Do all religions lead to God?

I know not everyone who holds to one form of theism or another believes that all religions are simply different paths to the same God, or deity, or higher power et al, but some do. In my experience these people consider themselves to be highly spiritual.  To these people I ask:

How do you know this is true?
Where did you get this knowledge?

As much as the ‘God is an elephant being grasped by blind men’ view of God seems to be more inclusive, it isn’t. It’s just as an exclusive claim to the nature of God and religion as any monotheistic exclusivist is. The spiritual inclusivist is claiming to have knowledge of how God really is just like I do, or the Muslim for that matter. So how do you know your view is accurate?

Comments

  1. paynehollow says:

    How do we know objectively and definitively that ANYTHING we “know” about God is true? We don’t.

    If we answer, “I know because my holy writ tells me this…,” we have to admit that, first of all, it is our understanding of the holy writ, not some magical scripture that tells us objectively and definitively. Secondly, if we recognize the observable reality that we lack perfect knowledge of all things, then anything that is our understanding of something unprovable will remain subjective, by definition.

    Do you think you know objectively some things about God, John? If so, how?

    As to the titular question, “Do all religions lead to God?” I’d say “ALL” anything does not lead to God. I’d answer that evidence of God can be found in nearly all things, including religions, but I’d also acknowledge that it is subjective evidence, not objective.

    ~Dan Trabue

  2. Dan shows his great lack of conviction by daring to suppose that “our understanding” can be flawed because what the Bible tells us can be misunderstood. But there is little that is ambiguous about “I am the Lord thy God…” and “No one comes to the Father but through Me.” That’s pretty definitive.

    • Marshall

      I have always gotten the impression from Dan that his position is: because the bible can be misunderstood, and is likely misunderstood by some or many, that is a good reason to believe it is difficult to understand and it is also likely that you (meaning his detractors) are misunderstanding it.

  3. John,

    I would add to your response that it also gives one license to mold meaning to suit one’s preferences. Since we can’t know for sure God’s will (even on a subject of which no honest person can be mistaken), we are free to believe what we want rather than what we should. Opinions and interpretations are not equal, but by asserting that we can’t know everything, all opinions and interpretations must be regarded as equally valid. Childish.

  4. paynehollow says:

    John…

    I have always gotten the impression from Dan that his position is: because the bible can be misunderstood, and is likely misunderstood by some or many, that is a good reason to believe it is difficult to understand and it is also likely that you (meaning his detractors) are misunderstanding it.

    You may have gotten that impression, but it’s not what I’ve said. You’ve misunderstood.

    I don’t find the bible difficult to understand especially, at least not on the broad points.

    So, with that clarification of your misunderstanding, how DO you know that you can’t be mistaken?

    Do you think you objectively know some things about God? If so, how? What specifically can you know objectively and demonstrably? I’d be interested in your response to that question, since you seem to be asking it of others.

    John, Marshall? Either of you have an answer?

  5. paynehollow says:

    So, you’re asking people to answer a question you’re not willing to answer yourself? Rather cynical and hypocritical, isn’t that?

  6. Dan says,

    If we answer, “I know because my holy writ tells me this…,” we have to admit that, first of all, it is our understanding of the holy writ, not some magical scripture that tells us objectively and definitively.

    Dan then says,

    I don’t find the bible difficult to understand…

    Dan,

    You claim to be a Christian. Others disagree, but I see fit to take you at your word. I believe you are a Christian. Therefore, I deduce that you believe the Bible. You must believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So, if you believe and understand the Bible, then I cite John 14:6. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    I don’t see how anyone who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to believe can call themselves “Christian.” But I believe you are a Christian, Dan. So what part of John 14:6 don’t you understand?

    I believe one can come to God aside from Christianity. I believe this because the Bible says so. For those who have died before hearing the message, there are other avenues. But any who have heard the message of Christ and rejected it? I don’t see how one can make a biblical argument in their favor.

  7. “So, with that clarification of your misunderstanding, how DO you know that you can’t be mistaken?”

    Because the words I read within Scripture are in English (the one I read is) and there is no doubt about what the words mean. In addition, the Bible I use most often is a study Bible with plenty of footnotes and commentary that confirms what I thought the words meant, and clarifies that which wasn’t easily understood in a manner that shows I did indeed understand it when I read it the first time.

