Jesus held to the accuracy of scriptures. It is a gross distortion to try and pit Jesus against the specificity, authenticity, and authority of scripture, which he did not abolish or revise, but appealed to and endorsed:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle (specific letter strokes in the Hebrew) will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
--Matt. 5:17-18

Jesus plainly appealed to the Hebrew scriptures to prove who he was, "absolutely":

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets [i....

read more»

Jesus held to the accuracy of scriptures. It is a gross distortion to try and pit Jesus against the specificity, authenticity, and authority of scripture, which he did not abolish or revise, but appealed to and endorsed:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle (specific letter strokes in the Hebrew) will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
--Matt. 5:17-18

Jesus plainly appealed to the Hebrew scriptures to prove who he was, "absolutely":

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets [i.e. the old testament scriptures of Law and Prophets], he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
--Luke 23:27

How then is Jesus the ultimate revelation of God, if his words are of no more effect than those of Moses?

A faulty premise ("if his words are of no more effect than Moses") always leads to an erroneous conclusion. There is no point in quoting Jesus words again already quoted above about how the law and scriptures teach about him. Is your argument not with Jesus himself, about what he said? Jesus said to the Pharisee:

are you a teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

I thought Masbury was a minister familiar with scripture.

And why do you no longer do stonings and ceremonial washings and keep kosher if the words of Jesus are of no more i...

read more»

How then is Jesus the ultimate revelation of God, if his words are of no more effect than those of Moses?

A faulty premise ("if his words are of no more effect than Moses") always leads to an erroneous conclusion. There is no point in quoting Jesus words again already quoted above about how the law and scriptures teach about him. Is your argument not with Jesus himself, about what he said? Jesus said to the Pharisee:

are you a teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

I thought Masbury was a minister familiar with scripture.

And why do you no longer do stonings and ceremonial washings and keep kosher if the words of Jesus are of no more import than the words of Moses?

Jesus stated (above) that he "fulfilled" those things, part of the "types and shadows of the law" (e.g. sacrifices, priests)

for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins--Heb. 10:4

along with ceremonies (e.g. kosher) pertaining only to Israel as a priestly nation until the time of fulfillment by Christ. Judicial laws of course for crimes could in fact be used again, unless one attempts to accuse God of making unjust laws. God destroyed that apostate nation in 70 A.D., making the continuance of those sacrifices, priesthood, and temple worship impossible, just as Jesus also predicted. This doctrine Paul taught in Hebrews (ch. 8 thru 10) and Galations the discontinuance of the Judeo ceremonies and ritual laws.

What I think you're not facing, Masbury, is that truth is a moving target. Since the Enlightenment, we westerns have conflated truth with factuality; in ancient literature, these concepts are not the same, nor does the absence of one imply the absence of the other. Our view is no more sophisticated than any of the value judgments of how truth works that have dominated various moments in culture and history. And post-modernism is rapidly bringing the Enlightenment's temporary authority to a close.

To many ancients, whether, say, the Genesis story is factually correct (ie, "true" in our modern sense) might be a very silly question. For it is true in a deeper sense; it is representative of rea...

What I think you're not facing, Masbury, is that truth is a moving target. Since the Enlightenment, we westerns have conflated truth with factuality; in ancient literature, these concepts are not the same, nor does the absence of one imply the absence of the other. Our view is no more sophisticated than any of the value judgments of how truth works that have dominated various moments in culture and history. And post-modernism is rapidly bringing the Enlightenment's temporary authority to a close.

To many ancients, whether, say, the Genesis story is factually correct (ie, "true" in our modern sense) might be a very silly question. For it is true in a deeper sense; it is representative of reality - of the inner way things are.

---

And, of course, if any of that is true then it doesn't very much matter what Jesus said, because it's all a moving target based on the zeitgeist of the interpreter.

How about "truth" being simply "the actual state of affairs", "the facts" "the objective real world of actuality."

Truly, anything else is NOT fact and therefore subject to any interpretation anyone wants -- in other words it turns into something that is NOT the truth.

And if it's not the truth anyway, what difference does it make unless falsehood is a part of one's message?

(The cold fact is that the veracity of the bible is the same throughout no matter who's doing the talking. Are the words of Jehovah of greater truth when they contradict the words of Jesus? Are the words of Jesus of greater truth when they contradict the words of Moses? Can anyone tell us which parts are true and which parts are not when they contradict each other throughout?)

