Quote:
Originally Posted by
jlisenbe
The "ring true" system of verifying a passage is entirely subjective and therefore of no practical use.
Using the same principle for you, your system of reading the Bible is entirely subjective and therefore of no practical use. What you have consistently failed to grasp is that ALL mental processes are the result of subjective thinking via the brain. Intellectual, rational, emotional, etc., ALL. When you claim the meaning of the Bible words as literally written or intended by God or the author of the Gospel, you are INTERPRETING the words. You dismiss that the Bible has come down to you over two thousand years in many languages and in many editions, yet you insist they are the words of God straight from his mouth to your ears. We have been over this dozens of times and that is why I noted "No reply necessary", but you failed to honor even that. It is your fallback position for anything you can't answer, and I'm tired of it.
Quote:
There is no evidence at all that the Mt. 25 passage was a later addition, and to suggest we have a "faulty translation" is foolishness since we have dozens of translations and they all tell the same account. All of this is just grasping at straws.
Your "dozens of translations" are from centuries after the fact. CENTURIES! The grasping at straws is all yours.
Quote:
So you believe the Gospel writers were writing what they believed to be true? Interesting that you are convinced that Matthew, who was with Jesus daily for three years, wrote the rather lengthy Mt. 25 passage and yet was wildly incorrect in his account.
Yawn. No one but you thinks Matthew wrote the Gospel. It is well understood that the gospels carry the names of figures associated with the story of Jesus and are attributed to them for that reason. This is all old stuff with you and you are getting WAY off the track with your wanderings.
Quote:
The obvious problem with that idea is that if Matthew was that careless and inaccurate in that passage, how would you be able to rely on any other passage in his Gospel?
Very simple. You study each passage on its own to determine its provenance. That's what Biblical scholarship is all about, and has been for centuries.
Quote:
Now you have pictured him, not as a liar, but as a careless, inept bungler.
Dear Lord - How far will you go to misrepresent what I write? There seems no end to your nonsense.
Quote:
How can you then tell which passages are accurate and which ones are inaccurate?
There is a world of good Biblical information on the internet. Start there. Others here have spent a lifetime doing just that in schools and learning languages and cultures. It's done all the time. Protestantism itself began from that very activity of examining the Bible.
Quote:
You still have rendered the entire book of Matthew as suspect.
Maybe in your mind, but nowhere else. I'm not that powerful.
Quote:
The point about both the Is. and Romans passages is that they present God as being both "just", which is to say a God who carries out justice, and a "justifier", or a God who saves by justification. So the many passages that refer to judgment as well as the many passages which refer to salvation and love are all accurate. God is both a God of salvation and a God of judgment.
None of that explains the fiery torture chamber under discussion.
Quote:
That's exactly what the question was about.
Wrong! The question was about hell. Go look again.
Quote:
It uses different terms but is the same idea.
Let's see. Justify, judge, love, savior, all mean the same idea as a fiery torture chamber for eternity as punishment. How about a vanilla ice cream cone? Does that also mean the same thing?
If you want to continue this specifically about the original question in post # 6, I'm game. If you want to support your position by other passages, then connect the dots to prove your point. Otherwise, include me out.