Pavilion, I read your postings. I am sure the others did too. Perhaps the misunderstanding lies in the proven possibility that different people get different impressions when reading the Bible; even if the excerpt is an entire chapter. Given the nature of the thread so far, I think we reasonably expected you to, in addition to sharing the scripture, share with us the impression you get from it, and how it relates to an aspect of conversation found previously in the thread. Of course anyone is also welcome to break new ground in the discussion. Perhaps you meant for one of us to pick something up and roll with it, and we're less intuitive than you thought. In either case, I am glad you're back, and prompting further discussion.

quote:

We? You speak for them?

I suppose I speak for the better angels of their nature.

I am glad to see you're still monitoring here, Mars, as your position and perspective is appreciated. I have been hoping that you'd elaborate upon and/or share a personal story about your perception of the millstones and backslides you referred to early on.

Thanks to all who continue to participate. This conversation has been meaningful to me.

I understand and agree. I am entertaining the possibility that I am misinterpreting it, and could use your help. I'll re-read your postings, and share my understanding of them. If I am off, you can help me.

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
(This'll raise some hackle feathers... )

If only there were a place where everyone could go for the right answers. A place, created by Jesus Himself and given the authority, by Him, to teach His word.

Man, that'd be awesome.

Yep and I am looking forward to being there one day.

Psst, he's talking about the Catholic Church.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
(This'll raise some hackle feathers... )

If only there were a place where everyone could go for the right answers. A place, created by Jesus Himself and given the authority, by Him, to teach His word.

Man, that'd be awesome.

Yep and I am looking forward to being there one day.

Psst, he's talking about the Catholic Church.

Ok, I guess I misread it. I am certainly not referring to that. I am referring to heaven….

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:
Ha, here we go again.

I’m telling you words have meaning and the Bible speaks for itself.

It makes little difference what I feel, or what I perceive about it.

You’re correct. Words have meanings and the Bible speaks for itself in that when a writer strings together a series of words in sequence, there should be only one set of messages that equates to the thoughts the writer intended to convey.

But your personal perspective makes a difference as to whether the message you understand is the same message the writer meant for you to receive. I’m sure you’re aware that many people of good faith and who aim to live according to the Bible have different understandings of what particular passages say, yes? Who has the correct understanding among those divergent views? Surely, you as an imperfect person with imperfect understanding isn’t going to say you can be the infallible arbiter of which understanding is correct, right?

Do you go to a church service and listen to the sermon? Do you read books on Christian topics? Listening to sermons and reading books on biblical topics point out the benefit of not simply “letting the Bible speak for itself.” Preachers deliver sermons to expound on the meanings of the words in the Bible and its practical application in our modern lives. Books on the Bible have been written and read in order to share what insights the writer has gleaned from his research and study of the Bible even in its original languages.

If there was no benefit to learning other people’s understanding of the Bible, then there wouldn’t be the need for sermons, the preacher can simply read aloud from the Bible and nothing more. There wouldn’t be expository literature on biblical topics, just continual reprinting of the Bible.

One way to come closer to an accurate understanding of the Bible is by listening to different understandings, comparing, contrasting, and critical thinking. Granted, it’s the Holy Spirit that leads us to the truth but He uses others to explain scripture just like He used Philip to explain the scriptures to the Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-40.

Thank you Pavilion, and very well stated.

As someone who can read multiple languages, including some Latin, it’s interesting to read various translations of the Bible. Not every language has the same words, and every culture is quite different. Even within a language, customs and cultural connotation can vary over time.

Something as simple as the “vinegar” that was given to Jesus to drink on the cross, very likely was Posca - so the Roman soldier might have actually been offering Jesus his own drink. Luke references this as part of mocking Jesus, Matthew and Mark reference it as Jesus being offered a drink, and John has it as the response to Jesus saying he was thirsty.

Was it cruelty or kindness?

quote:

I thank the Lord profusely for enlightening my blinded mind and saving me out of the delusion of this age when I was a young man.

Were the circumstances of your enlightenment dramatic?

quote:

Psalm 40
2 Timothy 3:12-13
Acts 17
Isaiah 53

My wife and I read these last night, and will revisit them again this evening. My biggest take-away from Psalm 40 is:

"9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest.

