me that have nothing to do with me.
And still you avoid the true issue, but you’ll continue in in your stubborn self righteousness - it’s what you do.
Robert wrote: "Rod - yes, the OT and NT fit together perfectly, but for gentiles who wish to be Christians the NT supersedes the Old. "
No, for Gentile Christians the OT and the NT fit together perfectly. And no, that's not implying Replacement Theology (which is heretical).
"The Torah is null and void for Christians"
No, it's not "null and void for Christians". The Torah is the first four books of the OT, they are not null and void, they're Scripture. Christ confirmed them as Scripture.
If you mean the Mosaic Law, it also isn't "null and void for Christians". Much of it applied only to Jews, never to Gentiles in any case. And in it's totality, that which applied to Jews, that which applied to everyone, it is what convicts us of our sin, demonstrates our need for a Savior, and brings us to repentance. Those who are willing. It's not "null and void", it's paid for and fulfilled. It still stands as witness against those who reject their need for a Savior.
This is affirmed in the NT, so you're ignorant of it as well. Not surprised, considering the source.
"But Christ and the Holy Spirit take precedence now with the Father taking a back seat."
Um, no The Father isn't "taking a back seat". God is in perfect harmony with Himself.
"Do you recognize this sea change or still sacrifice goats, hate your enemies like Alexandra and Robert D., and expect a New Jerusalem through good works and meaningless rituals?"
More crap you're pulling out of your rear about me, as I've never said anything of the sort.
But please do continue to demonstrate not only your contempt and ignorance of Scripture, but you're utter lack of ability to converse in a productive manner, as well as your habitual bearing false witness, it's quite amusing.
What we're seeing is Robert's complete inability to address the substantive issues, and so instead employs diversionary and deflection tactics :D
Poor little misunderstood Alexandra! If you wish to write a novel about how everyone mistreats you, feel free, but snivelling away ad infinitum on this board just wastes space. I don't have contempt for the central theme of Scripture or even the wild storytelling. Santa Claus has his place for infants as does Samson, but adults capable of critical thinking should read the Bible, just like any other tome, with a healthy dose of rational skepticism. Affirming things to be absolutely true without a scintilla of proof is the very definition of blind faith.
Robert wrote: "Poor little misunderstood Alexandra! If you wish to write a novel about how everyone mistreats you, feel free, but snivelling away ad infinitum on this board just wastes space. I don't have contemp..."Robert,
Just for the record, I rather enjoyed Alexandra's post. And I agreed with her on every point. However, your post... I disagreed with completely... comparing the fable of Santa Clause to the Word of God is borderline blasphemous.
I know you think yourself smarter and much more informed than the rest of us here in this forum. However, I dare say that you are not only in the minority on this small forum in your beliefs, but also, you are so far outside the bounds of what is considered doctrinal truth by the large majority of Christ-following Christians, that you might find yourself quite lonely as someone who claims to be a follower of Christ and believes the way you do about Scripture.
Without a solid foundation of Sound Doctrine you eventually end up with churches teaching things that aren't true. And over a long enough time, tradition becomes more important sound doctrine (Catholics... and others).
The things you are saying, Robert, are NOT sound doctrine.
Sound doctrine is important because we must ascertain truth in a world of falsehood. “Many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). There are tares among the wheat and wolves among the flock (Matthew 13:25; Acts 20:29). The best way to distinguish truth from falsehood is to know what the truth is. The truth can be found in the Bible... from cover to cover. Clearly, some things are debatable... but this part is not: ALL scripture is God-breathed or inspired. Paul didn't say some scripture... New Testament scripture, the Gospels, the Psalms & Proverbs, the Torah.... No... It says that ALL scripture comes from God alone and should be used to teach us what is true and used to help us correct our behavior.
Chad wrote: "Robert wrote: "Poor little misunderstood Alexandra! If you wish to write a novel about how everyone mistreats you, feel free, but snivelling away ad infinitum on this board just wastes space. I don..."Very well said, Chad. I suspect Robert is a cult of one.
