God's Word And Its Reliability

[Miles]

.

Consider what god has said, or has inspired others to write:

The Coming of the Son of Man

Matthew 24:29-35
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Matthew 24:42-44
Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

1 Corinthians 7:29-31
29 Brothers and sisters, this is what I mean: We don’t have much time left. So starting now, those who have wives should be the same as those who don’t. 30 It should not be important whether you are sad or whether you are happy. If you buy something, it should not matter to you that you own it. 31 You should use the things of the world without letting them become important to you. This is how you should live, because this world, the way it is now, will soon be gone.

Luke 21:29–32
And He spoke to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, you see and know of your own selves that summer is now near at hand. So likewise you, when you see these things come to pass, know you that the kingdom of God is near at hand. Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled

Obviously god's promise here never materialized, so how should a person regard his word?

...........................................


Please explain your pick in light of the four verses above.

.

[brunumb]

There are more than 200 distinct Christian bodies in the United States from which a person can pick and choose whatever church suits their theology, or convenient meeting time, or hot dish needs, or . . . .

. . . you can just start up your own.

[Diagoras]

Just be careful about picking the 'right' one though, in case you ever end up in a situation like this...

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/ ... y.religion

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to Miles in post #38]

No, I'm claiming that it, like all dictionaries would, is defining the term by its most poplar usage.

Sure, but that doesn't make it true. Nor do Martin Luther or Calvin make it true - today or any other day.

**
And God's Word = Word of God. It means the same thing and these descriptions are used interchangeably (even by the people you used in your examples).

Fine, then show us your evidence that the term "god's word" can't mean the Bible, but only means "Jesus," because a lot of Christians disagree with you. I await your chapters and verses.

.

I must admit that I am somewhat perplexed that some of you are asking me to disprove someone else's claim, rather than asking them to prove their own claim. You want me to prove that something cannot be, rather than asking others to prove what they claim IS? Not only that, but how can there be a chapter or verse that states "the bible cannot be God's Word"... when the bible did not exist at the time the letters and scriptures currently in it, were written?



That being said,

1 - the claims from some of those people in your links can indeed be shown to be false, as I already pointed out. The Bible does not ever claim itself to be the Word of God. So why believe the claim that it is? Not only that, and as previously shared, Christ is the Word of God.

So a) - the bible does not claim itself to be the Word of God (despite what many men who profess to be Christian claim); and b) what is written claims CHRIST to be the Word of God.

Why accept that the bible is the word of God, when even that book points to Christ as the Word of God?

2 - In order for the Bible to be the word of God, would that not mean that everything written and collected in it would have to be from God? Because that is not true of the bible (as a whole). For example:

1 Corinthians 7:12

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.


Paul specifically states that this is from him, that he (not the Lord) is the one saying this to the Corinthians.

That does not mean the words are false, but how can this be claimed to be the Word of God?



3 - the Living God has a living Word, just as He has a living Image. Christ - a living and speaking being - is the living Word (and Image) of God. He is the One to whom God has said to listen, as is even written in the bible.


(Just adding some links to other threads on the same topic if I come across them: viewtopic.php?p=1012208#p1012208 and viewtopic.php?p=927265#p927265 and viewtopic.php?p=972492#p972492 and viewtopic.php?p=962300#p962300)




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Miles]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to Miles in post #38]

No, I'm claiming that it, like all dictionaries would, is defining the term by its most poplar usage.

Sure, but that doesn't make it true. Nor do Martin Luther or Calvin make it true - today or any other day.

**
And God's Word = Word of God. It means the same thing and these descriptions are used interchangeably (even by the people you used in your examples).

Fine, then show us your evidence that the term "god's word" can't mean the Bible, but only means "Jesus," because a lot of Christians disagree with you. I await your chapters and verses.

.

I must admit that I am somewhat perplexed that some of you are asking me to disprove someone else's claim, rather than asking them to prove their own claim. You want me to prove that something cannot be, rather than asking others to prove what they claim IS? Not only that, but how can there be a chapter or verse that states "the bible cannot be God's Word"... when the bible did not exist at the time the letters and scriptures currently in it, were written?

Not asking that you disprove anyone else's claim, only to prove yours which is: "God's Word is not the bible. God's Word is Christ."

Now, so far I've given you one dictionary definition of "god's word" meaning the Bible, and six (6) Christian usages of it where it means the Bible. So, where's your evidence that "god's word" is not the Bible? I await. . . . . . . . . .

" You want me to prove that something cannot be, rather than asking others to prove what they claim IS?

