Bertrand Russell quote

[agua]

It appears as though your rules are designed to affirm what is written in ancient text, by many unknown authors, as opposed to using some level of objective means, to determine the credibility of the same.

Sure Bhsmte; remember my discussion with Garboman isn't about the veracity of the Bible, but the exegesis of scripture, which you will not be interested in.

Credibilty of scripture is a different topic.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm refering to Jesus teachings, not society's, because we know that society, even Christian ones, fail to follow all teachings correctly. Because Jesus didn't condemn sinners doesn't imply in any way that he He found the sin acceptable/allowable. Can you show me where Jesus made allowances for sin, or immorality ?

Jesus made allowances for sin by offering forgiveness freely and by teaching his followers to do the same.

It's a mistake to see Jesus as someone who was pre-eminently concerned with morals. He was not. He was more troubled by hypocrisy than by people that failed to live up to moral standards.

 

[agua]

The soul is the immaterial essence of a human being. I use the term in different ways in different contexts...in the view of dichotomists, soul essentially equals the combination of mind and spirit with all the properties of minds. Trichotomists generally split man into body-spirit-mind. Many Tri- folks interchange soul with spirit as an animating force. I think both are useful; each brings a somewhat different set of debating points to the table.

When I use soul in my writing it could mean either spirit or mind. Context usually is apparent, or at least manifest enough to imply one or the other.

Why is what I view soul to be important to you?

I'm determining how we view Yahweh, and understand His doctrines.

Here we see an immediate difference where I believe the Bible clearly shows that the soul is simply a living breathing creature, with the caveat that it may be used abstractly, but never represents a separate part of a human ( or any animal ). Man is simply a living breathing creature, a soul.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature (H2416,H5315) after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (H2416,H5315).

H2416
חי
chay
khah'ee
From H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively: - + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.


H5315
נפשׁ
nephesh
neh'-fesh
From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.




Should we move onto another doctrine that we likely disagree about, and see where this leads ?

 

[agua]

Jesus made allowances for sin by offering forgiveness freely and by teaching his followers to do the same.

It's a mistake to see Jesus as someone who was pre-eminently concerned with morals. He was not. He was more troubled by hypocrisy than by people that failed to live up to moral standards.

This is incorrect. In showing mercy and forgiveness Jesus in no way made allowance for sin, and often told people he forgave ( those in faith of him ) to sin no more.

Jesus was occupied with changing the heart of people, which included repentance from sin, and godly repentance leads to salvation, I think Paul said that repentance ( godly/true) leads to salvation. Can you post scripture that shows Jesus makes allowance for sin, because I don't believe you.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus was occupied with changing the heart of people, which included repentance from sin, and godly repentance leads to salvation, I think Paul said that repentance ( godly/true) leads to salvation. Can you post scripture that shows Jesus makes allowance for sin, because I don't believe you.

Forgiveness is allowance for sin. It is not condoning sin but its allowing it.

If he didn't allow it, God would simply prohibit people from sinning at all. But he doesn't.

The rest of what you post is evangelical claptrap. Jesus wasn't out to moralize, and he wasn't out to change hearts so much as to bring a sword to the both comfortable and oppressive world of the first century. The only people he really lectured about their conduct were religious people. The others, like the woman caught in adultery, he basically was saying "Don't do what got you in trouble", he wasn't somehow expecting perfection out of anyone, hence why he told his followers to forgive.

 

[agua]

Forgiveness is allowance for sin. It is not condoning sin but its allowing it.

If he didn't allow it, God would simply prohibit people from sinning at all. But he doesn't.

The rest of what you post is evangelical claptrap. Jesus wasn't out to moralize, and he wasn't out to change hearts so much as to bring a sword to the both comfortable and oppressive world of the first century. The only people he really lectured about their conduct were religious people. The others, like the woman caught in adultery, he basically was saying "Don't do what got you in trouble", he wasn't somehow expecting perfection out of anyone, hence why he told his followers to forgive.