Aces, there's a very simple bellwether about what is relevant in the bible and what isn't. If a person is saying that they are a Christian, then that means, by definition, that they are endeavouring to be a "Little Christ". That means that the Gospels — the teachings of Christ — are of utmost importance, and everything else should be measured against that standard. Now, personally, I only take as "gospel" those things that are substantiated in at least 3 of the 4 Gospels, to reduce human error and biased perspectives. That's something anyone can do, even without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It boils it down to a very simple message (I won't post that here; if people want to hear it, they...

Aces, there's a very simple bellwether about what is relevant in the bible and what isn't. If a person is saying that they are a Christian, then that means, by definition, that they are endeavouring to be a "Little Christ". That means that the Gospels — the teachings of Christ — are of utmost importance, and everything else should be measured against that standard. Now, personally, I only take as "gospel" those things that are substantiated in at least 3 of the 4 Gospels, to reduce human error and biased perspectives. That's something anyone can do, even without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It boils it down to a very simple message (I won't post that here; if people want to hear it, they can ask and we can arrange to talk on IM or through email).

A significant amount of Jesus' message remains in the bible, but we may never know how much was lost throughout the millennia. It's been translated, transcribed, reinterpreted, retranslated and re-literated multiple times, so taking a strict, literal interpretation of the modern bible (regardless of the version) is very naïve. But that doesn't mean that it isn't still useful.

"What test of truth can be applied to appraise spiritual insight?"

How could it be an "insight" (spiritual or otherwise) if it's false? Therefore the test (the measure) of "any" insight (spiritual or otherwise) "IS" truth.

Truth "IS" the measure of insight, spiritual or otherwise, for it cannot be considered insight if its false!

Here look: My spiritual insight tells me that to kill the infidel is not only the greatest spiritual act that can be committed, but if I can kill the potential children of the infidel as well, I get a free pass without judgment into the highest realms of heaven, and all my sins are washed clean. [That's the insight from one spiritual guidebook for ...

"What test of truth can be applied to appraise spiritual insight?"

How could it be an "insight" (spiritual or otherwise) if it's false? Therefore the test (the measure) of "any" insight (spiritual or otherwise) "IS" truth.

Truth "IS" the measure of insight, spiritual or otherwise, for it cannot be considered insight if its false!

Here look: My spiritual insight tells me that to kill the infidel is not only the greatest spiritual act that can be committed, but if I can kill the potential children of the infidel as well, I get a free pass without judgment into the highest realms of heaven, and all my sins are washed clean. [That's the insight from one spiritual guidebook for seekers of spiritual wisdom.]

Another such spiritual guidebook says essentially the same thing and is incorporated in the very first (and thus highest) commandment. It says to kill the heretic, even if such a person is of your own family, you are to kill them by stoning. And if you don't have what it takes to stone them to death, YOU shall be stoned also!


Now, are you trying to tell me that these books need not be truthful, fact-books, rule-books, history books, or even theology books, because they need only be "guide-books" for those seeking spirituality?

What spirituality is found in the false? What spirituality is found in commandments to violence? What spirituality is found in a morality so devoid of fairness and justice that the acts of a god cannot be distinguished from that of a devil?

If that's your idea of spirituality, then what do you call justice, fairness, peacefulness, truth?

"Sticking with Facts" means that you comprehend neither the concept of divining spiritual truths, nor philosophy, so it's pretty much pointless to explain it to you. Try taking a course on philosophy and you might understand better.

Thank you. But I prefer Epistemology, which is the study of knowledge and how we gain it. And here's a little FACT. If it's not true its not knowledge! Imagine that! A thing must first be TRUE before it can be considered "knowledge"!

Imagine that in your world -- something having to be TRUE to be knowledge. (That would render most of your entire world invalid, wouldn't it?) But I guess in your world "spiritual knowledge" can also be make believe...

"Sticking with Facts" means that you comprehend neither the concept of divining spiritual truths, nor philosophy, so it's pretty much pointless to explain it to you. Try taking a course on philosophy and you might understand better.

Thank you. But I prefer Epistemology, which is the study of knowledge and how we gain it. And here's a little FACT. If it's not true its not knowledge! Imagine that! A thing must first be TRUE before it can be considered "knowledge"!

Imagine that in your world -- something having to be TRUE to be knowledge. (That would render most of your entire world invalid, wouldn't it?) But I guess in your world "spiritual knowledge" can also be make believe. Not in mine.

I seek the truth, not the make believe. Therein lies the difference between my philosophy and yours. The fact that you call yours "spiritual" makes it no less make believe.