    The real issue would be what in anything that I’ve said regarding Scripture suggests I am mistaken and how does one support the proposition. As I only speak on that with which I am sure (and of that which I am not sure, I admit as much), I have yet to hear anyone provide a substantive argument that compels me to see things differently. That would be hard to do since the teachings are so crystal clear, meant to be so and for honest people, are indeed so. There’s no “hunch” involved. No guessing as to the best likely possibility. Those points upon which I adamantly stand with boldness are crystal clear and beyond any progressive objection.

    Does that answer your question?

  8. First: very, very nice new design on your site. Really like it. Nicely done.

    Now, onto understanding this post.

    Wow, this seems confused. First, the writing was awkward — I have edit suggestions below. But let’s start with the content.
    You are mixing terms — I must admit, your logic knots are hard to untie.
    But I will try:

    Maybe if I layout your argument as I see it, either you can correct my misunderstand, see your own error, or prove to me the reasonableness of this argument:

    So it seems you are saying:
    (1) Soteriological Pluralists (SP) see to be more inclusive than Exclusivists ( see terms here)
    (2) SP have a definite view of God’s they hold to be true, and thus exlude other views of God.
    (3) There for SP inclusive, but just as exclusive as I am.

    But John, here is what you are saying:

    (1) SP believe everyone can find God (be saved by even if different views of God) ….
    (2) People call this Pluralism and that SP’s are pluralists
    (3) But SP have a definite view of God which excludes other views, thus they are exclusivists.

    So, in #2 “exclusivism” is modifying their view of salvation, but in #3 “exclusivism” is simply modifying their view of truth. Sure, the SP can agree with you that there is only one truth of reality, but they disagree with you on one of those truths. So they, like you, are epistemological exclusivists but not soteriological exclusivists like you. Your rhetoric technique (and logic error) were to take one term common to a phrase and then separate that term and use it alone. Jeez, if I wish I knew the term for that error. Perhaps you do.

    It is similar to John Rocker’s objection when he was called an “intolerant racist” he replied something like, “Well, they aren’t tolerating my racism so they are intolerant too.”

    Now, if all you want to say in this post is, “Where the heck do pluralists get their pluralism?” then it is a question and you have made no statement.

    Edit thoughts:
    Your first sentence is awkward.
    Suggestion: “I Know THAT not everyone…”
    Or more simply:
    “Not every theist believes that …”
    then, also here:
    But in my experience, theists who are pluralist, consider themselves highly spiritual.

    PS – It is my deepest hope is that you will admit your rhetoric mistake an move on with another important point. But my experience with you is that you so hate being wrong that you will counter with more fallacies (usually distractions — red herrings). But maybe you will agree today. I have shown this article to two friends in the coffee shop I am in today and they immediately saw the error without any hints from me. Just to let you know I am not alone, before you start off in some defense.

    • Sabio

      My making the point about inclusivism being exclusive is merely a tangent. My post asks the question how SP can know their view is true. Not merely true for them, but objectively true.

  9. All religions cannot lead to the one true God, because they all contradict each other. If the Christian God is the true God, then none of the others can be true.

  10. @ Glenn Chatfield,
    Thanks for exposing another of the parochial presuppositions of John’s argument.

    You see, your Christianity is a “believism religion” [my term]. That is, you think that a wonderful eternal life is only granted to those who believe the right thing. Well, actually, that is only part of your religion. Other parts include love, forgiveness, and other virtues — but in your world, those are worthless without correct belief.

    So, let’s say that God cares about the heart and behavior and not about correct belief and that he is actually very forgiving, and doesn’t feel he has to kill innocent animals or people to forgive people. Then, since all religions contain moral encouragements, if a person correctly ignores the faulty parts of their religion, their religion could still “lead” them to God — or help them understand God. A Christian, could, for instance, ignore the exclusivism of their denomination, and instead focus on loving their neighbor as themselves, and loving sinners and forgiving others and then come to understand God in spite of the limitations of their home fundamental Christianity.

    Hope that was clear. Put more simply:

    All religions could lead to the one true God if they contain elements that help them understand God and the believer ignores the perverse elements.

    I wager that all religions are in error thus, if there is a God, I trust she is forgiving and that people will be inconsistent in carrying out the religions created by other people.

    Of course, you probably is not a religion like all the rest, and escapes all that silliness. But you can imagine how I feel about that thinking — for I see believers in each religion thinking like that. You fundies have more in common with each other then you can even imagine.

