BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- if I make an effigy of you (a symbol) in protest and publicly beat it, berate it, insult it, and burn it... wouldn't I be guilty of the sin of hate or instigation of violence against you? The point wasn't that the attitude or disrespect itself is a symbol, the point was that you can be "guilty" of having a bad attitude or disrespect by what you do against a symbol. Remember, you specifically argued that you can't be guilty of something by doing it to a symbol. You can. You are having a hard time following your own arguments.

---

No, you are twisting the argument to avoid the substance of it.

I'll amend my argument to make it more clear.
In 1 Cor 11:27 St Paul states,:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord

The actual Greek translations is ""will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

St Paul, a Jew, is alluding to the OT phrase "guilty of blood" is a figure of speech that connotes murder.

Example of this is when God pronounces judgment on the inhabitants of Mount Seir (Edom) in Ezek. 35:27

"you are guilty of blood, therefore blood shall pursue you"

My argument here is that St Paul affirms that consuming the body and blood unworthily is akin to murder.

If these were just symbols of Jesus, that is NOT murder.

BusyTarpDuster2017The point about the effigy was to show that your claim that you can't be guilty of sinning against something or someone when you do something to symbol rather than the actual person, is false. In the same way, you can be guilty of "sinning against the blood of Jesus" by eating the bread and drinking the wine with a bad heart, because it disrepects Jesus' sacrifice. Just like doing something disrespectful to an effigy of you is in reality showing YOU disrespect, not the effigy. In the same way, I'd be sinning against YOU by being disrespectful to your effigy, I'd be sinning against Jesus' blood and body by being disrespectful to its symbols.[/quote said:

---

One is not guilty of murder for eating and drinking a symbol "with a bad heart."

Realitybites said:

---

He has admitted that the name of a Christian who fails to persevere and conquer can be blotted out of the Book of Life. That's a lot to digest for someone from a Sinners Prayer = OSAS background.

---

Incorrect, and you are being disingenuous, because you know I directly told you that this is not what I said. I clearly and specifically said that true believers will not fail to persevere and conquer, and that is supported by scripture. I also said that nowhere in the bible can you show me that true believers once saved can have their name blotted out. Jesus even said directly that he never would. You still have not shown me anywhere in Scripture where this can happen. Can you even show me where Jesus says that if a Christian fails to "conquer" and perservere, that he WILL blot their name out? You can't.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- if I make an effigy of you (a symbol) in protest and publicly beat it, berate it, insult it, and burn it... wouldn't I be guilty of the sin of hate or instigation of violence against you? The point wasn't that the attitude or disrespect itself is a symbol, the point was that you can be "guilty" of having a bad attitude or disrespect by what you do against a symbol. Remember, you specifically argued that you can't be guilty of something by doing it to a symbol. You can. You are having a hard time following your own arguments.

---

No, you are twisting the argument to avoid the substance of it.

I'll amend my argument to make it more clear.
In 1 Cor 11:27 St Paul states,:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord

The actual Greek translations is ""will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

St Paul, a Jew, is alluding to the OT phrase "guilty of blood" is a figure of speech that connotes murder.

Example of this is when God pronounces judgment on the inhabitants of Mount Seir (Edom) in Ezek. 35:27

"you are guilty of blood, therefore blood shall pursue you"

My argument here is that St Paul affirms that consuming the body and blood unworthily is akin to murder.

If these were just symbols of Jesus, that is NOT murder.

BusyTarpDuster2017The point about the effigy was to show that your claim that you can't be guilty of sinning against something or someone when you do something to symbol rather than the actual person, is false. In the same way, you can be guilty of "sinning against the blood of Jesus" by eating the bread and drinking the wine with a bad heart, because it disrepects Jesus' sacrifice. Just like doing something disrespectful to an effigy of you is in reality showing YOU disrespect, not the effigy. In the same way, I'd be sinning against YOU by being disrespectful to your effigy, I'd be sinning against Jesus' blood and body by being disrespectful to its symbols.[/quote said:

---

One is not guilty of murder for eating and drinking a symbol "with a bad heart."

---

Question: using the effigy example, would you agree that my behavior towards your effigy demonstrates hate against you? Yes, or no?

When you say that those who have their names erased from the Book of Life were never true believers, you are accusing God of writing the names of unbelievers in the Book of Life.

The reality is that Christians have their name written in the Book of Life and those who fall away from the faith have it erased.

All those people described in the Great Falling Away weren't false believers. They are those who failed to persevere and conquer.

Quote:

---

Coke Bear said:

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- if I make an effigy of you (a symbol) in protest and publicly beat it, berate it, insult it, and burn it... wouldn't I be guilty of the sin of hate or instigation of violence against you? The point wasn't that the attitude or disrespect itself is a symbol, the point was that you can be "guilty" of having a bad attitude or disrespect by what you do against a symbol. Remember, you specifically argued that you can't be guilty of something by doing it to a symbol. You can. You are having a hard time following your own arguments.

---

No, you are twisting the argument to avoid the substance of it.

I'll amend my argument to make it more clear.
In 1 Cor 11:27 St Paul states,:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord

The actual Greek translations is ""will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

St Paul, a Jew, is alluding to the OT phrase "guilty of blood" is a figure of speech that connotes murder.

Example of this is when God pronounces judgment on the inhabitants of Mount Seir (Edom) in Ezek. 35:27

"you are guilty of blood, therefore blood shall pursue you"

My argument here is that St Paul affirms that consuming the body and blood unworthily is akin to murder.

If these were just symbols of Jesus, that is NOT murder.

