How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (1 Viewer)

[dkp993]

You’re talking about specificity on a verse(s).

Yup yup. Considering these verses seems crucial. Nothing in response to them has been in response to them. I'm waiting. Well, I'm driving to Vegas, but anyway.

Thanks.

From my limited viewpoint, there are certainly verses (where if the translations are accurate) that the intent is clear. Like those mentioned above. But absent those certain verse much (most?) of the truth of the Bible is far from obvious. This has been borne out in the pages and page of discussion here imo.

 

[dkp993]

It almost always, at least in my opinion, has the effect of smugness or insinuation the "other" person can't see what's plain and clear.

This is specifically why it has stuck in my craw these past few pages. With an extremely interpretive topic like this it comes across as very condescending.

 

[Chaos34]

You’re talking about specificity on a verse(s).

Yup yup. Considering these verses seems crucial. Nothing in response to them has been in response to them. I'm waiting. Well, I'm driving to Vegas, but anyway.

I gave you a link that would get you started if you wanted to learn more about what assorted Christians think about this issue.

Dude. I'm way past started. Ftr, I've read the bible start to finish expositionally and very slowly, verse by verse with the guidance of a fantastic pastor three times, Gen to Rev. Nothing in your link is new to me, nor does it really address the verses we asked about, it in fact, seems to ignore them.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You’re talking about specificity on a verse(s).

Yup yup. Considering these verses seems crucial. Nothing in response to them has been in response to them. I'm waiting. Well, I'm driving to Vegas, but anyway.

I gave you a link that would get you started if you wanted to learn more about what assorted Christians think about this issue.

Dude. I'm way past started. Ftr, I've read the bible start to finish expositionally and very slowly, verse by verse with the guidance of a fantastic pastor three times, Gen to Rev. Nothing in your link is new to me, nor does it really address the verses we asked about, it in fact, seems to ignore them.

Cool. It sounds like you're not so much "just asking questions bruh" as you are loaded for bear.

Carry on then. I'll leave you alone.

 

[Chaos34]

On the "obvious" thing, I've learned over the years that word hardly ever does good.

It almost always, at least in my opinion, has the effect of smugness or insinuation the "other" person can't see what's plain and clear.

I hope I don't seem smug saying these three verses are obvious. They are that simple. I ask these things sincerely. Is there a potential gotcha? Yeah, but not in any disrespectful way.

What I have found value in is telling folks what I've found to be true in my own life as a follower of Jesus.

About five years ago I told my brother I didn't like identifying myself as a Christian. Deep dives into science and history, which are ongoing, made me very cynical about the church. The science doesn't move me, in fact, I just keep seeing God in the biggest cosmology and the most microscopic quanta. Atheism seems untenable to me and plenty of non-Christian big brain theoretical physicists are leaning that way, deist not christian. History has distanced me from the church. I could go on, but to what end? I like that you refer to yourself as a follower of Jesus. That's what I said to my bro. I don't like calling myself Christian, I'm just a follower of Jesus and a big doubter of the rest of humanity. Ha, made myself laugh.

Something brother Paddington explained a few pages ago has always filled me with wonder and belief. That Jesus from humble Nazareth managed to fulfill hundreds of OT prophecies in his short life is simply supernatural.

 

[Captain Cranks]

This is specifically why it has stuck in my craw these past few pages.

A lot of craw sticking going on around here.

 

[Chaos34]

It almost always, at least in my opinion, has the effect of smugness or insinuation the "other" person can't see what's plain and clear.

This is specifically why it has stuck in my craw these past few pages. With an extremely interpretive topic like this it comes across as very condescending.

I'm really disappointed in myself if this is referring to me. I'm odd spiritually but filled with uncertainty and humility with respect for anyone's well thought out opinions and beliefs. Some things are really obvious though!

@IvanKaramazov if my comments this morning were smug or condescending, I apologize. We have a bad connection is all. I should probably stick to reading.

 

[Captain Cranks]

That Jesus from humble Nazareth managed to fulfill hundreds of OT prophecies in his short life is simply supernatural.

A far easier explanation, and one that doesn't require the supernatural, is that the authors of the NT made it so, irrespective of the historicity.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I'm really disappointed in myself if this is referring to me.

FTR, I don't think he is referring to you.

ETA - I think it's appropriate to label interpretation as obvious when there's a pretty literal match to the written word. What's not so obvious is when the interpretation appears to be a deviation from the written word.

 

[dkp993]

I'm really disappointed in myself if this is referring to me

It wasn’t. We’re good.

 

[Chaos34]

That Jesus from humble Nazareth managed to fulfill hundreds of OT prophecies in his short life is simply supernatural.

A far easier explanation, and one that doesn't require the supernatural, is that the authors of the NT made it so, irrespective of the historicity.

Yup again. There is even "some" evidence of this. "Hey, let's say he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey." It's a difficult topic because the old manuscripts are incomplete. I have seen evidence of "additions" that support your point. It was long ago and I don't recall the details. I'm just not willing to believe a few hundred additions. Seems just fulfilling a dozen more or less is pretty impressive. Anyway, this is certainly not my approach to evangelism. I don't have one. Just remain ever fascinated by the topic. I haven't given Erhman a go yet, but he's on the playlist.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Yup again. There is even "some" evidence of this. "Hey, let's say he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey." It's a difficult topic because the old manuscripts are incomplete. I have seen evidence of "additions" that support your point. It was long ago and I don't recall the details. I'm just not willing to believe a few hundred additions. Seems just fulfilling a dozen more or less is pretty impressive. Anyway, this is certainly not my approach to evangelism. I don't have one. Just remain ever fascinated by the topic. I haven't given Erhman a go yet, but he's on the playlist.

I find it fascinating and I'm not even Christian. I'd love to go back in time to see how it all unfolded.

 

[dgreen]

I'm really disappointed in myself if this is referring to me.

FTR, I don't think he is referring to you.

ETA - I think it's appropriate to label interpretation as obvious when there's a pretty literal match to the written word. What's not so obvious is when the interpretation appears to be a deviation from the written word.