@masbury

I've asked many questions pertaining to your world view of things. I am questioning the validity of those views for truthfulness because of the efficacy they've wrought on mankind. They are not rhetorical. I really want answers. For example, I asked:

"What spirituality is found in the false? What spirituality is found in commandments to violence? What spirituality is found in a morality so devoid of fairness and justice that the acts of a god cannot be distinguished from that of a devil?"

If you like, you can lump them into one big single question. But to ignore them completely, and the many others, suggests that your ideas are not crafted with thought but with wrote dogma devoid...

@masbury

I've asked many questions pertaining to your world view of things. I am questioning the validity of those views for truthfulness because of the efficacy they've wrought on mankind. They are not rhetorical. I really want answers. For example, I asked:

"What spirituality is found in the false? What spirituality is found in commandments to violence? What spirituality is found in a morality so devoid of fairness and justice that the acts of a god cannot be distinguished from that of a devil?"

If you like, you can lump them into one big single question. But to ignore them completely, and the many others, suggests that your ideas are not crafted with thought but with wrote dogma devoid of personal insight, and certainly not spiritual.

I want you to examine your views based on one simple concept: Truth.

It does no good to claim spiritual this or spiritual that if it's all false. And wouldn't the devil represent the false? And shouldn't the god represent the true?

Why then the avoidance of truth? If truth isn't the first measure of the spiritual, then your brand of spirituality is based on the false. (Which answers quite well why there's so much violence and ignorance in the world from the so-called spiritual.)
=====

You asked:

And what is a true spiritual fact?
And is there no theory in your world?

In my world truth and fact are the same. There are no false truths or false facts, spiritual or otherwise. Truth and fact are the actual state of affairs; they are what "is".

Theory? Of course. Theory attempts to describe what the facts "mean." Theory is how we go about trying to understand the "meaning" of the facts. Notice! We start with the facts!

Sorry, but you're mistaken, AL. Knowledge does not equal Truth. There is a lot of knowledge that isn't truth, but is rather speculation. Your premise is essentially flawed and debunked, so you need to work on that before you can continue this discussion.

Your continued demonstration that it is possible to "know" something that isn't true supports your case admirably.

The definition of knowledge currently and historically used in Epistemology will certainly have to change to accommodate your insight. The whole study of knowledge must now stand corrected.

You should get due credit for this. Write a paper and get it published in leading Epistemology journals so that the field...

Sorry, but you're mistaken, AL. Knowledge does not equal Truth. There is a lot of knowledge that isn't truth, but is rather speculation. Your premise is essentially flawed and debunked, so you need to work on that before you can continue this discussion.

Your continued demonstration that it is possible to "know" something that isn't true supports your case admirably.

The definition of knowledge currently and historically used in Epistemology will certainly have to change to accommodate your insight. The whole study of knowledge must now stand corrected.

You should get due credit for this. Write a paper and get it published in leading Epistemology journals so that the field can benefit from your advancement of the philosophy.

Or start with a university or college level professor in the field of Epistemology (not to be confused with a religious apologist) and ask them to evaluate your definition of knowledge.

I think your discovery will be given a fair shake. And I'll agree, I need to "work on that" before I can continue this discussion.

Thanks. All my comments on this thread will now be directed at Masbury. Thanks again. Bye-bye.

@Masbury

The question wasn't "what do you call justice, fairness, peacefulness?"

The question was: "If that's your idea of spirituality, then what do you call justice, fairness, peacefulness, truth?"

Do
you see how you were completely blind to my question and proceeded to
address something else entirely, choosing only the parts *from* the
question you were willing to see?

All along, I've been trying
to show you your own hypnosis but it's difficult to see in ourselves
until we can see it clearly in others. It does no good to just say you
are hypnotized by a meme and expect you to see it in yourself.

So, allow me to SHOW YOU exactly what it looks like objectively. Watch this (it's only a...

@Masbury

The question wasn't "what do you call justice, fairness, peacefulness?"

The question was: "If that's your idea of spirituality, then what do you call justice, fairness, peacefulness, truth?"

Do
you see how you were completely blind to my question and proceeded to
address something else entirely, choosing only the parts *from* the
question you were willing to see?

All along, I've been trying
to show you your own hypnosis but it's difficult to see in ourselves
until we can see it clearly in others. It does no good to just say you
are hypnotized by a meme and expect you to see it in yourself.

So, allow me to SHOW YOU exactly what it looks like objectively. Watch this (it's only a few minutes).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlItEIj8bg

This
is what happens in the mind when certain things are presented a certain
way. Note: This fellow has also converted atheists to believers and
back again, by the same techniques used in church all the time.

But
you probably won't be able to ever see your own hypnosis until you can
recognize it objectively in others. The video is a good demonstration.
Please, take a look.