Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 18:41:29 GMT
Look closer. He seems to be indicating something about an afterlife. That wasn’t my question. Is he telling his disciples to cut off their limbs to save their souls? Of course not. Is that a pithy comment? Of course not. You know what is? The fact that in the very text you quoted is an example of something bad happening in the afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 31, 2018 19:01:38 GMT
Matthew 7:3-5 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Is Jesus misrepresenting the nature of hypocrisy in the above verse? Does every hypocrite have a literal plank in their eye? Or is it figurative language he is using, with “plank” being symbolic of a moral failing or problem in general? That's a ridiculous comparison, though, sorry. Clearly one contains hyperbole and is worded to reference two distinguishing measurements in order to prove a point, while the other is an intricate description of both a.) a place that truly exist per other scripture and b.) people who also truly existed per scripture. You're missing my point. The other is an intricate description of a fictional story (something that never actually happened). The story (like most parables) uses imagery and symbolism to make points. It’s not meant to be interpreted literally. For example, consider the Parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19: 11-27). In it, Jesus tells them a story of a King who tasks his servants with investing for him, and ultimately punishing one of them (with death) when he fails to live up to the King’s expectations. What do you think the point of that story was, and who do you think the “King” in that story represented? First of all let me just stop you right there because scripture does no such thing. Hell is an English word that is used primarily in the King James Bible as a replacement word for three different terms (only two of which are related to each other). In other words, it’s a creation of the English language, cobbled together from other words in two different languages. So you really need to know WHICH hell is being referred to at any given time by looking at the original word it was translated from. Otherwise you end up conflating different, oftentimes unrelated ideas. SOMETIMES! Other times it refers to Gehenna, which is different from Sheol and Hades. I’m not suggesting anything. You are correct to point out that the Lake of Fire is different from other references to “hell”. But traditional, dogmatic interpretations of Christianity (particularly American evangelicals) have a distorted idea of what hell is since they have conflated many different unrelated ideas in scripture (including the Lake of Fire). I don’t think that the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is meant to be a literal description of hell or anywhere else. And I think forcing such a narrow interpretation like that onto it ultimately misses the point of the Parable in the first place (which is about what value riches on earth have in God’s eyes). Because the languages the Bible is translated from are much smaller than modern day English, they often used the same words to describe multiple different things. For example, the word “heaven” has three different meanings in Hebrew. The intended meaning is determined by the context of the word. Similarly, the word “day” in Hebrew has 4 different literal meanings. However, Sheol is one of those words that only has one meaning (grave). Hades in Greek also means grave (abode of the dead). Gehenna is Greek for a literal place that exists called the Valley of Hinnom, which was essential a trash refuse that was always burning. It is often used in the figurative sense referring to sinners who are cast into an “everlasting fire”. But this is a case where the word “hell” is treated opposite in English from the established norm. It is one word has been assigned multiple meanings from different Hebrew and Greek terms. And that’s one of the reasons why modern translations of the Bible have not used that word with the frequency that you see in the poorly translated King James.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 31, 2018 19:01:43 GMT
He would only have to reconsider if the parameters and actions within his plan change, which they cannot possibly do if he is omniscient. Lol, the parameters and actions within his plan do change. That's....the whole point I'm trying to make. He's the one who changes them. Why would he need to? Is God™ omnisicent? Is God™ omnipresent? Is God™ onmipotent? If yes is the answer to these questions, then God™ has 100% foresight on the result of his plan before it is even started, meaning he can make the perfect plan before he even sets it in motion, why would he make an imperfect plan (which he would obviously have done if he has to change it) if he is a perfect being?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 31, 2018 19:04:09 GMT
That wasn’t my question. Is he telling his disciples to cut off their limbs to save their souls? Of course not. Is that a pithy comment? Of course not. You know what is? The fact that in the very text you quoted is an example of something bad happening in the afterlife. So you acknowledge that the bulk of the passage is not literal, but insist that the description of the afterlife is literal? That doesn’t make any sense. That would be an inconsistent way to interpret a translated text.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 19:53:58 GMT