Agree. The more divergent one culture is from another, the more difficult is going to be to understand metaphorical language. And, at the base of my entire approach and most of my arguments is that I am the product of a culture that diverges greatly from the one of the Biblical authors and audiences. While I do highly value the Bible, I don't think it has all peoples in all times in view as the audience. In other words, I don't think it was magically written in one language to one culture and then can be easily and fully understood by everyone else who ever reads it.

 

[dgreen]

That Jesus from humble Nazareth managed to fulfill hundreds of OT prophecies in his short life is simply supernatural.

A far easier explanation, and one that doesn't require the supernatural, is that the authors of the NT made it so, irrespective of the historicity.

Yup again. There is even "some" evidence of this. "Hey, let's say he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey." It's a difficult topic because the old manuscripts are incomplete. I have seen evidence of "additions" that support your point. It was long ago and I don't recall the details. I'm just not willing to believe a few hundred additions. Seems just fulfilling a dozen more or less is pretty impressive. Anyway, this is certainly not my approach to evangelism. I don't have one. Just remain ever fascinated by the topic. I haven't given Erhman a go yet, but he's on the playlist.

I don't think fulfillment is intended to mean "a specific event was predicted and then it happened". There is certainly some of that, but it's mostly communicating something else. We discussed this some earlier in the thread. When Matthew says that Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt fulfilled "Out of Egypt I called my son", I don't think Matthew is saying that it was once foretold that the son of God would be called out of Egypt. This isn't a "made it so" (assuming I understand what is meant by that comment) because there was no expectation that it would be so. If Matthew left that out, no Jew is going to say, "Yeah, but what about that 'out of Egypt' prophecy? I won't believe he's the Messiah without that evidence!" Instead, Matthew is more likely quoting Hosea for its convenient and familiar language to bring the Exodus to his audience's mind. The son is Israel being brought out of Egypt in an of salvation leading to a covenant relationship to be the people of Yahweh. Matthew hits hard on Exodus themes and language, especially early, because he's painting Jesus as a new Moses and a new Israel. He's making a theological point, not one of historicity. That's doesn't mean Jesus didn't go to Egypt, but that's just not the important part. Maybe he did actually go to Egypt and it triggered an idea in Matthew's mind to make a point. Or maybe he didn't go to Egypt, which is ok too because that doesn't ruin anything Matthew is intending to communicate.

From one book I read recently that I think sums up nicely how to start making sense of the NT use of the OT:

“We cannot understand early formulations of the gospel without knowing something about the Scriptures. But we cannot understand the use of Scripture among Jesus’ followers until we know something about Jewish interpretive tradition in the first century of our era.”

“Christianity began not as a scholarly proposal about the meaning of the Scriptures but as a response to events focusing on a particular person, Jesus of Nazareth. The response required a language, and the language of Jesus’ followers was that of the Bible (i.e., the OT) as read and interpreted in Jewish circles of the first century. If we wish to understand the language first-century believers used to speak of Jesus, we must have some sense of how they read their Bibles.”

 

[Joe Bryant]

It almost always, at least in my opinion, has the effect of smugness or insinuation the "other" person can't see what's plain and clear.

This is specifically why it has stuck in my craw these past few pages. With an extremely interpretive topic like this it comes across as very condescending.

I probably lean toward too much benefit of the doubt at times and in general, but I personally would chalk that up mostly to written word is a poor way to communicate nuance and tone sometimes. I fail regularly there and I like to think of myself as a capable writer mostly.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I like that you refer to yourself as a follower of Jesus.

Thanks. I find sometimes that feels like the best description.

It sort of fits with the Christmas Eve message I shared from Jen Hatmaker somewhere here.

Can we talk about Jesus for a second? Here on Christmas Eve?

Probably like a lot of you, church, organized religion, denominations, labels, Christmas chaos, faith words, political affiliations, cliches, Christians, all the ancillary faith things have muddied the waters at best, drained them entirely at worst.

Which I get. I am all over the place on those things. I have shed so many labels and affiliations in the last few years, there is hardly anything left that I can stand by, that I can believe in. I'll tell you what is left for me:
Jesus.

I can't quit him. Not all the BS that got attached to him, all his name has been used and abused for, but just him. That he would come to us poor, born to a young girl with no accolades, in a manger attended by shepherds. That he bypassed the palace where he rightly belonged as King and placed himself in the margins. His very birth explaining his kingdom.

So when we keep trying to put him on the Red Carpet, in the White House, under the spotlights, in the Winner's Circle, I get flustered and angry and fed up with the whole charade. I want to turn my back on the Enterprise which we had our chance at and ruined and be done.

But then I hear:

Oh holy night
The stars are brightly shining
It is the night of our dear Savior's birth.
Long lay the world
In sin and error pining
Till he appeared
And the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope
A weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks
A new and glorious morn...

And I am gone. An absolute goner over this Jesus. The real one. Who came so every soul could feel its worth again. Who brought lasting joy to this weary, hard world. This Savior is indeed so dear to me. To my tired heart.

He is all that makes sense to me of everything he has ever been branded for. I love him and I can't not love him, and that is basically what I have left.

And it is more than enough. He always was.

If that is all you have left in your precious little hands too, you have all that matters.

Merry Christmas, beloveds. Here is to a new and glorious morn.

 

[Zow]

This is specifically why it has stuck in my craw these past few pages.

A lot of craw sticking going on around here.

I was about to post the same thing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's not? Nobody comes to the Father but by me. Salvation is found in no one else. Whoever does not believe stands condemned.

There's no nuance here. It's obvious

I hope I don't seem smug saying these three verses are obvious. They are that simple.

I'll agree that the way this one is used by Christians most of the time is obvious, but I don't think the passage is that obvious. If it was, those in the audience the day those words were said would not have peppered Jesus with follow-up questions. It seems arrogant to me that we understand those words better than those that spent three years hanging on Jesus' every word. But they don't get it. Not that day. Not the day's immediately following the crucifixion.

It is also not obvious that Jesus is a gatekeeper to "the Father" as this is usually used. I mean the trinity is an impossible thought exercise, but Jesus isn't assuming a gatekeeper role here but asks instead "Don’t you believe that I am in the Father?" So, is he simply saying that "no one come to me but by me?"

Finally, it is not clear at all when this "does not believe" part needs to happen. If I have rejected this my whole life until right this minute, die a minute or two later then I'd pass (per the premise of this thread) - correct? What if I rejected this my whole life and become a believer in the moments after death? Am I out? Why? Isn't the lord patient? When exactly are we presented with the door?