BusyTarpDuster2017The point about the effigy was to show that your claim that you can't be guilty of sinning against something or someone when you do something to symbol rather than the actual person, is false. In the same way, you can be guilty of "sinning against the blood of Jesus" by eating the bread and drinking the wine with a bad heart, because it disrepects Jesus' sacrifice. Just like doing something disrespectful to an effigy of you is in reality showing YOU disrespect, not the effigy. In the same way, I'd be sinning against YOU by being disrespectful to your effigy, I'd be sinning against Jesus' blood and body by being disrespectful to its symbols.[/quote said:
One is not guilty of murder for eating and drinking a symbol "with a bad heart."

---

Question: using the effigy example, would you agree that my behavior towards your effigy demonstrates hate against you? Yes or no?

Realitybites said:

---

When you say that those who have their names erased from the Book of Life were never true believers, you are accusing God of writing the names of unbelievers in the Book of Life.

The reality is that Christians have their name written in the Book of Life and those who fall away from the faith have it erased.

All those people described in the Great Falling Away weren't false believers. They are those who failed to persevere and conquer.

---

But aren't you "accusing" God of that as well? You yourself mentioned the places in the Old Testament where God says he blots out the names of those who sin against Him. That would mean there were people whose names were written there, but were not Christians since Jesus hadn't come yet. How do you even know how someone gets there name written there in the first place? Maybe it's every person when they are born, and then like the verses you quoted from the Old Testament, they get their name blotted out when they sin? But that Christians, even being sinners, have their names remain in the book of life because their sin is covered by Jesus?

Again (and again), those who fail to perservere and conquer and fall away were never true believers, as scripture supports (1 John 2:19, Ephesians 1:13-14)

You still have not shown me anywhere in the bible where it can happen that a true believer can have their name blot out. You haven't even shown where even a "Christian" who fails to conquer and perservere WILL have their name blot out.

...and you still haven't answered why you take at face value Jesus saying "This is my body" but then you don't when he says "eat my flesh". You still haven't addressed that inconsistency in interpretation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

When you say that those who have their names erased from the Book of Life were never true believers, you are accusing God of writing the names of unbelievers in the Book of Life.

The reality is that Christians have their name written in the Book of Life and those who fall away from the faith have it erased.

All those people described in the Great Falling Away weren't false believers. They are those who failed to persevere and conquer.

---

But aren't you "accusing" God of that as well? You yourself mentioned the places in the Old Testament where God says he blots out the names of those who sin against Him. That would mean there were people whose names were written there, but were not Christians since Jesus hadn't come yet. How do you even know how someone gets there name written there in the first place? Maybe it's every person when they are born, and then like the verses you quoted from the Old Testament, they get their name blotted out when they sin? But that Christians, even being sinners, have their names remain in the book of life because their sin is covered by Jesus?

You still have not shown me anywhere in the bible where it can happen that a true believer can have their name blot out. You haven't even shown where even a "Christian" who fails to conquer and perservere WILL have their name blot out.

---

Revelation 3:5 "The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels."

That verse certainly refers to Christians.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

When you say that those who have their names erased from the Book of Life were never true believers, you are accusing God of writing the names of unbelievers in the Book of Life.

The reality is that Christians have their name written in the Book of Life and those who fall away from the faith have it erased.

All those people described in the Great Falling Away weren't false believers. They are those who failed to persevere and conquer.

---

But aren't you "accusing" God of that as well? You yourself mentioned the places in the Old Testament where God says he blots out the names of those who sin against Him. That would mean there were people whose names were written there, but were not Christians since Jesus hadn't come yet. How do you even know how someone gets there name written there in the first place? Maybe it's every person when they are born, and then like the verses you quoted from the Old Testament, they get their name blotted out when they sin? But that Christians, even being sinners, have their names remain in the book of life because their sin is covered by Jesus?

You still have not shown me anywhere in the bible where it can happen that a true believer can have their name blot out. You haven't even shown where even a "Christian" who fails to conquer and perservere WILL have their name blot out.

---

Revelation 3:5 "The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels."

That verse certainly refers to Christians.

---

That verse refers to true Christians, whose name Jesus will NEVER blot out. Those who fail to "conquer" and perservere in their faith and fall away were never true believers (1 John 2:19, Ephesians 1:13-14). And does it even say that those who fail to conquer WILL have their name blot out?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

When you say that those who have their names erased from the Book of Life were never true believers, you are accusing God of writing the names of unbelievers in the Book of Life.

The reality is that Christians have their name written in the Book of Life and those who fall away from the faith have it erased.

All those people described in the Great Falling Away weren't false believers. They are those who failed to persevere and conquer.

---

But aren't you "accusing" God of that as well? You yourself mentioned the places in the Old Testament where God says he blots out the names of those who sin against Him. That would mean there were people whose names were written there, but were not Christians since Jesus hadn't come yet. How do you even know how someone gets there name written there in the first place? Maybe it's every person when they are born, and then like the verses you quoted from the Old Testament, they get their name blotted out when they sin? But that Christians, even being sinners, have their names remain in the book of life because their sin is covered by Jesus?

You still have not shown me anywhere in the bible where it can happen that a true believer can have their name blot out. You haven't even shown where even a "Christian" who fails to conquer and perservere WILL have their name blot out.

---

Revelation 3:5 "The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels."

That verse certainly refers to Christians.

---

That verse refers to true Christians, whose name Jesus will NEVER blot out. Those who fail to "conquer" and perservere in their faith and fall away were never true believers (1 John 2:19, Ephesians 1:13-14). And does it even say that those who fail to conquer WILL have their name blot out?