Lol, the parameters and actions within his plan do change. That's....the whole point I'm trying to make. He's the one who changes them. Why would he need to? Is God™ omnisicent? Is God™ omnipresent? Is God™ onmipotent? If yes is the answer to these questions, then God™ has 100% foresight on the result of his plan before it is even started, meaning he can make the perfect plan before he even sets it in motion, why would he make an imperfect plan (which he would obviously have done if he has to change it) if he is a perfect being? Lol, who said He needed to? There you go again, building straw men.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 19:55:21 GMT
Of course not. Is that a pithy comment? Of course not. You know what is? The fact that in the very text you quoted is an example of something bad happening in the afterlife. So you acknowledge that the bulk of the passage is not literal, but insist that the description of the afterlife is literal? Which description are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 31, 2018 20:06:02 GMT
Why would he need to? Is God™ omnisicent? Is God™ omnipresent? Is God™ onmipotent? If yes is the answer to these questions, then God™ has 100% foresight on the result of his plan before it is even started, meaning he can make the perfect plan before he even sets it in motion, why would he make an imperfect plan (which he would obviously have done if he has to change it) if he is a perfect being? Lol, who said He needed to? There you go again, building straw men. I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan, I asked you why he would make an imperfect one?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 31, 2018 20:14:22 GMT
So you acknowledge that the bulk of the passage is not literal, but insist that the description of the afterlife is literal? Which description are you referring to? Well, we were talking about the verses in Matthew 5 (about gouging our eyes and cutting off limbs being a preferable alternative to going to “hell”. You seemed to imply that the most of the passage was figurative, except the part about hell, which is literal? Is that correct?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 20:36:08 GMT
Which description are you referring to? Well, we were talking about the verses in Matthew 5 (about gouging our eyes and cutting off limbs being a preferable alternative to going to “hell”. You seemed to imply that the most of the passage was figurative, except the part about hell, which is literal? Is that correct? Thanks for clarifying. I thought perhaps we were back on Lazarus's rich man when you mentioned "description." Because there's no overt description in Matthew 5. I'm not sold that gouging and removing limbs was figurative. It certainly seems hyperbolic and it seems hard to imagine that Jesus would want us to cut off our limbs, however, it truly is better to gouge out one's own eyes if they are causing one to sin. Does anyone do that? No, and if there was, we'd call them a lunatic, but the fact remains, it's better to go by the moniker "hook" for the rest of one's life than it will be to stare down the Almighty on Judgement Day and answer for one's sins, and that's only if one's arm caused one to sin against oneself and oneself alone. I won't even get into the butterfly effect of how one's sins cause a multitude of others to sin and that the weight of that phenomena is far more important than a limb or sight. And, yes, I believe "hell" as referenced in Matthew 5 was literal and the going thereto meant literally.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 31, 2018 21:10:56 GMT
tpfkar Well John 17:12 gives us an insight. “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” John 17:12 In context the one doomed to destruction is obviously a reference to Judas. So if he's not already in hell, it's certainly where he looks destined to end up. What a right Holy Bastard. Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 31, 2018 21:17:11 GMT
There is no Heaven, and there is no Hell. Therefore Judas (if he existed at all) didn't go to either of these places.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 22:47:05 GMT
Lol, who said He needed to? There you go again, building straw men. I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan, I asked you why he would make an imperfect one? Lol, now you are falsely attributing your own words to yourself! Let's review. Winterssuicide: Lol, the parameters and actions within his plan do change. That's....the whole point I'm trying to make. He's the one who changes them. Gadreel's first sentence in response: Why would he need to? ^implies a meaning of "Why would God need to change his plan?" Gadreel later: I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan. I know you didn't say that. You asked - point blank - why he would need to change His plans. Now you are trying to alter your own words to the more specific, "I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan," because, technically you indeed did not ask that question, but you most certainly did ask why "he would need to change the plan." And my answer to that question remains the same: "Who said he needed to?"