Robert wrote: "Poor little misunderstood Alexandra! If you wish to write a novel about how everyone mistreats you, feel free, but snivelling away ad infinitum on this board just wastes space. "Apparently you have a reading comprehension issue. Regardless, I'll write what I please, respecting both GR TOS and the rules of this group. If you don't like it you're free to ignore my posts. Up to you.
I'm used to debating theology with Muslim men. You know, the type who have utter contempt for Christians and think women are about equal to cattle. I assure you, there is nothing you can say or do that will upset me or hurt my feelings.
But that won't stop me from commenting on it, and pointing it out. Because all you're really doing is resorting to ad hominem attacks because you cannot address the substance of what others are saying here and wish to deflect away from that fact. It's a common tactic.
"I don't have contempt for the central theme of Scripture or even the wild storytelling."
So you say, and not the point. You've demonstrated your contempt for Scripture here, as I have pointed out. Deny it all you want, the evidence is there for all to see. This is simply one more example:
"Santa Claus has his place for infants as does Samson,"
Moving on...
" but adults capable of critical thinking should read the Bible, just like any other tome, with a healthy dose of rational skepticism. "
Absolutely! Either Scripture is trustworthy, or it is not. If it is not, as clearly you believe, then it should be disregarded as any other myth or fiction. I'm 100% in support of critical thinking and rational thinking, and even healthy skepticism. Which is something quite different than what you are doing.
"Affirming things to be absolutely true without a scintilla of proof is the very definition of blind faith."
Yup. If you believe there isn't a scintilla of proof that Scripture is trustworthy then please do reject it and be honest enough to admit it, which would require you start acknowledging you are therefore not a Christian.
Meanwhile I'll continue to point out your errors and demonstrations of contempt for Scripture.
Chad wrote: "Without a solid foundation of Sound Doctrine you eventually end up with churches teaching things that aren't true. And over a long enough time, tradition becomes more important sound doctrine (Catholics... and others)."Without a solid foundation of sound doctrine and understanding of Scripture and why it is trustworthy you end up with nothing more or better than any other religion or cult. And then it simply comes down to choosing one you personally prefer, because there's no valid reason to believe any are actually true.
Robert asserts there's not "a scintilla of proof" to affirm Scripture, and yet asserts he is a Christian, picks certain parts to affirm as "absolutely true" while accusing others of "blind faith".
Sometimes you just gotta laugh.
Robert wrote: "Poor little misunderstood Alexandra! If you wish to write a novel about how everyone mistreats you, feel free, but snivelling away ad infinitum on this board just wastes space. I don't have contemp..."Robert,
Also, just for the record, although I disagree with many of your posts (not all) and it seems to me that you are being somewhat pompous on occasion, I'm glad you are a part of this forum and I enjoy debating you on these topics. I cannot say the same for the other Robert who Rod booted from this forum (thanks Rod).
At the end of the day, sometimes people must just agree to disagree and move on... but what fun is that!?
Debates like this challenge me to think deeply about what I believe, they challenge me to read more, pray more, and seek out the truth in God's Word. So for that, I am grateful.
Chad - thanks for your response(s) which fortunately brings us to the crux of the matter - what precisely is sound doctrine? As a scientist, I find Samson's exploits so far outside the boundaries of human capability that they must have been exaggerated by the chronicler. I don't find this blasphemous - I think it is as expected. Scripture says ALL men are sinful and this includes relaters of Biblical lore. When have you ever known a storyteller to NOT manipulate facts to enhance the plot? Man cannot live 600+ years, the earth is 14.5 billion years old, not 6000, and there is no evidence of a worldwide flood. Jonah clung to driftwood and Joshua didn't walk around and shout and walls fell down. Sound doctrine doesn't require the Believer in Christ to lap up OT miracles like a thirsty pooch. I'm a rational being as well as knowledgeable about the physical world so I have a sound basis for critical thought. That I pick and choose which Scripture to follow and which to discard may be funny to you, but it's the only sensible approach to me. I'm a Christian because I have accepted Christ as my Savior and believe he is the Son of God. That belief doesn't require me to check my nature at the church's door. If you wish to take Scripture literally and believe that's the only pathway to sound doctrine, fine, that's your prerogative, but I'm trying to integrate science and theology, which gives me a different perspective. Because both you and Alexandra are from the arts I expect you to agree, but those who can distinguish a schist from a gneiss see the world a little differently.