Ok Firedragon we have a very different view of Yahweh and His methods, and doctrine. I will suggest yours is incorrect, rather than a trapped clap though

Oh; do you accept that Jesus told the woman you identified as caught in adultery to stop sinning ? Also do you accept the guidelines Jesus taught, and which were followed by Paul, for discipline and corrective measures for believers caught in sin?

ETA I'm sorry but I think we'll need to clarify some definitions here. Can you give me your definition of allowance, and forgiveness please. I think this might be the cause of our misunderstanding, maybe.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Should we move onto another doctrine that we likely disagree about, and see where this leads ?

To what end?

Yes, soul can mean a living breathing being. I recall my grandmother saying of certain folks in her community, "Bless that soul." She was referring to a specific person,which fits the definition you use.

I'm confused: you're not suggesting the cut and paste stuff in your last post establishes a "true doctrine" are you?

 

[agua]

To what end?

Yes, soul can mean a living breathing being. I recall my grandmother saying of certain folks in her community, "Bless that soul." She was referring to a specific person,which fits the definition you use.

I'm confused: you're not suggesting the cut and paste stuff in your last post establishes a "true doctrine" are you?

The cut and paste was word definitions from Strongs; I also use Interlinear scripture analyser. What do you use for Bible word definition comparisons ?

I showed you my current method of establishing true doctrine ( or at least refuting false doctrine ) in the 8 conditions earlier; the copy paste was the beginning of exegeting soul in scripture with the first uses of the term nephesh; this will eventually lead to a concrete understanding of what nephesh is.

The end of testing the differences in our doctrines is to show how our doctrines influence our perceptions of Yahweh's characteristics, and the consequent nature/substance/soteriology of the human's He created. I think it will be a very interesting journey if you'd like to take it with me, and may show why correct doctrine is important. imo.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

The cut and paste was word definitions from Strongs;

Yes, I recognized it as such.

I showed you my current method of establishing true doctrine ( or at least refuting false doctrine ) in the 8 conditions earlier; the copy paste was the beginning of exegeting soul in scripture with the first uses of the term nephesh; this will eventually lead to a concrete understanding of what nephesh is.

The end of testing the differences in our doctrines is to show how our doctrines influence our perceptions of Yahweh's characteristics, and the consequent nature/substance/soteriology of the human's He created. I think it will be a very interesting journey if you'd like to take it with me, and may show why correct doctrine is important. imo.

Okay, first use the same exegetical process on Jesus' statement, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." (Jn 2:19)

Now, show me how your exegetical process explains His meaning.

 

[agua]

Y

Okay, first use the same exegetical process on Jesus' statement, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." (Jn 2:19)

Now, show me how your exegetical process explains His meaning.

First Mr Esteemed Spanish garbo man; you need to be fair to the discussion and answer my question. What aids do you use to compare and derive the correct meaning of a scripture word presented in English ?

John 2:19 quote from Jesus what a beautiful example of metaphorical speak this is, I thank you for such a choice; this particular scripture is explained by John literally though, so we have no real difficulty with interpretation nor do we need any tools do do so.


Joh 2:13-22 KJV And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, (14) And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: (15) And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; (16) And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. (17) And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. (18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? (19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? (21) But he spake of the temple of his body. (22) When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.


This is like me saying to you "can you pass me the dead horse, and by the way dead horse is tomato sauce."

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

First Mr Esteemed Spanish garbo man; you need to be fair to the discussion and answer my question. What aids do you use to compare and derive the correct meaning of a scripture word presented in English ?

I use the same sources you use on those occasions I want to study word meanings. The important thing is, I consider poring over word meanings wholly inadequate to establish doctrine. Proper doctrine evolves from moral principles and concepts, not from tiresome concentration on the minutia of linguistics.

Because centuries of scholarship have gone into Bible study, word meanings have by and large been adequately established. While there are still interesting points to be made by careful studies, I have never seen linguistic methodology change established doctrine.

Also, my water drenched friend, I have patiently answered every question you've thrown at me in this thread. I don't think you're justified in challenging me to "be fair" in answering another of your questions now that I finally ask one of you.