And most importantly of all in John, who are the sheep in the other fold? Could they simply be those that knew Jesus some alternative way? Or some later date?

I get that some make this so obvious, to me it is anything but. Maybe that is because deep down I get that if God this exacting, I'm doomed and thus don't want it to be obvious? Maybe, but I don't believe that!

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

I read this as there is no further need for salvation. I'm not convinced there was ever such a need coming from God. While not obvious, I read Hebrews 10 to suggest that a blood sacrifice never accomplished anything at all for God. That doesn't take anything away, at least to me from Jesus' sacrifice just puts the focus who was being satisfied, who needed it. All this being said Hebrews is less than obvious book to me, so I wouldn't want to get too carried away with anything based on it. (Other than of course the Ten Commandments being obsolete )

 

[dgreen]

It's not? Nobody comes to the Father but by me. Salvation is found in no one else. Whoever does not believe stands condemned.

There's no nuance here. It's obvious

I hope I don't seem smug saying these three verses are obvious. They are that simple.

I'll agree that the way this one is used by Christians most of the time is obvious, but I don't think the passage is that obvious. If it was, those in the audience the day those words were said would not have peppered Jesus with follow-up questions. It seems arrogant to me that we understand those words better than those that spent three years hanging on Jesus' every word. But they don't get it. Not that day. Not the day's immediately following the crucifixion.

It is also not obvious that Jesus is a gatekeeper to "the Father" as this is usually used. I mean the trinity is an impossible thought exercise, but Jesus isn't assuming a gatekeeper role here but asks instead "Don’t you believe that I am in the Father?" So, is he simply saying that "no one come to me but by me?"

Finally, it is not clear at all when this "does not believe" part needs to happen. If I have rejected this my whole life until right this minute, die a minute or two later then I'd pass (per the premise of this thread) - correct? What if I rejected this my whole life and become a believer in the moments after death? Am I out? Why? Isn't the lord patient? When exactly are we presented with the door?

And most importantly of all in John, who are the sheep in the other fold? Could they simply be those that knew Jesus some alternative way? Or some later date?

I get that some make this so obvious, to me it is anything but. Maybe that is because deep down I get that if God this exacting, I'm doomed and thus don't want it to be obvious? Maybe, but I don't believe that!

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

I read this as there is no further need for salvation. I'm not convinced there was ever such a need coming from God. While not obvious, I read Hebrews 10 to suggest that a blood sacrifice never accomplished anything at all for God. That doesn't take anything away, at least to me from Jesus' sacrifice just puts the focus who was being satisfied, who needed it. All this being said Hebrews is less than obvious book to me, so I wouldn't want to get too carried away with anything based on it. (Other than of course the Ten Commandments being obsolete )

I've been thinking about this topic of things being clear or obvious. To me, things are clear and obvious if they appear to support my presuppositions. I start with a particular idea and then I see that idea in the text, therefore it's obvious what it means. However, I've had quite a few of my presuppositions changed over the years. Many things were once obvious. Now some of those things are obvious again, but with a different meaning based on a new presupposition. Other things are no longer even close to being obvious anymore.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I've been thinking about this topic of things being clear or obvious. To me, things are clear and obvious if they appear to support my presuppositions. I start with a particular idea and then I see that idea in the text, therefore it's obvious what it means. However, I've had quite a few of my presuppositions changed over the years. Many things were once obvious. Now some of those things are obvious again, but with a different meaning based on a new presupposition. Other things are no longer even close to being obvious anymore.

When it comes to my faith, I think the only obvious things (to me) are I somehow still believe*, I cannot communicate very well why, and I have things wrong.

*And for this first one, anyone with a notebook will remember I was on team non-believer those three seasons that we had believers vs non-believers fantasy competition, so my belief isn't necessarily obvious to others. Then again, I did poorly in two of the three years so ...

 

[Paddington]

And these?

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

What is this in response to?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm really disappointed in myself if this is referring to me

It wasn’t. We’re good.

Is this the post you're mad about?

 

[Chaos34]

And these?

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

What is this in response to?

I was gonna reply to this with something I thought was funny, but I worry you take this too seriously for my sense of humor. It was just two more examples of the post a couple above it suggesting Jesus is the only route to salvation. Cranks and I were using these scriptures to seek answers from others knowing they mean lotsa good hindus and buddhists and on and on are facing eternal torture. I feel the three scriptures cited have obvious meanings and others disagree. Nothing new about that.

 

[Chaos34]

From one book I read recently that I think sums up nicely how to start making sense of the NT use of the OT:

Yeah, Matthew's gospel is directed at the Jewish community and has more OT prophecy fulfilling than any other book in the NT. He was relating to them best he could in terms they understood. I clipped your post because it was long. I don't disagree with the points you made, but I still feel like you avoided addressing the 3 scriptures we posted.

The whole idea of good people going to hell makes conversations a little uncomfortable, but they're still worth having I think.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

We've discussed this exact issue over and over again for over 20 years. With respect, if a person on this forum genuinely does not understand why a Christian might read the book of Jonah metaphorically while taking Acts literally, I don't know what to tell you. Literally. There's nothing I can say that is going to make this click for you at this point. Neither of us is going to gain anything from this sidebar.

So then why do you feel the need to interact IK? Is it only to condescend or is it you can’t possibly fathom I (or others) haven’t read every word you’ve wrote on this subject over the past 20yrs?

I genuinely can't fathom how a person gets to middle age and doesn't understand how other grown adults distinguish between literature and history. I've been a fairly avid reader all my life, and I can't recall a time when I was unable to do this -- I'm sure such a time existed, but it was prior to any of my recorded memories. When a person tells me that they are unable to make this kind of distinction, or that they need a rubric of some sort, it reminds me of people who say that they don't have an internal monologue. I believe them, but I also recognize that we have very little in common and our internal mental lives are wildly different from one another.

An alternative explanation is that everybody else is able to make these distinctions just fine, and this line of argument is being made in bad faith. If you spend a lot of time in religion threads, you'll notice that the Richard Dawkins types really want you to be a fundamentalist who takes the Bible very literally, because that's an easy view to refute. They hate it when you're not a literalist, because then they're reduced to the point-and-sputter tactic of complaining about "picking and choosing." Non-fundamentalist versions of Christianity still have their philosophical weak points of course, but you're not going to find them by quoting random Bible verses out of context.

