Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:I will have you know that I brought up the passage in 1 John because it indicates that we havea witness within ourselves, but it appears that Fortigurn had a problem with it because it also indicates that the trinity exists.

The passage about the witness inside us was in a completely different verse, and I already dealt with that verse.

You became defensive and started talking about how it is all wrong because you wan't to reject that JEsus is God and make sure that you can convince everyone else of this also.

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out to you that the verse you quoted (verse 7), does not read as you think it does. I refer you (yet again), to standard evangelical, trinitarian scholarship on this.

I really am tired of being accused of corrupting the Bible, or being 'defensive' when all I am doing is telling you what standard evangelical scholarship says about these passages.

Fortigurn Wrote

the Holy Spirit is not necessary to understand the Scriptures

You are aware that 1 John 5:7 as you quote it is corrupt?

Jbuza wrote:Fortigurn Wrote

the Holy Spirit is not necessary to understand the Scriptures

I gave clear evidence for this. I gave the Bereans as one example of evidence, and the Ethiopian eunuch as another.

What do you think the people in the Old Testament did? Read the Bible, threw up their hands and said 'Well, that doesn't make any sense'?

You are aware that 1 John 5:7 as you quote it is corrupt?

Why does that make you cry? As I have said, this has been known for over 400 years. It's not my idea.

Dependence on the Holy Spirit

Scripture tells us that we are to rely on the Holy Spirit's illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of Scripture (John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-11).

It is the Holy Spirit's work to throw light upon the Word of God so that the believer can assent to the meaning intended and act on it.

The Holy Spirit, as the "Spirit of truth" (John 16:13), guides us so that "we may understand what God has freely given us" (1 Corinthians 2:12).
This is quite logical: full comprehension of the Word of God is impossible without prayerful dependence on the Spirit of God, for He who inspired the Word (2 Peter 1:21) is also its supreme interpreter.
Illumination is necessary because man's mind has been darkened through sin (Romans 1:21), preventing him from properly understanding God's Word.

Human beings cannot understand God's Word apart from God's divine enablement (Ephesians 4:18).

This aspect of the Holy Spirit's ministry operates within the sphere of man's rational capacity, which God Himself gave man (cf. Genesis 2-3).

Illumination comes to the 'minds' of God's people - not to some nonrational faculty like our 'emotions' or our 'feelings' [like a 'burning in the bosom'].

To know God's revelation means to use our minds.
This makes knowledge something we can share with others, something we can talk about.

God's Word is in words with ordinary rational content.
The ministry of the Holy Spirit in interpretation does not mean interpreters can ignore common sense and logic.

Since the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), He does not teach concepts that fail to meet the tests of truth.

In other words, "the Holy Spirit does not guide into interpretations that contradict each other or fail to have logical, internal consistency."
It must also be kept in mind that the function of the Holy Spirit is not to communicate to the minds of people any doctrine or meaning of Scripture that is not contained already in Scripture itself.

The Holy Spirit makes men "wise up to what is written, not beyond it."

Indeed, "the function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture."



http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/In ... ation.html

You are aware that 1 John 5:7 as you quote it is corrupt?




Why does that make you cry? As I have said, this has been known for over 400 years. It's not my idea.


IT is not known now! I have seen your ability to reject scriptures that teach doctrine that you choose not to believe.

Testimony About the Son

This21 is the conquering power22 that has conquered23 the world: our faith. 5:5 Now who is the person who has conquered the world except the one who believes that24 Jesus is the Son of God? 5:6 Jesus Christ is the one who came by water and blood — not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because25 the Spirit is the truth. 5:7 For26 there are three that testify,27 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.

5:9 If we accept the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, because28 this29 is the testimony of God that30 he has testified concerning his Son. 5:10 (The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has testified concerning his Son.)31 5:11 And this is the testimony: God32 has given us eternal life,33 and this life is in his Son. 5:12 The one who has the Son34 has this35 eternal36 life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this37 eternal38 life.

