The Truth shall set you free

[pablocito]

You made the statement, "the bible is not a historical book because secular history cannot verify anything in the bible".

That's an all-or-nothing statement. You are in error because secular history does in fact verify many things from the Bible. What it does not do is verify everything... yet.

By the way, your statement is also a non sequitur. That secular history cannot verify something does not make it ahistorical. For centuries, skeptics thought that the biblical accounts of the Hittites were fictional. Do a little reading on that.

Really, this historical matter is not critical in so far as whether it is so or not. Also the definition of what is history could be defined in 100 different ways so I will not continue this unusual debate.

We need to get back to the truth of the bible which is all that matters. I guess that most if not all on this site believe that the bible is completely true. The question is what is the Truth or truths that it teaches and can those truths make a difference in our lives. Also does what the bible promises both now and in the future are they true for you.
For example the bible makes some very (what I would call - outrageous promises) astounding promises. Many of them are for our time, right now, as we are speaking, and others are to take place in the future.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Can we say definitively that we have proved the bibles promises for us in the here and now.
That is what we have to look into if we truly are going to say that the complete bible is 100% accurate.

 

[Dino246]

Really, this historical matter is not critical in so far as whether it is so or not. Also the definition of what is history could be defined in 100 different ways so I will not continue this unusual debate.

We need to get back to the truth of the bible which is all that matters. I guess that most if not all on this site believe that the bible is completely true. The question is what is the Truth or truths that it teaches and can those truths make a difference in our lives. Also does what the bible promises both now and in the future are they true for you.
For example the bible makes some very (what I would call - outrageous promises) astounding promises. Many of them are for our time, right now, as we are speaking, and others are to take place in the future.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Can we say definitively that we have proved the bibles promises for us in the here and now.
That is what we have to look into if we truly are going to say that the complete bible is 100% accurate.

You are completely missing the point!

If the Bible is not historical (which you claim), it cannot be 100% accurate!

The Bible was written in the context of historical events which were recorded in its pages. Maybe you should rethink how you framed this conversation from the start.

 

[ResidentAlien]

If the bible was really a history book, then googling Solomon on the internet would not bring up some belief that Solomon was some mythological figure.

If the bible was an historical book, then there would be no controversy by the world's historians as to whether Jesus is some made-up person.

Jesus and Solomon both dominated their era according to bible accounts.

No! Absolutely not! - the bible is not a historical book because secular history cannot verify anything in the bible, the closest they come, is to speculate that Alexander the great, seems to fit the description of a person that the bible talks about.

pablocito, I don't know where you're getting your information but it's simply not true. There's plenty of archaeological evidence that supports the Bible and I'd encourage to look into it, brother. Don't just rely on the first few links that pop up in a Google search.

 

[pablocito]

You are completely missing the point!

If the Bible is not historical (which you claim), it cannot be 100% accurate!

The Bible was written in the context of historical events which were recorded in its pages. Maybe you should rethink how you framed this conversation from the start.

This topic is not about history, that was only a side issue, the topic says, "the truth shall set you free"

 

[pablocito]

pablocito, I don't know where you're getting your information but it's simply not true. There's plenty of archaeological evidence that supports the Bible and I'd encourage to look into it, brother. Don't just rely on the first few links that pop up in a Google search.

This thing about history is a side issue which I decided is not really relevant to the Topic "The Truth shall set you free". I will only discuss the main topic and will not entertain more any discussion on "History".

 

[Dino246]

This topic is not about history, that was only a side issue, the topic says, "the truth shall set you free"

So, instead of owning your error, you're dodging it. The truth shall indeed set you free, but not when you don't acknowledge it.

 

[awelight]

I agree that the spirit is life and the carnal flesh is death. As you rightly said most people denigrate the baptism of the Holy Spirit to a mechanical process of water baptism while others philosophize the Spirit as some sort of invisible thing or force that happens automatically when one says "yes" to God at the time of making a decision to become saved.
Both extremes are unbiblical.

While baptism in the Holy Spirit is an important thing, it is terribly misunderstood and improperly taught in most churches.

In Acts 11:17 and the previous verses and subsequent verses, the context here is not personal baptism in the Holy Spirit but rather the Gentiles being baptized as a group, just as the Jews were at Pentecost as a group. If you look at the pronouns used in these verses, you will notice that they are always plural. There is not one single instance, in the Scriptures, where an individual was baptized in the Holy Spirit. Individuals are born of the Spirit not baptized by the spirit. When Paul talks about the subject of baptism in the Spirit, the verb tenses are always "past tense". Example:

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

The verb here, translated "baptized", is an aorist - passive - indicative, first person plural. The action was in the past, the group was plural and they were "passive" in the action of the baptism. The passive voice, informs us that they took no active role in this baptism but were acted upon.

When the Lord spoke about being baptized by the Holy Spirit, in the Gospels, the event was still future. However, even as he told his disciples about this, He still spoke to them as a group. The Lord never said, You, personally, wait for this baptism but rather as a body of believers, wait for this event.

