Originally posted by darvlaySaying "surely" before repeating yourself doesn't explain to me where in the Bible your claim is supported. I have yet to meet a skeptic with a true understanding of Scripture that he did not glean from believers.
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Where does the Bible say it is meant to be read and understood by all humanity?
Surely the teachings of Christ and commandments from God are meant to be understood by all men and are not exclusive to those who have accepted him as their Lord and Saviour. It doesn't take a genius, or a Christian for that mat ...[text shortened]... tic's interpretation of the Bible simply because they read and interpret exactly what they see?[/b]
No. Many Christians, in fact, have incorrect interpretations, but as I said, I have yet to meet a skeptic whose interpretation of a major doctrine was not gleaned from believers.
Originally posted by HalitoseNo. Asinine responses for a comic book religion populated by cartoon characters and followed by stinking hypocrites like RBHILL. I'm sure you're happy to note my proxy-reply for RBHILL was moderated out of existence. Praise Jesus!
Are you ever not asinine around the Christian religion?
Originally posted by DarfiusEven if the Bible does not claim that it is written for all men does that necessarily mean that it is written exclusively for Christians?
Saying "surely" before repeating yourself doesn't explain to me where in the Bible your claim is supported. I have yet to meet a skeptic with a true understanding of Scripture that he did not glean from believers.
No. Many Christians, in fact, have incorrect interpretations, but as I said, I have yet to meet a skeptic whose interpretation of a major doctrine was not gleaned from believers.
I have yet to meet a skeptic with a true understanding of Scripture that he did not glean from believers.
That does not mean that one doesn't exist. And you admit yourself that a Christian may interpret a passage to apply to their life's circumstances, so who's to say there is an absolute "true" understanding of scripture?
If you could, please address the last question in my previous post. Is it really fair to simply shrug off a skeptic's interpretation of the Bible simply because they read and interpret exactly what they see? If so, where can I read the divine direction regarding that claim?
Originally posted by darvlayIf ya don't have the Secret Decoder Ring, you're not invited to the party. Get that through yer thick head, heathen.
Even if the Bible does not claim that it is written for all men does that necessarily mean that it is written exclusively for Christians?
[b]I have yet to meet a skeptic with a true understanding of Scripture that he did not glean from believers.
That does not mean that one doesn't exist. And you admit yourself that a Christian may interpret a pa ...[text shortened]... rpret exactly what they see? If so, where can I read the divine direction regarding that claim?[/b]
Even if the Bible does not claim that it is written for all men does that necessarily mean that it is written exclusively for Christians?
It means you cannot make an argument from silence like this one. The evidence (NT written entirely to believers, OT taking God's existence for granted) suggests that the Bible was written for believers to read and grow as a result.
That does not mean that one doesn't exist.
Another argument from silence.
And you admit yourself that a Christian may interpret a passage to apply to their life's circumstances, so who's to say there is an absolute "true" understanding of scripture?
I also implied (and indeed believe) that Christians who such interpret incorrectly. The authors of the books of the Bible had to have a reason for writing what they did. That is the "true" understanding of Scripture, and when we gain more knowledge of God, the authors, and the Bible, we begin to understand what they meant, and thus the "true" understanding of Scripture.
If you could, please address the last question in my previous post. Is it really fair to simply shrug off a skeptic's interpretation of the Bible simply because they read and interpret exactly what they see? If so, where can I read the divine direction regarding that claim?
Yes, it's fair.
1st Corinthians 2:7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
9 However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
Originally posted by DarfiusMatthew 28:19: 19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
[b]Even if the Bible does not claim that it is written for all men does that necessarily mean that it is written exclusively for Christians?
It means you cannot make an argument from silence like this one. The evidence (NT written entirely to believers, OT taking God's existence for granted) suggests that the Bible was written for believers to read ...[text shortened]... s known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.[/b]
See also Mark 7:14: 14 And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me ALL OF YOU, and understand:
Luke 4:27 etc etc etc
Originally posted by darvlayDunno. but it sounds great, doesn't it?
What does RBHILL mean when he says "You are not saved so you don't understand?
I'm thinking of using it in a number of different scenarios, e.g.
Landlord: Your cheque seems to be written in a strange, made-up language.
Me: You are not saved, so you do not understand.
Boss: Your writing is unclear, ungrammatical and illogical.
Me: You are not saved, so you do not understand.
Mum: Why are you naked? And what are all these farmyard animals doing in your house?
etc...