  11. @ John,
    Good, John, so agree that your tangent is completely wrong?
    But I will assume you agree that you were mistaken.
    Now we can focus on the intent of your post: You asked a question.
    I’ve heard Christians universalists argue from scripture.
    I’ve heard Christian pluralists argue that scripture has to be viewed as opinions of men that contain errors but that we have to know God from our hearts and scripture just is a snap shot of others struggling to understand God.
    If you are asking “How do they know”, this is a huge epistemology question. Your epistemological base is no safer then theirs, I am sure.

    Above, in my reply to Glenn, you see another problem behind your thinking that may get in the way of understanding any reply.

  12. @ John,
    I agree, it muddled your point. I disagree and feel that tangent is grossly wrong. But I am sure you don’t want to discuss it. The problem is, your muddling was the vast body of your post AND it pretends to assist your point. If not, why not just whittle this post to asking:

    Religious pluralist claim that all religions are simply different paths to the same God.
    How do you know this is true?
    Where did you get this knowledge?

    Wouldn’t that have been a much more elegant post. No, instead, you were trying to sneak in much more, which is mistaken.

    Also, I hope my edit suggestions helped. The other folks who read your post this morning also shook their heads saying, “Gee, I had to read that first paragraph 3 times.” Yes, it is muddled in more than one way.

    • I find it very telling how you insist on focusing on how elegant my post is written rather than the questions I already told you were what I wanted answered.

  13. Just because you and your friends say I’m wrong doesn’t make it so. Now did you come here to criticize my form or attempt to answer the questions I asked?

  14. Yawn, of course not John. I gave you the reasons why you are wrong. But you don’t want to discuss that. You just want to pretend it is true.

    Again, since your post states nothing substantial, then your question is merely:

    Religious pluralist claim that all religions are simply different paths to the same God.
    How do you know this is true?
    Where did you get this knowledge?

    Since I have no horse in the race about eternal life and salvation — be it exclusivist or pluralist, I can’t answer the question for the pluralists. But I did point out lots of problems I see in the whole venture. None of which you begin to address.

    But as for sources of epistemology — back to your bland question:
    People use mixes of
    (a) AUTHORITY (a favorite book or teacher) — with all the problems of hermeneutics associated
    (b) Reason
    (c) Intuition
    (d) Revelation

    Pluralists use different combos of these just as you exclusivists do.

  15. Ouch, you called by thought “philosophical b[l]ather”.
    It has been a delight exploring deep thought with you gentlemen, here.
    As always.

  16. paynehollow says:

    Terrance, thanks for the tepid support. You asked…

    I don’t see how anyone who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to believe can call themselves “Christian.” But I believe you are a Christian, Dan. So what part of John 14:6 don’t you understand?

    I’ll be glad to answer your question, but would you answer my questions in return? John and Marshall appear to be opting out of answering the very questions that John is expecting others to answer, so someone on your side answering the question would be helpful.

    1. I don’t pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. I believe it ALL. I just also think it’s important to believe it and rightly understand it. If someone reads an analogy or a metaphor and insists it must be interpreted literally or as a solid rule as if from a rule book, that is not a good way of “believing” the bible. Rather, they are “believing” an interpretation of their own, not the Bible. So, to be abundantly clear: I believe ALL the Bible, Genesis to Revelation.

    2. I don’t think I don’t understand ANY of John 14. I believe Jesus is the way, truth and life and no one comes to God but through Jesus’ Way. What part am I failing to understand AND on what do you base my supposed misunderstanding?

    Now, my questions to you (which is just John’s question, asked in a way so as to be more clear):

    How DO you know that you can’t be mistaken on your interpretations of the Bible?

    Do you think you objectively know some things about God?

    If so, how?

    What specifically can you know objectively and demonstrably?

  17. Dan,

    You are either a liar or too lazy to really read all the comments, especially mine, which is directly in response to your question.

    Your questions, by the way, put serious doubt as to your own understandings and why anyone should give yours the time of day. They suggest that you yourself can’t know anything objectively about God. And if you cannot demonstrate objectively by simply pointing to the words, verses or passages that expressly provide the basis for your understanding, then you cannot believe anything from the Bible. It is ALL a hunch in that case.

