I don't want to derail this thread, so if there's further discussion let's take it to PM, but you seem intelligent, so surely you must realize that a criticism that even may also be "a conclusion based on my words" is never productive? Why would you presuppose (especially after you've had a chance to read the preceding posts in the thread) that I would be argumentative when I already stated above (yes, before you did), that I was looking for the truth and not for arguments for arguments' sake? I'll assume that you didn't read the prior posts. But even if you didn't, you were being judgmental by presupposing argumentativeness in advance. That was the point I was highlighting by repeating what you stated.
Thanks. I just placed an order for it, and it looks like an interesting read. But are you sure it answers the questions I posted? One of them was from the Old Testament and one was about the virgin birth. From looking at the table of contents I am not sure if those topics are covered.
It definitely answers any questions about the legitimacy of the bible. I am a scientist by trade, so have always been a sceptic on these issues but it raises some very important points I hadn't considered before. Not sure about your old testimant question. Definitely answers why not Thomas and which bits make up the bible etc. Give it a ride. I'll recommend more as I read them
Well you can say that the Bible is animate in itself. It is self-sufficient. When I say animate and self-sufficient, it is applicable in all situations. That is why faith and salvation is a personal thing which cannot be assigned or transferred. When you read the Bible, people get a different interpretation of it ( but not deviating to the very essence of it). It is because the Holy Spirit speaks to us individually. It can be applied to all aspects in your life. That is why sometimes, you would notice that if you try to put together everything, there will always be some kind of contradictions in it. But don't get me wrong, the Old Testament takes a different view from the New Testament. In the Old Testament, you will see how the God dislikes sin. It also shows us the coming of Jesus Christ being set up. In the Old Testament, for sin to be forgiven, an animal is required to be sacrificed. This animal, on the altar, takes the sin of the man sacrificing it. In the New Testament (New Contract), Jesus Christ, takes the sin of the whole world. The past, present and future sin. He is the Lamb of God. Here, since both testaments (contracts) differ essentially, it is very likely that we will see contradictions. But these contradictions will always be corrected by the Holy Spirit. When you read the Bible, pray that you will understand the scriptures. Well, of course, we can never understand it truly if we haven't read the Bible. God bless you on your journey.
I don't have much to say on this subject. Of course there's contradictions. I think what is said in this video explains the contradictions
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If in the Beginning, the Word was God and God is perfect then the Bible must be perfect. Simple logic.
But this is the same logic is Islam. You cannot believe is Islam also, because that is contradictory to Christianity.
Islam and Christianity are not the same. The Koran was written by one man who falsely deemed himself a prophet while the books in the Bible were written by various men with various experiences who wrote about their divine experiences and stories both good and bad, they could have left out the bad but they didn't, who were divinely inspired by God.
To say that the two testaments differ fundamentally or contradict each other is an over simplification. It isn't too difficult to find adjacent verses that clash. What Matthew 13:45 says about the Kingdom of God differs fundamentally with the previous verse. Is the KoG actively searching, or is it passively hidden waiting to be accidentally discovered? Or, can it be both? The biggest differences that I have found are usually between our behavior and the Bible's teachings.
It is both. But who am I to say it is both? Do you get it? I do not have the authority to tell you how to interpret the Bible. But for me, it is. The way I understand the Bible guides me on my everyday life. Your interpretation might differ because we can all have different interpretations but with the same interpretation that Jesus is God and that we are all saved by Grace through faith. It is only on that aspect that we must have the same perspective because it is the Holy Spirit that gives us this wisdom. Continually seek Him, that is my advice. Because no person can substitute their own knowledge or interpretation of the Bible for someone else. Clashing verses, contradictions, these are proof that it is applicable to our everyday lives. Well, you can choose to use this contradictions to not believe in it or use this as a way to continually seek the wisdom of God.
