Divine intervention for proper understanding

[Justin108]

Everything, possibly short of a telephone directory, is open for debate. An omnipotent God may well have good reason for inspiring a book that requires His own intervensioin to be accurately understood as He wants.

In this regard the book of Matthew in the bible contains the following observation attributed to Jesus Christ; when asked why he (Jesus) didn't speak in plain straightforward terms but rather in illustrations (the interpretation of which would be open to debate) his reply is recorded below:

"“Why is it you speak to them by the use of illustrations?� 11 In reply he said: “To YOU it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted. 12 For whoever has, more will be given him and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations, because, looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, neither do they get the sense of it"

IF the Bible is accepted as the word of GOD, it is accepted as clear.

Any unclearness then resides in the creature. Every statement that coincides perfectly with the character and plans of GOD can be perverted and subverted to mean the opposite of HIS meaning, causing confusion in some...in other words, nothing is sacrosanct to those locked in sin. That the world of GOD is taken to be incomprehensible to those locked in sin is the orthodox position of Christianity.

Christians often claim (or imply) that in order to properly understand the Bible, one needs divine guidance and that the reason atheists find flaws in the Bible is simply because they lack this divine guidance as they do not allow the Holy Spirit to guide them.

But how do Christians know that their disapproval and rejection of the Quran is not for similar reasons? What if you reject the Quran because you do not allow the Spirit of Allah to guide you in the proper understanding of Islam? Why is the rejection of other holy texts due to their content perfectly justified, but the rejection of the Bible due to its content is a flaw in the reader? How can you be sure your rejection of the Quran is not the result of your misunderstanding of the Quran?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 39 by theophile]. Do not take this personally. I have seen this thing before. It is the product of religious training in semenary or wherever? It is designed to come across as a profound truth but should be classified under "if you don't have any proof, confound them with bullarky" Your post seems to be a string of unsubstantiated assertions? It isn't even biblical.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 41 by postroad]

Do not take this personally. I have seen this thing before. It is the product of religious training in semenary or wherever? It is designed to come across as a profound truth but should be classified under "if you don't have any proof, confound them with bullarky" Your post seems to be a string of unsubstantiated assertions? It isn't even biblical.

I made many biblical references. It's actually pretty close to what Hasidism teaches as well, so not without precedent. And that's folks that actually speak Hebrew, at least modern Hebrew, and read the text with a closer mind to its meaning. Unlike you or I (presumably).

Also, what do you think is happening in the world right now except a major new division between open or closed? The way that nations behave and interact with each other is essentially the same dynamics as individual persons.

Ask yourself this question and tell me if there is no "proof": would the world be a worse or better place if all nations closed their borders?

If they built up walls? Stopped or substantially reduced immigration and the flow of people? Stopped or heavily taxed (and thus diminished) trade? Of goods, ideas, etc? Avoided helping their neighbors when in need? Sought only their own interests and well-being through aggressive expansionism and empire? ...

Is that going to make the world a better place? Yes or no?

Now consider what I'm proposing. That open borders are the beginning of wisdom, and nations that actually seek and work in the interest of all nations versus just themselves.

You can call it what you want. But you can't honestly answer that a closed world acting in a way consistent with that would make life better.

I don't know what "proof" you're looking for. Or that you think supports your views of how we should engage with each other.

I'm also pretty sure that this cuts to the heart of modern economic theory. Adam Smith is a proponent of precisely what I'm saying. (Should check out the film Requiem for the American Dream. Great stuff. Not "seminary" at all.)

[1213]

Jesus' genealogy in Luke contradicts Jesus' genealogy in Matthew. If you read the Bible "without additions", you would have to conclude that Luke and Matthew contradicts each other...

I think it is not possible to honestly say so, because they don’t say “and nothing more�, or “they had just one name each�. Even modern people have more than one name. Many people have first, middle and last name. And it is also possible that they just told the part they knew. Neither of them is saying that there was no one else.

Bible would contradict itself in this if it would say that they had only one name each and this is absolutely all that there ever was. But if we read the Bible, for example the Luke, it is obviously witness of inadequate knowledge. Also, John says this:

There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn't have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25

And Luke says:

Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus; that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4

they are not claiming that there is the all knowledge, therefore I think it is not right to claim so and make claims that assume it is the whole truth. It is possible that they all have part of the whole truth and are correct, but not all. that is why I can’t claim Matthew and Luke are contradictory, but obviously, if you need to believe so, you are free to do so. I think it is dishonest and not something that we could surely know by current knowledge.

And in this case your interpretation is that they are claiming that it is the whole truth and nothing else is possible or that there couldn’t be anything else. Although it is possible that they are just stories with limited information.

So the Bible is never wrong?

I have no way to prove it wrong and I have not seen anyone proving it wrong.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 40 by theophile]

If you want greater biblical precision, fear of God is the beginning of wisdom

The problem there theo is that from what I read of your post,
Setting aside self interests and putting full trust in God / the world (with all ones fears). is something we atheists are literally incapable of doing. How can we put our trust (whether full or not) in an entity we are not, as of yet, convinced even exists?
If that is the 'beginning' of wisdom, then from your perspective, we atheists must not have any wisdom at all!

This is important context for me. The movement toward insularity and pursuing ones own interests (instead of trusting others to care and provide) annuls the modicum of wisdom that is the beginning of wisdom. It is the beginning of the fall into sin and the hard consequences that God subsequently declares.