    You also don’t speak the truth about believing all the Bible because at the same time you give yourself an out regarding that which does not conform to your personal ideologies by your nonsense about “right understanding”. You consistently and deceitfully like to bring up analogies and metaphors to suggest that there are many who take them literally. I can’t think of anyone that either of us have encountered on the blogs (to which we both have visited) who does this. Why do you continue to bring it up except to suggest that there are some you HAVE encountered who does indeed do these things. Nonsense. You say it to give you that out of which I spoke earlier. I point once again to your denials of the truth of the OT stories regarding God’s wrath. You don’t believe.

  18. Wow, here comes God wrath with his disciples preaching the fear.
    Poor Dan, he is missing such a big peace of the Truth. [Sarcasm, Dan]

  19. paynehollow says:

    No problem, Sabio. I have a sense of humor.

    Marshall, you indeed tried to answer the question, my apologies for misstating. Thanks for trying.

    Your answer, however, is not rational or completely thought through.

    I asked how you objectively know that you hold the demonstrable “right” interpretation of the Bible.

    You said…

    Because the words I read within Scripture are in English (the one I read is) and there is no doubt about what the words mean.

    Okay, so you have no doubt what the words mean. I am certain of the meaning of the words. And yet, we disagree. We both can’t be objectively right on a passage where we disagree on the interpretation.

    With me so far?

    So demonstrate how you are objectively always the One with the demonstrably right answer, please.

    Thanks.

    My guess is that you agree with me that you feel confident in your SUBJECTIVE opinion and find YOUR INTERPRETATION to be reasonable TO YOU, but you can’t REALLY demonstrate that it is objectively the ONE RIGHT ANSWER, especially when we expand your genius to EVERY POSSIBLE TOPIC in the universe.

    • For centuries both Jews and Christians seemed to have the same understanding of what the Bible says in the many places where Trabue has his own meanings. So as far as he is concerned, everyone throughout history was wrong and he now has the correct understandings. Typical of all other false teachers.

  20. paynehollow says:

    So, Glenn, on what basis do you think you have ALL the right answers and objectively so? If you can objectively prove that you know every interpretation of the Bible and know it perfectly, then by all means, objectively demonstrate that.

    If, on the other hand, you can’t, then don’t.

    Your non-response will serve as an answer, as well.

    • Trabue,
      I never claimed to have all the answers. My point was that you continually claim no one can have the real interpretation of the Bible, but at the same time you claim to KNOW that homosexual behavior is not a sin, especially if it’s between lovers. You consistently claim that the Bible does not condemn “monogamous” (of course that word means one wife) relationships. And there is so much more of your teaching which have been exposed time and time again to be in complete opposition to what scholars have understood for centuries – let alone the laymen!

      You are a false teacher – a heretic plain and simple, who lies when he says he believes the Bible. You only believe the Bible if you can twist it to your heretical and aberrant – as well as perverse – belief system. And I will continue to expose you for what you are on every blog I follow whenever you show up:
      http://wolfsheep2.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/false-teacher-profile-updated/

      You do not represent the Christian faith in any shape or form.

  21. Dan,

    I’ll be glad to answer your question, but would you answer my questions in return? John and Marshall appear to be opting out of answering the very questions that John is expecting others to answer, so someone on your side answering the question would be helpful.

    Sure.

    The entire point of my question to you is this: If you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then you must believe the Bible, otherwise wherefrom do you get the idea that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? And if you believe at least that part of the Bible, then why don’t you believe the rest? Particularly the part that says no one can go to the Father except through Christ.

    You say you do believe that, but it seemed to me John was readying to make an argument against religious pluralism that you were ready to object to. It almost seemed as though you were, if not in support of religious pluralism, then slightly neutral about the whole idea. I do not think this is possible for one who accepts and believes the Bible. Perhaps I am mistaken.

    How DO you know that you can’t be mistaken on your interpretations of the Bible?

    It’s because I believe in the Bible that I can’t afford to think that my interpretation could be wrong. If you believe enough of the Bible to believe Christ is the Son of Man, then why not the rest of the Bible? The rest of the Bible is my objective source, as a believer.

  22. paynehollow says:

    And I, for one, have never said that everyone throughout all of history was wrong, but clearly and obviously, thoughout history, the church – or various elements/denominations/flavors within the church – HAVE been wrong on some topics.

    You see, Glenn, the Bible – and obvious, common sense – teaches us that we are fallible, human beings always capable of being mistaken, especially when we’re speaking of our opinions on non-demonstrable hunches.