@Kajz, you may not think that you have the authority to tell someone else how to believe or interpret, but you can always share your own understanding. I have chosen to believe it, and enjoy investigating its clashings. I do not see it as a monolithic book, but as a collection of writings from different times and authors to different audiences and situations. If there were only one consistent message always, it would be boring and irrelevant to my unique situation. As it is, I find it repeatedly and awesomely relevant. I do not consider it a manual or constitution, but a collection of motivational writings. Sometimes there are surprising back stories and other amazing connections. I have also accepted that explaining is not the best way to get across extremely important ideas. Jesus told meaningful stories with no moral and no ending, something that we have only learned to do well. in the last century. It is easy for people who have not seriously studied it to write the Bible off. There certainly are bothersome parts, but, as you dig into it, it becomes awesome, and Jesus becomes so complex and wonderful. It is much easier to understand when you are also trying to live decently. When you are just interested in enjoying pleasure, the Bible complicates your life in too many ways. In Jewish thinking, when a concept was deep and beyond easy understanding, it was common to express opposing ideas on it. Sometimes the Kingdom of God is discovered and valued, but other times, it is working to enlarge its borders in ways that are not passive. That is not the whole story, so there are more Kingdom parables that round out, stretch and challenge our understanding of Kingdom. As opposed to a couple of parables, in Church, we do not want to see weeds growing beside the good wheat, but here in NoFap, we are doing that parable better than most churches, and it is giving fruit as lives are changing.
The thing is I do not want to impose on people my own interpretation as it could be different with them. But I happily share my understanding of the Bible with everyone. I also agree with what you said except that I view the Bible as not just motivational writings but a record of real things that transpired saving exceptions for things that should not be interpreted literally
How could anyone possibly impose their interpretation on anybody. That would take some serious brainwashing. As to the things that actually happened, why do the reports differ? On his way into Jerusalem, Jesus cursed a fig tree. When did it wither? Jesus ate the last supper with his disciples, and was crucified on the next day. Which event took place on the Day of the passover? Often there tare two or more reports of the same event that differ in the telling. I do not believe that their view of history was the same as ours. I think they told their stories for a purpose.
Is this a serious question? Lol look around, bro. Cults, churches, sects and other religions are doing it. It is the "I am right, you are wrong" thinking. For me, if you believe in other religion, then I will respect that. No need to condemn someone because of their personal views.
Re: #1 -- I think it's best to read the "historical" sections of the Bible not as "straight history," but as a theological reading of history. Meaning that the point of what you cite in Deuteronomy is not to kill people, but to "kill" whatever distracts you from walking with God. Re: #2 -- there is no contradiction there. Re: #3 -- I think the Catholics have the better argument; I am a Catholic, so consider that. The so-called "other Gospels" weren't recently "discovered." They have been around for a long time, the early Church knew about them, and rejected them -- because of their content. It's only "news" because lots of people don't know the whole story.
Yes, I know they were rejected by the early Church, but that is my point. How do you know that they selected the correct set of Gospels? There were multiple Christian churches then, with different beliefs. The only explanation I have heard is that since they were divinely inspired, they must have selected the right ones. But as I mentioned, this is the explanation for all religions - Muslims believe the Quran is correct because it is divinely inspired. If you look at human decisions throughout history, even within the church, you can see that they are not always right. There was a time in Catholic history with 2 successions of Popes, each who ex-communicated the others. A fact that we can see over and over again is that the victors write history. If the Gnostic Church survived to today, and the other Church did not, then do you have any doubt that the Gnostic Gospels (along with the other non-disputed ones) would be considered the truth? It goes back to the same argument - God divinely inspired one, and the correct church, to survive - but with this logic literally anything in the past can be justified. If you look at the plethora of Old Testament accounts of "holding" God to promises made, praying to God for military victories, and really atrocities that anyone who did not believe were divinely inspired would consider sinful today, you can see that there is no relationship between specific instances ostensibly promised and what actually happened, and prayers made and what actually happened. But we do see that whoever won the battle writes an account of it thanking God.