10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation."

I believe-in evangelism, and it's good to have scripture references that bolster the notion.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Was it cruelty or kindness?

Thanks for that, reloader-1. I had never heard of posca, and based on what the ’net says about the drink, it certainly seems possible that’s what was referenced by the Gospels. If so, it would have been no more of an attempted cruelty than the many accounts of soldiers’ giving wounded captured enemies drinks from their canteens.

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:
Belief in the true and living God is not a free-for-all; it’s not a smorgasbord; it’s not a nose of wax. God has revealed Himself in holy Scripture in the most dogmatic way conceivable.

All that you say is true but it doesn't speak to the issue of what is apparently your position that posting bible verses should be sufficient versus sharing what you think the passage means. Different people may read the same passage and get different messages. And it's quite possible that several of the different messages may actually be the intended message God meant for those people to receive while others may be just simply incorrect.

Here's my argument to support that idea that God uses people in good faith sharing their thoughts about the Bible to get to the truth of God's Word as iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another (Proverbs 27:17).

The Book of Romans has been written for at least 1000 years but it took that long for one man, Martin Luther, to realize the message of Romans 1:17, "The righteous shall live by faith" which started the Protestant Reformation. He expounded on it. He nailed his "95 Theses" to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. He didn't write Romans 1:17 ninety-five times.

Again, you didn't answer if you attend church and listen to sermons. I doubt that your pastor simply reads from the bible without expounding on it. I don't know if you attend a bible study group where people share their thoughts. And while some people's thoughts are off the wall, I think others share their insight based on their perspectives that builds up the faith of listeners.

Although I don’t share your faith, Rey HRH, thank you for your clear, logical comments about a subject that does interest me.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Although I don’t share your faith, Rey HRH, thank you for your clear, logical comments about a subject that does interest me.

Thank you for that. I think it’s similar to when you share your insights on long range precision and accuracy shootings.

I believe people in general want to believe in the truth of the matter like for example, whether the Covington student really initiated antagonizing the Native American veteran activist. We responsibly hold off deciding until sufficient information is available and, even then, as new information arrives, we adjust. We don’t filter new information through the lens of our original understanding.

I can be very adamant in advocating for what I believe but I can acknowledge the validity of contrary evidence and even reserve the right to reverse my initial position. That applies to everything I believe to be true even in theology. I believe what I believe to be true and if I end up to be actually incorrect, I can only move forward if possible. I can’t wallow in the past of having believed something false because of the principle of sunk costs.

quote:

I can be very adamant in advocating for what I believe but I can acknowledge the validity of contrary evidence and even reserve the right to reverse my initial position. That applies to everything I believe to be true even in theology. I believe what I believe to be true and if I end up to be actually incorrect, I can only move forward if possible. I can’t wallow in the past of having believed something false because of the principle of sunk costs.

Unburdened by what has been...

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I can be very adamant in advocating for what I believe but I can acknowledge the validity of contrary evidence and even reserve the right to reverse my initial position. That applies to everything I believe to be true even in theology. I believe what I believe to be true and if I end up to be actually incorrect, I can only move forward if possible. I can’t wallow in the past of having believed something false because of the principle of sunk costs.

Unburdened by what has been...

None of us really knows what the truth is absolutely; not while alive anyway. That’s why I sometimes post, “now he knows” about someone recently passed who had controversial perspectives and/or behaviors. Now he knows whether he was right or wrong, guilty or innocent. The rest of us walk by faith. We have scripture, tradition, culture and institutions to influence our perceptions. Those mean more to some than others and differ from others still. Only one sure way to know.

Scripture is all we need. What it comes down to is rebellion. Those who don’t want to follow the Scriptures add to or take away from them. Or we try to play ala carte and pick and choose what we want to obey.

God said His word will never pass away. That should be warning enough to do our best to follow His word.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
Scripture is all we need. What it comes down to is rebellion. Those who don’t want to follow the Scriptures add to or take away from them. Or we try to play ala carte and pick and choose what we want to obey.