---

Yes. Yes, it does.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

When you say that those who have their names erased from the Book of Life were never true believers, you are accusing God of writing the names of unbelievers in the Book of Life.

The reality is that Christians have their name written in the Book of Life and those who fall away from the faith have it erased.

All those people described in the Great Falling Away weren't false believers. They are those who failed to persevere and conquer.

---

But aren't you "accusing" God of that as well? You yourself mentioned the places in the Old Testament where God says he blots out the names of those who sin against Him. That would mean there were people whose names were written there, but were not Christians since Jesus hadn't come yet. How do you even know how someone gets there name written there in the first place? Maybe it's every person when they are born, and then like the verses you quoted from the Old Testament, they get their name blotted out when they sin? But that Christians, even being sinners, have their names remain in the book of life because their sin is covered by Jesus?

You still have not shown me anywhere in the bible where it can happen that a true believer can have their name blot out. You haven't even shown where even a "Christian" who fails to conquer and perservere WILL have their name blot out.

---

Revelation 3:5 "The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels."

That verse certainly refers to Christians.

---

That verse refers to true Christians, whose name Jesus will NEVER blot out. Those who fail to "conquer" and perservere in their faith and fall away were never true believers (1 John 2:19, Ephesians 1:13-14). And does it even say that those who fail to conquer WILL have their name blot out?

---

It's rather implied. There is no reason to promise someone will never be blotted out if they persevere, unless there are those who were so blotted out.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

When you say that those who have their names erased from the Book of Life were never true believers, you are accusing God of writing the names of unbelievers in the Book of Life.

The reality is that Christians have their name written in the Book of Life and those who fall away from the faith have it erased.

All those people described in the Great Falling Away weren't false believers. They are those who failed to persevere and conquer.

---

But aren't you "accusing" God of that as well? You yourself mentioned the places in the Old Testament where God says he blots out the names of those who sin against Him. That would mean there were people whose names were written there, but were not Christians since Jesus hadn't come yet. How do you even know how someone gets there name written there in the first place? Maybe it's every person when they are born, and then like the verses you quoted from the Old Testament, they get their name blotted out when they sin? But that Christians, even being sinners, have their names remain in the book of life because their sin is covered by Jesus?

You still have not shown me anywhere in the bible where it can happen that a true believer can have their name blot out. You haven't even shown where even a "Christian" who fails to conquer and perservere WILL have their name blot out.

---

Revelation 3:5 "The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels."

That verse certainly refers to Christians.

---

That verse refers to true Christians, whose name Jesus will NEVER blot out. Those who fail to "conquer" and perservere in their faith and fall away were never true believers (1 John 2:19, Ephesians 1:13-14). And does it even say that those who fail to conquer WILL have their name blot out?

---

Yes. Yes, it does.

---

Well, no, actually it doesn't.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

When you say that those who have their names erased from the Book of Life were never true believers, you are accusing God of writing the names of unbelievers in the Book of Life.

The reality is that Christians have their name written in the Book of Life and those who fall away from the faith have it erased.

All those people described in the Great Falling Away weren't false believers. They are those who failed to persevere and conquer.

---

But aren't you "accusing" God of that as well? You yourself mentioned the places in the Old Testament where God says he blots out the names of those who sin against Him. That would mean there were people whose names were written there, but were not Christians since Jesus hadn't come yet. How do you even know how someone gets there name written there in the first place? Maybe it's every person when they are born, and then like the verses you quoted from the Old Testament, they get their name blotted out when they sin? But that Christians, even being sinners, have their names remain in the book of life because their sin is covered by Jesus?

You still have not shown me anywhere in the bible where it can happen that a true believer can have their name blot out. You haven't even shown where even a "Christian" who fails to conquer and perservere WILL have their name blot out.

---

Revelation 3:5 "The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels."

That verse certainly refers to Christians.

---

That verse refers to true Christians, whose name Jesus will NEVER blot out. Those who fail to "conquer" and perservere in their faith and fall away were never true believers (1 John 2:19, Ephesians 1:13-14). And does it even say that those who fail to conquer WILL have their name blot out?

---

Yes. Yes, it does.

---

Well, no, actually it doesn't.

---

That verse is there for a reason, you know ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

When you say that those who have their names erased from the Book of Life were never true believers, you are accusing God of writing the names of unbelievers in the Book of Life.

The reality is that Christians have their name written in the Book of Life and those who fall away from the faith have it erased.

All those people described in the Great Falling Away weren't false believers. They are those who failed to persevere and conquer.

---

But aren't you "accusing" God of that as well? You yourself mentioned the places in the Old Testament where God says he blots out the names of those who sin against Him. That would mean there were people whose names were written there, but were not Christians since Jesus hadn't come yet. How do you even know how someone gets there name written there in the first place? Maybe it's every person when they are born, and then like the verses you quoted from the Old Testament, they get their name blotted out when they sin? But that Christians, even being sinners, have their names remain in the book of life because their sin is covered by Jesus?

You still have not shown me anywhere in the bible where it can happen that a true believer can have their name blot out. You haven't even shown where even a "Christian" who fails to conquer and perservere WILL have their name blot out.

---

Revelation 3:5 "The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels."

That verse certainly refers to Christians.

---

That verse refers to true Christians, whose name Jesus will NEVER blot out. Those who fail to "conquer" and perservere in their faith and fall away were never true believers (1 John 2:19, Ephesians 1:13-14). And does it even say that those who fail to conquer WILL have their name blot out?

---

It's rather implied. There is no reason to promise someone will never be blotted out if they persevere, unless there are those who were so blotted out.

