Carry_Your_Name
Member
That's NOT a public confession, that's a private confession. At that point the crowd was dispersed because they were all "offended" by the message of partaking Jesus's body.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Beware of circular reasoning!
- Thread starter Carry_Your_Name
- Start date
Carry_Your_Name
Member
Because you seem to be getting upset, you think I prefer natural and philosophical knowledge over biblical knowledge, while my suggestion is to keep an open mind and expand your horizon, to read God's word from multiple perspectives.
No, you don't. You were not there, you didn't know how they felt. Those 3000 were NOT "preaching of the Gospel", they were praising the wonderful works of God (2:11) in foreign languages, in modern terms this is called "speak in tongues" or "spontaneous worship", usually seen in some charismatic denominations. According to multiple attendants and my own experience, they felt the vibe, the power, the Holy Spirit invading and permeating the room, it was most definitely more than mere words, just take the Asbury revival for example.
Don't play dumb with a string of question marks, do you know how annoying that is? Why don't you go back and read your own brilliant idea? "It won't be apologetics that moves the Church out of this condition but persecution, the crucible of purification and refinement."
At least I'm aware of such unprecedented hostility, I pray for God's mercy and forgiveness, while you seem to suggest that we deserve it, we need persecution to teach the church a lesson. Well I've already learnt that from the Lord himself, I don't need you to remind me of it. "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds." (Rev. 2:22)
"law of God written on their heart" and "truth in unrighteousness" are included in God's general revelation, that's why gentiles have no excuse, and the disobedient ones will perish without the law as much as those in the know who will perish WITH the law.
No, apologetics can't, only the blood of Christ can. But apologetics can surely help when you're in a season of doubt and/or confusion, which every mature believer WILL experience. It's a necessary season for the seed of gospel to grow deep roots in our hearts.
Hey All,
There will always be questions; well at least until we know.
I was answering the question of using the Bible to prove the Bible. If Isaiah wrote something everybody agrees is prophecy, and Matthew, who lived some 700-800 after Isaiah, says this is what Isaiah wrote, and this is what was observed. That is not circular reasoning.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
Carry_Your_Name
Member
That could be circular reporting, though, which is a form of circular reasoning. And just so you know, when I brought this up, folks just got mad, denied it and called you ignorant.
Carry_Your_Name
Member
Also, I've pointed it out loud and clear in the OP that it is naive for you to assume that your listener shares common ground with you, they know Matthew and Isaiah, they get what you're talking about, while in fact, not only are they not on the same page with you, they're not even in the same book, perhaps not even on the same shelf, not even in the same library! As soon as you quote a single verse and start to speak in "Christianese", their mind immediately shuts off and renders you as a superstitious, uneducated, misguided radical cultist. Some will cherrypick a few verses and spitefully twist them to make them sound ridiculous, there're some prestigious rabbis who dismissed Matthew as Christian propaganda in which some OT prophecies were copy-pasted to make it look like Jesus was the messiah. I've dealt with all these reactions. If you don't take them into consideration and insist to defend the bible with the bible, then you're not even preaching to the choir, you're preaching to the mirror. You gotta find a backdoor that bypasses their defense mechanism, a route which they're familiar with and likely to accept.
Last edited:
I agree Josef.
The bible explains the bible.
But that's only for who believes the bible.
Unbelievers will not use the bible for proof.
Carry_Your_Name is correct --- we must use outside explanations.
Trying to use prophecy is a good method if the person is willing to listen....
but most times it doesn't work. They'll say it's about a man or a King or a son. Which is true.
They don't understand foreshadowing.
No translation is perfect which is why many use multiple translations, to get the full sense intended. The underlying Greek is 100% correct.
Its in the Septuagint:
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." (Heb. 1:6 NKJ)
Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels. (Ps. 97:7 LXE)
αἰσχυνθήτωσαν πάντες οἱ προσκυνοῦντες τοῖς γλυπτοῖς οἱ ἐγκαυχώμενοι ἐν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν προσκυνήσατε αὐτῷ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ (Ps. 96:7 LXT)
In the Hebrew angels are called "Elohim" "gods" but everyone knows angels are meant, hence the LXX so translates it.
So its in the Hebrew also. Not missing. Not one "jot or tittle" (smallest meaning) will vanish because Christ said all will be fulfilled:
NKJ Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 NKJ)
Jot and Tittle cannot literally refer to diacritical marks in the text because these have no inherent meaning, cannot be "fulfilled". So its figurative for "smallest meaning" of scripture that can communicate ideas through language, and God will preserve that text until it is fulfilled.
I have full confidence God did. It is irrelevant to this conclusion God permitted the word order, or use of synonyms, or spelling variances, to appear in the text. These do not change the meaning.