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 31, 2018 22:56:20 GMT
I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan, I asked you why he would make an imperfect one? Lol, now you are falsely attributing your own words to yourself! Let's review. Winterssuicide: Lol, the parameters and actions within his plan do change. That's....the whole point I'm trying to make. He's the one who changes them. Gadreel's first sentence in response: Why would he need to? ^implies a meaning of "Why would God need to change his plan?" Gadreel later: I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan. I know you didn't say that. You asked - point blank - why he would need to change His plans. Now you are trying to alter your own words to the more specific, "I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan," because, technically you indeed did not ask that question, but you most certainly did ask why "he would need to change the plan." And my answer to that question remains the same: "Who said he needed to?" ok I can see we are having issues with communication: my understanding of the theology you are espousing: God is omniscient God is omnipotent God is omnipresent This would mean God knows all things at all times, that he has perfect understanding and vision not affected by time, he can see perfectly all that is and will be and all that was. In the light of that, why on earth would God™ need to change his plans, surely he could craft the perfect plan prior to implementing it, after all he knows exactly what is going to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 22:59:29 GMT
Lol, now you are falsely attributing your own words to yourself! Let's review. Winterssuicide: Lol, the parameters and actions within his plan do change. That's....the whole point I'm trying to make. He's the one who changes them. Gadreel's first sentence in response: Why would he need to? ^implies a meaning of "Why would God need to change his plan?" Gadreel later: I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan. I know you didn't say that. You asked - point blank - why he would need to change His plans. Now you are trying to alter your own words to the more specific, "I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan," because, technically you indeed did not ask that question, but you most certainly did ask why "he would need to change the plan." And my answer to that question remains the same: "Who said he needed to?" ok I can see we are having issues with communication: my understanding of the theology you are espousing: God is omniscient God is omnipotent God is omnipresent This would mean God knows all things at all times, that he has perfect understanding and vision not affected by time, he can see perfectly all that is and will be and all that was. In the light of that, why on earth would God™ need to change his plans, surely he could craft the perfect plan prior to implementing it, after all he knows exactly what is going to happen. Around and around we go. Same answer as before. Who said he needed to do it? Not I. Certainly not God! God doesn't need to do anything. God wants to do things. Thus, "God's Will" not "God's Necessity."
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 1, 2018 0:06:45 GMT
ok I can see we are having issues with communication: my understanding of the theology you are espousing: God is omniscient God is omnipotent God is omnipresent This would mean God knows all things at all times, that he has perfect understanding and vision not affected by time, he can see perfectly all that is and will be and all that was. In the light of that, why on earth would God™ need to change his plans, surely he could craft the perfect plan prior to implementing it, after all he knows exactly what is going to happen. Around and around we go. Same answer as before. Who said he needed to do it? Not I. Certainly not God! God doesn't need to do anything. God wants to do things. Thus, "God's Will" not "God's Necessity." You are taking the word need to literally, lets try again, what possible reason could God™ have for changing his plans, his planning should be perfect if he has the attributes mentioned. What I am saying is there should be no reason at all to change his plans, what reason can you provide for God to want to change his plans?
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Feb 1, 2018 2:27:36 GMT
I heard a Christian say Judas is in Hell the other day. We don't know that for sure though, do we?
As far as I know the Bible doesn't say Judas went to Hell. I'd be on the "we can't know for sure" side. WTF difference does it make? Discussing where Judas went is as meaningless as discussing (A) How many angels fit on the head of a pin, or (B) Whether the Loch Ness Monster would beat Sasquatch in a light sabre duel.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 1, 2018 3:26:46 GMT
I'm not sold that gouging and removing limbs was figurative. It certainly seems hyperbolic and it seems hard to imagine that Jesus would want us to cut off our limbs, however, it truly is better to gouge out one's own eyes if they are causing one to sin. Does anyone do that? No, and if there was, we'd call them a lunatic, but the fact remains, it's better to go by the moniker "hook" for the rest of one's life than it will be to stare down the Almighty on Judgement Day and answer for one's sins, and that's only if one's arm caused one to sin against oneself and oneself alone. I won't even get into the butterfly effect of how one's sins cause a multitude of others to sin and that the weight of that phenomena is far more important than a limb or sight. And, yes, I believe "hell" as referenced in Matthew 5 was literal and the going thereto meant literally. Here's the problem with all of that. One is the obvious, there is a reason why we'd call a person who gouged out their eyes or cut off their limbs a lunatic -- because they would be one! Believing that God, or the Son of God, or your personal savior told you to do this as a means of avoiding hell would make you the literal definition of crazy. Because that is not a reasonable belief. There is no reason why any prophet, much less the Son of God to demand or expect anyone to mutilate themselves as a means of somehow aiding their salvation. The second reason that's not a reasonable belief for a Christian is because it goes against Christian doctrine! You see, as a former practicing Christian, I know that one of the central tenets of the faith is that one cannot save themselves. We cannot perform any works that might contribute to our own salvation because that would defeat the purpose of Christ dying on the cross. That's why scripture calls it the "free gift" of salvation, and why it says he paid the "ransom" of our sins. Matthew 20:28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. 