---

There was never any question that people have their name blotted out. The real question is, were they true Christians. Scripture supports the belief that they never were since they fell away. Realitybites showed us verses in the Old Testament where a person has their name in the book of life, but it gets blotted out if you sin against God. So that would be virtually everyone who has ever existed. However, Jesus is telling us that those who believe in him will NEVER have their name blotted out, even that they are still sinners, because their sin has been covered by Jesus ("dressed in white robes"). He's essentially telling us the gospel.

Regarding the technicality of whether it says that those who fail to conquer WILL have their name blotted out - I'd be careful of even saying it's implied, because technically it doesn't specifically state it, and we don't want to get too close to adding words to the book of Revelation, considering the dire warning given at the end of it.

Some folks seek wisdom,

Some people seek arguments.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Some folks seek wisdom,

Some people seek arguments.

---

Why do you even bother to respond to me? You get to where you don't have an argument against what I say, so you resort to ad hominem attack. This has been your pattern throughout this whole thread.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Some folks seek wisdom,

Some people seek arguments.

---

Why do you even bother to respond to me? You get to where you don't have an argument against what I say, so you resort to ad hominem attack. This has been your pattern throughout this whole thread.

---

Why do you imagine it's about you, BTD?

And no, it has not been my pattern. I commented on Scripture with an observation.

That's well in bounds here.

Try to have nice evening, though.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Some folks seek wisdom,

Some people seek arguments.

---

Why do you even bother to respond to me? You get to where you don't have an argument against what I say, so you resort to ad hominem attack. This has been your pattern throughout this whole thread.

---

Why do you imagine it's about you, BTD?

And no, it has not been my pattern. I commented on Scripture with an observation.

That's well in bounds here.

Try to have nice evening, though.

---

So you're saying it isn't about me? Yes, or no?

That's what I thought.

And you are following through with your pattern to a tee with your condescending "goodbye". I mean, like clockwork, it is astounding.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's becoming very frustrating how you can't follow the arguments. The argument was NOT that the disciples didn't take him literally. Some might have. It doesn't matter to the point. The point was that YOUR argument is a non-sequitur - you're arguing that because the disciples took it literally, and then left, and because Jesus let them leave, that it necessarily means that Jesus did in fact mean it literally. That isn't true. Your argument is false. You're completely leaving out the possibility that Jesus let them leave, WITH the misunderstanding of what he said, just as he said he was going to do (Matthew 13:13).

---

Fair enough. I'll amend my argument for you …
I claim that Jesus meant what he said literally in John 6 when he said "eat my flesh and drink my blood".

• Jesus says this 6 times in John 6 during the Bread of Life Discourse.
• He stresses this fact when he uses the phrase, "Amen, amen" or "Verily, verily."
• When the disciples grumble, he ratchets up the language to ensure they, the disciples, knew exactly what he meant.
• They again question. Jesus affirms their concern and does NOT change their interpretation of his words.
• Jesus does not correct their thinking. He doesn't need to because he said what he meant and meant what he said.
• We know this because Jesus says in verse 64
• Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

Jesus is the greatest teacher in the world. My Jesus wouldn't mislead thousands of his followers with a misinterpretation.

---

None of what you are saying here necessitates a literal interpretation. As I keep saying, you are making non-sequiturs.

For example, Jesus does not correct the wrong thinking of the woman at the well, who thought Jesus was talking about literal water that she can draw from a well and drink, when he was talking about the Holy Spirit. Neither does he correct the thinking of those who misinterpreted him when he said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". They thought he meant the literal temple, but he meant the temple that was his body. In both these cases, Jesus left it as a mystery to those who heard it and didn't correct them. You obviously can not conclude that their respective literal interpretations were correct, simply because Jesus didn't correct them. And I can give the same kind of argument for each item in your list.

Jesus doesn't "mislead" his followers, but as scripture even says, he often spoke in difficult to understand parables that undoubtedly they would misinterpret as a fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 13:13). So yes, in a way, Jesus would indeed "mislead" many people - not that he was being deceptive, but that in their hardness of heart, they wouldn't get what he's really saying. And some might misinterpret him at first, but later come to realize the truth of what he was saying, like when he said he'd raise the temple up in three days. It wasn't until after the resurrection three days after he was crucified when they realized it.

Now here's an argument that DOES necessitate ABANDONING the literal interpretation: if you take John 6 literally, then his words that "whoever eats my flesh HAS eternal life" and "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" has to be taken literally too, which means that no matter what a person believes, their entire salvation rests upon whether they can obtain a piece of Jesus flesh, which you say is the Eucharist bread and wine, and eat and drink it. If you are a believer, then your faith doesn't matter - if you don't eat this bread, you aren't saved. If you AREN'T a believer, then no matter, as long as you eat this bread you are saved. It would mean that the whole world can be saved this way, regardless of their belief. It would completely divorce salvation from one's belief or faith and relegate it entirely to a physical act of eating and drinking something. This obviously doesn't make sense, as it clearly contradicts what the bible teaches about salvation. Also, if you take the literal meaning, then you're left with some dilemmas - how did the thief on the cross get saved? There is no way he was able to eat the Last Supper bread. Did a fleck of Jesus' flesh happen to fly into his mouth while he was on his cross? And on that same note, since Judas apparently took part in the Last Supper, shouldn't he have been saved? Scripture seems to say that he wasn't.