This is debatable. People like myself could argue that trusting in others to provide is not wise, but rather being self-reliant is, taking care for one's own safety and needs is.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 44 by rikuoamero]

The problem there theo is that from what I read of your post,
Setting aside self interests and putting full trust in God / the world (with all ones fears). is something we atheists are literally incapable of doing. How can we put our trust (whether full or not) in an entity we are not, as of yet, convinced even exists?
If that is the 'beginning' of wisdom, then from your perspective, we atheists must not have any wisdom at all!

I could honestly replace the word God with an ambiguous "others" and be just as happy.

I think that putting trust in God is a move designed to have us detach from the specific things that we currently put our trust in by creating an endlessly elevating target for our trust (and therefore providing no clearly discernible target at all). Instead of trusting in specific worldly things, we should put our trust in the Most High.

The point is, we should not put our trust in such things as money. Health. Intelligence. Power. Some specific idea or concept of God. Etc. For once we put our trust in them, we set up a servant-master relationship with them.

This relationship is a problem because, not only will these things eventually fail us, they will more importantly have us serve one thing over against everything else when we should be working in the service of all. It is when we put blinders on and narrow our interests that the world becomes a smaller place. Not in a good way.

Does that make sense? I say remove the word God. Replace it with "others" in the broadest sense possible. And reconsider what I said. The move is what is important for now.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 42 by theophile] Midrashic interpretation by definition implies a meaning that is not self evident. Now we move into the realm of interpretation through the authority of the Spirit. What now? I must accept that the Bible contains truths not self evident. Bits and pieces are scattered in different texts from different authors from different eras that transform into divinely revealed truth to some individual who claims Spiritual authority to reveal it to others who face eternal penalties if they will not accept his revealation and authority. Is it any more impossible for God to reveal himself equally to all than to one? Or is it any less reasonable to believe that a diety intent on hiding the saving truth from many is any less intent from hiding this truth from all?

[theophile]

[Replying to postroad]

Midrashic interpretation by definition implies a meaning that is not self evident. Now we move into the realm of interpretation through the authority of the Spirit.

The Midrash is a study and commentary of biblical and surrounding texts / traditions. Although I've only encountered it tangentially, I'm really not following how you make some of the stronger assertions that you do here, i.e. how it is "the realm of interpretation through the authority of the Spirit." Citations please, as it strikes me more as a long tradition of rabbis arguing with each other and trying to develop deeper knowledge of the text. The name itself means "study." That seems to imply hard manual labor and not at all what you suggest, i.e. divinely authorized interpretation.

It sounds the exact same as what all present day biblical commentators are doing: They are simply studying the texts. Evaluating options. Evaluating other opinions. Doing their best to decide on the best, most consistent reading that fulfills the text as we know it.

I have never once read a [serious] commentator who made the claim of "spiritual authority."

What now? I must accept that the Bible contains truths not self evident.

Have you read the title of this thread?... Torah means to instruct. To point the way. That strongly suggests that the contents are instructions, and therefore may contain truths that, if not self-evident (I really think that's the wrong word to use), are at least not necessarily easy to grasp or accept or commit ourselves to. They require instruction.

That, and it does so in a way that pushes us to think. It uses devices like wordplay and narrative and parables and proverbs. It does not work like a modern day science text book that tries to clearly expound a view, but would rather have us mine the text for meaning, challenge and be challenged by it, and build the subtlety and sharpness of our mind and moral views in the process.

So I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Or what the problem is. Is it against the truth of the bible? Or the way that it presents it? i.e. through non-obvious means that push us to think deeper, and that inspire vast range of interpretation as Midrashic and modern commentaries amply attest?

Bits and pieces are scattered in different texts from different authors from different eras that transform into divinely revealed truth to some individual who claims Spiritual authority to reveal it to others who face eternal penalties if they will not accept his revealation and authority. Is it any more impossible for God to reveal himself equally to all than to one? Or is it any less reasonable to believe that a diety intent on hiding the saving truth from many is any less intent from hiding this truth from all?

I agree with the first half of your first sentence. I have no idea why you jump to the second half and go on to ask the extreme questions that you do.

The "saving truth" as you call it is revealed to everyone in the bible. Does it take work to discern it? Absolutely. But it is not purposefully kept from anyone. It is there for everyone that is open to it. Think Martin Luther. You don't need a priestly class to translate it for you.

As Jesus says and I gave my views on earlier, "to those who have, more will be given."

But the initial "having" that is required is no esoteric thing granted to some few by some spirit. It is something evident to us all without the bible or any such supports. It is, as I said earlier, the very open posture that is love and the beginning of wisdom.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 47 by theophile]

You know, the statement about "Rabbinical-wisdom" has become a favorite of mine:
"Final-Enigma" attempted to raise the anti-by stating that some opinion challenged the wisdom of thousands of years of Jewish scholars.

Of course, when challenged to say what wisdom they had produced that benefited man or the Bible, there is just a big donut. Thousands of years of Rabbis have done nothing to improve man's state of knowledge.

Now look at just a hundred years of aviation.

I think this is an excellent argument for the Bibles being false. It takes folks who would otherwise be best of breed, and turns them onto problems that arguably document how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This looks like a work of "the adversary," to me...

[postroad]

[Replying to post 48 by Willum]
Thousands of years of rabbinical knowledge also rejects Christ so why any Christian would appeal to that tradition in support of the concept that diligent study of the scriptures will lead to saving knowledge eludes me.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 47 by theophile]Of course, when challenged to say what wisdom they had produced that benefited man or the Bible, there is just a big donut. Thousands of years of Rabbis have done nothing to improve man's state of knowledge.

Wisdom ≠ knowledge.
Wisdom is higher than knowledge.
It is not the palace of wisdom to improve man's state of knowledge.