Searching For Truth Seekers!
- Thread starter Mikael156
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I would like to encourage anyone to read the word of God for yourself. Most people have some basic understanding , but only The Holy Spirit can enlighten us to learn in an effective way . Jesus said no man can come to me except the Father draw them to him and Jesus will not cast anyone out that comes to him . That an open invitation it seems to me . I have heard of people that could not even understand how to read very well , and God enables them to read the Bible ! Because they wanted the truth not some form of truth found in many places . So turn to the written word prayerfully. That’s the place to start . Jesus said in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 many would come in his name and deceive many ! I took that seriously about 50 yrs ago . And I have no regrets for being very careful on what I’m hearing. It is as Jesus said. To a few but Many . May God bless you who ever you are that seek truth , it’s been written down for you Since the First Century. Be ware of revisions or new revelations. The book of Jude one of the Apostles said v 3 … the faith which was once delivered unto the saints . ( it was complete then .) 2 Timothy 3 v15-17 again it’s all complete. So we don’t need more than what is given in Scripture OT and NT . Start from Genesis 1 , also read of the prophecies of Jesus to understand how he fulfilled prophecies and who he is . A few tips ! God bless on your journey , so much more could be said , learn how to pray ! Jesus taught the disciples the frame work of prayer . I like the King James Version , read the good news Bible first my reading was not so great way back then . If you can learn the original language, but not necessarily needed God is able to help at what ever your capacity . He sometimes confounds the wise with the not so wise . The poor are rich in faith rather than the successful in this world .
I view truthseeking as God's will (Matt. 7:7, Heb. 11:6, 1Tim. 2:3-4),
and NOT seeking truth as what is dangerous/damning.
Yes, and a persons’ age isn’t a prelude to a person understanding of truth.
Yes, my age is a prelude to forgetting truth.
I agree with reading GW multiple times while taking notes in the margins. I also liked the TEV/Good News Bible.
However, not everyone has the time or inclination to do that, so learning from others can be helpful (Eph. 4:11-17).
As a young Christian I was interested in learning answers to questions atheists ask, which I share on the Apologetics thread.
I was also interested in harmonizing Scripture regarding God's requirement for salvation, which I do on the Kerygma thread.
T
TruthDefender
Guest
Some versions are not as good as others only because many add/ take away more in the verses; not accurate at all.
I realize that none are perfect, but what I’m saying is that some seem worse than others in translation. The KJV is good, if you can tolerate the old English, otherwise the NKJV seems a little better w/o the old English.
Call me naive, but I have never not been edified by reading any translation,
so frankly, I view those who insist on only the KJV to be a little anal.
Oh, I said a LITTLE anal, so I was only a little carnal.
Paul uses worse terms to describe those who make a fetish (idol) of Scripture,
such as the OT Law.
I'm not at all sure how you constrain the term "truth seeker"in a world intent on using the "bible" as a weegie board where one can spin the google-vane at verses from hither thither and yon to validate a truth you have always believed. Because There are thousands of competing Christian dogmas, each claiming a secret map of scriptures like an ancient mariner, that only you and perhaps a few of your close associates know. Thus, answers become a means of confirmation and validation of your carefully cultivated beliefs. Those seeking only confirmation and comfort are not "truth seekers."
If we actually want to seek truth contained in scripture, we must start with choosing what scriptures we allow to speak to us. Do we use the 66 book library, the 73 book library or the 81 book library? What is the basis of our choice?
Next we must determine how free we are to let each selected scripture to speak to us. Is what we will allow it allowed to communicate. (unfortunately, the scriptures do not speak) For instance, many claim their version of the bible in inerrant. In one definition of inerrant one can mean the metanarrative, the big picture of God's will is clearly seen in another it means word for word perfect "truth." At this level we must spend extensive time trying to "harmonize" information that was never intended to be anything more than what the text says. Does the intention of the authors mean anything in our methodology? Does the underlying history mean anything about the message? Does context matter if it challenges what we believe?