I agree with the first part of this post.
As for the last part, IMO, the thief is saved because he believed/faith. Christ said he was. One is saved by His grace.
If I recall correctly, Christ also stated that one also must also be born of water. The thief didn't have that opportunity nor to participate in Holy Communion.
However, he is now with Jesus, perhaps somewhat amused by this discussion.
I do hope Christ is encouraged that we are discussing His Word, and that we are doing so in a manner that reflects His love. (Of course that's up to us and our free will; however, that's another subject for another day.)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Harmonizing the bible is the proper way to treat the text, because the bible really has only ONE Author, and it's all His message, it's all His text."

Says who? There can be no dialogue if you believe God is the author behind every single oral transmission, every re-write of the copyists, Constantine forcing out an outcome, translations of the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic and extant texts. That's ludicrous.

---

If that's ludicrous, if God wasn't behind every single one of them, then you're saying the Bible isn't God's word. No you're saying that about me. Every single word? All of Leviticus?

And that would destroy your own theology, false though it is already. This is what makes your beliefs so ironic and nonsensical - you quote the very bible that you say is corrupt to support your theology. Stop making up stuff about me. I do not say the Bible is corrupt. I am saying the the Bible needs to be studied in its his historical-cultural context.

---

Historical criticism (also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism) is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts to understand "the world behind the text"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism#cite_note-Handbook,_78-1][1][/url] and emphasizes a process that "delays any assessment of scripture's truth and relevance until after the act of interpretation has been carried out".

The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. That may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events that the text describes.

Are you Baptist or its close cousin 'non-denominational'?

---

You had just DENIED that the entire bible is God's unified and single word, calling the idea "ludicrous".Yes, I did.

If it isn't God's inerrant word, It is not an inerrant word.

Historical criticism has nothing to do with this point. Your Baptist upbringing apparently has made you blind to how the Bible came to be.

---

---

Your quote: "I do not say the bible is corrupt".

If you say it isn't inerrant, then you are saying it's corrupt. Wrong. Corrupt is not the opposite of inerrant . In addition, why do you think the
Bible is inerrant ?

---

For the record, I went to bed after my last post, and wishing someone a pleasant evening is a common courtesy in such case



It takes a strange anger to imagine such a phrase somehow attacks or insults a person

BUDOS said:

---

I agree with the first part of this post.
As for the last part, IMO, the thief is saved because he believed/faith. Christ said he was. One is saved by His grace.
If I recall correctly, Christ also stated that one also must also be born of water. The thief didn't have that opportunity nor to participate in Holy Communion.
However, he is now with Jesus, perhaps somewhat amused by this discussion.
I do hope Christ is encouraged that we are discussing His Word, and that we are doing so in a manner that reflects His love. (Of course that's up to us and our free will; however, that's another subject for another day.)

---

I'm confused about which part you're not in agreement, because you seem to be agreeing with my entire point. The point about the thief was that he was saved WITHOUT eating Jesus' literal flesh. That would make the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 highly unlikely, if not disproven entirely.

As you note, the thief was saved also without having been water baptized, ostensibly. That has been discussed here as well with those who insist on literal water baptismal regeneration.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Harmonizing the bible is the proper way to treat the text, because the bible really has only ONE Author, and it's all His message, it's all His text."

Says who? There can be no dialogue if you believe God is the author behind every single oral transmission, every re-write of the copyists, Constantine forcing out an outcome, translations of the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic and extant texts. That's ludicrous.

---

If that's ludicrous, if God wasn't behind every single one of them, then you're saying the Bible isn't God's word. No you're saying that about me. Every single word? All of Leviticus?

And that would destroy your own theology, false though it is already. This is what makes your beliefs so ironic and nonsensical - you quote the very bible that you say is corrupt to support your theology. Stop making up stuff about me. I do not say the Bible is corrupt. I am saying the the Bible needs to be studied in its his historical-cultural context.

---

Historical criticism (also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism) is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts to understand "the world behind the text"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism#cite_note-Handbook,_78-1][1][/url] and emphasizes a process that "delays any assessment of scripture's truth and relevance until after the act of interpretation has been carried out".

The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. That may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events that the text describes.

Are you Baptist or its close cousin 'non-denominational'?

---

You had just DENIED that the entire bible is God's unified and single word, calling the idea "ludicrous".Yes, I did.

If it isn't God's inerrant word, It is not an inerrant word.

Historical criticism has nothing to do with this point. Your Baptist upbringing apparently has made you blind to how the Bible came to be.

---

---

Your quote: "I do not say the bible is corrupt".

If you say it isn't inerrant, then you are saying it's corrupt. Wrong. Corrupt is not the opposite of inerrant . In addition, why do you think the
Bible is inerrant ?

---

---

If the word of God is not inerrant, then it has been corrupted by man. That's what it means when you say the bible is corrupt.

I believe the bible is inerrant, out of faith, and because of the actual, historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. If God exists (He does), and is all-powerful (He is), and He loves us (He does) then it is perfectly within his character and ability to control all the workings and circumstances of man to ensure that the Scripture we have today is EXACTLY His message to us that He wants us to have. In addition, the resurrection of Jesus Christ proves Jesus' divine authority, and Jesus personally validated "every jot and tittle" of the Law as being God's word, and he also validated the Prophets and Writings (in other words, the Jewish Tanakh, which is our Old Testament today) as being God's word. I have no doubt, then, that God can do the same, and has done the same, with the word of Jesus' apostles whom he sent to give the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world (the New Testament).

Quote:

---

Question: using the effigy example, would you agree that my behavior towards your effigy demonstrates hate against you? Yes, or no?

---

I'm not sure if I'm going to get a timely answer to this question, so I'll just answer it for you: YES. I would be guilty of hate against you.

