Response to Reddit Comment

Response to: https://www.reddit.com/r/christianmemes/s/W1wXv9MAom

---

"Let’s make sure we are on the same page on basics."

* Monotheism - I'm sure we agree
* The Trinity - Based on what you've said in your response, we don't agree. Jesus has always existed, and if He didn't, He wouldn't be God. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Creator. That's one indispensable quality that makes Him God, as it is for the Father and the Holy Spirit. See Hebrews 1:2, John 1:3.
* Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah, died for the sins of humanity, and resurrection - Agree
* salvation - I don't know what you think it takes to be saved. I believe in salvation by faith alone.
* The Bible is the inspired word of God - We both agree with this as worded, but you make it clear through the rest of what you've said that we don't agree with what this means.
* The Holy Spirit is God’s presence in the world - I don't know exactly what you mean when you say this. A necessary attribute of God is omnipresence, so the Father and Son are present in the world, too. The Holy Spirit has a specific ministry in the world that is unique to Him, of course, so if you mean that, then sure.
* Second Coming - I don't know what you believe about the second coming, but I'm willing to assume we agree broadly what this means, though I'm sure we'll differ on details.

To go further into detail on the Bible being inspired, you seem to think that "inspiration" means something more like it means in the sentence "I saw a pretty sunset, which inspired me to write a poem." That is, that it means something like "motivated me to do something creative," rather than the real, scriptural meaning of "God-breathed" and certified as true. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

"That context is necessary when reading the Bible. Which you seem to agree that context is importante. Maybe the issue lies with our methods of finding context."

Certainly our methods differ. Historical records are dubious. Scientific evidence is dubious. Even our own eyes are dubious. The context has to be that which is necessarily true or we can know nothing. Only God's word is certain.

“Now I’m aware that studies show that about 50% of people believe in Biblical infallible. I don’t believe this due to a significant amounts of evidence I’ve seen."

This is why we don't have the same religion.

"Yes, from scientific inconsistencies, historical and geographical issues, moral and ethical ambiguities, interpretational differences, examples of specific discrepancies."

Which you evaluate based on your own understanding and the understanding of other people and from information outside of scripture. Rather than saying, "I'm wrong when I disagree with the Bible, and I need to figure out why I'm wrong," you decide the Bible is wrong.

"If the Bible was indeed created and preserved perfectly by God then please tell me which translation is correct?"

In English: KJV.

"All four gospels write different variations of the same moment."

Jesus gave the same sermons more than once.

"God is perfect. Man is full of sin. We are incapable of passing the clean water past us without it getting dirty."

God promised to preserve His Word for every generation. If we don't have the word of God, then God is a liar, unless you're also going to claim all the times God promised to preserve His Word are also corrupted. Again, at this point, you'd be picking and choosing whatever you want to believe from the Bible and rejecting that which doesn't align with your own understanding.

What is even the point of being Christian? The only basis you have for being a Christian is the very thing you claim is laden with errors, including the parts that necessarily entail that it is without errors. You might as well give up being a Christian. Your faith is not built on a rock but on shifting sands you have to correct with what a bunch of God-hating world sources in a world the Bible says is run by the devil.

"We all prayed to the exact same God. In fact, Muslims and Jews, also believe in Jesus as a prophet."

1. They don't believe in the same God as Christians. Their gods are not a Trinity. Their gods don't teach the same things as the Christian God. Their gods didn't send their sons to save us.

2. Jews don't believe Jesus is a prophet. You don't even wanna know what they teach about Jesus.

3. Jesus didn't call everyone a brother or a sister.

"[Regarding my claim that Jesus is the author of all scripture] No historian, biblical scholar, theology, reports, articles, or research papers of any kind on this. Can you please share some source on this. Do you mean the Holy Spirit? Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are not the same according to the fundamental beliefs of the trinity."

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. - John 16:13-14

"The question of whether if Jesus existed before his birth is a very old question that is a very divided with no answers. We both hit the L on this one."

Um...no. Jesus has always existed. This isn't even ambiguous in scripture.

"Yes he did.... If you want to understand this more here’s a link."

This doesn't address the arguments I made concerning your assertions but simply re-asserts them.

"But now Jesus has fulfilled the law and overwrites it. (Not throwing it away, but overwrites it)."

There was a necessary change in the law, but it was of the ceremonial law, not the moral law, as described in Hebrews.

Whether or not we are to love those who hate God has nothing to do with ceremony, as the meats, drinks and diverse washings were.

"Who is 'they' in this sentence?"

"They" means "the commands from Jesus to love our neighbors, enemies and brothers and sisters in Christ." That is, those commands don't necessarily mean that we are commanded to love everyone, and the rest of my argument was to show that it can't mean that.

"And ambiguously is evidence towards a fallible scripture. You are now claiming the Bible has error. As something infallible cannot be ambiguous."

"Infallible" means "without error" when it comes to saying scripture is infallible. Why is ambiguity an error? Jesus was ambiguous when He said, "There is none good but one, that is, God." That could mean Jesus was calling Himself not good or saying that He's God because He's good. Plenty of people take it both ways, for example me versus Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses.

I could also say, "The most important man in history had a beard." That's true because Jesus had a beard, and He's the most important man in history, but it's ambiguous because someone else might think Muhammed is the most important man in history, and he had a beard.

It's really strange to say ambiguity is an error. There are good reasons to be ambiguous sometimes.

"These are two commandments that Jesus gave. As commandments were made to stand alone without additional context needed to understand."

First of all, Jesus gave us many more commandments than just two. Before ascending to Heaven, He told His disciples to go into all the world teaching people to do all He commanded. He didn't say "both" of the things He commanded.

Secondly, Jesus saying that two commandments are the most important commandments doesn't mean those are the only two commandments.

Thirdly, tell me, how do we know the ways we're supposed to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves? As far as God, the Bible teaches that loving God is obeying Him. So, we love God by obeying Him and the only two commandments include loving Him? That's just circular and nonsensical.

The Old Testament law, with some additions from the New Testament (such as swearing oaths being forbidden) and some doing away of ceremonial law teaches us how we are to love God and our neighbors as ourselves. That's why they're the most important laws, because they encompass all the laws within them.

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. - Romans 13:9

"Yes. He did and it wasn’t the first time either. Each covenant is God changing. Now to be clear his character and will is still the same."

I've already addressed this here enough, I think, except to add this: what about the cross changes the ceremonial laws? Those ceremonial laws were all pointing to the cross in expectation. Once Jesus came and died for us, we don't point to it in expectation with our ceremonies anymore but look back on it in remembrance with our ceremonies. That's why the law changed.

What about any of that changes the idea that God wants or doesn't want us to love people who hate Him? That's not a matter of ceremony, and changing His disposition about that would indeed by a change in the character of God.

"But we shouldn’t look to the old laws first. Jesus is the way to salvation not the law."

I never said this was a matter of salvation. It's a matter of acting correctly.

“'Your arguments are left wanting' There is no need to be rude."

That wasn't meant to be rude. I stand by that statement and think it's true. You went into more detail in this one, but you still haven't addressed my argument except to say that the Bible has errors in it, which is not an argument that a Christian should be able to tolerate.

"Through out this discussion you’ve used the false dilemma fallacy multiple times."

It's only a false dilemma if it's a false dilemma. For someone with the same religion as me, it is a false dilemma because the idea of scripture being false is an impossibility or else God is a liar, in which case, I'll eat, drink and be merry because tomorrow I die.

"I’m not calling Jehu a false profit, but Jesus kinda did. I’m half joking."

So, it was a false dilemma, but you half jokingly accepted one of the options of my false dilemma?