God said His word will never pass away. That should be warning enough to do our best to follow His word.

Yes, I completely agree with this.

Concerning Scripture, as Christians we believe that they are divinely inspired but we also realize they were written by humans. Humans that had different understanding than we have now. Different languages and idioms as well. Our only striving in understanding Scripture is trying to understand the writer's intent and how the original audience would have understood it. The rest is all pretty black and white and red.

A lot of the modern doctrine has gone astray from simple truths and have introduced things like dispensationalism and replacement theology. Some churches have even claimed authority to change scripture.

I'm rather sola scriptura and I tend to view modern doctrine with a lot of skepticism when it doesn't line up.

For sola scriptura, or similar sentiments, it’s important to reflect that not every single translation and language of the Bible has the correct translation and meaning.

Scholars pore over these things and do their best, but unless you are absolutely fluent in the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic, AND also understood deeply the cultural, social, political, agricultural and all other elements of a tiny-ass region in the ancient world…

At best, you are echoing the general sentiment of what was intended, and that’s ok - God was well aware that would happen.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
For sola scriptura, or similar sentiments, it’s important to reflect that not every single translation and language of the Bible has the correct translation and meaning.

Scholars pore over these things and do their best, but unless you are absolutely fluent in the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic, AND also understood deeply the cultural, social, political, agricultural and all other elements of a tiny-ass region in the ancient world…

At best, you are echoing the general sentiment of what was intended, and that’s ok - God was well aware that would happen.

I would disagree, it does not take much to understand what is written, especially in our day and age. We still have good records of the culture, good translations. There is more info available than at any other point in time. But, even without all of that, everything important could be discerned.

I believe in the solas - and I understand language changes over time/that I have my own ignorance of language.

Ergo, I read additional materials, which help me adjust for the changes in language from the era of translation to present/address my own ignorance.

For the first time, in a long time, I am in a great church. We are focused on discipleship, and a bunch of nerds, mostly, but it is focused on being a genuine Christian family.

Going alone is, IMO, very dangerous, and very hard.

Martin Luther did it, for a period, if I remember things correctly.

Humans do not do isolation well, and we will bend our principles to avoid it.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
I believe in the solas - and I understand language changes over time/that I have my own ignorance of language.

Ergo, I read additional materials, which help me adjust for the changes in language from the era of translation to present/address my own ignorance.

For the first time, in a long time, I am in a great church. We are focused on discipleship, and a bunch of nerds, mostly, but it is focused on being a genuine Christian family.

Going alone is, IMO, very dangerous, and very hard.

Martin Luther did it, for a period, if I remember things correctly.

Humans do not do isolation well, and we will bend our principles to avoid it.

Wow. You bring up a very good point. With Martin Luther, it wasn't "you're a christian and we're going to persecute you;" it was "you can't be the only one correct among us who are a group of theologians." It's the same thing when Galileo was put in house arrest for asserting it's the earth that circles around the sun and not the other way around as was believed by the best minds of the time.

That is a lot of pressure to doubt yourself. it brings to mind the Star Trek episode where Picard was captured and repeatedly subjected to suggestions there were five lights instead of four. He successfully maintained there were four lights until he was captured but, in the end, he confessed that he actually could see five lights. Even as I write this, I don't know whether he was simply lying to his captor in order to not give them a "win" or whether that was "faith" in what he knew to be true despite what his senses told him.

At first, I was simply glad for your post to make me think of what Luther had to endure to make known the truth. Now, it gives me something to think about if that is what faith is. It's easy to believe in something contrary to general opinion when there's no pressure; but when faced with unrelenting pressure and the threat of consequences, how do you decide that what you believe is true despite the consequences or, perhaps, you might actually be sincerely wrong?

I've been personally just by myself on one side of a technical issue while the people in my department and a second department was on the opposite side. And the issue lasted over a week until we could get the system's expert on a conference call. I knew I was correct just as everybody else "knew" I was wrong. In that case, I was correct and the vendor agreed with me. I knew that I was correct because I knew what I know so I stuck to my guns. But if I was a little less certain, I might have relented.