jesus knows no bible

[kidcanman]

But how can you prove that God or angels or Jinns exist - you can believe it of course but that is not the same as proof is it? If I were in a court of law it would not matter a hoot what I or someone else claims, it would only matter what I could prove.



But to take this example, suppose I write a dictionary and claim it was inspired by God, I can do that but it is unfalsifiable because you cannot find a way to show that what I have said is untrue so my claim amounts to a fallacy so there is nothing further to prove - in other words it does not matter what I claim if God is part of the claim because it will always be in strict logical terms false.



Here you wander into sophistry but introducing a concept called 'normal man' and one now supposes there is also some kind of 'superman' and we are now in fairly land.

Consider Abraham, he was not given any book and did not write any and all we know about him is that he acted in faith on God's call. He needed no other proof than finding and acting on God's call and its is the same for us now.


.

hugo im not sure if you are reading my entire posts carefully and you are not able to grasps my points, or if you are purposefully pretending not to understand my points in order to divert the discussion.

in any event it i know that i am making my points clear, and that for some reason you are not addressing them. i will no longer attempt to clarify them for you.

 

[Hugo]

You have heard of circumstantial evidence used in a court of law? You can present a can of honey in court without the bee being present as proof!

Circumstantial evidence is the weakest form of evidence as you must know and once presented it is left to the jury to weight its credulity.

 

[جوري]

Circumstantial evidence is the weakest form of evidence as you must know and once presented it is left to the jury to weight its credulity.

I agree with that.. but we are left with a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence and the cognitive ability to sort through it.. but for said reason folks end up with different verdicts!


all the best

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

.....Do you agree or find the whole idea of doubt as something to be avoided.

If there is anything specific in my holy book , then I won't doubt
about it . If any belief/ tradition goes against my holy book , then I will have doubt .

If anyone's holy book says God is one but other human being explained the line as 3 in 1 , then followers of the holy book must not accept it without challenge.

 

[Grace Seeker]

you suggested that the writings of the NT have no faults (will guide you without mistakes) because they are the inspired writings of the apostles.

No. I don't suggest that. Perhaps you read that into what I have said out of your own preconceptions or because you've heard other people say it, but I never said it, nor do I even believe it.

I DO NOT hold that inspired means faultless. I only hold that it means inspired. Inspired people not only can, but sometimes do make mistakes. Recall that I specifically said that I DO NOT believe in a dictation theory of inspiration.

I presume that inspired authors have more awareness of God's presence than uninspired persons would or do. I anticipate that the church, by virtue of also being inspired is going to be led in a path that is more in keeping than opposition to the will of God in the decisions that she makes. But I am well aware that inspired, even divinely inspired, people can and do make mistakes. I find that in terms of making decisions in my life that I need more than scripture alone. Rather, I need the four-fold witness of not only scripture (which I do take as primary) but also of church tradition, my own life experience, and reason. For instance, it is reason informed by a knowledge of history that reminds me that not all scriptures is even meant to be taken as universal imperatives. Some of what is recorded was intended for particular people at particular times. Should I find myself in similar situations in my own life, it may be informative to me. But when my life circumstances differ, it is most certainly not imperative. Of course that presents a problem that one who takes all things as being literally and universal does not have, I have to discern the difference between those pieces of scripture which are universal in nature and those that are not. For that I myself am dependent on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Meaning that I too am looking for inspiration, and though I believe that this is available to all who turn to God's spirit for guidance in reading the scriptures, I don't pretend that I am infallible in my understanding. I do the best that I can, and lean on the mercy and grace of God to forgive my errors.

 

[Grace Seeker]

claiming that every action of a person who is fulfilling god's puproses and has the holy spirit in them is faultless and inspired by god is spreading disinformation.

Indeed it would be. But I haven't ever said that. Why then do you put such words into my mouth?

 

[Grace Seeker]

where did he [Jesus] give peter this authority

Since you said in one of your more recent posts that that you were referencing post #36, in which you responded to my presentation of the Catholic view by which they would justify the authority for the Church to speak to things. I'm not sure what exactly in post #36 your were referencing, but perhaps it was the above question.

The Catholic answer to that is Jesus gave Peter authority in Matthew 16:18-19

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

As for Paul, he actually does claim authority for himself and his writings. Addressing the church in Corinth he writes: "...I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down" (2 Corinthians 13:10).

And addressing the church in Thessolinika he writes: "For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus" (1 Thessalonians 4:2).

And addressing other leaders of the church Paul tells them that they too should claim authority. To Titus he writes: "Encourage and rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15).

And to Timothy he writes: "Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you" (1 Timothy 4:14). So, it would seem like there is a claim of divine ordination in the case of Timothy, but more importantly an implied claim that the church can be an instrument of such ordination. I would argue that the ordination which the church offers can be of not just an individual, but of a given message as well.