Jbuza wrote:You are aware that 1 John 5:7 as you quote it is corrupt?




Why does that make you cry? As I have said, this has been known for over 400 years. It's not my idea.


IT is not known now!

What do you mean 'it is not known now'?

I have seen your ability to reject scriptures that teach doctrine that you choose not to believe.

I'm afraid that's simply your personal opinion. I don't 'reject Scriptures that teach doctrine' that I 'choose not to believe'.

I reject passages which should not be in the Bible. I do so largely on the authority of textual scholarship by evangelical trinitarians.

Jbuza wrote:Dependence on the Holy Spirit

Scripture tells us that we are to rely on the Holy Spirit's illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of Scripture (John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-11).

Please show me how either of those passages say that 'we are to rely on the Holy Spirit's illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of Scripture'.

It is the Holy Spirit's work to throw light upon the Word of God so that the believer can assent to the meaning intended and act on it.

Scripture please.

The Holy Spirit, as the "Spirit of truth" (John 16:13), guides us so that "we may understand what God has freely given us" (1 Corinthians 2:12).

The Spirit of truth in John 16 was given to the disciples only. If you believe that you have the Spirit of truth, then I inivte you to recall to mind all that Jesus said.

The same goes for 1 Corinthians 2:12 (which is speaking of the inspired teaching of the apostles).

This is quite logical: full comprehension of the Word of God is impossible without prayerful dependence on the Spirit of God, for He who inspired the Word (2 Peter 1:21) is also its supreme interpreter.

Scripture please (2 Peter 1:21 does not say that a full comprehension of the Word is not possible without the Spirit of God).

Illumination is necessary because man's mind has been darkened through sin (Romans 1:21), preventing him from properly understanding God's Word.

That passage does not say that man's mind is unable to properly understand God's Word without the Holy Spirit.

I invite you again to consider the example of the Ethiopian eunuch and the Bereans.

Human beings cannot understand God's Word apart from God's divine enablement (Ephesians 4:18).

That pasage (Ephesians 4:_18), says nothing about us being unable to understand God's Word without 'Divine enablement'.

Since the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), He does not teach concepts that fail to meet the tests of truth.

In other words, "the Holy Spirit does not guide into interpretations that contradict each other or fail to have logical, internal consistency."

The fact that so many Christians happily believing themselves to be led by the Holy Spirit hold beliefs which contradict the beliefs of others, proves that they are not led by the Holy Spirit.

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:What I'm showing you is that 'living soul' doesn't mean that the soul became living. It means the soul is now in a physical body that is living. It is the joining of the two mediums, the physical and the spiritual.

Could you show me where it says that? Could you show me where it says 'the soul was breathed into a living physical being and now became a 'living' soul'? How does something which is already 'living', become 'living'?

That's how I read a 'living soul'. It is a soul in a living body.

But you're not showing me from the Bible. You are showing me what you think the Bible means. That's very different.

The point I was making is that there was a distinction made between the heart/mind and something else (that being the soul, the essence, the whateveryouwanttocallit). If there was no distinction there would not be a need to show it. It would have sufficed to say believe will all your heart.

The point I am making is that this is saying nothing of the 'soul' in which you believe. It means 'serve with all your heart and all your being'. It's a typical Hebraism which means 'with all your sincerity and energy'.

You made it sound like you've said this before.

Because I have said it before.

I commented on what you posted here.

Yes I know. Later you went on to allege that I hadn't posted this. I found that incredible.

I'm trying to narrow down what image you think God made us in. It's not very clear to me yet.

Exactly what I said, and exactly what the word means. The Driver, Brown and Briggs Hebrew lexicon defines it thus:

tselem

1) Image.

1a) Images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods.)
1b) Image, likeness (of resemblance.)
1c) Mere, empty, image, semblance (figuratively.)

I invite you to see how this word is used in Scripture. You can see for yourself that it never means 'spirit', or anything like that. It always refers to something visible.

Fortigurn wrote:

Exactly. Angels are not in the form of humans. They appear in the form of humans so we can relate to them.