So when a person says something like "Well, how you do know that the creation story is supposed to be a fable? How do you know that Job isn't supposed to be taken literally? How do you know that Jonah didn't literally live for three days in the belly of a whale?" I know that this is a conversation doomed to go nowhere because these questions have all been asked and answered. And at the end of the day, the Bible is available for free online. Read the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, and ask yourself whether the author sees himself as describing history or whether he's using metaphor to impart wisdom. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that exercise. Or read Jonah -- it's very short. Ask yourself whether it even matters whether Jonah was a real person or not.

This is a better example.

 

[Chaos34]

I'll agree that the way this one is used by Christians most of the time is obvious, but I don't think the passage is that obvious. If it was, those in the audience the day those words were said would not have peppered Jesus with follow-up questions. It seems arrogant to me that we understand those words better than those that spent three years hanging on Jesus' every word. But they don't get it. Not that day. Not the day's immediately following the crucifixion.

Well another way to understand their questions is it was all new to them. They were rural Jewish peasants, uneducated compared to city folk, and they were hearing these things for the first time. We've had 2000 years of sermons to digest.

Finally, it is not clear at all when this "does not believe" part needs to happen. If I have rejected this my whole life until right this minute, die a minute or two later then I'd pass (per the premise of this thread) - correct? What if I rejected this my whole life and become a believer in the moments after death? Am I out? Why? Isn't the lord patient? When exactly are we presented with the door?

Well, the Catholics set up purgatory as a place where the dead could still be redeemed. Luther had a problem with that cuz he couldn't find any justification for it in the scriptures. Somewhere the bible says the living know they are going to die but the dead don't know anything. Something like that. It also says we should pray for the dead. That can be looked a couple different ways supporting both our thinking. The penitent thief crucified next to Jesus teaches you have until the last minute. That's the best I got.

For the rest of your comments and questions, I don't have a response, but I was taught to stick to the word as much as it pains me sometimes.

When it comes to my faith, I think the only obvious things (to me) are I somehow still believe

Me too, bro. And we're far from alone in that thinking.

 

[Chaos34]

My insomnia cure last night was some history on Luther and the reformation. She shared something that made me think of this conversation. A little over a year after Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door, he was in a bunch of trouble. The Pope likely would have burned him alive if not for his protector. He sent one of his own scholars to debate him. It was like a major sporting event. Huge crowd gathered but the Pope's emissary treated it more like an inquisition, the crowd revolted and the debate never happened. But the thing that made me chuckle a little was Luther, once fully studied up on the scriptures, didn't think they were ambiguous at all. He thought the message was obvious and the church was just doing things entirely wrong. When the rest of the commoners got hold of the scriptures Luther found out he was dead wrong. They were interpreted many ways, nothing obvious about them, and the protestants went off in all kinds of directions he didn't see coming. Nothin' new under the sun.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm really disappointed in myself if this is referring to me

It wasn’t. We’re good.

Is this the post you're mad about?

The reason why I ask is because (a) this didn't have anything to do with you, (b) was in response to a very aggressive post that you seem to have no issue with, and (c) was over a week and four pages ago. Before I conclude that you're hung up on something that I consider totally innocuous, I want to give you a chance to clarify. Seems only fair.

 

[Paddington]

And these?

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

What is this in response to?

I was gonna reply to this with something I thought was funny, but I worry you take this too seriously for my sense of humor. It was just two more examples of the post a couple above it suggesting Jesus is the only route to salvation. Cranks and I were using these scriptures to seek answers from others knowing they mean lotsa good hindus and buddhists and on and on are facing eternal torture. I feel the three scriptures cited have obvious meanings and others disagree. Nothing new about that.

While God's strong desire is to see ALL men saved, Unfortunately, you are correct, but it goes farther than that. Jesus said that Only those who are saved by Him will go to heaven. If He really is God and everything He says is true than those who worship false gods will not make it. According to the Bible only the God of the Bible is acceptable to God. Even Israel, when they turned to false gods were punished horribly by God. They turned to gross sin and God endured it for a time and gave them time to repent, but later, they were conquered by their enemies, woman raped, families separated, taken as slaves or scattered around the world. God is a jealous God and won't share worship with any other. I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do take this topic very seriously.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

reaction

 

[dkp993]

I'm really disappointed in myself if this is referring to me

It wasn’t. We’re good.

Is this the post you're mad about?

The reason why I ask is because (a) this didn't have anything to do with you, (b) was in response to a very aggressive post that you seem to have no issue with, and (c) was over a week and four pages ago. Before I conclude that you're hung up on something that I consider totally innocuous, I want to give you a chance to clarify. Seems only fair.

First, I’m not mad. Mad implies emotion, of which I have none in regard's to this.
Second, it’s both what you quoted and what Cranks posted.

To answer your questions…. (a) that’s not required to point out condescending posts, especially shortly after a condescending post directed at me. (b) the “aggressive” post you refer too was in reference to God not you personally (c) I called out your condescending tone in the post Cranks linked so this is not the first time (a week and 4 pages later) I mentioned it. As I pointed out in response to (a) its multiple posts and (in my opinion this is supported by the fact you consider it innocuous) a pattern with you.

Hopefully we achieved clarity, as I have no desire to derail this thread any further.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm really disappointed in myself if this is referring to me

It wasn’t. We’re good.

Is this the post you're mad about?

The reason why I ask is because (a) this didn't have anything to do with you, (b) was in response to a very aggressive post that you seem to have no issue with, and (c) was over a week and four pages ago. Before I conclude that you're hung up on something that I consider totally innocuous, I want to give you a chance to clarify. Seems only fair.

First, I’m not mad. Mad implies emotion, of which I have none in regard's to this.
Second, it’s both what you quoted and what Cranks posted.

To answer your questions…. (a) that’s not required to point out condescending posts, especially shortly after a condescending post directed at me. (b) the “aggressive” post you refer too was in reference to God not you personally (c) I called out your condescending tone in the post Cranks linked so this is not the first time (a week and 4 pages later) I mentioned it. As I pointed out in response to (a) its multiple posts and, in my opinion this supported by the fact you consider it innocuous, a pattern with you.