Paul understands himself as being one who is able to claim to speak on behalf of the Spirit for he says: "The Spirit clearly says ..." (1 Timothy 4:1).


And then Peter (to whom Jesus gave authority) claims that Paul's writings are in fact scriptures: "He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).

 

[kidcanman]

The Catholic answer to that is Jesus gave Peter authority in Matthew 16:18-19

i addressed this in post #46.

i will respond to the remainder of your recent posts later tonight ; or tomorrow inshaallah.

 

[kidcanman]

I DO NOT hold that inspired means faultless. I only hold that it means inspired. Inspired people not only can, but sometimes do make mistakes. Recall that I specifically said that I DO NOT believe in a dictation theory of inspiration.

I presume that inspired authors have more awareness of God's presence than uninspired persons would or do. I anticipate that the church, by virtue of also being inspired is going to be led in a path that is more in keeping than opposition to the will of God in the decisions that she makes. But I am well aware that inspired, even divinely inspired, people can and do make mistakes.

There is a clear distinction between an inspired person; and the inspired actions or words of god.

An inspired person is a person who is more aware of god. their actions and words are not wholly based on the will of god. Their words and actions are based on their own reasoning; the reasoning of mortal men. They are prone to mistakes just like everbody else.

An inspired person cannot be sure if their actions or words are spiritually correct unless god specifically sanctions (says that) the actions or words (are correct).

when god specifically dictates to a person, the dictation is the "inspired words of god".

The NT was written by inspired men. But the men did not assert that god sanctioned their words.

Therefore the words of the NT are not the inspired words of god.

When referring to the NT one should not state that it is the guidance of god. they should say it is the imperfect guidance of inspired men; guidance wich could be incorrect.

 

[kidcanman]

The Catholic answer to that is Jesus gave Peter authority in Matthew 16:18-19

post #46

As for Paul, he actually does claim authority for himself and his writings. Addressing the church in Corinth he writes: "...I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down" (2 Corinthians 13:10).

"building you up, not tearing you down" does not mean that everything i write is sanction by god. it can't mean that because paul also writes (as i quoted for you before) that what he is writing is not from god. NOT FROM GOD!!!!!!!

And addressing the church in Thessolinika he writes: "For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus" (1 Thessalonians 4:2).

the instructions are inspired by god. and the instructions alone; a specific message.

And addressing other leaders of the church Paul tells them that they too should claim authority. To Titus he writes: "Encourage and rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15).

this is an uninspired letter in which a man tells somebody to rebuke with authority. the word authority does not have an ambigous devine meaning every time a person uses it.

And to Timothy he writes: "Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you" (1 Timothy 4:14). So, it would seem like there is a claim of divine ordination in the case of Timothy, but more importantly an implied claim that the church can be an instrument of such ordination. I would argue that the ordination which the church offers can be of not just an individual, but of a given message as well.

anybody can get a prophetic message. the problem is that the church did not claim to receive a prophetic message in determining the canon. they simply believe that the holy spirit in them makes their judgement faultless.

Paul understands himself as being one who is able to claim to speak on behalf of the Spirit for he says: "The Spirit clearly says ..." (1 Timothy 4:1).

he did speak on behalf of the spirt in this case. that qualifier is what is required in order to affirm that anything he says is on behalf of the spirt. when the apostles do not state that their writings come from the holy spirit their writings don't. here is a legitimate example of were a statement is made on behalf of the holy spirit.

And then Peter (to whom Jesus gave authority) claims that Paul's writings are in fact scriptures: "He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).

i discussed why peter does not have an authority in post #46.

Paul himself states that something he wrote in the NT is not from god. NOT FROM GOD.

the quote "the other scriptures" can also be translated, "the other writings", because the greek word used for "scripture", graphe, is also translated as "writing".

of course christians translate the word as "scripture" to bolster their claim that paul's writings are sanctioned.

 

[duskiness]

the writers of the NT do not assert that what they are writing are the words of jesus nor of god.
the NT contains the words of jesus, but it is not the words of jesus.
it contains the words of god, but it is not the words of god. its the words of men.

I always thought I can at least grasp the basics of logic but now I'm totally lost....

if a book does not claim to be devine how can a normal man determine that it is devine with certainty. he cannot because he cannot be absolutely sure about what god approves and what god does not approve using his "normal man" intellect.

with the exception of mathematics you can never determine sth with certainty. nor can you be absolutely sure what God approves.

the writers of the bible didnt make the claim.

so you think that for a writing to be inspired, it has to make explicite claim that it is inspired? Something like "hear, o hear this is your captain speaking"? Let's say that I'm tall, nordic blond (we all have right to dream ). Do I need to make such a claim to be one?

or else they need to explain how they (people that are not given explicit direction from god) are able to determine, with limited intellect, what writings god approves, and what writings he dose not approve.