Robert wrote: "I'm a Christian because I have accepted Christ as my Savior and believe he is the Son of God."Which requires you to believe Christ rose from the dead, which science says is impossible.
And thus is my entire argument. Christ performed many miracles in the New Testament... rising from the dead was the greatest... but, how can anyone determine which ones to believe and which ones not to believe? What is the criteria? Science? Rising from the dead defies nature and science. Nature? Walking on water defies nature, science and physics. Feeding 5,000? Healing leprosy? Healing the blind? Telling a lame man walk?
My point is, the miracles in the OT are no more fantastic than the miracles in the NT but for some reason the miracles in the NT are believable but the OT ones are not?
And why believe Christ rose from the dead if you are not going believe he did those other things?
If you believe in Christ but don't believe in the miracles he performed all you are looking for is a teacher of morality, not a savior.
If God is able to raise a man from the dead, don't you think he would also be capable of causing the walls of Jericho to fall?
Let's say the universe is 14.5 billion years old... don't you think that God who set it all into motion, could intervene and give Samson great strength?
I used to be a solid Young Earther... I was convinced that the Earth was 6,000 to 10,000 years old... after reading some posts on this forum, doing my own research... I have come the conclusive position that.... knowing how old the Earth is doesn't matter. I concede that either position could be correct, and there is no point in arguing either side, because this side of Heaven, nobody will ever know.
However, we are to be careful about what we believe and present as truth. First Timothy 4:16 says, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
Sound Biblical doctrine helps us understand the will of God for our lives. Biblical doctrine teaches us the nature and the character of God (Psalm 90:2; 97:2; John 4:24), the path of salvation through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10), instruction for the church (1 Corinthians 14:26; Titus 2:1–10), and God’s standard of holiness for our lives (1 Peter 1:14–17; 1 Corinthians 6:18–20). When we accept the Bible as God’s Word to us (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21), we have a solid foundation for our doctrine. There can be disagreement within the body of Christ over secondary points of doctrine, such as eschatology, church organization, or the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But truly biblical doctrine is that which incorporates the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and draws conclusions based on that which seems most closely aligned with the character of our unchanging God (Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 13:8).
However, as has already been pointed out, the Bible is not always the foundation upon which people or churches build their doctrinal statements. Our sinful natures do not easily submit to God’s decrees, so we often pick and choose the parts of the Bible we are comfortable with and discard the rest. Or we replace what God says with a man-made doctrine or tradition. This is nothing new. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7, ESV; cf. Isaiah 29:13). False doctrine was rampant in New Testament times, and the Scriptures tell us it will continue (Matthew 7:15; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1). Second Timothy 4:3 says, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
The Bible gives stern warning to those who would teach false or incomplete doctrine simply because it is more compatible with man’s ideas. First Timothy 6:3–4 says, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.”
Sound Biblical doctrine is the worldview by which we govern our lives. If our doctrine is based soundly upon Scripture, we can know we are walking in the path God designed for us. However, if we do not study the Word of God for ourselves (2 Timothy 2:15), we are led more easily into error. Although there are a variety of minor issues upon which Christians disagree, true doctrine is clearer than many imply. Second Peter 1:20 says that “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” There is a right interpretation of everything God says, and it is our job to discern that meaning, not create an interpretation to suit our tastes.
Robert wrote: "...what precisely is sound doctrine?Excellent question. I will await your answer to that question.
"As a scientist, I find Samson's exploits so far outside the boundaries of human capability that they must have been exaggerated by the chronicler."
Your opinion of the Old Testament has no bearing whatsoever regarding what is, or is not, sound doctrine.
"Scripture says ALL men are sinful and this includes relaters of Biblical lore."
Um. Scripture doesn't say "relaters of Biblical lore". That's your judgement, which you're free to make. However you're appealing to Scripture here as authoritative while dismissing it as "lore".
That's not the way critical or scientific thinking works.
"When have you ever known a storyteller to NOT manipulate facts to enhance the plot?"