By and large most "truth seekers" choose either the Hebrew Bible, the Protestant Bible or the Ethiopian Bible but seldom ask ourselves why. We then chose our favorite versions of the Bible of our choice usually out of a desire for comfort, so paraphrasing is fine.
Most "truth seekers" believe their bible version as narratives spoken by God directly to the reader. Seldom is the idea that the individual "books" recorded in our bible of choice may have been written to the people of their time about issues of their time and providing both inspiration, motivation and comfort to the people of their time. We seldom think much about what biblical terminology that was designed to resonate uniquely to their audiences. Like today, these biblical terms frequently are simply expropriated and redefined to a different audience 2,000 yrs later. What the term "righteousness" meant one thing to former Jews, another to Greeks, Romans, Africans etc. Some terms seem to float on top of culture in the assumption that meaning is whatever we agree it is, thus we 45,000 different Christian sects. Each is defined by definitions, creeds, preferred scripture proof texts, traditions, family ties, cultural acceptance etc. Strangely, truth seekers are often extremely protective of the "righteousness" of their dogmas, traditions and creeds, thus the "truth" they find is that they are "right."
I find it interesting that Christian truth seekers know little or nothing about how Christianity evolved. Who decided what books were in and which were out. Few know the intensity of the debates that eventually evolved the cannon we believe in so devoutly. Few know the books held sacred for 300 years that we never have read or heard of. We don't know who, how or when our current understanding of God became official dogma. We intuitively fear examining what we believe if it involves historical reality. We prefer to read the scriptures as if they dropped out of the sky yesterday and our only questions is how they validate our dogmas. Looking for Context is a very dangerous means of examining the scriptures because it may provide insights in violation of our dogmas.
It seems to me that no matter what we read from the newspagers to the Internet, we use our own life experience to determine what is "true" what is valuable and what is important. Most are not aware we do the same thing with the scriptures. What is meaningful to us is the prime directive. What is true to us is thus objective truth.
So, if we want the mantle of truth seekers, we must ask ourselves how much discomfort, conflict with beloved dogmas and what the juxtaposition of scriptures with actual history may do to confront us. As the old country preach once claimed, "I'm here to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." If there is a possibility that "truth" might be uncomfortable and in friction with our traditions? If so, are we really comfortable being "truth seekers?" Exactly how much "truth" are we willing to endure?
What is the possibility of harmonizing history and science with the bible? If you say "none," then those avenues of truth cannot be considered. But that asks the question, is there any real truth that is not objectively true?
If we actually want to seek truth contained in scripture, we must start with choosing what scriptures we allow to speak to us. Do we use the 66 book library, the 73 book library or the 81 book library? What is the basis of our choice?
Next we must determine how free we are to let each selected scripture to speak to us. Is what we will allow it allowed to communicate. (unfortunately, the scriptures do not speak) For instance, many claim their version of the bible in inerrant. In one definition of inerrant one can mean the metanarrative, the big picture of God's will is clearly seen in another it means word for word perfect "truth." At this level we must spend extensive time trying to "harmonize" information that was never intended to be anything more than what the text says. Does the intention of the authors mean anything in our methodology? Does the underlying history mean anything about the message? Does context matter if it challenges what we believe?
By and large most "truth seekers" choose either the Hebrew Bible, the Protestant Bible or the Ethiopian Bible but seldom ask ourselves why. We then chose our favorite versions of the Bible of our choice usually out of a desire for comfort, so paraphrasing is fine.
Most "truth seekers" believe their bible version as narratives spoken by God directly to the reader. Seldom is the idea that the individual "books" recorded in our bible of choice may have been written to the people of their time about issues of their time and providing both inspiration, motivation and comfort to the people of their time. We seldom think much about what biblical terminology that was designed to resonate uniquely to their audiences. Like today, these biblical terms frequently are simply expropriated and redefined to a different audience 2,000 yrs later. What the term "righteousness" meant one thing to former Jews, another to Greeks, Romans, Africans etc. Some terms seem to float on top of culture in the assumption that meaning is whatever we agree it is, thus we 45,000 different Christian sects. Each is defined by definitions, creeds, preferred scripture proof texts, traditions, family ties, cultural acceptance etc. Strangely, truth seekers are often extremely protective of the "righteousness" of their dogmas, traditions and creeds, thus the "truth" they find is that they are "right."