Scripture please.

Are you saying angels have a distinct physical appearance?

I asking you to show me the passages of Scripture from which you derive the idea that the angels 'are not in the form of humans' and 'appear in the form of humans so we can relate to them'.

Thank you for finally saying it, yes scripture describes God as a 'spirit'.

What do you mean 'finally saying it'? You make it sound as if I was avoiding it. Didn't you read my description of God in the trinity thread?

What I don't get is why you don't understand what 'spiritual image' is since you're conceding that God is described as a 'spirit'. And if God is described as a 'spirit' why is it so inconceivable that he created us in his image, you know, the 'spirit'ual one?

Because that is simply not what the word tselem means. It's not complicated.[/i]

Of course, how could I have missed it? It doesn't mean what I think it means. It means something else. The same way I don't know what the word Word means in 1 John, or this word or that word. If it's not textual, linguistic or historical then it's my interpretation that's faulty and my understanding that's skewed, never yours. You know what I wonder sometimes? I wonder why there are evangelical trinitarians left since you're using their own arguments against them and claim to have refuted their own positions. I also wonder why the Greeks haven't converted to Christadelphianism yet. After all, the Greeks don't have any translation issues, do they? I'm sure you'll find a reason as to why their belief is not scriptural, though.

(Why do I even bother?)

Fortigurn wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Dependence on the Holy Spirit

Scripture tells us that we are to rely on the Holy Spirit's illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of Scripture (John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-11).

Please show me how either of those passages say that 'we are to rely on the Holy Spirit's illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of Scripture'.

It is the Holy Spirit's work to throw light upon the Word of God so that the believer can assent to the meaning intended and act on it.

Scripture please.

The Holy Spirit, as the "Spirit of truth" (John 16:13), guides us so that "we may understand what God has freely given us" (1 Corinthians 2:12).

The Spirit of truth in John 16 was given to the disciples only. If you believe that you have the Spirit of truth, then I inivte you to recall to mind all that Jesus said.

The same goes for 1 Corinthians 2:12 (which is speaking of the inspired teaching of the apostles).

This is quite logical: full comprehension of the Word of God is impossible without prayerful dependence on the Spirit of God, for He who inspired the Word (2 Peter 1:21) is also its supreme interpreter.

Scripture please (2 Peter 1:21 does not say that a full comprehension of the Word is not possible without the Spirit of God).

Illumination is necessary because man's mind has been darkened through sin (Romans 1:21), preventing him from properly understanding God's Word.

That passage does not say that man's mind is unable to properly understand God's Word without the Holy Spirit.

I invite you again to consider the example of the Ethiopian eunuch and the Bereans.

Human beings cannot understand God's Word apart from God's divine enablement (Ephesians 4:18).

That pasage (Ephesians 4:_18), says nothing about us being unable to understand God's Word without 'Divine enablement'.

Since the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), He does not teach concepts that fail to meet the tests of truth.

In other words, "the Holy Spirit does not guide into interpretations that contradict each other or fail to have logical, internal consistency."

The fact that so many Christians happily believing themselves to be led by the Holy Spirit hold beliefs which contradict the beliefs of others, proves that they are not led by the Holy Spirit.

Again your most important beliefs seem to be teach how truths are not really truths as Christians have known them for a very long time. The very first passage you question says the Spirit will guide us to truth, but I suppose that is really wrong, and you and the enlightened few have some private interpretation.


Titus

3:43 But “when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, 3:5 he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, 3:6 whom he poured out on us in full measure4 through Jesus Christ our Savior. 3:7 And so,5 since we have been justified by his grace, we become heirs with the confident expectation of eternal life.”6
3:8 This saying7 is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on such truths,8 so that those who have placed their faith in God may be intent on engaging in good works. These things are good and beneficial for all people. 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies,9 quarrels, and fights about the law,10 because they are useless and empty. 3:10 Reject a divisive person after one or two warnings. 3:11 You know11 that such a person is twisted by sin12 and is conscious of it himself.13

Byblos wrote:Of course, how could I have missed it? It doesn't mean what I think it means. It means something else.