Originally posted by no1marauderThe command to make disciples is not an admittal that non-believers can understand Scripture. Matthew 28:19 is irrelevant.
Matthew 28:19: 19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
See also Mark 7:14: 14 And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me ALL OF YOU, and understand:
Luke 4:27 etc etc etc
A command to understand does not mean that everyone will. It was simply ancient rhetoric like "Lend me your ears." Mark 7:14 does not refute what I'm saying.
Luke 4:27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy, in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian."
Luke 4:27 is beyond irrelevant, I'm not even sure what you COULD have construed as refuting anything I've said.
Originally posted by DarfiusMiscite: Luke 24:47. 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem
The command to make disciples is not an admittal that non-believers can understand Scripture. Matthew 28:19 is irrelevant.
A command to understand does not mean that everyone will. It was simply ancient rhetoric like "Lend me your ears." Mark 7:14 does not refute what I'm saying.
Luke 4:27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy, in the time ...[text shortened]... nd irrelevant, I'm not even sure what you COULD have construed as refuting anything I've said.
I've never seen a "Christian" say that so many of Jesus' words were irrelevant. Jesus made it perfectly clear that his message was to be preached to all men. He knew that all could understand it; no prior "understanding" was needed. You are a arrogant heretic who has a need to think he's special compared to most of the human race. Sad.
EDIT: The words of God are "ancient rhetoric"?
Originally posted by no1marauderThe message is preached to all so they have the OPPORTUNITY to understand it. Many, like you, for instance, can choose to remain willfully ignorant.
Miscite: Luke 24:47. 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem
I've never seen a "Christian" say that so many of Jesus' words were irrelevant. Jesus made it perfectly clear that his message was to be preached to all men. He knew that all could understand it; no ...[text shortened]... ial compared to most of the human race. Sad.
EDIT: The words of God are "ancient rhetoric"?
Nothing in the text suggests that everyone WILL understand it, that is your eisegesis.
Do you understand what irrelevant means, marauder? It means none of the verses are in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. You twisted what I meant rather than admitting that you haven't the foggiest of what you're discussing. Typical.
Originally posted by DarfiusWhich do you think would be an easier task: to make No. 1 your friend or to make him a Christian? And why?
The message is preached to all so they have the OPPORTUNITY to understand it. Many, like you, for instance, can choose to remain willfully ignorant.
Nothing in the text suggests that everyone WILL understand it, that is your eisegesis.
Do you understand what irrelevant means, marauder? It means none of the verses are in any way relevant to the disc ...[text shortened]... meant rather than admitting that you haven't the foggiest of what you're discussing. Typical.
Originally posted by kirksey957The former. This is assuming that by "make" you don't mean "force", but rather "convince him of". I can convince him that he can trust me with his friendship by appealing to his ego. I cannot convince him that he must repent unless he admits that he has sinned against God and fears that he will be eternally separated from Him should he not place his trust in Christ's shed blood.
Which do you think would be an easier task: to make No. 1 your friend or to make him a Christian? And why?
EDIT: Corrected capitals. Bad habit.
Originally posted by no1marauderOf the three categories of truth, there appears to be confusion relative to what is discernable by whom. Additionally, there is confusion regarding both access and application.
Jesus made it perfectly clear that his message was to be preached to all men. He knew that all could understand it; no prior "understanding" was needed.
The first category of truth, which is for all people, deals with establishment policy, how people are to live among themselves.
The second category, which is for unbelievers only, is the gospel, and teaches how to become saved.
The third category, which is for believers only, is the mystery doctrine, and teaches them how to "grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ."
Most of what is contained within the Gospels is discernable by the unbeliever, with notable exceptions.
All of the mystery doctrines are inaccessible for the unbeliever. For proof of the same, any unbeliver is invited to pick any of Paul's letters and--- beyond salutations--- attempt to comprehend any of the passages therein. Depending on the passage, an unbeliever will be left with a variety of impressions, including casting Paul as a misogynist.
The fact remains, however, that God permits by His standards, not the tainted ideal by which some here are attempting to judge Him.
Originally posted by DarfiusThe secret to life is in your answer.
The former. This is assuming that by "make" you don't mean "force", but rather "convince him of". I can convince him that he can trust me with his friendship by appealing to his ego. I cannot convince him that he must repent unless he admits that he has sinned against God and fears that he will be eternally separated from Him should he not place his trust in Christ's shed blood.
EDIT: Corrected capitals. Bad habit.