Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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 ?
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?
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.
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.
To what end?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?
Yes, I recognized it as such.The cut and paste was word definitions from Strongs;
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)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.
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.
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.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.
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.This is like me saying to you "can you pass me the dead horse, and by the way dead horse is tomato sauce."
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?
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?
Okay, fair question. My answer centers on your comment...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 ?
A fundamental difference exists here between literalist and allegorist:If a metaphor or parable is explained by Jesus or the Apostles there's no need to go further.
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?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?