Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 172 of 304 (647657)
01-10-2012 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by GDR
01-10-2012 4:16 PM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
quote:
I’m not ignoring the fact. I don’t believe that He wasn’t accurately quoted. I’m saying that Jesus is saying they didn’t believe Moses’ message that God is about love and peace, and have instead created their own view of God that fits where there human agenda. In light of that they don’t believe that the passage in question or anything else in the Torah for that matter refers to Jesus.
So you believe that Jesus said that the scripture in question was about him but you insist that he didn't mean it. How exactly does that help?
quote:
Here is vs 44:
Nice try at changing the subject. But you should have learnt by now that I'm not that easily tricked. It doesn't matter what other things Jesus said. That's not the issue we're discussing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by GDR, posted 01-10-2012 4:16 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by GDR, posted 01-10-2012 4:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 175 of 304 (647674)
01-10-2012 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by GDR
01-10-2012 4:52 PM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
quote:
It was not changing the subject. I was showing where it was that Jesus was claiming that they did not believe what Moses was saying but believed what was pleasing to themselves.
We're not arguing about that verse or anything else that Jesus might have said. So I'd class that as changing the subject.
quote:
Of course He meant it. He is merely saying that because they did not believe the message of Moses in the context of the entire Torah, they did not believe that anything, including this passage, was about Him.
That's not what he was quoted as saying. So either he was misquoted, didn't mean what he said or you are directly contradicting the verses you supposedly believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by GDR, posted 01-10-2012 4:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by GDR, posted 01-10-2012 5:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 177 of 304 (647688)
01-10-2012 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by GDR
01-10-2012 5:18 PM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
quote:
No, not at all, but I am saying that the verse in question has to be read in the context of the entire passage including vs 44.
It looks more like you saying "Look over here!" in an attempt to distract the conversation from the verses in question.
It seems pretty obvious to me that we can't plausibly say that the Pharisees didn't believe that at some time (maybe even in the past) that there would be a prophet equal to Moses. But so far that's the only thing suggested.
So come on, what was it that Moses supposedly wrote about Jesus that the Pharisees did not believe. Chapter and verse please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by GDR, posted 01-10-2012 5:18 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by GDR, posted 01-10-2012 8:30 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 179 of 304 (647730)
01-11-2012 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by GDR
01-10-2012 8:30 PM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
quote:
It looks to me like you’re doing the fundamentalist thing of cherry picking verses and ignoring the context to make a point.
Obviously that's not true because I'm not making a general point - only discussing a few verses - and I'm not ignoring the context. It just doesn't change the meaning of the verses to what you want them to say.
quote:
I’m not saying they didn’t believe that in fact I’m sure they did.
Then Jesus was wrong to say that they didn't - if he said it. It really is that simple. So you're left with either arguing that he didn't mean those verses (your only candidate) arguing that Jesus didn't say it (after affirming that he did) or admitting that Jesus was wrong.
quote:
They were looking for a messiah but they didn’t recognize him when he came because they expected the messiah to be consist with their beliefs.
I'm really not bothering to argue about this because it is beside the point.
quote:
Now there’s a rabbit hole I’m not going down
But it ISN'T a rabbit hole. It IS the central point of the discussion.
quote:
The point is that Jesus obviously believed that they weren’t believing what Moses was saying in the Torah, and it isn’t just that they didn’t believe what they said about Him.
But that DOES seem to be a rabbit hole. I'm not making a general discussion of whether the Pharisees were entirely right about the Torah or whether they disagreed with Jesus about it. I am simply defending my point that one particular claim attributed to Jesus which doesn't seem to be true.
The specific claim that Jesus is alleged to have made is that the Pharisees did not agree with what Moses wrote ABOUT HIM. So all you need to do is find verses that are plausibly about Jesus that the Pharisees did not believe. You've already admitted that they did believe the only candidate you've put forward.
The messiah issue really is something of a rabbit hole because the major messianic prophecies aren't even in the Torah. Even the verses you mention only talk about a prophet equal to Moses, without specifying what that prophet is going to do or giving any way to recognise him. That's why it is so difficult to say that the Pharisees didn't believe it - it just says far too little.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by GDR, posted 01-10-2012 8:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by GDR, posted 01-12-2012 2:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 181 of 304 (647933)
01-12-2012 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by GDR
01-12-2012 2:25 AM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
It's straightforward, but irrelevant. You are ignoring the fact that in this case the writings in question are supposed to be about Jesus. Pointing to verses that you believe to be about Jesus isn't enough. Pointing to verses which (Jesus would say) the Pharisees didn't believe us not enough. You need verses which fit both criteria. That should be both simple and obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by GDR, posted 01-12-2012 2:25 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by GDR, posted 01-12-2012 11:16 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 183 of 304 (647975)
01-12-2012 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by GDR
01-12-2012 11:16 AM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
quote:
Not at all.
Why not ? If someone says that there are writings of Moses that are about Jesus and which the Pharisees did not believe, it can only be true if there are writings of Moses that are about Jesus which the Pharisees did not believe. How can you possibly disagree with that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by GDR, posted 01-12-2012 11:16 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by GDR, posted 01-12-2012 1:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 185 of 304 (647992)
01-12-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by GDR
01-12-2012 1:52 PM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
quote:
Because they believed the specific verse but they did not believe that it referred to Jesus, because they did not believe the basic message that God was about love, forgiveness and mercy, the message that Jesus believed was the essential message of the Torah.
So you're saying that you have to pretend that Jesus was right - even though he was wrong - because you support his beliefs over those you attribute to the Pharisees ? Certainly I can't see any reason to deny a logical truth in there.
quote:
You cleverly almost have me arguing for the position I am opposing
I'm not doing anything particularly clever here, just repeating an obvious and simple truth which you seem determined to deny for no good reason. This seems to be like your suggestion that actually supporting your position would be a "rabbit" hole"
quote:
At any rate you have cleverly dragged me off the point of the thread was to trying to make which was to point out that a literalist reading of the Scriptures not only gives us a perverted view of God but that it is impossible to actually maintain anyway.
Really I haven't. NoNukes started this subtopic. You've chosen to drag it out with evasion and denial of the truth. I'd say that you've done far more to drag yourself off topic than I have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by GDR, posted 01-12-2012 1:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by GDR, posted 01-12-2012 5:43 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 219 of 304 (654918)
03-05-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by creatorsknight
03-05-2012 2:53 PM