Well it is your claim, not ours, that "God's Word is not the bible. So the ball's in your court. Prove it. Prove god's Word is not the bible.

1 - the claims from some of those people in your links can indeed be shown to be false, as I already pointed out. The Bible does not ever claim itself to be the Word of God. So why believe the claim that it is? Not only that, and as previously shared, Christ is the Word of God.

The Bible never says there is a holy trinity either, but a whole lot of people say it's true, which I'm betting would include yourself.

Why accept that the bible is the word of God, when even that book points to Christ as the Word of God?

Because they make a distinction between the two. "God's word" ≠ "the word of god." You want to go butting your head against a tree? Fine, but don't come crying that just about everyone's disagrees with you just because they do.

2 - In order for the Bible to be the word of God, would that not mean that everything written and collected in it would have to be from God? Because that is not true of the bible (as a whole).

That's the common Christian claim, now isn't it. Although, evidently you say it isn't so, but then that's your problem. How do you sift the truth from the tripe? When it butts heads with your theology? Of course. How else! Your theology is superior to all others because _______________________fill in the blank_________________ .


.

[tam]

Peace again to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to Miles in post #38]

No, I'm claiming that it, like all dictionaries would, is defining the term by its most poplar usage.

Sure, but that doesn't make it true. Nor do Martin Luther or Calvin make it true - today or any other day.

**
And God's Word = Word of God. It means the same thing and these descriptions are used interchangeably (even by the people you used in your examples).

Fine, then show us your evidence that the term "god's word" can't mean the Bible, but only means "Jesus," because a lot of Christians disagree with you. I await your chapters and verses.

.

I must admit that I am somewhat perplexed that some of you are asking me to disprove someone else's claim, rather than asking them to prove their own claim. You want me to prove that something cannot be, rather than asking others to prove what they claim IS? Not only that, but how can there be a chapter or verse that states "the bible cannot be God's Word"... when the bible did not exist at the time the letters and scriptures currently in it, were written?

Not asking that you disprove anyone else's claim, only to prove yours which is: "God's Word is not the bible. God's Word is Christ."

Yes, and as stated (even in the bible), God's Word is Christ.

That is pretty straightforward.

Now, so far I've given you one dictionary definition of "god's word" meaning the Bible, and six (6) Christian usages of it where it means the Bible. So, where's your evidence that "god's word" is not the Bible? I await. . . . . . . . . .

Because God's Word is Christ. As even that book attests.

1 - the claims from some of those people in your links can indeed be shown to be false, as I already pointed out. The Bible does not ever claim itself to be the Word of God. So why believe the claim that it is? Not only that, and as previously shared, Christ is the Word of God.

The Bible never says there is a holy trinity either, but a whole lot of people say it's true, which I'm betting would include yourself.

Well, that's a bet you just lost.

Christ (the Word of God) does not teach the trinity.

The trinity is yet another doctrine of men that Christ does not teach.

Why accept that the bible is the word of God, when even that book points to Christ as the Word of God?

Because they make a distinction between the two. "God's word" ≠ "the word of god."

Who are you suggesting makes a distinction between the two? People who profess to be Christian? The people from your links?
You are incorrect. Those people use those terms - God's Word/Word of God - interchangeably.

You even said 'fine' to this in our last exchange.

So you are using an invalid reason to accept (or suggest that it is right to accept) that the bible is the Word of God.

You want to go butting your head against a tree? Fine, but don't come crying that just about everyone's disagrees with you just because they do.

What a statement, lol!

When did I ever come crying that anyone disagrees with me?

2 - In order for the Bible to be the word of God, would that not mean that everything written and collected in it would have to be from God? Because that is not true of the bible (as a whole).

That's the common Christian claim, now isn't it. Although, evidently you say it isn't so, but then that's your problem.

It's not my problem at all. It does seem to be yours (and I suppose it would be the problem of those who are claiming the bible to be the word of God, to begin with).

And I notice that you did not answer my question. You also ignored the explicit example which shows that not every word in the bible is from God.

How do you sift the truth from the tripe?

By listening to Christ - the Truth and the actual Word of God.

When it butts heads with your theology?

I don't have a theology, but if I did have a belief that was contradicted by something Christ teaches (by word or deed), then I would discard/correct my erring belief and go with Christ - the Truth and Image and Word of God.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Miles]

Peace again to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to Miles in post #38]

No, I'm claiming that it, like all dictionaries would, is defining the term by its most poplar usage.

Sure, but that doesn't make it true. Nor do Martin Luther or Calvin make it true - today or any other day.