Now, your argument is that Paul says taking communion unworthily would make a person guilty of "murder", which is proof to you that the Eucharist bread is the literal flesh of Jesus and not just a symbol, because one can't be guilty of "murder" against a symbol. But look at 1 John 3:15 - "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer,"

According to Scripture, what I do against your effigy (a symbol) can be hate, and hate against you makes me guilty of murder. So yes, according to Scripture you CAN be guilty of murder in God's eyes for what you do against a symbol. The same applies to what Paul is talking about regarding the symbol of the Eucharist bread.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Harmonizing the bible is the proper way to treat the text, because the bible really has only ONE Author, and it's all His message, it's all His text."

Says who? There can be no dialogue if you believe God is the author behind every single oral transmission, every re-write of the copyists, Constantine forcing out an outcome, translations of the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic and extant texts. That's ludicrous.

---

If that's ludicrous, if God wasn't behind every single one of them, then you're saying the Bible isn't God's word. No you're saying that about me. Every single word? All of Leviticus?

And that would destroy your own theology, false though it is already. This is what makes your beliefs so ironic and nonsensical - you quote the very bible that you say is corrupt to support your theology. Stop making up stuff about me. I do not say the Bible is corrupt. I am saying the the Bible needs to be studied in its his historical-cultural context.

---

Historical criticism (also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism) is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts to understand "the world behind the text"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism#cite_note-Handbook,_78-1][1][/url] and emphasizes a process that "delays any assessment of scripture's truth and relevance until after the act of interpretation has been carried out".

The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. That may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events that the text describes.

Are you Baptist or its close cousin 'non-denominational'?

---

You had just DENIED that the entire bible is God's unified and single word, calling the idea "ludicrous".Yes, I did.

If it isn't God's inerrant word, It is not an inerrant word.

Historical criticism has nothing to do with this point. Your Baptist upbringing apparently has made you blind to how the Bible came to be.

---

---

Your quote: "I do not say the bible is corrupt".

If you say it isn't inerrant, then you are saying it's corrupt. Wrong. Corrupt is not the opposite of inerrant . In addition, why do you think the
Bible is inerrant ?

---

---

Thank you for a thoughtful post.
If the word of God is not inerrant, then it has been corrupted by man. That's what it means when you say the bible is corrupt. Fair point.

I believe the bible is inerrant, out of faith, So, what is your justification that your faith is the standard for inerrancy? I understand it is your faith but why does your faith enable you to stand in judgement of my faith.
and because of the actual, historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. True but Jesus was raised a spiritual body according to Paul. That spiritual body is the Jesus that I am able to relate to in the 21st century. To say Jesus was raised a physical body is simply a resuscitation not a resurrection.
If God exists (He does), God is real in this world
and is all-powerful (He is), What is your evidence?
and He loves us (He does) It is God's very essence.
then it is perfectly within his character and ability to control all the workings and circumstances of man
Again what is your proof?
to ensure that the Scripture we have today is EXACTLY His message to us that He wants us to have. In addition, the resurrection of Jesus Christ proves Jesus' divine authority, and
Jesus personally validated "every jot and tittle" of the Law as being God's word, Including all of Leviticus?
and he also validated the Prophets and Writings (in other words, the Jewish Tanakh, which is our Old Testament today) as being God's word. Again True
I have no doubt, then, that God can do the same, and has done the same,

Quote:

---

You have no doubts but again what is your evidence?

---

the word of Jesus' apostles whom he sent to give the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world (the New Testament). So very true. We are sent to share the good news that in Jesus Christ God proves God's love toward us, but the good news is not a doctrine rather it is faith in the Word of God made flesh in Jesus. It is Jesus' flesh which is being human yet fully connected to God's love. You see jesus' action in this world and you God's nature which is love.

---

Quote:

---

Thank you for a thoughtful post.
If the word of God is not inerrant, then it has been corrupted by man. That's what it means when you say the bible is corrupt. Fair point.

I believe the bible is inerrant, out of faith, So, what is your justification that your faith is the standard for inerrancy? I understand it is your faith but why does your faith enable you to stand in judgement of my faith.
and because of the actual, historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. True but Jesus was raised a spiritual body according to Paul. That spiritual body is the Jesus that I am able to relate to in the 21st century. To say Jesus was raised a physical body is simply a resuscitation not a resurrection.
If God exists (He does), God is real in this world
and is all-powerful (He is), What is your evidence?
and He loves us (He does) It is God's very essence.
then it is perfectly within his character and ability to control all the workings and circumstances of man
Again what is your proof?
to ensure that the Scripture we have today is EXACTLY His message to us that He wants us to have. In addition, the resurrection of Jesus Christ proves Jesus' divine authority, and
Jesus personally validated "every jot and tittle" of the Law as being God's word, Including all of Leviticus?
and he also validated the Prophets and Writings (in other words, the Jewish Tanakh, which is our Old Testament today) as being God's word. Again True
I have no doubt, then, that God can do the same, and has done the same,

Quote:

---

Quote:
You have no doubts but again what is your evidence?

---

the word of Jesus' apostles whom he sent to give the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world (the New Testament). So very true. We are sent to share the good news that in Jesus Christ God proves God's love toward us, but the good news is not a doctrine rather it is faith in the Word of God made flesh in Jesus. It is Jesus' flesh which is being human yet fully connected to God's love. You see jesus' action in this world and you God's nature which is love.

---

So, what is your justification that your faith is the standard for inerrancy? Who said anything about my faith being the standard? You asked me why I believe it's inerrant, and I told you. So why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

I understand it is your faith but why does your faith enable you to stand in judgement of my faith. - The judgement on you is not based on my faith, it's based on pure logic - you base your faith on the very bible which YOU believe is corrupted. You can not claim your faith is based on what is "true" and trustworthy if you believe the very source of your faith is "false" and untrustworthy. This makes your belief system logically untenable and self-defeating.

