What Jesus Said About Who He Is

[Guest]

The author is not around to clarify the context for us. So I think [it is] important to remain open to questioning one's own certainty.

Well, Of Course

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21

He Is

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:8

____________

No. Again, I am going off your prior comments. On the one hand you have indicated that you don't believe anything that doesn't agree with your experience, which is a subjective approach. But validation is not based on subjective experience; it is based on objective evidence, which includes, for our purposes here, history, culture, archeology and so forth. But you have already decided that at least history cannot be very reliable because it is filled with bias and opinion, which tells me that you have already erected a standard by which you will reject any evidence that leads in a direction you are not prepared accept. You have already prejudged at least a portion of objectifable, verifieable evidence as unreliable and in this discussion I have also noted that you are willing to accept any angle, no matter how irrational, improbable or absurd in order to preserve your unbelief. All of the evidence I can provide is outside the limited scope of your experience and I think, is also outside what you are even willing to make room for on a purely objective level.

So even as I tell you the truth of my intent you remain certain in your assumptions. And, you see no risk in this?

Well, Of Course

And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. Mark 9:7

We Do

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

____________

Where Is The Reason

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

And Where Is The Profit

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Mark 8:36

Believe And Be Blessed Beloved

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Love, Joe

[nChrist]

No. Again' date=' I am going off your prior comments. On the one hand you have indicated that you don't believe anything that doesn't agree with your expierience, which is a subjective approach. But validation is not based on subjective experience; it is based on objective evidence, which includes, for our purposes here, history, culture, archeology and so forth. But you have already decided that at least history cannot be very reliable because it is filled with bias and opinion, which tells me that you have already erected a standard by which you will reject any evidence that leads in a direction you are not prepared accept. You have already prejudged at least a portion of objectifable, verifieable evidence as unreliable and in this discussion I have also noted that you are willing to accept any angle, no matter how irrational, improbable or absurd in order to preserve your unbelief. Alll of the evidence I can provide is outside the limited scope of your experience and I think, is also outside what you are even willing to make room for on a purely objective level.[/quote']

Bingo! - You got it. There is no interest in the truth unless it fits his or her current unbeliefs. Hints have already been given in his or her posts like "I don't care if you're right."

[Nakosis]

Then I do not understand why testing and deciding changes anything.

When you are taught something, you test their words as best as you can. If you find validation for their words through your own experience does not give you greater conviction in the words of the teacher?

Unfortunately the risky part is if those words fail you, fail to be validated. It's not a good feeling to find one's faith betrayed. It is almost easier, safer to go through life without faith.

Still I think it's a person's nature to seek the person or idea they can place their faith in. People always hope to find it.

Consider this promise of Heaven. Something you won't be able to validate in this life time. An idea you don't have to risk being betrayed by. A very safe belief to put one's faith in.

However I've decided not to accept a belief because it is safe or convenient. The truth may not be convenient or safe. So I can't afford to accept an idea just because it is less risky. I think it is fair to expect validation for our faith and have reasonable justification for our conviction.

But even if you are knowledgeable about something, you are still putting faith (trust) in your knowledge and intellect and reasoning abilities to have it correct.

Which may still betray you. Best one can do is seek reasonable validation. I may still be wrong, but I tried my best. That is what is important to me, that I tried.

I still believe your assessment is incorrect. When you put faith in a person, do you not need knowledge of that person to put your trust in them? Why would you trust someone you are ignorant of?

To gain knowledge. When one is ignorant they don't have much choice. When one is young and ignorant about the world they have to put their trust in their parents. They have little choice. Even if you find your trust betrayed, you still learn something from it.

See, even here you are requiring knowledge in order to have faith (trust) - you said you would have to know the person. That is knowledge, is it not? So why claim ignorance is foundation for faith?

Because without ignorance there would be no need for faith. If you were born into the world knowing everything that could possibly be know would you need to have any faith in what your parents told you? You would know for yourself if your parents were right or wrong. It's because of what you don't know that you have to place your faith in them.

[nebula]

I am not understanding your thinking at all, Nakosis.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 04 August 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

Mt. Ebal: Joshua 8:30 tells us that Joshua built an altar there. The ruins of that altar have been found and it is the only altar on the mountain. They have been dated to the period of Rameses II, which is the period most scholars believe that the children of Israel departed from Egypt.

Yes that was a very interesting find. Now while it's not unreasonable to consider this maybe that alter the people who excavated the site and numerous other archeologist are far from as certain as you seem to be. As I said, history is full of opinions. Here's a reference you might be interested in.

Mount Ebal

Wikipedia??? Are you serious??? LOL, Wikipedia is only about the MOST unreliable source you can find on anything on Internet. Here is an article from a peer-reviewed scholarly source (which is not necessarily "Christian") that actually has intellectual merit>>> Biblical Archeology Revew - Evidence for Dating the Mt. Ebal Altar

Quote

Context is always a clear indicators of what a person means.

Sure if one is certain of the context. However, especially in historical situations context can get cloudy.

