Why is "belief" important?

[Ronson]

Um, well, Timothy was the recipient. Paul is named as the author.

Correction noted. But in any case, it is still the opinion of a man - and not a claim from God that any of us can validate. Paul didn't even know what the final Bible would contain.

[Esther]

Ronson I have read through this thread a bit and also a few of your previous posts and contributions. Whilst doing dishes (lol) I was wondering what I would say to you re this matter of belief and why it matters. I am glad to see you received intelligent replies and I am not in contest. Just to add, I would say this;

~I noticed you said you were old and grumpy or something to that effect.
~It was comforting to note you were a Christian. I take this to mean you have put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for your eternal soul.
~Then to read you are not was quite jarring somehow.

~When many disciples left Jesus, he asked Peter are you also going to desert and abandon me. Peter answered no Lord where will we go. You alone have the words of eternal life.

~We are also told to cast down all imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself above the knowledge of God.

So to answer your question why belief matters, when we are just an insignificant speck kind of thing? I say it matters so much that in the vast universe, through the eternities of eternities, the Lord Jesus Christ came down to our world, not just anywhere in the far reaches of space, but specifically to planet earth, to experience death for every individual so that we can live free from the fear of death and look forward to eternal life. I stop here because I understand that it is difficult to not get into Christianese.

Only Jesus Christ has the words of eternal life. Only the Bible contains these words.



Peter’s Confession of Faith


⁶⁶ As a result of this ^[h]many of His disciples abandoned Him, and no longer walked with Him. ⁶⁷ So Jesus said to the twelve [disciples], “You do not want to leave too, do you?” ⁶⁸ Simon Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You [alone] have the words of eternal life [you are our only hope]. ⁶⁹ We have believed and confidently trusted, and [even more] we have come to know [by personal observation and experience] that You are the Holy One of God [the Christ, the Son of the living God].”

[footwasher]

Correction noted. But in any case, it is still the opinion of a man - and not a claim from God that any of us can validate. Paul didn't even know what the final Bible would contain.

The aspect to think about is benefit in the case of beliefs.


And most of us link beliefs to affinity, in the sense that some like quiet world views, whilst others are more likely to adhere to radicalism.


Again a mistake, because of forgetting about the important aspect, desired results, benefits.


An example will explain. I want to make holes. Maybe it's to pass a wire through a wall. I buy a drill machine. It comes with an instruction book.


Reading the book will not only get me the holes I require, it will also enlighten me about holes in general:


Don't drill carelessly, check for hidden electric and water lines. Also do you have the right tool for plaster and wood or masonry?


That's the purpose of the Bible. It not only answers questions, it makes you ask the right questions.


It would be strange if your instruction book was errant.


You wouldn't know if you were doing things right. Or even had the right results in mind.


That's why 'belief' is important. You want to know that the desired result is being achieved.

[tabibito]

I suppose it's possible to have a prophecy embedded down in their somewhere. But if it's all covered up with layers of apologetic devices, then it's a simpler explanation to me that the author of Matthew just got a little creative.

The pregnancy is a miracle.

Other prophecies by Isaiah certainly are references to the messiah, but I am not convinced about this particular prophecy either way. Had any other New Testament author made the same claim, I would dismiss the "not so" claims - with Matthew that is not so easily done. To date though, the claim that this is not a prophecy about the messiah has come from commentators who reject other prophecies that clearly ARE about the Messiah - so, for my part - no verdict can be returned with any assurance.

[tabibito]

Timothy (?) is the one who tells us that all of scripture is inspired by God. Timothy wrote this.

Only in the translations which add in one or two unwarranted "is"s.

{{Not disregarding the correction already provided regarding the author}}

[Machinist]

The pregnancy is a miracle.

Other prophecies by Isaiah certainly are references to the messiah, but I am not convinced about this particular prophecy either way. Had any other New Testament author made the same claim, I would dismiss the "not so" claims - with Matthew that is not so easily done. To date though, the claim that this is not a prophecy about the messiah has come from commentators who reject other prophecies that clearly ARE about the Messiah - so, for my part - no verdict can be returned with any assurance.

Which pregnancy?

[tabibito]

Which pregnancy?

Isaiah 7:13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

[Machinist]

Isaiah 7:13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

So you do think that this is a valid prophecy?

[tabibito]

So you do think that this is a valid prophecy?

I think that Matthew's identification of the verse as a prophecy regarding the messiah is PROBABLY correct. The chief cause for doubt is that Matthew wrote it - from any other author, I would not have any reservations.

[Machinist]

I think that Matthew's identification of the verse as a prophecy regarding the messiah is PROBABLY correct. The chief cause for doubt is that Matthew wrote it - from any other author, I would not have any reservations.