**
And God's Word = Word of God. It means the same thing and these descriptions are used interchangeably (even by the people you used in your examples).

Fine, then show us your evidence that the term "god's word" can't mean the Bible, but only means "Jesus," because a lot of Christians disagree with you. I await your chapters and verses.

.

I must admit that I am somewhat perplexed that some of you are asking me to disprove someone else's claim, rather than asking them to prove their own claim. You want me to prove that something cannot be, rather than asking others to prove what they claim IS? Not only that, but how can there be a chapter or verse that states "the bible cannot be God's Word"... when the bible did not exist at the time the letters and scriptures currently in it, were written?

Not asking that you disprove anyone else's claim, only to prove yours which is: "God's Word is not the bible. God's Word is Christ."

Yes, and as stated (even in the bible), God's Word is Christ.

That is pretty straightforward.

Yes it is, but it's far from being proof that "god's word" can't mean the Bible," or even evidence for it. But if that's all you have, a restatement of a restated claim, that's all you have.

Sorry, but it doesn't earn you more than an




................................


Have a good day

.

[tam]

[Replying to Miles in post #56]


I think it is quite clear to anyone reading that I gave more than a single repeating statement, except of course if one chooses to ignore everything that refutes the claim presented in the OP.



Peace still to you.

[Diagoras]

How do you sift the truth from the tripe?

By listening to Christ - the Truth and the actual Word of God.

And how does one actually do that?

I freely admit that in all the back and forth on display, I’ve lost track of what’s supposed to mean what. As far as I can tell, there’s:

Christ
Word of God
Bible
Truth
God’s Word
Living God
Living Christ
Living Word

Probably one or two more terms that I’ve missed, but of all the above, I can only really see that the bible is potentially something tangible enough to provide any sort of ‘answer’ for more than just one person.

If you instruct me, “Listen to Christ, the Living Word, and then speak the Truth”, then how reliable do you think my response is going to be? We either take (umpteen different translations/versions of) a book as the ‘one source of the truth’, or else we have to accept that answers come from some personal relationship with a god/Jesus - and then we’re left with the problem that what one states is the Truth, another decries as nonsense.

Whichever way we source our religious ‘truth’, we’re left with ambiguity, confusion, contradiction and absurdity.

The very antithesis of reliability.

[tam]

Peace to you!

How do you sift the truth from the tripe?

By listening to Christ - the Truth and the actual Word of God.

And how does one actually do that?

One could start by asking for ears to hear, and then listening, if indeed you truly want this. Christ speaks only the truth. So one has to at least be willing to hear the truth (even if it is something you might not like); rather than just what one wants to be true (man tends to dismiss or ignore what he doesn't want to hear). And speak truthfully, oneself, as well. Truth is the language that Christ speaks.

I freely admit that in all the back and forth on display, I’ve lost track of what’s supposed to mean what. As far as I can tell, there’s:

Christ
Word of God
Bible
Truth
God’s Word
Living God
Living Christ
Living Word

Christ = the Word of God, the Truth, God's Word, the Living Christ, the Living Word
Bible = collection of written works (some inspired, some not)
Living God = God (YHWH), the Father of Christ

Probably one or two more terms that I’ve missed, but of all the above, I can only really see that the bible is potentially something tangible enough to provide any sort of ‘answer’ for more than just one person.

Tangible, yes, as in one can touch and see it. So that it is a 'sight' tool, for those (yet) walking by sight. But we are called to walk by faith, which is based upon what one hears (in spirit).

But yes, 'the bible' can help to show someone something, so that they can see for themselves, and perhaps even help them to put faith in what they may have heard.

If you instruct me, “Listen to Christ, the Living Word, and then speak the Truth”, then how reliable do you think my response is going to be?

I'm not sure I understand your question... (I think I might get it from what you explained below...)

We either take (umpteen different translations/versions of) a book as the ‘one source of the truth’, or else we have to accept that answers come from some personal relationship with a god/Jesus - and then we’re left with the problem that what one states is the Truth, another decries as nonsense.

Ah.

Well, yes, that is going to happen (some accept and/or share something as truth, which others decry as nonsense). There are false prophets and false christs out there in the world (misleading many), so there is not going to be agreement among all (or even among many) of those people who profess to be Christian. Also, not all are Christian who profess to be Christian (in fact, many are not). And even among those who do profess and actually are Christian, one might err or misunderstand. This is one reason we should be keeping our eyes (and ears) upon Christ, the Copper Serpent, testing everything against HIM (the Truth). Holding all things up to the Light (and Christ IS that Light). Let Him lead us, rather than relying upon man to lead us.