I find it interesting that Christian truth seekers know little or nothing about how Christianity evolved. Who decided what books were in and which were out. Few know the intensity of the debates that eventually evolved the cannon we believe in so devoutly. Few know the books held sacred for 300 years that we never have read or heard of. We don't know who, how or when our current understanding of God became official dogma. We intuitively fear examining what we believe if it involves historical reality. We prefer to read the scriptures as if they dropped out of the sky yesterday and our only questions is how they validate our dogmas. Looking for Context is a very dangerous means of examining the scriptures because it may provide insights in violation of our dogmas.
It seems to me that no matter what we read from the newspagers to the Internet, we use our own life experience to determine what is "true" what is valuable and what is important. Most are not aware we do the same thing with the scriptures. What is meaningful to us is the prime directive. What is true to us is thus objective truth.
So, if we want the mantle of truth seekers, we must ask ourselves how much discomfort, conflict with beloved dogmas and what the juxtaposition of scriptures with actual history may do to confront us. As the old country preach once claimed, "I'm here to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." If there is a possibility that "truth" might be uncomfortable and in friction with our traditions? If so, are we really comfortable being "truth seekers?" Exactly how much "truth" are we willing to endure?
What is the possibility of harmonizing history and science with the bible? If you say "none," then those avenues of truth cannot be considered. But that asks the question, is there any real truth that is not objectively true?
T
TruthDefender
Guest
This is way too much to read on this platform. The more you write, the more opinions ensnare you. Zero Scripture!
Thanks for your insightful post.
Yes, only God knows who is a truthseeker/Christian, but we test all things the best we can.
Each person has their own life experiences and dogma, but I believe there is only One Truth, and that anyone can learn enough of it to be saved.
The challenge is to make a composite picture from the individual descriptions of the elephant.
Learning may confirm previous beliefs or invalidate them.
Yes, those seeking only confirmation and not open to amending wrong beliefs are not truthseekers.
If truth is one, it does not matter where we start, but ideally we should compare all sources.
I have studied many beliefs, and none compete with the 66 book Bible IMO.
Yes, we must pray to be free enough from what we were taught as a child to discern true understanding of Scripture.
Even if Scripture is inerrant, we are not infallible, so there remains the need for humbly harmonizing disparate teachings.
I vote for the inspiration of the meta-narrative or big picture of God's plan of salvation, and those who prefer divine dictation quietly say that means of the original writings, which we do not have.
Yes, a main need for those who value the Bible is to harmonize the information, even if that was not the original intent of the writers.
It is the intent of the One who inspired the authors that means something.
Yes, the history is meaningful as the contextual part of the message.
Yes, many seekers do not realize that the process resulting in the extant Bible is comparable to making sausage, but the result resonates with true seekers. People have not changed much over the millenia, so the meaning of terms is not greatly different, although certainly we should not make meanings morally opposite (as Marxists do). In order to nullify nihilism we must assume God guided the river of history to produce the Gospel, although He may allow the fish to swim as they wish. We must have faith in Him.
Even though Joseph Smith was prompted by the proliferation of Protestant denominations in America to found one which was worse than most, the solution to disunity must involve agreement on a creed expressing the essence of the Gospel, influenced by desire for spiritual unity. Having different sects is okay as long as some are not heretical cults.
Yes, truthseekers may kick against the goads of GW at first, but like Paul they will yield beloved dogmas and embrace the HS.
Yes, being convicted by new truth might cause uncomfortable feelings of guilt for being wrong, but how much untruth are we willing to tolerate?
Harmonizing science with the bible is not only possible but mandatory. Part of the way to do that is by realizing some truth is physical and other truth is spiritual or ultimate, and both are true.
For failing to get my joke, which may be my fault for it falling flat, but not in the sinful sense.
Anyway, my point was that we should not be anal by idolizing the KJV or any version of Scripture
(which is called Bibliolatry), because the Holy Spirit/God's Word is the One who should be worshipped.