I told you - Tradition of the Church. Authority of first followers and their disciples.

if there is a claim, a man can disprove it, but if there is no claim, then because people have limited intellects, a normal human cannot determine that something is perfect.

btw: you know that nobody here made claim that Bible/NT is perfect?
And I think that I could determine that something is perfect when I met it. It's just bound not to happen...

this is not an assumption. a man without inspiration has a limited intellect. he is prone to make mistakes. with our reasoning we can look at something and point out its imperfection: we can show that something is not perfect if a claim is made. but because our reasoning is imperfect, it is clear that an unispired man cannot take something that does not claim to be perfect and definitively assert that i know that this is perfect.

An inspired person is a person who is more aware of god. their actions and words are not wholly based on the will of god. Their words and actions are based on their own reasoning; the reasoning of mortal men. They are prone to mistakes just like everbody else.
An inspired person cannot be sure if their actions or words are spiritually correct unless god specifically sanctions (says that) the actions or words (are correct).

I'm lost once again. So what is the difference between inspired man and uninspired one based on those two quotes?

when god specifically dictates to a person, the dictation is the "inspired words of god".

I don't believe in God that dictates books.

The NT was written by inspired men. But the men did not assert that god sanctioned their words.

Once again: why is that for you explicit claim "this is God speaking" is "conditio sine qua non" of inspiration?

When referring to the NT one should not state that it is the guidance of god. they should say it is the imperfect guidance of inspired men; guidance wich could be incorrect.

welllll...I'm in such a good mood that I could agree here...

 

[kidcanman]

I always thought I can at least grasp the basics of logic but now I'm totally lost....

i wonder if you tried

with the exception of mathematics you can never determine sth with certainty. nor can you be absolutely sure what God approves.

You can be sure if somebody claimed that god approved of something. In the case of the NT the apostles did not make that claim. We can be sure that nobody claimed that god approved of the NT.

so you think that for a writing to be inspired, it has to make explicite claim that it is inspired? Something like "hear, o hear this is your captain speaking"? Let's say that I'm tall, nordic blond (we all have right to dream ). Do I need to make such a claim to be one?

Any suggestion by the author that implies, "god in some way approves of what im about to say", will sufice.

I told you - Tradition of the Church.

I refuted this

Authority of first followers and their disciples.

I refuted this. It's possible that the reaon you can't understand the basic logic of my posts is because you did'nt read them.

btw: you know that nobody here made claim that Bible/NT is perfect?

It's common knowledge that there are mistakes in the Bible/NT. It is also common knowledge that there are no mistakes in god's words.

And I think that I could determine that something is perfect when I met it.

How

I'm lost once again. So what is the difference between inspired man and uninspired one based on those two quotes?

An inspired man believes in god more. That's the difference.

I don't believe in God that dictates books.

You believe that god dictated words. The 10 commandments are words dictated from god. There are statements in the bible that are prefenced with,"god told me to say such and such". That's a dictation. If you collect all these words together in a book then you will have a book of god's dictations.

make sure you leave out the apostle's grocery lists.

welllll...I'm in such a good mood that I could agree here...

I'm happy that your mood changed because before it seemed like you were arguing without trying to understand my points.

 

[Grace Seeker]

There is a clear distinction between an inspired person; and the inspired actions or words of god.

An inspired person is a person who is more aware of god. their actions and words are not wholly based on the will of god. Their words and actions are based on their own reasoning; the reasoning of mortal men. They are prone to mistakes just like everbody else.

An inspired person cannot be sure if their actions or words are spiritually correct unless god specifically sanctions (says that) the actions or words (are correct).

when god specifically dictates to a person, the dictation is the "inspired words of god".

The NT was written by inspired men. But the men did not assert that god sanctioned their words.

Therefore the words of the NT are not the inspired words of god.

When referring to the NT one should not state that it is the guidance of god. they should say it is the imperfect guidance of inspired men; guidance wich could be incorrect.

You express yourself as if these are facts. But in reality they are simply judgments that you have made with respect to your understanding of inspiration and what the term means. It is an opinion that I do not happen to share with you. Except that I do agree that when referring to the NT one should not say that it is the infallible word of God himself speaking (there are those who would argue that point, but I'm not among them), but that it is the imperfect guidance of inspired men speaking as best as they can with regard to the revelation they have received. Imperfect thing may be nonetheless dependable, and I believe that the scriptures are that. One can depend on them for guidance sufficient for that which is necessary for salvation and to receive directions for the living of one's faith in action.