Re: I like Greg's thinking on this
I don't think his reasoning is very sound. It's odd that if his view of inerrancy is such an important doctrine it isn't clearly expressed anywhere in the Bible. Does't his view rely on assuming that God intended things to be the way that he believes they are ?
And what about 1 Corinthians 14:16 ?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
Now, if God intended every word to come out as it did then why would there need to be the correction and the admission of poor memory in verse 16 ? God could easily provide the correct details. If God intended the words to come out this way, then surely God intended us to recognise that Paul was fallible, and that his writing is not guaranteed to be entirely correct. Or maybe it's just a mistake on Paul's part, meaning that God isn't guiding every little detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 2:53 PM creatorsknight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 3:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 221 of 304 (654921)
03-05-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by creatorsknight
03-05-2012 3:55 PM


Re: I like Greg's thinking on this
quote:
Why would God want to make man look perfect?
That, of course is not the question. The question is why would God make Paul's writings look unreliable if he meant us to take them as absolutely reliable ?
Doesn't it make more sense to accept that Paul's writings are not reliable in absolutely every detail ? And is it not therefore the case that the Bible actually supports the view that Greg Koukl is arguing against ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 3:55 PM creatorsknight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 4:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 223 of 304 (654929)
03-05-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by creatorsknight
03-05-2012 4:34 PM


Re: I like Greg's thinking on this
quote:
No, God doesn't make Paul's writings look unreliable. God makes paul look unreliable. There is a difference.
Is there ? Paul wrote that he only baptised Crispus and Gaius, then he remembers that he baptised the household of Stephanius then he adds that he may have baptised others he doesn't remember.
So his claim, in writing that he only baptised Crispus and Gaius is wrong.
quote:
If you were to write a love letter to your significant other and say that you loved her deerly. Would those feelings be any less just because you spelt the word wrong?
It would mean that I made a spelling mistake. If I argued that God was guiding my spelling and therefore the spelling was correct I would be wrong.
quote:
The message that God is sending is no less significant just becuase he is using fallible people to send it.
And now you are taking exactly the position that Koukl argues against. Congratulations !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 4:34 PM creatorsknight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 10:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 226 of 304 (654962)
03-06-2012 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by creatorsknight
03-05-2012 10:18 PM


Re: I like Greg's thinking on this
quote:
So to tie in the topic I will say that in order for God to get his message out to everyone then he needs to have people trust in what his word says.
But this is simply your opinion of what God wants and the methods He ought to use. It's not much of an argument in itself.
quote:
PaulK seems to think that the word is fallible because fallible man wrote it. So he will never take anything in it literally.
Of course this is a misrepresentation. In reality I simply pointed out that the Bible itself seems to contradict Greg Koukl's opinions.
If you think that Greg Koukl's opinions are more important than the Bible - as you clearly do - why not be honest enough to admit it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 10:18 PM creatorsknight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by creatorsknight, posted 03-06-2012 6:14 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024