Just curious; why in the world wouldn’t you actually include the verse in your post? Why make the multiple people reading look it up, instead of just one (you), who likely has it in front of their face already?
I was responding in kind to dougie_monty, with as much information and discussion as he was providing.
Very well:
“To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.” (Today’s English Version)
Why bring up John 20:25? Yes, I know what it says.
I believe we not only can, we must. This is why I opened my response to monavis with “Not necessarily.” I didn’t say, “You’re wrong,” only that there is an ambiguity in the way the word is used.
In one sense of the word, when I believe something on faith – “There is life other than on earth in the universe” – and then later find out, possibly to my surprise, that it actually is true – perhaps we receive signals from a distant solar system – I don’t stop believing what I believed. It turns from a belief based on faith into a belief based on fact, but it does not stop being a belief.
monavis was using language in such a way as to indicate that, once the fact was established, the knowledge ceases to be a belief. This is valid is “belief” is defined as “belief based on faith.” But that isn’t the only definition of the word.
Or…so I believe.
Yours has nothing to do with “belief” as was being discussed - John 20:25 shows that belief without evidence is not required, and in fact shows that demanding evidence is an acceptable, if not correct, thing to do.
Your verse is second hand, by someone that only has “the unseen” to go on - the verse I quoted (at face value) is a demand by a direct apostle as recorded by another.
In short - your verse, while an apt description of “faith” - is trumped when it comes to what may be required for one to “believe”.
:Sigh: As far as I am concerned, you are splitting hairs.:rolleyes:
You’ve got to be kidding. Can’t you even offer an attempt at reconciling those two, discordant passages? I’m guessing not. To be fair, it’s one of many contradictions in the bible, and no feat of logic or reason is going to bring the plain meaning of those two verses into an accord.
I do not recognize Thomas’ statement as binding or reliable at all. And I have heard people claim contradictions exists in the Bible, for years; means nothing to me.
Who is the father of Joseph?
What were the last words of Jesus?
Hoe did Judas die?
That’s just a small sample from the New Testament. Want more?
Oh, and my favorite one. This one is great because these two verses are right next to each other and yet directly contradict each other:
Then you’re the one choosing to keep your blinders on.
You sure know how to hand me straight lines! Blinders yet… * I’m * not the one thinking like a horse!
I once found a book of “last words” in which Jesus’ words from the Gospels were combined, in a logical order.
Joseph was Jesus’ foster father, in case you hadn’t guessed.
The verses in Proverbs take a little more time to deal with…I’ll return to it later today.
The phrase has nothing to do with thinking like a horse.
What is a “logical order” of last words? Either a set of words are a person’s last, or they are not.
The contradiction was about Joseph’s father, not Jesus’ father.
Your responses don’t even make enough sense to be wrong. They are non sequiturs.
No surprise, since his declaration of Jesus as “my lord and my god” is especially problematic for some.
But - who are you to decide what statements are, or are not , binding and reliable?
isn’t the entire bible supposed to be “god breathed” and beneficial?
[QUOTE=2 Timothy 3:16]
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
[/QUOTE]
Or is it only the parts you like/agree with?
How odd that no one writing the actual gospels managed that feat.
- You * have no room to talk.
I brought the matter of Heli up a long time ago: Inasmuch as the context of Luke 2 and 3 deals more with Mary, and women’s names were rarely included in genealogies, it is reasonable to surmise that the line of descent in Luke 3:23-38 is through Mary, not Joseph, and Heli was * her * father.
As for Judas, combining the accounts suggests a tree at a cliff’s edge; the bough broke, and he hit the bottom, so his bowels gushed out (yukk!)
Except for the nagging fact that the scripture clearly states it’s Joseph’s father we’re talking about…
Except for the nagging fact that there is nothing in scripture that states that the bough broke or that he fell down a cliff or that the thing he hung himself from was anywhere near one…
You’re nagging, all right.:rolleyes:
The verses are a direct contradiction, no matter how you spin it.
My-What a vivid imagination you must have, what with trees on the edges of cliffs and boughs breaking.