Hopefully we achieved clarity, as I have no desire to derail this thread any further.

The passive-aggressive whining for a week was fine, but now you don't want to derail the thread. Okay.

I'll help you with that.

 

[dkp993]

I'm really disappointed in myself if this is referring to me

It wasn’t. We’re good.

Is this the post you're mad about?

The reason why I ask is because (a) this didn't have anything to do with you, (b) was in response to a very aggressive post that you seem to have no issue with, and (c) was over a week and four pages ago. Before I conclude that you're hung up on something that I consider totally innocuous, I want to give you a chance to clarify. Seems only fair.

First, I’m not mad. Mad implies emotion, of which I have none in regard's to this.
Second, it’s both what you quoted and what Cranks posted.

To answer your questions…. (a) that’s not required to point out condescending posts, especially shortly after a condescending post directed at me. (b) the “aggressive” post you refer too was in reference to God not you personally (c) I called out your condescending tone in the post Cranks linked so this is not the first time (a week and 4 pages later) I mentioned it. As I pointed out in response to (a) its multiple posts and, in my opinion this supported by the fact you consider it innocuous, a pattern with you.

Hopefully we achieved clarity, as I have no desire to derail this thread any further.

The passive-aggressive whining for a week was fine, but now you don't want to derail the thread. Okay.

I'll help you with that.

Not sure how it’s passive aggressive when I called you out directly on it. But cool, thanks for helping me out.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

While God's strong desire is to see ALL men saved

The why the ? If God wants all men saved, then why are not all men saved?

And before you answer, try to do so without creating God in an immature, incompetent, ignorant, immoral image. Try to create God in a loving image.

 

[Zow]

While God's strong desire is to see ALL men saved, Unfortunately, you are correct, but it goes farther than that. Jesus said that Only those who are saved by Him will go to heaven. If He really is God and everything He says is true than those who worship false gods will not make it. According to the Bible only the God of the Bible is acceptable to God. Even Israel, when they turned to false gods were punished horribly by God. They turned to gross sin and God endured it for a time and gave them time to repent, but later, they were conquered by their enemies, woman raped, families separated, taken as slaves or scattered around the world. God is a jealous God and won't share worship with any other. I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do take this topic very seriously.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Can you understand why this portrayal of God can raise an eyebrow to anybody who thinks it through? I'm asking in earnest. Perhaps you are correct in your beliefs and let's assume for sake of argument that you are. Can you then at least acknowledge that God would seem to really lack compassion here and not be considered loving of all people that H//he created?

 

[dgreen]

From one book I read recently that I think sums up nicely how to start making sense of the NT use of the OT:

Yeah, Matthew's gospel is directed at the Jewish community and has more OT prophecy fulfilling than any other book in the NT. He was relating to them best he could in terms they understood. I clipped your post because it was long. I don't disagree with the points you made, but I still feel like you avoided addressing the 3 scriptures we posted.

The whole idea of good people going to hell makes conversations a little uncomfortable, but they're still worth having I think.

If it's the three scriptures I think you're referring to, I definitely addressed the first. I didn't necessarily address with an answer, rather a lot of questions. My default position is that I/we don't understand. For the most part, I think Jesus is having 1st century Jewish conversations. You referenced our advantage of having 2000 years to look back while the disciples were in the heat of it, but I actually think most of the last 2000 years has been pretty harmful for Biblical interpretation. The early Jewish-Gentile split in the church was a big loss for the Gentile understanding of a Jewish messiah. A lot of Jewish context was lost. I think we are fortunate to live at this time because a lot of that Jewish (and other ANE) context is making its way back in. The Dead Sea Scrolls were a huge find. And, starting probably about 50ish years ago. Jewish and Gentile-Christian scholars have been working closer together to understand each other which has helped the desire to better understand the Bible. Just for awareness, those are the voices I tend to follow. It's not that I have anything against a guy like Martin Luther, but I favor scholars who know as much as possible about the languages and culture. If I see a scholar quote Luther for how we should understand something and another scholar talks about the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish Midrash, Hittite tablets, or Caesar context, I'm going to lean towards the latter just about every time.

When you say the quoted verses are clear and obvious, I will have to guess at what you think they are clear and obvious about. My assumption, based on the flow on the conversation a few pages back, is that you think they are clear and obvious proof texts that the Bible teaches that Christianity is the only right religion and that you have to believe Jesus is the son of God in order to go to Heaven after you die. If I'm off there, then please correct me.

The Acts verse appears to be in the context of healing a man. I'd find it hard to believe that the verse you quoted is Peter going from talking about healing the man to talking about the one true religion and going to Heaven after you die. It just doesn't fit for me. I think he's still addressing the question asked of him in verse 7.

For John 3:18, I'm with @Bottomfeeder on this in that I just find it hard to say it's clear on much of anything. It's not that I'm saying people shouldn't believe in name of the only son of God. I think it's clear that people should. So, at a high level, I do think something is obvious. My lack of clarity is in regards to what the heck Jesus was really talking about because I don't think it's about establishing the one true religion and getting Heaven after you die. Why say it the way he did? Why is it about believing in the "name"? And what does it even mean to be the "son of God"? It used to be 100% clear and obvious to me that Jesus being the son of God means that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not by a human making this baby Jesus conceived by God. Ok, sure. But, now I'm aware of so much more context around the phrase "son of god". Caesar was said to be the son of god, so there's a subversive context to that title that already existed in the Roman world. Israel, in the OT, is the son of God. Jesus is having a Exodus-themed conversation with Nicodemus and then talks about God's son being given to the world. Israel, at the Exodus was called God's firstborn and was then called to play the role of an ANE firstborn and represent their father to the world. For even more potential context, both Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 were seen as messianic and both have God referring to a son (which was Solomon in the context of Psalm and 2 Samuel). So, which is it? Is it about the virgin birth? Caesar? Israel? Messianic hopes? All of it? Some of it? Something else entirely that civilizations 500 years from now will uncover and help their interpretation of it all?

