>>18114766
Have you read the KJV translation where it says "seed of Israel" in Jeremiah 31:36 and not just "Israel"? Are you dismissing everything Paul says in Galatians as well? It seems so.
I am assuming you are just trying to waste all of our time now. That's too bad because I thought you weren't being disingenuous until now. I see now that you are intellectually dishonest and not willing to have a good faith conversation. But at least I had a chance to post the truth for others to see here.
4chan Search
4 results for "7d0f2936e1f1fbbdace2f25e56942c2c"
>>18070842
>Another thing that I should have highlighted is that even the OT isn't safe from similar arguments
Well, whatever is inspired by God is part of Scripture – just as Paul says. And according to Jesus Christ in John 8:47, the divine inspiration of God's word is self-evident to those who are of God.
"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
- John 8:47
>But if that's your standard then why when it comes to the gospel you don't require the name of the author being present in the text and instead rely on tradition for that?
If a book of the Bible claims to be written by someone, that means saying it wasn't written by them is equivalent to saying it is false. If someone wants to argue over who exactly wrote the book of Hebrews (which has no attributed writer), I don't see that as being the same problem. However, for the Gospels and Acts, it makes sense to refer to the writers by the names in the titles since there isn't any reason to think it's anyone else.
>If the HS came down right now and said 2+2=5
Hypothetical scenarios that will never be true are not valid points of inquiry.
>Such as what happened in the example I gave, which wasn't technically a logical contradiction btw but Christian theology in particular loves to impose those anyway
Just show us one. At this point I've seen the same story play out many times with different combinations of scripture passages. There was always a reasonable explanation for each.
We sometimes learn new information from investigating. For example, in Matthew 27:9, we learn that Jeremiah once gave the same prophecy that was later written down by Zechariah. This isn't a contradiction because it says it was "spoken" by Jeremiah, not "written in" Jeremiah (e.g. Mark says certain things are "written" in the prophets in Mark 1:1-2). So we learn new things from the Gospels. Paul the apostle is also the first person to tell us that Saul's reign was 40 years long, etc.
>Another thing that I should have highlighted is that even the OT isn't safe from similar arguments
Well, whatever is inspired by God is part of Scripture – just as Paul says. And according to Jesus Christ in John 8:47, the divine inspiration of God's word is self-evident to those who are of God.
"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
- John 8:47
>But if that's your standard then why when it comes to the gospel you don't require the name of the author being present in the text and instead rely on tradition for that?
If a book of the Bible claims to be written by someone, that means saying it wasn't written by them is equivalent to saying it is false. If someone wants to argue over who exactly wrote the book of Hebrews (which has no attributed writer), I don't see that as being the same problem. However, for the Gospels and Acts, it makes sense to refer to the writers by the names in the titles since there isn't any reason to think it's anyone else.
>If the HS came down right now and said 2+2=5
Hypothetical scenarios that will never be true are not valid points of inquiry.
>Such as what happened in the example I gave, which wasn't technically a logical contradiction btw but Christian theology in particular loves to impose those anyway
Just show us one. At this point I've seen the same story play out many times with different combinations of scripture passages. There was always a reasonable explanation for each.
We sometimes learn new information from investigating. For example, in Matthew 27:9, we learn that Jeremiah once gave the same prophecy that was later written down by Zechariah. This isn't a contradiction because it says it was "spoken" by Jeremiah, not "written in" Jeremiah (e.g. Mark says certain things are "written" in the prophets in Mark 1:1-2). So we learn new things from the Gospels. Paul the apostle is also the first person to tell us that Saul's reign was 40 years long, etc.
>>18060302
According to Romans 1, there are people who reject God and who end up as "reprobates," meaning they have gone beyond the point of no return. If you want to believe what Paul says there, this is real. When God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, that was only after he had hardened his own heart prior to that; he had made his choice, he'd had his chance and opportunity to do differently. God was going to be glorified, and if Pharaoh was determined to rebel against God's purposes, God can still use that according to the Bible.
It's the same for anyone else, really.
According to Romans 1, there are people who reject God and who end up as "reprobates," meaning they have gone beyond the point of no return. If you want to believe what Paul says there, this is real. When God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, that was only after he had hardened his own heart prior to that; he had made his choice, he'd had his chance and opportunity to do differently. God was going to be glorified, and if Pharaoh was determined to rebel against God's purposes, God can still use that according to the Bible.
It's the same for anyone else, really.
>>17756725
>somehow Christians are aware that unborn babies suffering for all eternity is immoral
Hey anon, guess how I know that though? Because the Bible says they don't. And God's judgement is always perfectly just, so that tells me the opposite of what it says that God would do would be immoral.
>even though God says that's what happens
Not according to 2 Samuel 12:23 and Job 3:16-19. According to those verses, unborn children who die do not go to hell. Not sure how many times this has been mentioned by others already. This result is already clear when you realize that, according to the Bible, what separates us from God is sin. Sin requires an agent who knows between good and evil to rebel, to go against God's word in some way and choose that which is called morally evil. You get that even implicitly even without the two verses I just mentioned which just hammer the point home even further.
>somehow Christians are aware that unborn babies suffering for all eternity is immoral
Hey anon, guess how I know that though? Because the Bible says they don't. And God's judgement is always perfectly just, so that tells me the opposite of what it says that God would do would be immoral.
>even though God says that's what happens
Not according to 2 Samuel 12:23 and Job 3:16-19. According to those verses, unborn children who die do not go to hell. Not sure how many times this has been mentioned by others already. This result is already clear when you realize that, according to the Bible, what separates us from God is sin. Sin requires an agent who knows between good and evil to rebel, to go against God's word in some way and choose that which is called morally evil. You get that even implicitly even without the two verses I just mentioned which just hammer the point home even further.