Not where the Bible is concerned. And it isn't just context. Hermeneutics is a study of the historical/cultural context, literary context, genre, linguistics, and so on. It is a very objective process and works with any type of literature to determine its credibility.

I suspect this prompted Paul to say.

"1 Corinthians 13:12 Now all we can see of God is like a cloudy picture in a mirror.

Later we will see him face to face.

We don't know everything, but then we will, just as God completely understands us."

I think it remains reasonable to question that which we assume certainty in.

Ironically, this makes my point about context and hermeneutics and your rank ignorance of it. Paul is talking about looking in a mirror. The context pertains to divine knowledge. Our knowledge of God is incomplete due to the filter of our carnal, finite minds. But when are transformed and sin is eradicated, we will see Him more clearly. This is a promise for Christians. You, at this stage have no share in that.

Language is funny, especially English. Much of our ability to communicate comes not so much through the words that we use but a pool of shared common experiences. For example the phrase "that man is green". I've heard the phrase before, I am aware of the connection between green and envy. Because of that share context I could probably figure out what you meant. Or at least be aware that their might be different possible meanings and so take the time to inquire further.

Yes, if you simply walked up to someone I was talking to and I said "so and so is green," you would have no idea what I meant, unless as you said, you asked me what I meant.

The problem with historical documents is that the non-verbalized context is missing. We can assume like I might do with the phrase "that man is green," however further inquiry is greatly limited. The author is not around to clarify the context for us. So I think important to remain open to questioning one's own certainty.

That argument doesn’t really cut it and so far, you have demonstrated no competence where history is concerned. You are just blowing smoke and have no idea how context is used and what it means. You have already demonstrated from the verse above that you cannot use context in the way you completely butchered the verse and ignored its immediate context. So don't bother trying to tell me about history or context. You don't know anything about either.

Quote

No, it means that it is YOUR decision. I am not expected to argue into the Kingdom. It has to be your choice and I am not responsible for your choice. You are. Skeptics want to argue endlessly and try to keep us on the line indefinitely. My job is to present the truth and let you make the decision. I am accountable for my decision and you are accountable for yours. It has nothing to do with being convenient. If you choose to reject the truth, the consequences if you are wrong are yours alone to bear. My point is that your rejection of the truth does not mean I am unsuccessful in sharing it. It means that you have chosen continued separation from God and that you consciously accept the consequences for that decision, which entails an eternal future of misery and perpetual destruction. If you choose to assume that risk, for whatever reason, there is no amount of evidence and nothing I can say that will deter you.

I think the certainty you assume is just as risky. If you've misunderstood any part of the Bible or Jesus you could end up misleading those who have chosen to rely on your certainty.

But if someone follows you, they risk spending eternity in hell. If I am wrong, no one stands to lose anything. At the very worst, they simply cease to exist. If I am wrong, no one will be the wiser. If YOU are wrong, there will be nothing but eternal punishment and destruction and a continuing remembrance of your rejection of the truth and the realization that it didn't have to be like that. Sorry, but YOU are the one taking all the risks.

Quote

If I am wrong, then the worst thing that will happen to me is I go floating away in limbo or simply fade into nothing. If YOU are wrong, you stand to lose far, far more than me. I am not the one taking the gamble.

How do you know that is the worst thing that will happen if you are wrong. Say for example the Muslims are right or the Jews are right or the Heathens?

You are taking the chance that what you don't know won't hurt you

That is not true. For one thing most religions don’t believe in hell. For example: Buddhism, Hare Krishna, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Rastafarianism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Taoism, Vedanta, Christian Science, New Age, Scientology, and Unitarian Universalism are all major world religions with no concept of hell. Many believe that we die and become nothing, or we continue to be reborn over and over until we reach perfection. Some believe in heaven only, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Secondly as for Islam, you need to understand that their theology that informs their understanding of hell is far different than Christianity’s. Christianity views hell as a consequence for choosing continued separation from God. We believe that man is born a sinner by default. Man inherits a sin nature by virtue of being a descendent of Adam who fell in the Garden of Eden. Man is born automatically under a sentence of spiritual death and if he chooses to remain in that condition and rejects the free gift of eternal life that God offers, hell is the consequence for that choice. But the person who chooses to accept that free gift has the assurance of eternal life and is eternally free from the curse of death and has the promise of living eternally with God.

In Islam, it is quite different. For one thing, Muslims have no assurance of eternal life. You can BE a Muslim and still go to hell, because in Islam it is entirely based on works. You can believe the right thing, choose, the “right” religion and still go to hell. So it doesn’t really matter from an Islamic perspective if you choose to believe the right things or not. In Islam, they believe that when you die your good works and your bad works will be weighed in the balance and if your good works outweigh your bad works, then you get in to heaven. The problem with Islam is that there is no way to know in this life if you have been good enough. They do not know if they have done enough good deeds, said enough prayers or have been devout enough to warrant heaven. For them, it is a wait and see.