Like I've been trying to say, I think we are complete outsiders to the Bible. I think it's fine to be confident about a particular interpretation. But, I think it's also best to be aware how removed we are from the culture and that we don't know how much we don't know. We can only do the best we can with what we have and I think it's great to have conversations like this, especially with people like you who have clearly thought and studied this stuff. I've really enjoyed this thread!

 

[Paddington]

While God's strong desire is to see ALL men saved, Unfortunately, you are correct, but it goes farther than that. Jesus said that Only those who are saved by Him will go to heaven. If He really is God and everything He says is true than those who worship false gods will not make it. According to the Bible only the God of the Bible is acceptable to God. Even Israel, when they turned to false gods were punished horribly by God. They turned to gross sin and God endured it for a time and gave them time to repent, but later, they were conquered by their enemies, woman raped, families separated, taken as slaves or scattered around the world. God is a jealous God and won't share worship with any other. I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do take this topic very seriously.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Can you understand why this portrayal of God can raise an eyebrow to anybody who thinks it through? I'm asking in earnest. Perhaps you are correct in your beliefs and let's assume for sake of argument that you are. Can you then at least acknowledge that God would seem to really lack compassion here and not be considered loving of all people that H//he created?

No and I'll tell you why. Because God has provided a way for Every Human Being on the face of the earth to be saved, all they have to do is receive it by Faith. If anyone doesn't receive it, it's because they rejected it in one way or another. Some reject it by not caring enough to seek out the truth. The Bible says that if you seek the truth, you will find it. Others out right reject it. This first post explains how that God created us perfect and sinless like He is and that God cannot tolerate imperfection because it is an assault on His Authority, Kingdom, Rule, Holiness, ect. Sin is a crime against God because it breaks His perfect Laws to create a perfect Society. Because Adam sinned, we all sinned because we all came out of Adam. Because Jesus was perfect, He died and rose again, shedding His blood to pay for our sins, but we must accept His gift of Life by Faith. He won't force anyone to serve Him. The reason that we are condemned already if we aren't in Jesus is because we are already sinners. Jesus's very reason for coming here was to save us. Rejecting the Way of Salvation is not God's fault. It's the fault of the person rejecting Him.

 

[Zow]

While God's strong desire is to see ALL men saved, Unfortunately, you are correct, but it goes farther than that. Jesus said that Only those who are saved by Him will go to heaven. If He really is God and everything He says is true than those who worship false gods will not make it. According to the Bible only the God of the Bible is acceptable to God. Even Israel, when they turned to false gods were punished horribly by God. They turned to gross sin and God endured it for a time and gave them time to repent, but later, they were conquered by their enemies, woman raped, families separated, taken as slaves or scattered around the world. God is a jealous God and won't share worship with any other. I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do take this topic very seriously.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Can you understand why this portrayal of God can raise an eyebrow to anybody who thinks it through? I'm asking in earnest. Perhaps you are correct in your beliefs and let's assume for sake of argument that you are. Can you then at least acknowledge that God would seem to really lack compassion here and not be considered loving of all people that H//he created?

No and I'll tell you why. Because God has provided a way for Every Human Being on the face of the earth to be saved, all they have to do is receive it by Faith. If anyone doesn't receive it, it's because they rejected it in one way or another. Some reject it by not caring enough to seek out the truth. The Bible says that if you seek the truth, you will find it. Others out right reject it. This first post explains how that God created us perfect and sinless like He is and that God cannot tolerate imperfection because it is an assault on His Authority, Kingdom, Rule, Holiness, ect. Sin is a crime against God because it breaks His perfect Laws to create a perfect Society. Because Adam sinned, we all sinned because we all came out of Adam. Because Jesus was perfect, He died and rose again, shedding His blood to pay for our sins, but we must accept His gift of Life by Faith. He won't force anyone to serve Him. The reason that we are condemned already if we aren't in Jesus is because we are already sinners. Jesus's very reason for coming here was to save us. Rejecting the Way of Salvation is not God's fault. It's the fault of the person rejecting Him.

I appreciate you responding.

 

[Captain Cranks]

And these?

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

What is this in response to?

I was gonna reply to this with something I thought was funny, but I worry you take this too seriously for my sense of humor. It was just two more examples of the post a couple above it suggesting Jesus is the only route to salvation. Cranks and I were using these scriptures to seek answers from others knowing they mean lotsa good hindus and buddhists and on and on are facing eternal torture. I feel the three scriptures cited have obvious meanings and others disagree. Nothing new about that.

While God's strong desire is to see ALL men saved, Unfortunately, you are correct, but it goes farther than that. Jesus said that Only those who are saved by Him will go to heaven. If He really is God and everything He says is true than those who worship false gods will not make it. According to the Bible only the God of the Bible is acceptable to God. Even Israel, when they turned to false gods were punished horribly by God. They turned to gross sin and God endured it for a time and gave them time to repent, but later, they were conquered by their enemies, woman raped, families separated, taken as slaves or scattered around the world. God is a jealous God and won't share worship with any other. I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do take this topic very seriously.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

A fine example of the literalist having a much easier time defending his interpretation.

 

[dkp993]

And these?

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

What is this in response to?

I was gonna reply to this with something I thought was funny, but I worry you take this too seriously for my sense of humor. It was just two more examples of the post a couple above it suggesting Jesus is the only route to salvation. Cranks and I were using these scriptures to seek answers from others knowing they mean lotsa good hindus and buddhists and on and on are facing eternal torture. I feel the three scriptures cited have obvious meanings and others disagree. Nothing new about that.

While God's strong desire is to see ALL men saved, Unfortunately, you are correct, but it goes farther than that. Jesus said that Only those who are saved by Him will go to heaven. If He really is God and everything He says is true than those who worship false gods will not make it. According to the Bible only the God of the Bible is acceptable to God. Even Israel, when they turned to false gods were punished horribly by God. They turned to gross sin and God endured it for a time and gave them time to repent, but later, they were conquered by their enemies, woman raped, families separated, taken as slaves or scattered around the world. God is a jealous God and won't share worship with any other. I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do take this topic very seriously.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

A fine example of the literalist having a much easier time defending his interpretation.

The lesson from Paddingtons post? God subscribes to the It’s better feared than loved theory.