1 Timothy 2:5-65 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. Romans 5:15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Ephesians 2:8-98 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. The point is, there is no action that we can take on our own behalf to help our own salvation. Cutting off limbs and gouging out eyes would be a "sacrifice" akin to the animal sacrifices the Jews made to God in the Old Testament. But Jesus was the sacrifice for all mankind, which invalidates any other sacrifice for those who place faith in him. They receive the free gift of salvation. That's why Matthew 5:29-30 cannot be a literal instruction. Because then Christ would be contradicting his own message, and his purpose. Galatians 5:2-32 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. Philippians 3:2-32 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 14:59:24 GMT
Around and around we go. Same answer as before. Who said he needed to do it? Not I. Certainly not God! God doesn't need to do anything. God wants to do things. Thus, "God's Will" not "God's Necessity." You are taking the word need to literally, lets try again, what possible reason could God™ have for changing his plans, his planning should be perfect if he has the attributes mentioned. What I am saying is there should be no reason at all to change his plans, what reason can you provide for God to want to change his plans? Ask Him if you want the best answer. Based on my understanding of scripture, my speculation is that He is an emotional being who is slow to anger, but does indeed get angry, and, at times, his love and mercy overrule his righteous anger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 15:08:16 GMT
I'm not sold that gouging and removing limbs was figurative. It certainly seems hyperbolic and it seems hard to imagine that Jesus would want us to cut off our limbs, however, it truly is better to gouge out one's own eyes if they are causing one to sin. Does anyone do that? No, and if there was, we'd call them a lunatic, but the fact remains, it's better to go by the moniker "hook" for the rest of one's life than it will be to stare down the Almighty on Judgement Day and answer for one's sins, and that's only if one's arm caused one to sin against oneself and oneself alone. I won't even get into the butterfly effect of how one's sins cause a multitude of others to sin and that the weight of that phenomena is far more important than a limb or sight. And, yes, I believe "hell" as referenced in Matthew 5 was literal and the going thereto meant literally. Here's the problem with all of that. One is the obvious, there is a reason why we'd call a person who gouged out their eyes or cut off their limbs a lunatic -- because they would be one! Believing that God, or the Son of God, or your personal savior told you to do this as a means of avoiding hell would make you the literal definition of crazy. Because that is not a reasonable belief. There is no reason why any prophet, much less the Son of God to demand or expect anyone to mutilate themselves as a means of somehow aiding their salvation. The second reason that's not a reasonable belief for a Christian is because it goes against Christian doctrine! You see, as a former practicing Christian, I know that one of the central tenets of the faith is that one cannot save themselves. We cannot perform any works that might contribute to our own salvation because that would defeat the purpose of Christ dying on the cross. That's why scripture calls it the "free gift" of salvation, and why it says he paid the "ransom" of our sins. Matthew 20:28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. 1 Timothy 2:5-65 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. Romans 5:15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Ephesians 2:8-98 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. The point is, there is no action that we can take on our own behalf to help our own salvation. Cutting off limbs and gouging out eyes would be a "sacrifice" akin to the animal sacrifices the Jews made to God in the Old Testament. But Jesus was the sacrifice for all mankind, which invalidates any other sacrifice for those who place faith in him. They receive the free gift of salvation. That's why Matthew 5:29-30 cannot be a literal instruction. Because then Christ would be contradicting his own message, and his purpose. Galatians 5:2-32 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. Philippians 3:2-32 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the fleshTotal straw man. We were talking about whether or not gouging and cutting were meant figuratively or literally. We have no disagreement on the literal meaning of whether Jesus was advising gouging and cutting. We both agree he did not intend for that. Then we segued to the idea of how to avoid sin. You have now in your most recent post gone on to a completely different topic and hoisted it as if I disagree with it. I don't. I agree with almost everything in your most recent post with only one exception: you are tying salvation to sin avoidance. While they are overlapping ideas, they also exist separately and function separately. The saved are still tasked with the avoidance of sin. The unsaved should still try to be moral. While the scriptures teach that true salvation will aid in the avoidance of sin, it also explicitly states other exercises of the brain and heart in doing so. We don't just say, "ah, I'm saved, it's all good now." Instead, we put on the full armor of God and use all its weapons, only one of which, is salvation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 15:10:58 GMT
WTF difference does it make? Discussing where Judas went is as meaningless as discussing (A) How many angels fit on the head of a pin, or (B) Whether the Loch Ness Monster would beat Sasquatch in a light sabre duel. I thought it made for an interesting discussion. It has! I've always been fascinated by the rift even in Christian circles as to whether there even is an eternal place of torment, but more specifically, the argument as to what happened to pre-Christ saints, pre-Christ sinners and post-resurrection saints.
|
|