Again, you are inserting your opinion into this "question", asserting as fact that which you've not demonstrated actually is fact.
Man cannot live 600+ years,"
Dead men cannot raise from the dead.
Your god is very small, Robert. And your "Christ" devoid of not only any power, but any evidence.
"...the earth is 14.5 billion years old, not 6000"
Scripture does not affirm the earth is 6000 years old. I tried to help you out in that regard in the past, I won't bother to do so again. But rather than study how Scripture is consistent with the scientific record you prefer to hand wave it away. That's not valid critical thinking.
"....and there is no evidence of a worldwide flood."
Scripture doesn't require a worldwide flood.
"Sound doctrine doesn't require the Believer in Christ to lap up OT miracles like a thirsty pooch."
Again your contempt for Scripture. Certainly you may reject the miraculous if you choose. Doing so means you must reject the core of Christian doctrine.
"I'm a rational being as well as knowledgeable about the physical world so I have a sound basis for critical thought."
And yet you appeal to Scripture as authoritative while also holding it in contempt and assert it is untrustworthy. That's not a sound basis for critical thought.
"That I pick and choose which Scripture to follow and which to discard may be funny to you, but it's the only sensible approach to me."
It's more than "funny". It's non-nonsensical and arrogant. You accept what you want, and dismiss what you want, without actually studying the issue, or examining the evidence for either. You simply present your own opinion, which is perfectly fine for you, but demonstrates nothing regarding actual truth.
What you do is not significantly different from what Mormons do, and many others who clam to be Christians yet are not.
Christ affirmed Scripture as Scripture. You set yourself above Christ, and yet claim to accept Him. Christ was wrong, and you are right, in your opinion, and yet you think it's logical to accept Him as Savior and the Son of God.
" I'm a Christian because I have accepted Christ as my Savior and believe he is the Son of God."
And yet you have rejected any rational, logical, evidence based reason to do so. Meaning it is you who has blind faith.
"Because both you and Alexandra are from the arts..."
You clearly not only have poor reading comprehension, but you are an incredibly slow learner.
Here again is my response to the last time you made that false and unsubstantiated claim about me:
Nope, that is merely your assumption about me based on nothing. I've stated very little of what my beliefs are. In fact, all you truly know is that I affirm all the essential doctrines of Christianity, and understand the Biblical account of Creation is consistent with the scientific record. And of course that I respect the Scripture you hold in contempt.
The rest you accuse me of are just blatherings you pull out whole cloth out of your rear, and which demonstrates your tendency of giving false witness against Christians, as well as your hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Additionally it shows you're incapable of productive and honest dialog.
Chad wrote: "Robert wrote: "I'm a Christian because I have accepted Christ as my Savior and believe he is the Son of God."Which requires you to believe Christ rose from the dead, which science says is impossi..."
I applaud the effort, but Robert had demonstrated himself to be incapable of dealing with any substantive argument.
Chad - I believe in miracles. The New Testament ones demonstrate God's love for us in sending his Son to die and arise for our sins. NT miracles are consistent with Jesus' ministry. He did not jump off the high place when he could have, he didn't reconfigure the stone - those actions would have been out of character. What is the message of Samson? Does he glorify God with all his exploits? Mostly not - it's just a story. Why was Jonah swallowed by a whale instead of floating around in a stormy sea clinging to a ship's timber - it's just as terrifying for him? Again, needless hyperbole. Joshua just could have laid siege to Jerricho. Why would God needlessly place His fingers on the scale. None of these miracles really accomplish ANYTHING for the Kingdom except make Believers try to defend silly, meaningless acts. The Biblical chroniclers did the Lord no favors with many of the OT miracles. This has little to do with science and everything to do with rationality. Alexandra says I make no substantive arguments but using the Bible to prove the Bible isn't using your head to think with, it's just emotional claptrap.
Robert wrote: "Chad - I believe in miracles. The New Testament ones demonstrate God's love for us in sending his Son to die and arise for our sins. NT miracles are consistent with Jesus' ministry. He did not jump..."Yes, the miracles of the Bible, including the ones in the OT, are to be taken literally, just as all Scripture is to be taken literally except those portions which are clearly intended to be symbolic. An example of symbolism is Psalm 17:8. We are not literally apples in God’s eye, nor does God literally have wings. But the miracles are not symbolic happenings; they are real events that actually happened. Each of the miracles in the Bible served a purpose and accomplished something that couldn't be accomplished in any other way.