In Bible, God does not leave you guessing. Can you know if you are good enough to enter heaven? Sure. The answer is no, you are not good enough. No one is good enough and can never hope to be good enough to enter heaven. God does not receive us on the basis of being good enough. When Adam sinned in the Garden, it created a rift in the spiritual fabric of the universe, with God on one side and man on the other and a huge gulf in between and no way for man to pass over to the other side. That is what salvation is about. It is how God fixed the tear. Man had to have a Savior, someone who span the gap and bring man and God back together.

Furthermore, in Christianity we have complete assurance of salvation. We have a God who has always kept His promises and has a spotless track record of integrity and faithfulness. In Islam, Muslims have to die for their god in order to be assured of heaven. In Christianity, our God died for us to give us that assurance. The two could not be more opposite.

So I am not hedging any bets or hoping that I got it right and picked the right religion. In Islam, that wouldn’t even matter. I am a Christian because it has a much greater ring of truth. There is evidence. It is not a blind faith and we serve a God who was willing to give His life for ours. No one else can claim that. Muhammad was a psychopath, a murderer and a pedophile. If he were alive today, he would be locked up in a maximum-security prison or asylum for the mentally deranged. I don’t think I will hang my hat on anything such a reprobate has to say about hell or anything else.

[Guest shiloh357]

So even as I tell you the truth of my intent you remain certain in your assumptions. And, you see no risk in this?

But I am not working off of assumptions at all. I don’t assume the Bible is true. I don’t assume anything in the Bible is true. I don’t have to. I have a personal relationship with God. That is not something you can test, or have any point of reference for. But is not an assumption. It is an experience. Secondly, I have objectively verified evidence that the Scripture is true. All of the claims of the Christian faith are rooted in fact, not assumptions. I am not risking anything. YOU are the one operating off of assumptions and a lot of misinformation as far as I can tell. You say a lot of things that are not factual, and some of which I think you just pull out of the air. You don’t come off as anyone who has done any real research. I think you parrot what you have seen on atheist websites or chat rooms or something and try to pass that off as “research.” The fact that you would use Wikipedia as a historical source is just laughable. I am not the one who is risking anything. I have a rationale AND I have a God who has made Himself real to me. You have nothing to offer but sloppy, bargain basement research.

One should do their best to verify the truth before accepting it or rejecting it don't you think? If I fail to verify what someone else claims and accept it without question isn't that also on my head.

Really and what serve as adequate verification that the Bible is true?

I tried that but found a lot of inconstancy in what has been claim as the truth.

Really? Like what?

Quote

Quote

Ok, so they were killed because they believed Jesus was the Messiah, they believed he was Lord, they believe he was a direct descendent of David. I don't suppose you're going to accept I was right here...

Well, you aren't right. You missed it entirely.

Actually I was right, you didn't accept it

I didn’t accept it, because you misrepresented it. You kept misrepresenting the facts, and you don’t possess the courage or integrity to admit it. It shows you are too dishonest to be trusted in a debate.

Yes made your opinion clear. you need this to be true to support your claims. I don't need it to be true or false. I'll just point out it is not consistent with what others have said.

It wasn’t an opinion but historical fact based on available evidence. That is how the record is borne out. I didn’t suppose it happened that way. The historical record of the Bible gives us that information. Calling it “opinion” is just another example of your conteued dishonest approach and tells me a lot about your character.

Actually you've been making outlandish claims on my behalf.

No I have not. I have only been responding to the claims you have made. The fact that you can’t support them and thus have to pretend that I am making them up shows the inherent weakness in your position.

[Nakosis]

I am not understanding your thinking at all, Nakosis.

Ok, then let me ask you, why do you think you need faith?

[Guest]

I am not understanding your thinking at all, Nakosis.

Ok, then let me ask you, why do you think you need faith?

Dear One It Is This Simple

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47

Either You Will

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: John 3:36(a)

Or You Won't

and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36(b)

____________

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[nebula]

I am not understanding your thinking at all, Nakosis.

Ok, then let me ask you, why do you think you need faith?

No one can be a skeptic of everything.

Even science relies on "faith" to a degree. Higgs Boson is a good example. Scientists are putting a lot of faith in it's existence and in their ability to find it with CERN (how much money and resources has their faith given to this project?).

[Nakosis]

I am not understanding your thinking at all, Nakosis.

Ok, then let me ask you, why do you think you need faith?

No one can be a skeptic of everything.

Even science relies on "faith" to a degree. Higgs Boson is a good example. Scientists are putting a lot of faith in it's existence and in their ability to find it with CERN (how much money and resources has their faith given to this project?).

I don't know... One can try to be a skeptic of everything.

I think what you are saying is a person has to believe in something?

Because... and this is the point of my thinking, a person can't know everything. So a person has to trust/believe in something. Choose to put your faith in something.

For example some people put their faith in certain scientists when it come to man made global warming. If you knew for certain that this was or was not the case. You wouldn't need to have faith in the claims of scientists. You would know the truth. Then the people who didn't know could decide whether or not to have faith in your claims.

For what you know for sure, 100% certain, why would you need faith in what others claim about it.

It's what a person doesn't know that requires them to put their faith in someone or something else. If a person knew absolutely, why would they need to have faith in anyone else. Their own knowledge would be sufficient wouldn't it?