Philosoft

How to you tell if a Bible critic does understand the Bible? Can you give us a mainstream example?
Because their interpretations differ from yours?

anime

An example would be a critic who is not Christian. he would not understand Christian terminology.

For instance, I heard of a critic once who had heard thar Mary Magdalene was betrothed to Christ. A Christian would know what that meant - speaking of the spiritual Bride (Rev. 19) with the Husband. He thought it meant Jesus Christ was married.

Little things like that. Like reading somewbody else's mail.

Most Christians do not understand the Bible because the Bible says they won't (Hos. 4:6. Amos 8:11-12. Matt. 24:4-5. Mark 13:5-6, etc.)

bgponder

Whoa anime,

Your statements are so full of holes that even I can fill them!

Number one, this is circular and wholeheartedly illogical--they don't understand it, because it says they won't , yet they are somehow able to be Christians. (I guess?) Hoo-boy! That's like saying, mathematicians don't really understand algebra, because it's not the same as regular 'rithmatic.

Number two, you're "interpreting" in the case of Hosea that it applies to Christians, before there was even a Bible, as it is known today. The words attributed to Hosea were admonishing the ancient Jews of the day, and a simple reading of the context says that it is not a matter of not understanding, but that "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge." (Emphasis mine.) Those who call themselves Christians surely do not reject knowledge of the Bible, but in the context of your argument may not see things the way you see them, in your "interpretations".

Same deal with Amos:

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it."

Notwithstanding the fact that Goddidit, and why the hell should that be just, it is a mystery how you know that this applies to Christians of the present day!

Your references to Matthew and Mark are Synoptic tellings of the same circumstance: the anticipation of Christ's return. From Matthew: "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

Now anime, are you saying that the Bible as most Christians have it is deceptive, and you and those who "interpret" like you, have the only sure knowledge; or are you saying that most Christians do not have the intellectual capability, or are lazy in said capability, etc. whereas you and your crew are not; or that there is a large body of people who are calling themselves Christians (Catholics, or Traditional Catholics, perhaps) that are willingly or unwillingly deceiving us; or are you saying that ultimately, you have the full knowledge and scope of the Judeo-Christian Godhead and His/Its plan for humankind?

What exactly are you saying? Because your argument thus far is gobbledegook.

And BTW, it is common knowledge that "anime" is synonymous with Japanese cartoon porn, so you might want to change your screen name to better reflect your values. Just an observation.

Peace and Cornbread,
Most Sincerely, BarryG

anime

Actually, “hentai” is synonymous with Japanese porn.

Number one, this is circular and wholeheartedly illogical--they don't understand it, because it says they won't , yet they are somehow able to be Christians.

“Many have been called, but few chosen” (Matt. 20:16, 22:14). Only a remnant shall know the truth (Last four parables of Matt. 13, Isa. 1:9. Romans 11).

Nowhere does it say they’re going to hell for it. The millennium teaching is yet future (Exek. 44:23).

Number two, you're "interpreting" in the case of Hosea that it applies to Christians, before there was even a Bible, as it is known today. The words attributed to Hosea were admonishing the ancient Jews of the day, and a simple reading of the context says that it is not a matter of not understanding, but that "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge." (Emphasis mine.) Those who call themselves Christians surely do not reject knowledge of the Bible, but in the context of your argument may not see things the way you see them, in your "interpretations".

Hosea was addressing the House of Israel (not Judah) concerning the approaching of the Assyrian who was a type for the antichrist (Isa. 14), and therefore has very much to do for today. The Latter State and the Future State (1:10-11 and 3:5) are set in contrast with the former, and applies to the future.

Many Christians do not believe they are rejecting knowledge of the Bible. After all, most go to church every Sunday and think it’s pleasing God. They do not search with their “whole heart” (Psa. 14:2-3; 119:2, etc. and compare Jer 29:13)

Same deal with Amos:

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it."

Notwithstanding the fact that Goddidit, and why the hell should that be just, it is a mystery how you know that this applies to Christians of the present day!

Amos, corresponding with Hosea, has the same warning of the Assyrian/Antichrist, and addresses specifically “the Day of the Lord” (5:18). It is just because they seek God from a building or a “reverend” instead of His word (Isa. 34:16). But don’t worry, it doesn’t say they’re going to hell.

Your references to Matthew and Mark are Synoptic tellings of the same circumstance: the anticipation of Christ's return. From Matthew: "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

The “synoptic” analysis is grossly inferior (see here), but you are essentially correct.

Now anime, are you saying that the Bible as most Christians have it is deceptive, and you and those who "interpret" like you, have the only sure knowledge; or are you saying that most Christians do not have the intellectual capability, or are lazy in said capability, etc. whereas you and your crew are not; or that there is a large body of people who are calling themselves Christians (Catholics, or Traditional Catholics, perhaps) that are willingly or unwillingly deceiving us; or are you saying that ultimately, you have the full knowledge and scope of the Judeo-Christian Godhead and His/Its plan for humankind?

You never heard me make one claim about myself. In fact, you spoke of “circular arguments", and then above you committed a
Straw Man Fallacy.

What exactly are you saying? Because your argument thus far is gobbledegook.

What else can you teach me, Straw Man?

sandlewood

I wish I had a dime for every Christian who thinks that he understands Christianity and the Bible correctly and that most other Christians don’t quite have it right.

How do you know you are not one of the Christians who are not meant to understand it? What’s are criteria for determining which type Christian you are, one who understands it or one who doesn’t?

anime

I wish I had a dime for every Christian who thinks that he understands Christianity and the Bible correctly and that most other Christians don’t quite have it right.

Me too.

How do you know you are not one of the Christians who are not meant to understand it? What’s are criteria for determining which type Christian you are, one who understands it or one who doesn’t?

The subject of me is irrelevent.

sandlewood

I mean “you” in the general sense. How does one know? What is the method one uses to determine who understands the Bible correctly and who doesn’t?

Feather

Er, monte carlo?

Boro Nut

Don't worry about it. Your English is just fine, and much better than our Portuguese. Incidentally, did you know Chile is an anagram of Clihe. I can't tell you what that means here in Middlesbrough.

Boro Nut

Priapus

To get back to the OP:

I personally think the best response would be to ask this person what they would do if their child asked them why they were being punished. Would they honestly tell them 'you wouldn't be able to understand why, but I have to punish you'. I think not. A good parent would sit their child down and explain that the punishment is given out of love to keep them out of danger, and they would explain this in terms the child could understand. If we just evaded the question (and on top of that insulted them by saying they can't understand) then wouldn't the child be rational to assume that we had no reason for the punishment?