Just thought I would pass this along to you. Don't believe me, believe the Scriptures and take some time to check out what I have said.

 

[pablocito]

So, instead of owning your error, you're dodging it. The truth shall indeed set you free, but not when you don't acknowledge it.

You are being rather sarcastic after I said multiple times that the topic that I proposed was about truth and not history. History is only a side bar and apparently I was not inclined to change my mind, therefore why debate it or hammer it out with others who are not inclined to change their minds.

Jesus told John the disciple something very prudent. When John complained that others, who did not belong to Jesus's group were involved in the ministry of Jesus, Jesus told him (John) to leave them alone. (Jesus suggested that if they were not against us, they were for us.)

Today the combative spirit of believers to condemn and debase other Christians have gone over the top, and is unworthy of being called Christian. I am not a partaker in that type of spirit.

 

[pablocito]

Your statements are true but you have to realize that words are used to express one's ideas and people use many different words to express the same idea.
That is the reason why God looks at the heart, because 2 people using the exact same words may mean the exact opposite thing.
The heart does not lie and only God can see the heart.
But as you said it is always good to be on the same page as that will prevent many unneeded debates. People may use the words rock, stone, pebble or whatever, and basically they are all talking about the same thing. So clarification is always a good thing when necessary.

 

[pablocito]

The baptism of the Spirit is not a group therapy thing and it signifies a true believer, and we know that each person has to have a personal experience before God of this happening to them. Now, how and when it happens is under the complete control of God. We are participants of this experience (called born again) but God is the author of it and as such is the beginner and finisher of it all.

Details of the process should never be debated, that is in God's domain, and you either have it or you don't.

So it is very personal on one hand but it is the same spirit that enters all other true believers on the other hand.

 

[Dino246]

You are being rather sarcastic after I said multiple times that the topic that I proposed was about truth and not history. History is only a side bar and apparently I was not inclined to change my mind, therefore why debate it or hammer it out with others who are not inclined to change their minds.

Jesus told John the disciple something very prudent. When John complained that others, who did not belong to Jesus's group were involved in the ministry of Jesus, Jesus told him (John) to leave them alone. (Jesus suggested that if they were not against us, they were for us.)

Today the combative spirit of believers to condemn and debase other Christians have gone over the top, and is unworthy of being called Christian. I am not a partaker in that type of spirit.

You don't want to address history, fine.

We can continue talking about truth. Please begin by answering my question from post #32.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Really, this historical matter is not critical in so far as whether it is so or not.

If the historical aspect of the Bible was not critical God would not have devoted a huge portion of Scripture to the history of Israel, nor given Daniel visions of history relating to world empires (including the future kingdom of the Antichrist).

Also the definition of what is history could be defined in 100 different ways so I will not continue this unusual debate.

That is completely false. There is only one definition of history. It is the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.

 

[pablocito]

Do you think that if someone doesn't believe as you do regarding the great tribulation, they are not of the true children of God?

This site is truly amazing, well in someways; until you told me about post 32, I was not aware that the posts
were numbered and could be easily accessed that way.

Dino, As far as belief is concerned, there is only one belief that a person has to have, and that is, Jesus Christ came here on this earth to save sinners and there is no other way on the face of the earth that a person can be saved or can come to God except through Jesus Christ.

When a person has accepted Jesus Christ, it is God through the Holy Spirit who will teach him all things that he ought to know without question. Of course in certain situations other Christians could be used to assist in other Christians maturity and growth.

And I too, myself, am looking to learn many more things than I presently know about the Christian way. I am only 3 years serving God and what I have learned is that we never really can say that we have arrived. Yes we can assert at some point that we are a true child of God, but that is just the beginning and what God has in store for us is in his hands, and if we really did know ahead of time, we probably would throw in the towel and give up. But God in his wisdom leads us one day at a time, (sufficient for the day is the evil thereof) and brings us to a place where we probably would not go, if it were left to our decision. (Read John 21 vs 18)

John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

(I am trying to learn the Old Testament because I believe that it holds the key to the New Testament and to the last days that we are now living in.)

So as to your question, I beg that no man take what I say as some sort of gospel truth, because I will not be responsible for another man's soul, thus all that I say is only a personal testimony as to what I have been taught of God for myself. I am not preaching or teaching but only sharing my own personal testimony.

Likewise each man has to get hold of truth for themselves, and own it for themselves, and not borrow another man's truth. Of course you can listen to another man's truth, but you cannot plagiarize it or use it until you come to own it through personal revelation, through the Holy Spirit.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

 

[pablocito]

I cannot explain chemistry or physics to a 2 or 3 year old kid who just started kindergarten school. It would be futile to even try.

So I will just say that if your name appears in the book of life you are saved - That book was written from before the foundation of the earth. If your name does not appear in the book of life from before the foundation of the earth then you are destined for hell and there is nothing that can be done about it.

The bible is God's script that was written before the foundation of the earth.

A director or producer or even the actors in a play cannot work without a script. A script is not history. A script was prepared long before the actors went on stage to act it out.

I cannot say anymore.