True but Jesus was raised a spiritual body according to Paul. That spiritual body is the Jesus that I am able to relate to in the 21st century. - It doesn't matter what you "relate to". The bible wasn't written based on YOUR sensibilities. The bible tells the truth and it's up to you to accept it or not. Instead, you pick and choose your truths from here and there, and create your own God and Jesus. You deny the physical nature of Jesus' resurrected body despite what the Gospels clearly tell us. You misinterpret what Paul is saying, while completely ignoring the clear testimony from the Gospels that Jesus was raised a PHYSICAL BODY that can eat, drink, and be touched. All because you insist that your presupposition is true, that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Which makes absolutely no sense, because you're saying he was raised in spirit, which is supernatural. But your theology never did make any sense, as it is logically incoherent. Instead of letting the bible dictate the truth to you, you insist on dictating your truth to it. And what's worse, you teach it to others. You are a false teacher.

To say Jesus was raised a physical body is simply a resuscitation not a resurrection. - No. it's only a resuscitation if the raised, physical body is the same mortal body as before, which can die. That clearly isn't the case with Jesus' raised body which, although physical, it could appear and disappear, which shows it was beyond the same mortal body he had before.

Including all of Leviticus? Isn't it part of "the Law"? This is yet another example of how your belief system is self-defeating. You'll cite Jesus as an authority for your beliefs, but then you turn around and undermine that very authority by saying Jesus' affirmation of the entire Law should not include the part of the Law that you don't like. Your picking and choosing makes YOU the authority, not Jesus. So what exactly is your whole theology and belief system based on? Yourself? Based on what "you're able to relate to"? How in the world do you not see that this destroys the validity of your theology and belief system? I just can't imagine the level of self-deception, maybe even derangement, involved in getting to where you are.

You have no doubts but again what is your evidence? - You've already been told this. It's the actual, historical resurrection of Jesus. It proves the God of the bible, and gives Jesus the divine power and authority to ensure we have the word of God exactly in the way he wants.

On the road to Damascus....

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

On the road to Damascus....

---

Some people have the same experience as Saul who became Paul ... and blame the horse for their fall and assume they were hallucinating.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

None of what you are saying here necessitates a literal interpretation. As I keep saying, you are making non-sequiturs.

---

No. The argument is extremely logical. You just don't believe it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For example, Jesus does not correct the wrong thinking of the woman at the well, who thought Jesus was talking about literal water that she can draw from a well and drink, when he was talking about the Holy Spirit. Neither does he correct the thinking of those who misinterpreted him when he said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". They thought he meant the literal temple, but he meant the temple that was his body. In both these cases, Jesus left it as a mystery to those who heard it and didn't correct them. You obviously can not conclude that their respective literal interpretations were correct, simply because Jesus didn't correct them. And I can give the same kind of argument for each item in your list.

---

Did Jesus repeat he argument 6 times here and keep elevating the language each time that he was met with shock and discuss here?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus doesn't "mislead" his followers, but as scripture even says, he often spoke in difficult to understand parables that undoubtedly they would misinterpret as a fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 13:13). So yes, in a way, Jesus would indeed "mislead" many people - not that he was being deceptive, but that in their hardness of heart, they wouldn't get what he's really saying. And some might misinterpret him at first, but later come to realize the truth of what he was saying, like when he said he'd raise the temple up in three days. It wasn't until after the resurrection three days after he was crucified when they realized it.

---

Was Jesus speaking as if this were a parable here?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Now here's an argument that DOES necessitate ABANDONING the literal interpretation: if you take John 6 literally, then his words that "whoever eats my flesh HAS eternal life" and "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" has to be taken literally too, which means that no matter what a person believes, their entire salvation rests upon whether they can obtain a piece of Jesus flesh, which you say is the Eucharist bread and wine, and eat and drink it. If you are a believer, then your faith doesn't matter - if you don't eat this bread, you aren't saved.

---

Point of reference here … when we consume the Eucharist, we receive all of Jesus body, blood, soul, and divinity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you AREN'T a believer, then no matter, as long as you eat this bread you are saved. It would mean that the whole world can be saved this way, regardless of their belief. It would completely divorce salvation from one's belief or faith and relegate it entirely to a physical act of eating and drinking something. This obviously doesn't make sense, as it clearly contradicts what the bible teaches about salvation.

---

Salvation involves faith, repentance, and living according to God's commandments. Jesus told us to do this. One of the 5 precepts of the Catholic Church it to receive the Eucharist at least once a year. There is no divorce in faith and salvation here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Also, if you take the literal meaning, then you're left with some dilemmas - how did the thief on the cross get saved? There is no way he was able to eat the Last Supper bread. Did a fleck of Jesus' flesh happen to fly into his mouth while he was on his cross?

---

God works outside of the sacraments. We don't.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And on that same note, since Judas apparently took part in the Last Supper, shouldn't he have been saved? Scripture seems to say that he wasn't.

---

Actually a great many theologians have weighed on Judas. Did he take communion? Was he truly repentant? Did God forgive him? Did he go to heaven or hell? The Church takes no official position on this (the Church has never declared that any specific person is in hell) Having said that, it doesn't look to good for him based on scripture.

As I've indicated in scripture, one can lose their salvation.

Finally, and once again I ask, by what authority should I trust YOUR interpretation of this scripture when the Church has believed this for nearly 2000 years?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Question: using the effigy example, would you agree that my behavior towards your effigy demonstrates hate against you? Yes, or no?