I am saying that it means exactly what it says. It says 'image', and it means 'image', something you can see. Don't take my word for it, look it up in a concordance (I already gave you a lexicon entry), and look up the uses of the word in the Old Testament.

What, precisely, are you objecting to? The lexicon definition? The translation? What? I'm not responsible for either of those.

The same way I don't know what the word Word means in 1 John, or this word or that word.

Well you appear not to, because you read 'word', and say it means 'Divine-person-called-Jesus-who-is-the-second-member-of-the-trinity'.

Then you tell me that I'm the one not reading what's written.

If it's not textual, linguistic or historical then it's my interpretation that's faulty and my understanding that's skewed, never yours. You know what I wonder sometimes? I wonder why there are evangelical trinitarians left since you're using their own arguments against them and claim to have refuted their own positions.

You are not reading my posts. I have simply been using evangelical translations, and the odd interpretation. I have not been using arguments against the trinity by evangelicals, as you seem to imply.

I also wonder why the Greeks haven't converted to Christadelphianism yet. After all, the Greeks don't have any translation issues, do they? I'm sure you'll find a reason as to why their belief is not scriptural, though.

You'll find that modern Greek is radically different to classical and Koine Greek. Translating it accurately (especially in a Biblical context), requires a specialist knowledge which requires specialist training and extensive familiarity with primary sources.

But this really has nothing to do with needing to know Greek or Hebrew, to the extent that you're claiming. I've been using a standard evangelical translation (one with at least a three point Calvinist theology), and you are the ones who have been disagreeing with it (without actually explaining why).

Jbuza wrote:Again your most important beliefs seem to be teach how truths are not really truths as Christians have known them for a very long time.

I do not understand what you mean by this.

The very first passage you question says the Spirit will guide us to truth, but I suppose that is really wrong, and you and the enlightened few have some private interpretation.

I have explained this already. It does not say that the Spirit will guide us into all truth, it says that the Spirit would guide the disciples into all truth. Don't take my word for it, read the context.

Who was Christ speaking to? You? Me? Were we there in the upper room? I think not.

Are you able to recall to mind 'all the words that I [Jesus] have spoken to you'? No you aren't, and neither am I. Why? Because he didn't say a word to you or I, because we weren't disciples in the 1st century.

Why is this so hard to understand?

1 Conrinthians

2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 2:12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. 2:13 And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.8 2:14 The unbeliever9 does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 2:15 The one who is spiritual discerns10 all things, yet he himself is understood11 by no one. 2:16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him?12 But we have the mind of Christ.

Would you mind actually dealing with my examples?

Fortigurn wrote:Would you mind actually dealing with my examples?

It was the angel of the Lord and the Holy Spirit that guided Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch.

Aren't Bereans an offshoot of christadelphianism? Don't known why you're referring to your own belief system as proof of your own belief system. Circular logic.

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Would you mind actually dealing with my examples?

It was the angel of the Lord and the Holy Spirit that guided Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch.

The issue under discussion is not the process by which teachers are led to those who need to be taught, but how those who read the Bible come to understand it.

So we're not discussing how Phiip was led to the Ethiopian eunuch, we're discussing how the Ethopian eunuch came to understand the Bible.

How did the Ethiopian eunuch come to understand the Bible? Not by being taught by the Holy Spirit, but by being taught by Philip (who is certainly not the Holy Spirit). This is in perfect accord with Paul's teaching in Romans 10:13-17.

Aren't Bereans an offshoot of christadelphianism? Don't known why you're referring to your own belief system as proof of your own belief system. Circular logic.

I have no idea why you are suggesting such a thing. Allow me to introduce you to the Bereans in the Bible, to which I have been referring:

Acts 17:
10 The brothers sent Paul and Silas off to Berea at once, during the night. When they arrived, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 These Jews were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed, along with quite a few prominent Greek women and men.