We are also able (and directed) to test the inspired expressions (1John 4:1). Either testing something someone else claims to have heard, or testing something that we may have heard ourselves. Now, I posted a scriptural backing for that direction (1John 4:1), but I learned from my Lord before I even knew that verse existed, to test the content of what a person is claiming. He told me to test WHAT someone was saying, when I was unsure if that person was speaking from God or speaking on their own.

So we can (and should) test the inspired expression:

1 - Test the content against Christ (His words and deeds; ask Him for the truth of the matter). Hold all things up against Him (the Light). For example, if someone says that it is right to hate one's enemies, then we can know that person is not speaking from Christ (or God), because Christ teaches the exact opposite.

2 - Test the content against love (since God is love, and what comes from Him is also love).



**

Does Christ speak and how?
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=28577

Whichever way we source our religious ‘truth’, we’re left with ambiguity, confusion, contradiction and absurdity.

I have to disagree, unless one is listening to men instead of/over Christ.

But I can only share with you that my Lord (Christ Jaheshua) has only ever spoken truth to me, and He has never led me wrong.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Diagoras]

One could start by asking for ears to hear, and then listening, if indeed you truly want this.

That sounds very similar to praying, although you don’t use the word.

And if you do ‘hear’ a reply, is that only heard in one’s head? How is it indistinguishable from a thought of your own, a thought ‘planted’ there by Satan, or simply a psychotic episode causing you to believe you’d heard something? [Not suggesting any of these pertain to you personally – asking about the general case.]

God’s word being communicated so far seems to rely on a specific action from someone in a particular state of mind – and it appears indistinguishable (to anyone else) from a delusion. There must be a more reliable way to ‘get the word out’.

Christ = the Word of God, the Truth, God's Word, the Living Christ, the Living Word
Bible = collection of written works (some inspired, some not)
Living God = God (YHWH), the Father of Christ

Always useful to have terms clarified, so thanks for that.

Re: the Bible

Tangible, yes, as in one can touch and see it. So that it is a 'sight' tool, for those (yet) walking by sight. But we are called to walk by faith, which is based upon what one hears (in spirit).

Can we do something similar with ‘hears in spirit’ and ‘prays’? Are they synonymous?

Re: differing versions

Well, yes, that is going to happen (some accept and/or share something as truth, which others decry as nonsense). There are false prophets and false christs out there in the world (misleading many), so there is not going to be agreement among all (or even among many) of those people who profess to be Christian. Also, not all are Christian who profess to be Christian (in fact, many are not). And even among those who do profess and actually are Christian, one might err or misunderstand.

Reinforcing my point: this is a confusing, unreliable way to communicate.

Christ, the Copper Serpent

That’s from John 3:14, right? Lots of fascinating snake symbolism in the bible, but I won’t get side-tracked here…

We are also able (and directed) to test the inspired expressions (1 John 4:1). Either testing something someone else claims to have heard, or testing something that we may have heard ourselves.

This sounds like something a sceptic should be able to endorse: “don’t believe all you hear”, in fact.

So we can (and should) test the inspired expression:

1 - Test the content against Christ (His words and deeds; ask Him for the truth of the matter).

If you’re already ‘hearing’ Christ, then you can’t really test him against himself. I think I understand you to mean, “check that what you hear is consistent with what you already know of Christ”. That would presumably mean referring back to some trusted source material (i.e. a bible). I do wonder what one should do if what you hear isn’t related to anything in the bible, and hasn’t been brought up in spiritual conversation before. Perhaps one has to make some assumptions along the lines of “What would Jesus do?”, which isn’t really any different to every other person’s own inner monologue with their conscience or whatever.

Test the content against love (since God is love, and what comes from Him is also love).

This doesn’t sound like a very practical test. What if you love your family, but Christ’s voice is telling you to leave home and travel to a foreign country? Should you ignore it? Love as a test is also vague enough to allow just about any personal preference ‘guide’ you into the decision that you wanted in the first place. It’s rather like astrology in that regard: it can sound very meaningful, but encompass so many different possible actions that ‘fit’ as to make it essentially useless.

But I can only share with you that my Lord (Christ Jaheshua) has only ever spoken truth to me, and He has never led me wrong.

As your experience is unique to you, I can’t refute the claim. By the same token however, it’s not a particularly useful piece of evidence regarding divine reliability. After all, a false prophet would probably make the same claim, wouldn’t he?