    Where specifically is that mistaken? Because, as you can hopefully acknowledge, it’s a basic Christian, biblical and logical teaching.

  23. paynehollow says:

    Terrance…

    It almost seemed as though you were, if not in support of religious pluralism, then slightly neutral about the whole idea. I do not think this is possible for one who accepts and believes the Bible.

    That I believe the Bible and interpret it differently than some percentage of modern Evangelicals (or Roman Catholics or 16th century Protestants…) is not an indication that I disagree with the Bible, but rather, that I disagree with some human interpretations of it.

    Does that make sense?

    Here, consider this: The anabaptists for centuries have disbelieved in saying a pledge/taking oaths. And yet, today, many modern protestants and catholics alike think that doing so is okay. Is their modern disagreement with centuries-old anabaptist understanding….

    A. An indication that they disagree with the Bible and are choosing to not believe “all the Bible…” OR

    B. An indication that they disagree with the anabaptist interpretation on that topic?

    Terrance…

    It’s because I believe in the Bible that I can’t afford to think that my interpretation could be wrong.

    Please don’t take this the wrong way, but do you not find that to be a bit megalomanical? You can’t afford to think that, YOUR – TERRANCE H – human interpretation can possibly be mistaken? Do you not see how that is conflating your human interpretations to be on a par with God’s Word? That, indeed, you are conflating your opinion with God’s opinion?

    Do you not see the problem with that from a rational point of view? (That is, are you truly saying you can not possibly be mistaken on any interpretation you have of the Bible?? Who believes that??) Do you not see the problem with that from a biblical point of view (you know, the Bible teaches that we see as through a glass darkly, that now we only know IN PART)?

    I have to believe that even John and Marshall (but not Glenn, as he’s assured me in the past that he can’t be mistaken on some topics) would have to correct you on that point.

  24. paynehollow says:

    Terrance…

    The rest of the Bible is my objective source, as a believer.

    The Bible objectively says, “I, God, want you, Israel, to go in and destroy the Amalekites, killing them all, even their babies…” that is an objectively demonstrable line from the Bible.

    But the interpretation – “Therefore, God wants us to go in and kill our enemies and their babies…,” for instance, or, “However, this is not a universal teaching or command from God to go in and kill our enemies and their babies…” – these are SUBJECTIVE interpretations. They are OUR opinions about what God thinks, and we can’t demonstrate that our OPINIONS are factually correct. It is a subjective and unprovable opinion.

    You do understand the difference between objective and subjective, don’t you?

  25. paynehollow says:

    Glenn, glad to hear that you don’t think you have perfect knowledge. But you have attested/claimed in the past that ON SOME TOPICS, you can NOT be mistaken. The topic of homosexuality is one of those areas where you claim perfect knowledge. Am I mistaken?

    You say…

    My point was that you continually claim no one can have the real interpretation of the Bible, but at the same time you claim to KNOW that homosexual behavior is not a sin

    I claim that it is MY opinion that two folk – gay or straight – living in a committed, loving, respectful adult marriage relationship are not sinning. That is, as a matter of fact, MY OPINION.

    The difference is that I don’t conflate my subjective opinion to be equal to God’s Word that can not be mistaken, whereas you DO make that claim. And yet, if it were objectively and demonstrably factual, you could objectively demonstrate it. You have not. You can not.

    Understand the difference, dear brother?

    • Trabue,
      I have asked you too many times to not call me your “Brother” – I am not your brother in any sense of the word.

      Yes, I am 100% correct when I state that the Bible calls homosexual behavior a sin. And Jews and Christians throughout history have understood this to be so until the last half century when people like you have tried to justify such perversion.

      You claim you state it is only your opinion that homosexual behavior is not sin, but you preach it as fact.

      Now go away. You spent all your time with sophistry pretending your are so much more intelligent than anyone else, and that everyone else just doesn’t understand the Bible. As I stated above, you are a false teacher – as well as a tool of Satan.

      I’m done with you on this string. You are swine who tramples pearls.

  26. That I believe the Bible and interpret it differently than some percentage of modern Evangelicals (or Roman Catholics or 16th century Protestants…) is not an indication that I disagree with the Bible, but rather, that I disagree with some human interpretations of it.

    Does that make sense?