That couldn't be more wrong. Jesus and His disciples are Peter's audience, so its "public".
Carry_Your_Name
Member
No, that's private. Jesus commended Peter that His messiahship was only revealed to Peter by God, then asked his disciples to keep it a secret.
Private is something you do "in a closet when all alone (cp. Mt. 6:6 KJV)". Peter confessed publicly to his Master and fellow disciples what God revealed to him, that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God".
Keeping that to themselves for a time, doesn't diminish Peter's Public confession of his faith in Christ.
Carry_Your_Name
Member
OK, you're right on this one. Another prominent example is 1 Sam. 13:1, so far not a single translation got king Saul's age right, some intentionally leave it blank. According to a rabbi, though, king Saul's age was likely 52 at that point, "son of a year" therein is Hebrew gematria, you can get that by adding the numerical value of the word. It doesn't make sense if he was 30 according to some versions, because his son Jonathan was already leading an army at the time.
Carry_Your_Name
Member
Peter didn't announce that publicly, he only confessed that to Jesus, others heard it, and Jesus asked them to keep it a secret. How on earth is that public? According to the "public", Jesus is a prophet, Peter didn't share his epiphany with anybody. You think the other disciples' presence counts as "public", while I think NOT, period.
Therefore, not one jot or tittle of meaning was lost.
Incorrect, the both Mark and Luke record the event. It was public, not to Jesus only in secret.
Carry_Your_Name
Member
Jesus STRICTLY WARNED THEM that they should tell no one about Him. That makes it private.
Carry_Your_Name
Member
When did I suggest any of it is lost?
Tenchi
Member
If the doctorate-level nuclear physicist knows nothing of the Bible he is ignorant of it. It doesn't matter how much he knows of nuclear physics if he proposes to hold forth on Scripture about which he knows nothing. If he is ignorant of the Bible, he should keep his mouth shut about it until he has improved his knowledge of the Bible. The fact that he has a doctorate in nuclear physics doesn't make him the equal of the Bible scholar (nor does the seminarian stand on equal footing with the physicist in the realm of nuclear physics). Only in his own specialized domain of knowledge is the nuclear physicist an expert. So, the Bible scholar is entirely right to describe the physicist as ignorant when the physicist attempts to assert something about the Bible about which he knows nothing. The same would be true if the Bible scholar, knowing nothing of nuclear physics, attempted to expound on the subject.
What the Pharisees lacked was fidelity to God, a love for Him. They loved themselves; they cherished their positions of authority and the attention and deference accorded to them in those positions. In this respect, they were spiritually blind. But they weren't, as you say, ignorant - lacking knowledge - of Jewish law, adding many of their own "laws" to it.
??? If I give testimony to something, I am expressing knowledge about it - unless its false testimony.
Not sure what your point is here... To what are the witnesses, witnesses? What knowledge do they have that qualifies them to be true witnesses of whatever they're witnessing about?
In any case, I've not said one must be a seminary graduate in order to know Christ well and testify of him.
All truth is God's truth, whether it is located in a chemistry text, or a text on geography, or in the Bible. In expressing spiritual truth the Bible has no equal; but it is a poor source of truth concerning mechanical engineering, or how to make a chocolate cake, or how to change out the spark plug on a lawnmower. So, no, I don't think the Bible is "superior over all other knowledge" except in regards to things spiritual and eternal.
But if I'm speaking with someone who is entirely ignorant of the Bible, or nearly so, from them I will learn nothing about the Bible. This was my point, not that, having studied the Bible for a long time, there is nothing more to learn from any other domain of knowledge.
No, it's not. It's a simple statement of fact. If one lacks knowledge on a subject, one is ignorant about that subject. Saying so is no more arrogant than saying, "The sun is hot," or "Donald Trump is a man."
??? That others get things wrong about the truth doesn't preclude one from being confident in one's own knowledge of the truth. How is it that you are able to recognize the mistakes in the two perspectives you describe above? Have you had 1500 years of walking with God and Bible study? No.
For centuries, the common belief was that the sun revolved around the earth. You know better, though, right? You know something of the orbits of the planets of our solar system around the sun, I'm sure. But you haven't had centuries of study concerning the matter, have you? Surely, then, you can see how silly your objection is here.
In half-an-hour's time of instruction, the average elementary school student today can know more of the solar system than any person living a thousand years ago. Compared to an astrophysicist of today, however, that fifth-grader would have an extremely superficial grasp on the nature of the solar system. The modern astrophysicist could say without any hubris at all that his knowledge of the solar system is far, far greater than both the scientist of a thousand years ago and the elementary school student of today. He would be an idiot to think to himself, "Ancient scientists were wrong for centuries about the solar system. Who am I to think I know better than generations of mistaken medieval scholars?" Of course, he knows better. He's the beneficiary of centuries of thought, experimentation and increasingly advanced mechanical study of the universe (telescopes, light-spectrum analysis devices, atomic colliders, space probes, etc.). He would also be an idiot to think that describing a modern child as "ignorant" about the solar system, in comparison to himself, was hubris. Obviously, the average professional astrophysicist today knows a great deal more than any modern fifth-grader could know about the solar system. It isn't pride to acknowledge this, but the simple fact of the matter.