John 2:19 quote from Jesus what a beautiful example of metaphorical speak this is, I thank you for such a choice; this particular scripture is explained by John literally though, so we have no real difficulty with interpretation nor do we need any tools do do so.

This is like me saying to you "can you pass me the dead horse, and by the way dead horse is tomato sauce."

First, you have completely sidestepped my request to show my how your exegetical process is able to derive meaning from the Jn 2:19 quote. Your appeal to John's explaining its meaning is irrelevant to my question. In fact, the exegetical processes of harsh literalism is wholly inadequate to properly interpret a book which is highly figurative.


"...I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; AND YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE; FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES LEST THEY SHOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I SHOULD HEAL THEM.’"

As long as one can be convinced that great value is found in stark literalism, in the tedious poring over of minutiae one will necessarily miss what Christ is saying. It was true 2000 years ago and is true today. Assuming this is true, what should we make of the fact that traditional Christianity is today more firmly cemented into a literal interpretation of the Bible than ever? Did you ever ask yourself, why do atheists insist on tearing into Christianity on the basis of its harshest literal understanding of Scripture? Swedenborg accurately noted that the literal meaning of the Bible can be abused (defects can be found in it) without harming the underlying spiritual meaning.

Second, no, my request was not at all like the 'dead horse' you claim. My request was designed to show you that your methodology was inadequate to properly interpret a highly metaphoric Bible.

 

[agua]

This quote feature is acting up again.

Dumpsterdriver I will need to ask you why do you think you need to interpret a scripture when the Apostle John as taught by Jesus Christ, explained it clearly ? If a metaphor or parable is explained by Jesus or the Apostles there's no need to go further. I suggest that many Christian today tend to baulk at study to find the true meaning in scripture because they're either lazy or prefer a meaning that pleases them, over the truth.

Maybe it will be better if we delve into a metaphor or parable or allegory that Jesus didn't explain, and then show how we will use our methods to discern the correct meaning? I'll allow you to choose the metaphor/ allegory / parable of your liking ( one that isn't explained literally there are many ) and let's see what we come up with. If you prefer let me know and I will suggest one.

Oh I'd like to clear up something maybe. Have you noticed that Jesus often explained His parables directly after giving them to the Disciples ?

eg. The parable of the sower.

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:


Mat 13:36-40 KJV Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. (37) He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; (38) The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; (39) The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. (40) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

 

[bhsmte]

This quote feature is acting up again.

Dumpsterdriver I will need to ask you why do you think you need to interpret a scripture when the Apostle John as taught by Jesus Christ, explained it clearly ? If a metaphor or parable is explained by Jesus or the Apostles there's no need to go further. I suggest that many Christian today tend to baulk at study to find the true meaning in scripture because they're either lazy or prefer a meaning that pleases them, over the truth.

You don't think it is possible for Christians to disagree on John's explanation, as you put it?

You seem to be one, who feels they are 100% sure your interpretation of someone else's interpretation of scripture is the only way and anyone who disagrees is all wrong.

Is it at all possible, that your interpretation of scripture could be incorrect?

 

[agua]

You don't think it is possible for Christians to disagree on John's explanation, as you put it?

You seem to be one, who feels they are 100% sure your interpretation of someone else's interpretation of scripture is the only way and anyone who disagrees is all wrong.

Is it at all possible, that your interpretation of scripture could be incorrect?

Again Bhsmte we're talking about exegesis of scripture here, not its veracity. Dumpsterman and I are discussing exegesis ( I think I will need to clarify if Dumpsterman accepts the veracity of scripture as Yahweh's Word ).

To be clear; if the Christian accepts the Bible is Yahweh's word, we don't get to choose if John is correct, or not. If the Christian doesn't accept that the Bible is Yahweh's Word, then we may choose whichever portions of scripture we decide is correct. I think you might see how problematic the latter popsition will become for such Christians.

 

[bhsmte]

Again Bhsmte we're talking about exegesis of scripture here, not its veracity. Dumpsterman and I are discussing exegesis ( I think I will need to clarify if Dumpsterman accepts the veracity of scripture as Yahweh's Word ).

