- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
Most of the new doctrines are based not on direct bible teaching but on inference. Few seem to understand that what is clearly stated is far more reliable than anything inferred and no doctrine should be built on inference alone and expect the blessing of God.How would your evidence stand in a court of law is a reasonable test. Things seen, and statements heard, are strong evidence but circumstantial evidence alone is more dubious. Inference alone would be laughed out of court.
This statement of Jesus was quoted against him
Jn 2.19
” 19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”It made little impact as evidence and the High Priest had to resort to a blasphemy charge.
Matt26
59Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;60But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
61And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
62And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.”
Hi,
God gives us instruments in scripture to evaluate truth. They are called witnesses.2Cor 13
” 1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”So teachings are proven by repetition in scripture.
Many come here teaching things that are not written even once but are things that they say are inferred.
I am not sure if the Master approves of men doing such things in his name.Hi,
Walk into any department store and you will see lots of handsome well dressed folk standing around. But ask them for assistance or try to hold any sort of conversation with them and you will get not much of a response from them as they are just plastic models.Much the same with scripture really.
The Spirit of God has abilities that suggest an independant, even a person like existance.
We can observe such things but cannot teach the Spirit is another person in God.
We can be amazed at those abilities but can only teach what is written.
God then says it is true.Hi,
Would men really be so brave as to define our God from outside of what He has given us to work on? Are we sure we are immune to the risk we place ourselves in when we tell Him what clever theologians have told us they have decided He is like? Fear God Who is the FatherHi Tim2,
Everything you state about God seems to be based almost entirely on inference?
Do you really believe that is how God wants us to learn?
Not from scriptural teaching but the individual inferences of men?Hi not3,
Not written
but
taught as truth.Some need to read between the lines to find their “truth”s implied.
Ah – this is a good forum. I hope it catches on. There are many topics that I have noticed that are built on inference. One that I am interested in is the JW theory that Jesus is Michael.
I would add to your definition and include: Inference is implicit-type scriptures that are used for a particular slant. In other words, the teaching (like the Trinity) should be EXPLICITLY taught somewhere in scripture.
1. Somewhere it should read: There are three persons in the One God who is Jehovah. Or something explicit like this.
2. Somewhere it should read: Jesus pre-existed his birth and was a person before he was born on earth.
3. Somewhere it should read: Jesus was Michael the archangel before he was born a man, and give the name Jesus.You see, the problem with inference is that some of it IS needed? Is it not? I mean, one of the doctrines that you hold to – that Jesus existed as a person before his birth on earth is based somewhat on inference. You have to acknowledge that “wisdom” is Jesus and so on. But it never states explicitly that Jesus is wisdom. Do you see? So, I'm a little confused on how we do not infer some things, and still come up with truth.
If we say everything has to be explicitly stated (not based on inference), then most of us would have to give up parts of our personal theologies. Maybe?
1. Matthew 28:19.
2. John 1:1
3. FalseJesus is the wisdom and power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24.
There is nothing wrong with a true inference. The Bible was written to be understood. That its truth can be restated using other words is evident from the New Testament quotation of the Old Testament, where not only another language was used, but the original language was not quoted word for word.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Your inferences are unlikely to be the same as mine.
Thus we need to rely only on what is written and, rather than add embellishment, admit there are some things poorly understood.Nick,
Yes, my inferences are very different from yours. But the inferences of every Christian the past 2000 years have been the same. Maybe that should tell you something.
Tim
Nick, good point.
Tim2, one thing I want to gently warn you about…………there isn't safety in numbers. “Few” will find it. “Narrow” is the way. All are called but “few” are chosen. God seems to emphasize smaller numbers. And not all who say “Lord, Lord” will enter (even if there ministries are going well as they cast out demons and heal and so on). You just cannot trust in the masses. The fact that the “church” has followed these creeds for a gazillion years means NOTHING. The men who made those creeds are just like you, WJ, and others. They sat around a table and discussed what they thought the nature of Christ was. They all did NOT agree (just as we do not all agree here on this board). Do you understand that history tells us that some of these bishops were FORCED to sign these documents? All I'm saying, is be careful where you put your trust. Be careful where you find your security. Make sure what you believe can be backed by clear, plain, easy-to-understand scripture.
Please. If you want me to consider your view, take a honest look at ours. OK?
Hi Not3in1,
I have taken an honest look at yours. I semi-believed it for ~2 years, meaning I rejected the “three in one,” thought that Jesus was less than the Father, and certainly didn't believe in a shared substance. But then the Spirit revealed the obviousness of the Scriptures to me. The Old Testament is completely focused on YHWH. There is no mention of another being “through” whom YHWH created the world, or through whom YHWH would save the world, or through whom YHWH would be revealed. It's only YHWH. For the New Testament to come along and say that really there is this other divine being through whom we must know YHWH is completely contradictory to the OT and would be massive idolatry, akin to the Israelites trying to worship YHWH “through” the golden calf. Which means that Jesus is YHWH or he is no god at all.