 

[BlackCrowes]

While God's strong desire is to see ALL men saved, Unfortunately, you are correct, but it goes farther than that. Jesus said that Only those who are saved by Him will go to heaven. If He really is God and everything He says is true than those who worship false gods will not make it. According to the Bible only the God of the Bible is acceptable to God. Even Israel, when they turned to false gods were punished horribly by God. They turned to gross sin and God endured it for a time and gave them time to repent, but later, they were conquered by their enemies, woman raped, families separated, taken as slaves or scattered around the world. God is a jealous God and won't share worship with any other. I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do take this topic very seriously.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Can you understand why this portrayal of God can raise an eyebrow to anybody who thinks it through? I'm asking in earnest. Perhaps you are correct in your beliefs and let's assume for sake of argument that you are. Can you then at least acknowledge that God would seem to really lack compassion here and not be considered loving of all people that H//he created?

No and I'll tell you why. Because God has provided a way for Every Human Being on the face of the earth to be saved, all they have to do is receive it by Faith. If anyone doesn't receive it, it's because they rejected it in one way or another. Some reject it by not caring enough to seek out the truth. The Bible says that if you seek the truth, you will find it. Others out right reject it. This first post explains how that God created us perfect and sinless like He is and that God cannot tolerate imperfection because it is an assault on His Authority, Kingdom, Rule, Holiness, ect. Sin is a crime against God because it breaks His perfect Laws to create a perfect Society. Because Adam sinned, we all sinned because we all came out of Adam. Because Jesus was perfect, He died and rose again, shedding His blood to pay for our sins, but we must accept His gift of Life by Faith. He won't force anyone to serve Him. The reason that we are condemned already if we aren't in Jesus is because we are already sinners. Jesus's very reason for coming here was to save us. Rejecting the Way of Salvation is not God's fault. It's the fault of the person rejecting Him.

Any way to do this without Adam?

 

[Captain Cranks]

The lesson from Paddingtons post? God subscribes to the It’s better feared than loved theory.

I mean, what he says is a pretty straightforward interpretation of what's written. A lot of times it feels like readers want to obfuscate pretty obvious declarations of who the God in the Bible is.

 

[Paddington]

And these?

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

What is this in response to?

I was gonna reply to this with something I thought was funny, but I worry you take this too seriously for my sense of humor. It was just two more examples of the post a couple above it suggesting Jesus is the only route to salvation. Cranks and I were using these scriptures to seek answers from others knowing they mean lotsa good hindus and buddhists and on and on are facing eternal torture. I feel the three scriptures cited have obvious meanings and others disagree. Nothing new about that.

While God's strong desire is to see ALL men saved, Unfortunately, you are correct, but it goes farther than that. Jesus said that Only those who are saved by Him will go to heaven. If He really is God and everything He says is true than those who worship false gods will not make it. According to the Bible only the God of the Bible is acceptable to God. Even Israel, when they turned to false gods were punished horribly by God. They turned to gross sin and God endured it for a time and gave them time to repent, but later, they were conquered by their enemies, woman raped, families separated, taken as slaves or scattered around the world. God is a jealous God and won't share worship with any other. I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do take this topic very seriously.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

A fine example of the literalist having a much easier time defending his interpretation.

A Literalist means that I actually believe the Word of God rather than trying to change the meaning into what I want it to mean. I am not God, I can't change His Word. I must abide by what He says rather than trying to make up my own beliefs. That is the way of Cain and we know how Cain ended up in the Bible don't we? He wouldn't believe God. True Faith actually believes God when He tells you something. The Bible is God's perfect Word.

 

[Captain Cranks]

A Literalist means that I actually believe the Word of God rather than trying to change the meaning into what I want it to mean. I am not God, I can't change His Word. I must abide by what He says rather than trying to make up my own beliefs. That is the way of Cain and we know how Cain ended up in the Bible don't we? He wouldn't believe God. True Faith actually believes God when He tells you something. The Bible is God's perfect Word.

Right. From an interpretation standpoint I think you have the upper hand when compared to less literal interpretations. However, I think the literalist has far greater tension with today's society than those that take a more flexible track.

For example, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 which says, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Do you go to a church that upholds this principle? If not, why not?

 

[Chaos34]

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 which says, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Again something I see here first thing in the morning tickles my sense of humor. I see some poor scribe working over-time in the magisterium. He's making copies of Paul's letter way behind his deadline. His wife is pounding on the door, "I'm sick of these long hours. We need you home. The toilet's clogged, the dog ran away, the kids are hungry!" He looks down at his almost finished work and adds... "women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission..."

 

[Chaos34]

You referenced our advantage of having 2000 years to look back while the disciples were in the heat of it, but I actually think most of the last 2000 years has been pretty harmful for Biblical interpretation. The early Jewish-Gentile split in the church was a big loss for the Gentile understanding of a Jewish messiah. A lot of Jewish context was lost. I think we are fortunate to live at this time because a lot of that Jewish (and other ANE) context is making its way back in. The Dead Sea Scrolls were a huge find. And, starting probably about 50ish years ago. Jewish and Gentile-Christian scholars have been working closer together to understand each other which has helped the desire to better understand the Bible. Just for awareness, those are the voices I tend to follow. It's not that I have anything against a guy like Martin Luther, but I favor scholars who know as much as possible about the languages and culture. If I see a scholar quote Luther for how we should understand something and another scholar talks about the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish Midrash, Hittite tablets, or Caesar context, I'm going to lean towards the latter just about every time.

Yup. But. I don't think the above counters the point you were addressing. Me explaining earliest disciples questioning what the heck Jesus was talking about while we don't do that today. My thinking is of course they had questions. They were hearing new and revolutionary stuff. We've had 2000 years to understand it. That said, I sure agree modern scholarship is far better than what Luther was working with for reasons you cited and many others.

We can only do the best we can with what we have and I think it's great to have conversations like this, especially with people like you who have clearly thought and studied this stuff. I've really enjoyed this thread!

Me too. Surprisingly enjoying this thread with my morning coffee. For a couple months, I've read things and wanted to reply, but the voice in my head yelled, "Noo! You know where this goes. Don't ruin the thread and get yourself a time-out." But don't give me so much credit. It's been over 20 years since the studies were fresh and the fire hot. I'm like Mark Twain on this stuff. I remember things that didn't happen and forget things that did.

I'll digest your other long paragraph in reply to me after my coffee to see if I have something to add when fully awake. Or not.