To be clear; if the Christian accepts the Bible is Yahweh's word, we don't get to choose if John is correct, or not. If the Christian doesn't accept that the Bible is Yahweh's Word, then we may choose whichever portions of scripture we decide is correct. I think you might see how problematic the latter popsition will become for such Christians.

I am not talking about veracity, I am talking about interpretation.

Christians have boatloads of interpretation for scripture and many disagree. Could be why there are so many denominations of Christianity, don't you think?

 

[agua]

I am not talking about veracity, I am talking about interpretation.

Christians have boatloads of interpretation for scripture and many disagree. Could be why there are so many denominations of Christianity, don't you think?

If we don't accept the scripture metaphor as explained by Jesus, or the Apostles, then we're addressing veracity, not interpretation.

I'm a little confused here because I've never heard a Christian give a different interpretation of John 2:19 ( or anyone for that matter ) than the one given by John, which is congruent with the death and resurrection of Christ; do you know of one ?

 

[agua]

ops

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Dumpsterdriver I will need to ask you why do you think you need to interpret a scripture when the Apostle John as taught by Jesus Christ, explained it clearly ?

Okay, fair question. My answer centers on your comment...

If a metaphor or parable is explained by Jesus or the Apostles there's no need to go further.

A fundamental difference exists here between literalist and allegorist:

LITERALIST: We need look no further for meaning once an explanation for a figurative teaching has been offered in the Bible. Anything added beyond this is from the reader forcing his own ideas on God's word.

ALLEGORIST: Because the Bible has potentially layers of meaning and because God is the author of the Bible and not man, how do we know that explanations for figurative teachings found there are the only possible explication of that passage's meaning? How do we know there cannot be deeper layers of meaing in one and the same passage?

Given that all the OT prophets prophesied exclusively in figurative language and that virtually all of Jesus' teachings are figurative, and many consider Job, the Psalms and other books of the Bible to be rich in symbolism--might this not be a hint from God that we should be looking for deeper meaning than is found in surface-level literalism?

The champions of harsh literalism say we should look no further than the literal for meaning, that only language strictly identified as symbolism or metaphor may be understood as metaphor. Anything past this is from the imagination of an interpreter who is forcing his words on Scripture.

My question is this: whose authority established this rule, man or God?

You also skipped my earlier point aquaman. What if John had not explained Jesus' conversation with His detractors after driving out the moneychangers from the temple? Suppose that Jesus' words stood in Jn 2 without John's explanation of them: Is your methodology sufficient to derive Jesus' meaning from His statement? If you want to argue that this doesn't matter because John did interpret it, I gently suggest that there are many hundreds of figurative statements throughout the Bible that aren't explained by other Bible personalities. Do you assign all these primarily (or entirely) only historical meaning? If so, again: by whose authority must we submit to these rules, man's or God's?

 

[agua]

Okay, fair question. My answer centers on your comment...

A fundamental difference exists here between literalist and allegorist:

LITERALIST: We need look no further for meaning once an explanation for a figurative teaching has been offered in the Bible. Anything added beyond this is from the reader forcing his own ideas on God's word.

ALLEGORIST: Because the Bible has potentially layers of meaning and because God is the author of the Bible and not man, how do we know that explanations for figurative teachings found there are the only possible explication of that passage's meaning? How do we know there cannot be deeper layers of meaing in one and the same passage?

Given that all the OT prophets prophesied exclusively in figurative language and that virtually all of Jesus' teachings are figurative, and many consider Job, the Psalms and other books of the Bible to be rich in symbolism--might this not be a hint from God that we should be looking for deeper meaning than is found in surface-level literalism?

The champions of harsh literalism say we should look no further than the literal for meaning, that only language strictly identified as symbolism or metaphor may be understood as metaphor. Anything past this is from the imagination of an interpreter who is forcing his words on Scripture.

My question is this: whose authority established this rule, man or God?