Absolutely and confidently, I call them ignorant. Not because I'm vain or proud, but because I am sure I know the truth better than they did (or do). Like the modern astrophysicist, I'm the beneficiary of two thousand years of thought and investigation (into the meaning of Scripture, in my case) and have access to language lexicons, commentaries, historians, exhaustive theological debates, well-established interpretive hermeneutics and, most of all, the Holy Spirit himself in my decades-long study of God's word. And I call ignorant, too, the new believer who has little to no knowledge of the Bible - especially when/if they attempt to inform others of its contents.
Continued below.
Tenchi
Member
??? I'm not upset in the slightest. Maybe you're projecting a bit here...
Oh? Where did I indicate this in my remarks to you in this thread?
I actually have no idea what knowledge you prefer and so have no set opinion on the matter.
I suspect I have had over the years a greater experience with "multiple perspectives" than you've had. I've been writing, and studying, and interacting with folks from across a very wide spectrum of belief for decades now (atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Daoists, New Agers, Satanists, pagans, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, etc.). How about you?
Well, if this is the basis for your argument against my assertion, then it excludes you from comment one way or the other, too. You weren't there either, so you're prevented from saying what they felt, or did not, also.
At least, I can support my thinking from the account of the event in Acts where no mention is made of any sensation when the "tongues of flame" hovered above the disciples. My view is entirely consistent with the description of the Holy Spirit coming upon the disciples, not adding to it, as you're trying to do.
I didn't say the 3000 were preaching the Gospel. Please read my remarks more carefully.
Nope. Only the disciples who had been in the upper room and had received the Holy Spirit were preaching the Gospel, not the 3000 who were saved as a result of their doing so. And the "tongues" they spoke were not the mindless gibberish of modern hyper-charismatics but discernible languages of the people of various cultures and tongues who were in the street:
Acts 2:4-11
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.
6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.
7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."
??? This is bizarre. Read the actual, biblical account before you make such fantastical assertions about it. There is no mention at all in the account of a "vibe" of the Holy Spirit, a sensation of invasion (whatever this means), only the sight of "tongues as of fire" (which is to say, not of actual fire, but only in some way like fire), and a noise like a "rushing, mighty wind." Though the account takes the trouble to describe these sights and sounds, it records nothing of sensations, or "vibes." Nothing. Why, when these other things are described are these other, powerful sensations not described? Obviously, it seems to me, because there were no such sensations.
Not more annoying, I think, than having someone make false assertions about what one has written.
And where in this quotation do I ask for persecution, censorship, de-platforming etc., as you warned me not to do? Nowhere. I simply pointed out that persecution will be the means God uses, as He has repeatedly in the past, to purify and strengthen His people. No request made.
Are you implying that I'm not?
Absolutely, the modern Church deserves God's sharp reprimand. It is, at least in the West, generally horribly corrupt, weak and ignorant of His truth. There are some exceptions, of course.
??? I don't operate on the basis of what you want or don't want to be reminded of in forming my remarks. If I think it's worth writing, I'm going to write it.
The very idea of spiritual maturity, at least in my view, entails the absence of doubt and confusion about God and His truth. It is the spiritually immature person who still struggles with doubt and confusion about these things. God is a Person with whom I interact every day and this direct, personal experience of Him, of His Spirit, more particularly, eradicates doubt. So long, though, as God remains merely a proposition, an idea, a distant, untouchable figure, just a set of doctrines, the deep confidence in Him (and spiritual maturity) that comes from fellowship with Him will remain absent. When, then, I encounter a believer who is wrestling with doubts about God, I know they have yet to come into consistent, transformative, personal experience of Him; for only in fellowship with God, in daily, intimate communion with Him, do doubts and confusion about Him finally and fully dissolve.
jasonc
Member
How do you explain logically the Trinity ,the death of an immortal being ?
What proof is their that Jesus did rise from the dead outside of the Bible ?
Josephus and others ? At some point we all use circular reasoning .
You have no witness outside of Jesus saying that the other two exist of the Trinity .
Presupposition is the word I use.theres no archeology proof of the Bible in a few places it mentions .ie the flood or Noah
We're speaking of unbelievers Jason.
They don't care about the Trinity.
First they have to believe that God exists.
Right?