The earliest and most profound miracle of all was that of creation. God created everything from nothing and each succeeding miracle reinforced His incredible power. The book of Exodus is filled with miraculous events God used to bring about His will. The plagues on Egypt, beginning with the water of the Nile being turned to blood (Exodus 7:17) through the death of the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), were literal events that eventually caused Pharaoh to free the Israelites from bondage. If the plagues did not happen, why did Pharaoh let the people go? And if the plague of the death of the firstborn was not real, then God did not move through Egypt that night killing the firstborn, nor was there any necessity for the Israelites to sprinkle blood on their doorposts. Then the foreshadowing of the shed blood of Jesus on the cross is voided, which puts the crucifixion itself into doubt. Once we begin to doubt the reality of any miracle, we have to discount everything the Bible says came about as a result of the miracle, which puts all of Scripture in doubt.
Among the best-known Old Testament miracles is the parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14), during which Pharaoh and much of his army were drowned. If the miracle is symbolic, then how do we know what parts of the rest of the story are literal? Did the Israelites really leave Egypt? Did Pharaoh’s army really follow them, and, if so, how did the Israelites escape? Psalm 78 is one of the many passages where God reminds the Israelites of the miracles He performed in releasing them from the Egyptian bondage. God’s mighty miracles proved to the surrounding nations that the Lord is the one, true God. The pagan idols of wood and stone were capable of no such things. Only the God of miracles deserves worship.
In the New Testament, Jesus performed numerous miracles beginning with His first one at the wedding in Cana where He turned water into wine (John 2:1-10). His most spectacular miracle, of course, was the raising of Lazarus after he had been dead four days (John 11). All the miracles He did were to prove that He was indeed who He said He was—the Son of God. When He calmed the storm in Matthew 8, even the disciples were astonished: "The men were amazed and asked, 'What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!'" (v. 27). If Jesus’ miracles were not real, then the gospel accounts of Jesus’ healings were just nice stories, and those people remained afflicted by diseases, calling into doubt His compassion (Matthew 14:14; 10:34; Mark 1:41). If He didn’t really feed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes, those people remained hungry and Jesus’ words “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill” (John 6:26) have no meaning at all. But Jesus did heal, He did create food for thousands, He did turn water into wine, and He did raise Lazarus from the dead. John 2:23 tells us that many believed in Him because of the miracles.
All the miracles had a purpose—to prove that God is like no one else, that He has complete control of creation because He is its source, and to convince us that if He can do all these miraculous things, nothing in our lives is too hard for Him to handle. He wants us to trust Him and know that He can do miracles in our lives as well. If the miracles did not occur, then how can we trust anything the Bible tells us, especially when it tells us eternal life is available through Christ? When we begin to call any part of Scripture into doubt, all of God’s marvelous plan is suspect, and we open the door for the lies and distortions which are Satan’s plan to destroy our faith (1 Peter 5:8). The Bible is to be read and understood literally, including the miracles.
Robert wrote: "Chad - I believe in miracles. The New Testament ones demonstrate God's love for us in sending his Son to die and arise for our sins. NT miracles are consistent with Jesus' ministry. He did not jump..."You reject the miracles of the OT (as well as hold the entire OT in contempt) based upon your opinion that they are impossible and unbelievable. Yet accept miracles of the NT based on your opinion "demonstrate God's love for us in sending his Son to die and arise for our sins." They are no less unbelievable or impossible.
Which means you hold each to different standards, and have no quantifiable, evidence based reason to accept any.
This is not consistent with critical thinking, honest skepticism, or scientific analysis.
In spite of your assertions to the contrary you believe what you want to believe, and reject what you want to reject, merely based upon your own personal opinion, without any objective standard.
"This has little to do with science and everything to do with rationality."
Um, no, what you're doing isn't rational at all.