---

I'm not sure if I'm going to get a timely answer to this question, so I'll just answer it for you: YES. I would be guilty of hate against you.

Now, your argument is that Paul says taking communion unworthily would make a person guilty of "murder", which is proof to you that the Eucharist bread is the literal flesh of Jesus and not just a symbol, because one can't be guilty of "murder" against a symbol. But look at 1 John 3:15 - "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer,"

According to Scripture, what I do against your effigy (a symbol) can be hate, and hate against you makes me guilty of murder. So yes, according to Scripture you CAN be guilty of murder in God's eyes for what you do against a symbol. The same applies to what Paul is talking about regarding the symbol of the Eucharist bread.

---

Sorry for the delay. Pesky job tends to get in the way ; )

Guilty of hate - yes. Guilty of murder, no.

That's the whole point Paul is making.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

On the road to Damascus....

---

Some people have the same experience as Saul who became Paul ... and blame the horse for their fall and assume they were hallucinating.

---

I realize that you are only using a humorous metaphor here, but the bible never mentions a horse. We have that image seared into our collective memory with Caravaggio's famous painting.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Question: using the effigy example, would you agree that my behavior towards your effigy demonstrates hate against you? Yes, or no?

---

I'm not sure if I'm going to get a timely answer to this question, so I'll just answer it for you: YES. I would be guilty of hate against you.

Now, your argument is that Paul says taking communion unworthily would make a person guilty of "murder", which is proof to you that the Eucharist bread is the literal flesh of Jesus and not just a symbol, because one can't be guilty of "murder" against a symbol. But look at 1 John 3:15 - "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer,"

According to Scripture, what I do against your effigy (a symbol) can be hate, and hate against you makes me guilty of murder. So yes, according to Scripture you CAN be guilty of murder in God's eyes for what you do against a symbol. The same applies to what Paul is talking about regarding the symbol of the Eucharist bread.

---

Sorry for the delay. Pesky job tends to get in the way ; )

Guilty of hate - yes. Guilty of murder, no.

That's the whole point Paul is making.

---

Maybe you should rest up from work before reading and posting. Because maybe you're not focused enough to be able to see that I just showed you where the bible directly says that hate IS murder.

If you can't see this, then that pretty much sums up the problem. Even with the evidence right in front of your face, you'll close your eyes to it in order to keep believing what you've been indoctrinated with. It's both quite remarkable and sad. You are really no different from Waco1947.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Question: using the effigy example, would you agree that my behavior towards your effigy demonstrates hate against you? Yes, or no?

---

I'm not sure if I'm going to get a timely answer to this question, so I'll just answer it for you: YES. I would be guilty of hate against you.

Now, your argument is that Paul says taking communion unworthily would make a person guilty of "murder", which is proof to you that the Eucharist bread is the literal flesh of Jesus and not just a symbol, because one can't be guilty of "murder" against a symbol. But look at 1 John 3:15 - "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer,"

According to Scripture, what I do against your effigy (a symbol) can be hate, and hate against you makes me guilty of murder. So yes, according to Scripture you CAN be guilty of murder in God's eyes for what you do against a symbol. The same applies to what Paul is talking about regarding the symbol of the Eucharist bread.

---

Sorry for the delay. Pesky job tends to get in the way ; )

Guilty of hate - yes. Guilty of murder, no.

That's the whole point Paul is making.

---

Maybe you should rest up from work before reading and posting. Because maybe you're not focused enough to be able to see that I just showed you where the bible directly says that hate IS murder.

If you can't see this, then that pretty much sums up the problem. Even with the evidence right in front of your face, you'll close your eyes to it in order to keep believing what you've been indoctrinated with. It's both quite remarkable and sad. You are really no different from Waco1947.

---

Is St Paul taking about hate in 1 Cor 11:27-30? No.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Question: using the effigy example, would you agree that my behavior towards your effigy demonstrates hate against you? Yes, or no?

---

I'm not sure if I'm going to get a timely answer to this question, so I'll just answer it for you: YES. I would be guilty of hate against you.

Now, your argument is that Paul says taking communion unworthily would make a person guilty of "murder", which is proof to you that the Eucharist bread is the literal flesh of Jesus and not just a symbol, because one can't be guilty of "murder" against a symbol. But look at 1 John 3:15 - "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer,"

According to Scripture, what I do against your effigy (a symbol) can be hate, and hate against you makes me guilty of murder. So yes, according to Scripture you CAN be guilty of murder in God's eyes for what you do against a symbol. The same applies to what Paul is talking about regarding the symbol of the Eucharist bread.

---

Sorry for the delay. Pesky job tends to get in the way ; )

Guilty of hate - yes. Guilty of murder, no.

That's the whole point Paul is making.

---

Maybe you should rest up from work before reading and posting. Because maybe you're not focused enough to be able to see that I just showed you where the bible directly says that hate IS murder.

If you can't see this, then that pretty much sums up the problem. Even with the evidence right in front of your face, you'll close your eyes to it in order to keep believing what you've been indoctrinated with. It's both quite remarkable and sad. You are really no different from Waco1947.

---

Is St Paul taking about hate in 1 Cor 11:27-30? No.

---

Why not? Treating Jesus' sacrifice with a disrespectful heart is no different than me treating an effigy of you with disrespect. It is hate towards you.

And let's not skip past what you said. You said "Guilty of hate, yes. Guilty of murder, no". You concede that the bible says that if you're guilty of hate you're guilty of murder, right? Therefore your statement is wrong, correct?