 

[Chaos34]

For example, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 which says, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

On a serious note. I dug into old notes in my study bible to see how my old pastor taught this patriarchal chauvinism. He claimed Paul was addressing the chaotic church in Corinth and trying to bring order so the church leaders could lead. In this church, those leaders were all men. Weak sauce if you ask me especially that it was canonized with plenty of opportunity to omit it in the various councils that fleshed out the bible. They added and omitted many things. Some research argues exactly that as some earlier manuscripts do not have the passage and the passage occurs at the end of Paul's take on the subject. Paul is also the writer of Acts and Romans both of which refer to female church leaders, Pheobe and Prisilla. So I'm sticking with the joke made above.

 

[Captain Cranks]

And these?

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

What is this in response to?

I was gonna reply to this with something I thought was funny, but I worry you take this too seriously for my sense of humor. It was just two more examples of the post a couple above it suggesting Jesus is the only route to salvation. Cranks and I were using these scriptures to seek answers from others knowing they mean lotsa good hindus and buddhists and on and on are facing eternal torture. I feel the three scriptures cited have obvious meanings and others disagree. Nothing new about that.

While God's strong desire is to see ALL men saved, Unfortunately, you are correct, but it goes farther than that. Jesus said that Only those who are saved by Him will go to heaven. If He really is God and everything He says is true than those who worship false gods will not make it. According to the Bible only the God of the Bible is acceptable to God. Even Israel, when they turned to false gods were punished horribly by God. They turned to gross sin and God endured it for a time and gave them time to repent, but later, they were conquered by their enemies, woman raped, families separated, taken as slaves or scattered around the world. God is a jealous God and won't share worship with any other. I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do take this topic very seriously.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

A fine example of the literalist having a much easier time defending his interpretation.

A Literalist means that I actually believe the Word of God rather than trying to change the meaning into what I want it to mean. I am not God, I can't change His Word. I must abide by what He says rather than trying to make up my own beliefs. That is the way of Cain and we know how Cain ended up in the Bible don't we? He wouldn't believe God. True Faith actually believes God when He tells you something. The Bible is God's perfect Word.

Another question for you. If you were born and raised in Morocco, a country that's nearly 100% Muslim, do you think you'd be a Christian?

 

[dgreen]

A Literalist means that I actually believe the Word of God rather than trying to change the meaning into what I want it to mean. I am not God, I can't change His Word. I must abide by what He says rather than trying to make up my own beliefs. That is the way of Cain and we know how Cain ended up in the Bible don't we? He wouldn't believe God. True Faith actually believes God when He tells you something. The Bible is God's perfect Word.

Right. From an interpretation standpoint I think you have the upper hand when compared to less literal interpretations. However, I think the literalist has far greater tension with today's society than those that take a more flexible track.

For example, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 which says, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Do you go to a church that upholds this principle? If not, why not?

I'm wondering if we are on the same page of what interpretation is and how to go about it. The way I use the word, I'd say interpreting is the process of determining what the communicator means by the words they used. Agree? Disagree?

When I think of how to interpret, I think it requires more than just defining each of the words used. In short, I think good interpretation accounts for language and culture of the author and their assumed audience, and considers genre. Good interpretation uses all the relevant information possible to accomplish what I said above: to determine what the communicator means by the words they used. Agree? Disagree?

 

[dgreen]

For example, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 which says, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

On a serious note. I dug into old notes in my study bible to see how my old pastor taught this patriarchal chauvinism. He claimed Paul was addressing the chaotic church in Corinth and trying to bring order so the church leaders could lead. In this church, those leaders were all men. Weak sauce if you ask me especially that it was canonized with plenty of opportunity to omit it in the various councils that fleshed out the bible. They added and omitted many things. Some research argues exactly that as some earlier manuscripts do not have the passage and the passage occurs at the end of Paul's take on the subject. Paul is also the writer of Acts and Romans both of which refer to female church leaders, Pheobe and Prisilla. So I'm sticking with the joke made above.

Interesting. For the nerds, here's the NET footnote on those verses:

▼tc Some scholars have argued that vv. 34-35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697-710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5,” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262). This is because the Western witnesses (D F G ar b vgms Ambst) have these verses after v. 40, while the rest of the tradition retains them here. There are no mss that omit the verses. Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. Fee points out that “Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul wrote them originally as our vv. 34-35” (First Corinthians [NICNT], 700). In a footnote he adds, “The point is that if it were already in the text after v. 33, there is no reason for a copyist to make such a radical transposition.” Although it is not our intention to interact with proponents of the shorter text in any detail here, a couple of points ought to be made. (1) Since these verses occur in all witnesses to 1 Corinthians, to argue that they are not original means that they must have crept into the text at the earliest stage of transmission. How early? Earlier than when the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) made its way into the text (late 2nd, early 3rd century?), earlier than the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) was produced (early 2nd century?), and earlier than even “in Ephesus” was added to Eph 1:1 (upon reception of the letter by the first church to which it came, the church at Ephesus)—because in these other, similar places, the earliest witnesses do not add the words. This text thus stands as remarkable, unique. Indeed, since all the witnesses have the words, the evidence points to them as having been inserted into the original document. Who would have done such a thing? And, further, why would scribes have regarded it as original since it was obviously added in the margin? This leads to our second point. (2) Following a suggestion made by E. E. Ellis (“The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. 14:34-5),” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 213-20 [the suggestion comes at the end of the article, almost as an afterthought]), it is likely that Paul himself added the words in the margin. Since it was so much material to add, Paul could have squelched any suspicions by indicating that the words were his (e.g., by adding his name or some other means [cf. 2 Thess 3:17]). This way no scribe would think that the material was inauthentic. (Incidentally, this is unlike the textual problem at Rom 5:1, for there only one letter was at stake; hence, scribes would easily have thought that the “text” reading was original. And Paul would hardly be expected to add his signature for one letter.) (3) What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the autographic text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), before the instructions about the resurrection began. Although there were no chapter divisions in the earliest period of copying, scribes could still detect thought breaks (note the usage in the earliest papyri). (4) The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text. Otherwise, one has a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity [cf. J. E. Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” JSNT 26 [2003]: 217-36.). There are apparently no mss that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above.