 

[Hugo]

I agree with that.. but we are left with a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence and the cognitive ability to sort through it.. but for said reason folks end up with different verdicts!

all the best

Yes we agree here and I assume you mean that the evidence is both for and against any propisition

 

[Hugo]

Originally Posted by kidcanman. the writers of the NT do not assert that what they are writing are the words of jesus nor of god. the NT contains the words of jesus, but it is not the words of jesus. it contains the words of god, but it is not the words of god. its the words of men.

I always thought I can at least grasp the basics of logic but now I'm totally lost....

I think duskiness did try but since you overlap ideas we end up with nonsense

..contains the words of Jesus, but it is not the words of Jesus..
..contains the words of God, but it is not the words of God...

How can something contain the words of Jesus and at the same time according to you not be the words of Jesus? You may be trying to say something here but what exactly is it?

 

[Grace Seeker]

How can something contain the words of Jesus and at the same time according to you not be the words of Jesus? You may be trying to say something here but what exactly is it?

Actually, that part I think I get. For instance, at best the Gospels are a translation of what Jesus said, not his actual words. Secondly, they make no effort to present themselves as a contemporaneous recording of what Jesus said, but are remembrances of what he said. In that sense they are more likely, at least on most occassions, to be paraphrase rather than direct quotes. I submit that there are a few times when we have the very words (even spoken in Aramaic) that Jesus used, but they do not represent the vast majority of the words that you would find some Bible putting in red letters. So, we have the words of Jesus -- sort of, but not actually the literal words that he spoke other than a few exceptions.

Of course, when I tell my kids: "This room is a pigstyie, I expect you to get it cleaned up right away cause you're not going anywhere until you do." And what they tell their friends who call is "Sorry, I can't go out. My dad said I'm grounded because my room is a mess." Such a report is not an accurate quote, but it is an accurate reflection of the meaning of what I said.

 

[duskiness]

A≠~A
That’s basic of logic. The point you’re trying to make while saying that

contains the words of Jesus, but it is not the words of Jesus..

is not exactly crystal clear to me.
Unfortunately this is it for now - I’ve got some Christmas carols to sing

 

[kidcanman]

You express yourself as if these are facts. But in reality they are simply judgments that you have made with respect to your understanding of inspiration and what the term means. It is an opinion that I do not happen to share with you.

everything i have posted can be objectively rationalized. if i posted something that cannot be objectively rationalized then cite it. opinions cannot be challenged because they are subjective. i have written nothing that cannot be objectively challenged. if i have then cite it. otherwise if there are no counter arguments then what i have written can be tentatively viewed as fact.

that I do agree that when referring to the NT one should not say that it is the infallible word of God himself speaking (there are those who would argue that point, but I'm not among them), but that it is the imperfect guidance of inspired men speaking as best as they can with regard to the revelation they have received. Imperfect thing may be nonetheless dependable, and I believe that the scriptures are that. One can depend on them for guidance sufficient for that which is necessary for salvation and to receive directions for the living of one's faith in action.

The summmary of this statement is that you believe that the NT is not the inspired words of god, and that the NT is the fallable words of inspired men. Never the less you think that the NT is sufficiant for guidance to salvation.

I have no problem with this statement.

i just want to clarify the fact that you agree that the NT is not the inspired words of god.

 

[kidcanman]

A≠~A
That’s basic of logic. The point you’re trying to make while saying that is not exactly crystal clear to me.

to clarify

the NT is written by the apostle in their words. the NT is the words of the apostles.

in some places of the NT there are quotes from jesus. those are jesus' words.

the NT contains jesus' words, but the book is taken as a whole as the words of the apostles.

the NT contains jesus' words, but it is not the words of jesus.

 

[Hugo]

to clarify

the NT is written by the apostle in their words. the NT is the words of the apostles.

in some places of the NT there are quotes from jesus. those are jesus' words.
the NT contains jesus' words, but the book is taken as a whole as the words of the apostles.
the NT contains jesus' words, but it is not the words of jesus.

Are all the above 'facts', undisputed or is it your opinion? The other thing you fail to appreciative is that anyone, including you can take the same set of facts and end up with different conclusions and it is obvious the happens all the time. Now in one sense the NT does not record the words of Jesus because it is mostly in Greek and He spoke Aramaic but there is no reason to suppose that what we have in Greek is not as near as we can get to what he actually said and of course the words are attested because we have 4 Gospels. One might contrast that with the Qu'ran where there is only ONE witness to the words of any revelation.

Can we just get to the point - what exactly are you try to show here - the NT is not to be trusted as the word of God or is it something else as we seem to going through the same illogic time after time where you make a statement or give a definition as if it is unquestionably absolute and true. People have offered answers but you dismiss them as if you have some kind of omnipotence - so get to the point you are trying to make.