    Yes. I understand what you’re saying, but still, you have not given me an answer regarding your views on religious pluralism. Also, you’ve not given me an answer as to whether you believe the Bible prohibits the idea.

    Please don’t take this the wrong way, but do you not find that to be a bit megalomanical? You can’t afford to think that, YOUR – TERRANCE H – human interpretation can possibly be mistaken? Do you not see how that is conflating your human interpretations to be on a par with God’s Word? That, indeed, you are conflating your opinion with God’s opinion?

    No. Simply a misunderstanding. As a believer in Jesus Christ, I can’t afford to believe that some parts of the Bible may be wrong, because if some parts are wrong, then why shouldn’t all of it be wrong?

    Furthermore, some things simply cannot be open to interpretation. For example, there isn’t much wiggle room in John 14:6. There isn’t much wiggle room in the passages that tell of Jesus’ resurrection. Etc…

    The Bible objectively says, “I, God, want you, Israel, to go in and destroy the Amalekites, killing them all, even their babies…” that is an objectively demonstrable line from the Bible.

    But the interpretation – “Therefore, God wants us to go in and kill our enemies and their babies…,” for instance, or, “However, this is not a universal teaching or command from God to go in and kill our enemies and their babies…” – these are SUBJECTIVE interpretations. They are OUR opinions about what God thinks, and we can’t demonstrate that our OPINIONS are factually correct. It is a subjective and unprovable opinion.

    I’m not sure you’re talking about difference between objective and subjective; it’s more a matter of context. God was taking to the Israelites of that time. That much is clear. That passage appears in one of the historical records of the Old Testament. It’s a matter of context.

  27. paynehollow says:

    Terrance…

    I understand what you’re saying, but still, you have not given me an answer regarding your views on religious pluralism. Also, you’ve not given me an answer as to whether you believe the Bible prohibits the idea.

    My ideas on religious pluralism are vague. It depends on what specific question is being asked and even then, I have to say that ultimately, I DO NOT FACTUALLY KNOW. I may hold opinions, but that is what they are.

    Jesus/the Bible teaches us that we will be surprised at who “made it” and who didn’t – we don’t always know who is and isn’t a part of the kingdom of God. The parable of the two brothers, for instance, shows us that the brother who affirmed the father’s words (but didn’t follow through and follow them) was not the one who was “saved,” but rather the brother who said NO to the father (but did what the father said, anyway).

    Some would say that this is an affirmation that accepting God’s grace and Way are more about what we do rather than what we say. The analogy would be that the hindu or muslim who vocally says, “NO” to Jesus, but who lives a life embracing God’s grace and walking in Jesus’ Way HAVE, in fact, accepted Jesus with their lives, even if not with their words.

    Is that objectively and demonstrably a fact? No, it is an opinion, subjective and un-demonstrable, but not unreasonable, at least to some.

    On the other hand, some would cite your John passage and say, “It says that ONLY Jesus is the Way, therefore, those who don’t become Christian IN THE WAY THAT MODERN EVANGELICALS UNDERSTAND IT are not part of the Kingdom.”

    Is that objectively and demonstrably a fact? No, it is an opinion, subjective and un-demonstrable, but not unreasonable, at least to some.

    On yet a third hand, some would point to your John passage and say, “Yes, Jesus is the Way, but what does that mean? Does that mean one has to be a mainstream Catholic or Protestant Christian to accept Jesus as the Way? What of the Buddhist who accepts that Jesus the Son of God teaches us the Way of God’s grace and that this is, indeed, the Way to live… is that “coming to the father… through Jesus,” as John teaches?”

    Is that objectively and demonstrably a fact? No, it is an opinion, subjective and un-demonstrable, but not unreasonable, at least to some.

    Do you see what I’m saying? There are many ways a passage can be interpreted and while some may appear to us (to us fallible, imperfect humans) to be more or less reasonable, they are all in the realm of human interpretations and thus, subjective, not objective and not demonstrable.

    So, I don’t at all or in the least disagree that “no one comes to God, but through Jesus,” I believe that 100% wholeheartedly. What I don’t believe is that “coming to God through Jesus” must and only must look like a modern evangelical model.

    CS Lewis, in his Narnia stories, teaches of the “bad guy,” a follower of the false god, Tash, who, on “judgment day” is accepted into Aslan’s realm. Why? Lewis reasoned that the “bad guy” accepted fully the True and Good teachings of Aslan. He mistakenly attributed it to the false god, but anything that is True or Pure or Loving or Good, IS of God/Aslan and so, his faith was actually in Aslan all along, it was just a mistake of name and culture where the human erred.