And once polytheism is removed as a possibility, all that remains is to consider the NT assertion that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God. The only choices here are modalism or the Trinity, but they're clearly persons, so the only possibility left is the Trinity, which, what do you know, is what the church has been saying for 2000 years. God hasn't left his people to perish. He hasn't reneged on His covenant with Abraham to make his seed as numerous as the stars in the heavens. Hallelujah! Glory be to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Tim
Wow, Tim, I didn't know this about you. Thank you for sharing this with me. You know, it was only about 3 1/2 years ago that I was a dedicated Trinitarian. I was in ministry (up to my eyeballs, really). And then I took some time off to study. I found that the OT does tell of a son who is coming….. If you are interested, I could share with you some pretty significant passages in Isaiah that point towards Jesus. In fact, a lot of NT writers quoted the OT as confirmation that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
God is alone in the OT. But the plan he had was to have a Son. That Son is Jesus. Simply logic (which is a gift from God), tells you that when you have a son, that boy is a part of you and your wife. So, Jesus is not God himself, but he is a part of God. I really feel strongly that this is what the scriptures clearly teach. Without inference……this is what they teach.
We can easily point to Jesus' conception. We can easily point to his birth. We can easily point to the fact that he is the only begotten of God. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but we can easily point to the fact that his is the Son of God, and of Mary.
We cannot easily say that he is God. Some scriptures that seem to clearly say that Jesus is God (in the NIV), do not clearly say that Jesus is God in other translations. This is confusing, isn't it? It should be confusing. Because if it was that “clear” then there should be no changes in translation. But there are changes in translations.
That's why I like what you are trying to do on a couple boards — you are trying to narrow all of our belief systems in one spot. I'd also like to look at these Trinity verses. Let's get them all out and look at them one by one. You see, I've done this already. There are more verses that point to God being One (which is true to the OT), and that Jesus is his Son (verses that Jesus is God).
You and I are kind of an odd pair. You disbelieved the Trinity and then believed it again. And I'm the opposite. I could never go back to a God that I cannot explain to another God-hungry soul. No one I have talked with over the years fully understands the Trinity. We always end the conversation with, “It's a mystery and I accept it by faith.” Well, Tim, I really want to know my God. I want to have an intimate relationship with him. How can I have an intimate relationship with anyone who remains, for the most part, a mystery? Well, I'm rambling…..I'm a chick
Anyway, nice to chat with you. Look forward to learning from you.Quote (Not3in1 @ April 14 2007,18:20) Wow, Tim, I didn't know this about you. Thank you for sharing this with me. You know, it was only about 3 1/2 years ago that I was a dedicated Trinitarian. I was in ministry (up to my eyeballs, really). And then I took some time off to study. I found that the OT does tell of a son who is coming….. If you are interested, I could share with you some pretty significant passages in Isaiah that point towards Jesus. In fact, a lot of NT writers quoted the OT as confirmation that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. God is alone in the OT. But the plan he had was to have a Son. That Son is Jesus. Simply logic (which is a gift from God), tells you that when you have a son, that boy is a part of you and your wife. So, Jesus is not God himself, but he is a part of God. I really feel strongly that this is what the scriptures clearly teach. Without inference……this is what they teach.
We can easily point to Jesus' conception. We can easily point to his birth. We can easily point to the fact that he is the only begotten of God. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but we can easily point to the fact that his is the Son of God, and of Mary.
We cannot easily say that he is God. Some scriptures that seem to clearly say that Jesus is God (in the NIV), do not clearly say that Jesus is God in other translations. This is confusing, isn't it? It should be confusing. Because if it was that “clear” then there should be no changes in translation. But there are changes in translations.
That's why I like what you are trying to do on a couple boards — you are trying to narrow all of our belief systems in one spot. I'd also like to look at these Trinity verses. Let's get them all out and look at them one by one. You see, I've done this already. There are more verses that point to God being One (which is true to the OT), and that Jesus is his Son (verses that Jesus is God).
You and I are kind of an odd pair. You disbelieved the Trinity and then believed it again. And I'm the opposite. I could never go back to a God that I cannot explain to another God-hungry soul. No one I have talked with over the years fully understands the Trinity. We always end the conversation with, “It's a mystery and I accept it by faith.” Well, Tim, I really want to know my God. I want to have an intimate relationship with him. How can I have an intimate relationship with anyone who remains, for the most part, a mystery? Well, I'm rambling…..I'm a chick
Anyway, nice to chat with you. Look forward to learning from you.
Not3in1Heres some good listening!
http://www.eadshome.com/Jesuslessons.htm
Hi Tim2,
It is impossible to have a relationship with a trinity.Lk 15
“20And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. “This is the loving Father God.
Abba Father.Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 16 2007,15:17) Hi Tim2,
It is impossible to have a relationship with a trinity.Lk 15
“20And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. “This is the loving Father God.
Abba Father.
I would like to submit the proposition that the proposition “it's impossible to have a relationship with the Trinity” is nothing more than an inference, has no direct biblical support, and therefore should be dismissed as unbiblical, the result of man's carnal reasoning…..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