Let's assume it is correct. How would go about arguing for it?

[Ronson]

The aspect to think about is benefit in the case of beliefs.


And most of us link beliefs to affinity, in the sense that some like quiet world views, whilst others are more likely to adhere to radicalism.


Again a mistake, because of forgetting about the important aspect, desired results, benefits.


An example will explain. I want to make holes. Maybe it's to pass a wire through a wall. I buy a drill machine. It comes with an instruction book.


Reading the book will not only get me the holes I require, it will also enlighten me about holes in general:


Don't drill carelessly, check for hidden electric and water lines. Also do you have the right tool for plaster and wood or masonry?


That's the purpose of the Bible. It not only answers questions, it makes you ask the right questions.


It would be strange if your instruction book was errant.


You wouldn't know if you were doing things right. Or even had the right results in mind.


That's why 'belief' is important. You want to know that the desired result is being achieved.

Just for sake of argument, say you are conversing with a Buddhist. He tells you the Tipitaka is the inerrant word of God, and he gives you basically the same argument that you just gave me. One cannot claim xxx is inerrant just because xxx claims to be so. It has to be externally validated in some fashion or it is just words being bandied about. When I examine certain claims in the Bible and compare them with other claims on the same subject, they do not jibe. That alone fails an internal validation.

But as to my initial question, of why belief is important to God, I have received answers from posters here. I still don't think they make much sense and the answers tend to ignore the larger picture.

[footwasher]

Just for sake of argument, say you are conversing with a Buddhist. He tells you the Tipitaka is the inerrant word of God, and he gives you basically the same argument that you just gave me. One cannot claim xxx is inerrant just because xxx claims to be so. It has to be externally validated in some fashion or it is just words being bandied about. When I examine certain claims in the Bible and compare them with other claims on the same subject, they do not jibe. That alone fails an internal validation.

But as to my initial question, of why belief is important to God, I have received answers from posters here. I still don't think they make much sense and the answers tend to ignore the larger picture.

The point is, 'What is the desired result?'

You bought a drill gun, the manual tells you how to use it to get holes. Did you get the holes promised through the use of tool and instructions?

Did the Buddhist Tipitaka commit to a result? Did it deliver?

[footwasher]

I suppose it's possible to have a prophecy embedded down in their somewhere. But if it's all covered up with layers of apologetic devices, then it's a simpler explanation to me that the author of Matthew just got a little creative.

What you call 'creative reporting(!)', and scholars call eisegesis is actually quite acceptable in Judaism:

https://bible.org/article/hints-alle...ent-quotes-old

Quote
We must understand the four basic modes of Scripture interpretation used by the rabbis. These are:

(1) p’shat (“simple”)—the plain, literal sense of the text, more or less what modern scholars mean by “grammatical-historical exegesis,” which looks to the grammar of the language and the historical setting as background for deciding what a passage means. Modern scholars often consider grammatical-historical exegesis the only valid way to deal with a text; pastors who use other approaches in their sermons usually feel defensive about it before academics. But the rabbis had three other modes of interpreting Scripture, and their validity should not be excluded in advance but related to the validity of their implied presuppositions.


(2) Remez (“hint”)—wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p’shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware.

(3) Drash or Midrash (“search”)—an allegorical or homiletical application of a text. This is a species of eisegesis—reading one’s own thoughts into the text—as opposed to exegesis, which is extracting from the text what it actually says. The implied presupposition is that the words of Scripture can legitimately become grist for the mill of human intellect, which God can guide to truths not directly related to the text at all.

[Ronson]

The point is, 'What is the desired result?'

You bought a drill gun, the manual tells you how to use it to get holes. Did you get the holes promised through the use of tool and instructions?

I'm not sure that is a proper analogy. It would suggest I acquired a Bible or Tipitaka with a specific or preconceived objective. Instead, a book is handed to you and you are told "Read this. This is the truth - it is all truth. We know this because it says so."

Did the Buddhist Tipitaka commit to a result? Did it deliver?

I honestly never read it. It's just an example for illustration.

[footwasher]

I'm not sure that is a proper analogy. It would suggest I acquired a Bible or Tipitaka with a specific or preconceived objective. Instead, a book is handed to you and you are told "Read this. This is the truth - it is all truth. We know this because it says so."



I honestly never read it. It's just an example for illustration.

Well the problem every human has is of not having eternal life. The Bible gives the solution to that problem.

Or to continue the analogy, you find out one day you need eternal life. You are on the market for eternal life, just as in our example you needed to get holes made in a wall. You then find out, by enquiring of many others, that it can be acquired by following the instructions in the Bible. Bingo!