Alexandra says I make no substantive arguments"
Again with your reading comprehension problems. I didn't say that, although it is certainly true. What I did say was you had demonstrated yourself to be incapable of dealing with any substantive argument, and you've proven me correct. You failed, yet again, to actually deal with the substantive argument.
"...but using the Bible to prove the Bible isn't using your head to think with, it's just emotional claptrap."
No one here has attempted that.
Applying a different standard by which to judge the trustworthiness of the OT versus the NT is dishonest scholarship, and something clearly designed to stack the deck in favor of what you choose to believe and against that which you do not. It's simply another form of blind faith based upon nothing but personal opinion.
Mod
Rod wrote: "I'm amazed when people forget (or are unaware) that the Holy Spirit wrote the entire Bible - with men. I can understand Atheists lazily doing this... but Christian scholars seem to do it daily. The..."AMEN!
Rod, Chad, Tyrone, Alexandra - that's a nice sentiment that the Holy Spirit held the pen while the Scriptural chroniclers wrote. Did he also hold it for those who didn't make the final cut for our current Bible? It is readily apparent that those who take the Bible literally think with their heart rather than their head. Feelings I suppose are OK in the arts, but if you're going to go around proclaiming that Jonah emerged unscathed after 3 days in the belly of a whale, then you have no basis for dissing the claims of other religions as irrational. And don't go around insulting those insisting on political correctness when you're overcome with religious correctness. In fact, don't judge anything on merit as you don't have the quantitative ability to decide anything that isn't purely subjective. I suppose you could judge a beauty contest but stay away from science fairs. Not only could you not understand the displays, but couldn't muster the criterion to decide the relative merits of astronomy vs. geology vs. biology. I suppose the guys could pick the exhibit with the most moving parts whereas Alexandra could pick the one that is pinkest!
Robert wrote: "Rod, Chad, Tyrone, Alexandra - that's a nice sentiment that the Holy Spirit held the pen while the Scriptural chroniclers wrote. Did he also hold it for those who didn't make the final cut for our ..."Coming from you, that doesn't bother me at all.
May the Lord bless you.
Robert wrote: "Rod, Chad, Tyrone, Alexandra - that's a nice sentiment that the Holy Spirit held the pen while the Scriptural chroniclers wrote ..."You really need to start paying attention to who said what, and what was actually said.
” I suppose the guys could pick the exhibit with the most moving parts whereas Alexandra could pick the one that is pinkest!”
Your superiority complex is showing, as is your misogyny.
"In fact, don't judge anything on merit as you don't have the quantitative ability to decide anything that isn't purely subjective."
I've just demonstrated how you are guilty of that. You're making an awful lot of assumptions about others for things not actually in evidence, while you yourself have not presented any objective basis to support your own assertions, and rather you apply different standards based on what you want to accept and what you don't.
Mod
Real science stops at consistency. Anything else is science fiction.
Robert, it seems all this deep thinking is new to you. You don't appear to read much on these issues. Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth would be a good start.
Rod - What? I suppose deep thinking to you is reading qualitative work with no standard for proof. To me it's just silly philosophical wannabes arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I know higher level math, chemistry, and physics is too abstract for the masses, but it takes a higher level of thought than just reading endless B.S.
Mod
Rod - anything quantitative like a formula or statistical calculation that would ascertain that what you offer as truth has some probability of being that rather than merely a belief system based on who know what.
Mod
It's more similar to forensic and empirical science than you thought. And the naughty little secrets of pseudoscience.
I'm rather surprised you haven't studied all this. Or read extensively about it. And yet you keep bringing it up from a one sided point of view.
Rod wrote: "Wow! You don't spend much time investigating theology now do you? It's more similar to forensic and empirical science than you thought. And the naughty little secrets of pseudoscience.
I'm rath..."
He’s clearly not studied the issue objectively, examining the evidence.
He’s got one standard for the OT, finding the miracles unbelievable and impossible, another for the NT, which are no less unbelievable and impossible, because the support Jesus’ ministry, with is circular reasoning and not valid. It’s also a form of believing because he wants to, not different from what he complains about
Robert, did you read what Christ said in John 5:46? Is that without meaning to you regarding Jesus being in the Old Testament?