You also skipped my earlier point aquaman. What if John had not explained Jesus' conversation with His detractors after driving out the moneychangers from the temple? Suppose that Jesus' words stood in Jn 2 without John's explanation of them: Is your methodology sufficient to derive Jesus' meaning from His statement? If you want to argue that this doesn't matter because John did interpret it, I gently suggest that there are many hundreds of figurative statements throughout the Bible that aren't explained by other Bible personalities. Do you assign all these primarily (or entirely) only historical meaning? If so, again: by whose authority must we submit to these rules, man's or God's?

Ah ok I see. Here you're maybe addressing dualism ( that a scripture esp prophetic may have dual, or even more, fulfillments ) Is this what you mean ? The John 2 metaphor had only one fulfillment though that matches precisely what Jesus was addressing ie. His death and resurrection after 3 days. Jesus used such a stark metaphor because he wanted the hearers to investigate the claim, and discover the resurrection.

Let's go back in time and see how they could've investigated this claim, even though it was intended to be a message revealed after the resurrection ie. with hindsight it seems.

Do you recall the similar sign Jesus said later that was the only one He'd given to them ? Notice how this built upon the earlier destroy this Temple metaphor. ( applying rules 4,6,7)

Mat 12:39-40 KJV But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: (40) For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Now if we want to investigate previous to John2, we'll need to search the OT I think, and here's what I come up with. Firstly in Jon2:16 we see Jesus quote from Jeremiah 7:11 ( rules 2,3,4,6 )

Joh 2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

Jer 7:11 KJV Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD.

Notice that the disciples recalled the Psalms 69:6 passage when seeing Jesus do His nut in the Temple. ( rules 2,3,4,6 )

Joh 2:17 KJV And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psa 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.


Now we move onto the question from the Jews ( who were always seeking a sign ) to establish why Jesus had the Authority to question their MO ( operating methods ).

Joh 2:18-20 KJV Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? (19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

Remember the Temple was sacred to these Jews ( Yahwehs dwelling place ) and this was extremely provocative to them. If they called upon their Bible knowledge ( which they did have in abundance ) they may have recalled
Hosea 6. Hosea may be the historical account of a man and his adulterous wife, and also an allegory of Yahweh and His adulterous Israel, and parenthetical propitiatory sacrifice of the antitype Jesus sacrifice and resurrection.

Hos 6:1-2 KJV Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. (2) After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
The problem is that unless they believed in the future resurrection, they wouldn't apply any knowledge of OT to this statement. Once they had more information in the sign of Jonah, and the Transfiguration ( to the 3 disciples ), they could have taken into accout the words of David in Psalm 16:9-11 concerning the death and resurrection of Christ.

Psa 16:9-11 KJV Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. (10) For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption ( H7854). ( (11) Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.

Notice corruption ( H7854) is the same word used when Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days.

Jon 2:6 KJV I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption (H7854), O LORD my God.

Now this line of reasoning requires the knowledge and acceptance of the resurrection, and notice that Paul insisted that this knowledge was contained in the OT.

1Co 15:3-4 KJV For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


Ok this is brief and not fully conclusive ( there're many other ties in the OT about Jesus death and resurrection ) but it's a start. I also suggest there will be valid refutation of using Hosea 6 concerning the literal 3 days, but generally people accept that the Book Hosea presents Christ in several areas.

I need to ask you Dumpsterman, do you accept that when Jesus or the Apostles explain a metaphor/allegory or a parable, thatit's the correct explanation ? Also I'd like to ask if you accept that the Bible is the Word of Yahweh, or not ?

 

[agua]

If you want to argue that this doesn't matter because John did interpret it, I gently suggest that there are many hundreds of figurative statements throughout the Bible that aren't explained by other Bible personalities. Do you assign all these primarily (or entirely) only historical meaning? If so, again: by whose authority must we submit to these rules, man's or God's?

I forget Dumpsterman. Will you provide an example of an unexplained metaphor/ parable etc so that we may investigate it. I'd also appreciate if you give me your understanding of the metaophor and the process you used to interpret it.

Also can you give me Yahweh's rules for interpretation of scripture, because the Bible writers, and Jesus, suggested we needed to stuidy them/ search them to find the answers ( with the correct heart of course ).