    It’s a very gracious and Christ-like rendering of the notion of the Realm of God. What do you think?

  28. paynehollow says:

    Terrance…

    I’m not sure you’re talking about difference between objective and subjective; it’s more a matter of context.

    No, I was quite specific, Terrance. Saying “The Bible teaches that God called Israel to wipe out the Amalekites,” that IS objectively true. It is a demonstrable FACT that those words are in the Bible.

    But, moving from saying, “These words are in the Bible” to “…and THIS AND ONLY THIS is what it means…,” that is where we move from objective to subjective. Right? I mean, the guy who says those words factually in the Bible can be interpreted to mean that it’s okay for us to kill our enemy and their babies, that guy is offering a subjective opinion (one which probably you and I agree is also a mistaken opinion), by definition.

    Are you saying that this man is not offering a subjective opinion/interpretation?

  29. “But, moving from saying, “These words are in the Bible” to “…and THIS AND ONLY THIS is what it means…,” that is where we move from objective to subjective. Right?”

    Wrong, at this point it’s still objective, because there is little room to interpret the clear statement made by God. In the context of the communication between God and Israel there is little room for interpretation, it’s pretty clear.

    ” I mean, the guy who says those words factually in the Bible can be interpreted to mean that it’s okay for us to kill our enemy and their babies, …”

    The problem with this is NO ONE IS USING THIS AS A REASON TO KILL THEIR ENEMIES OR THEIR CHILDREN. If some actual real person was using this text in this way, you would be absolutely correct. It is completely reasonable and in keeping with the context to affirm that God, in a specific instance, commanded Israel to do certain things without making the leap to suggest that this one time command is normative for modern believers. Maybe if you used a hypothetical that conformed to reality it would be more effective.

  30. My ideas on religious pluralism are vague. It depends on what specific question is being asked and even then, I have to say that ultimately, I DO NOT FACTUALLY KNOW. I may hold opinions, but that is what they are.

    Jesus/the Bible teaches us that we will be surprised at who “made it” and who didn’t – we don’t always know who is and isn’t a part of the kingdom of God. The parable of the two brothers, for instance, shows us that the brother who affirmed the father’s words (but didn’t follow through and follow them) was not the one who was “saved,” but rather the brother who said NO to the father (but did what the father said, anyway).

    Some would say that this is an affirmation that accepting God’s grace and Way are more about what we do rather than what we say. The analogy would be that the hindu or muslim who vocally says, “NO” to Jesus, but who lives a life embracing God’s grace and walking in Jesus’ Way HAVE, in fact, accepted Jesus with their lives, even if not with their words.

    Christianity 101. The hearts of men are visible only to God. Nobody disputes this, Dan. I’m certain there are members of the Christian Church that show up each Sunday and pay their tides, but are destined for hell nonetheless. Only God knows these things.

    We can nevertheless read the words God has left for us and draw an intelligent conclusion. For instance, we know that no amount of “good” behavior will make us righteous in the eyes of God. We cannot pay for the sins we have committed. Like criminals, we deserve to be punished. We are guilty. God’s law demands accountability. 

 We sinful humans could never bear this burden, so God sent Jesus Christ, the only sinless man to live, to die in our place, to pay for our sins. Through faith in Him, we are saved.

    John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

    John 14:6: “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

    Your interpretation of those passages would be reasonable if not for John 8:24: “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

    If you do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of Man, you will die for your sins. Those words were spoken by Jesus Christ Himself.

    Can that passage be interpreted another way, Dan? It seems clear to me that if you do not believe Christ is the Son of Man, the Messiah, you will die for your sins. Not much wiggle room. In fact, there is no wiggle room.

    We can also put your belief to a test and see if we can’t spot some wishful thinking.

    For instance, if someone said, “I think Jesus of Nazareth was crazy; he isn’t the Messiah. He didn’t pay for our sins. He was just a crazy Jewish guy. Krishna has forgiven me, not Jesus,” would that person qualify for the heaven of the Christian God? If they lived a righteous life, helped and loved others, then by your interpretation, yes, they would. So even though they rejected Christ’s sacrifice and worshipped a false god, it’s possible they would qualify for the heaven of the Christian God. Amazing. On what, I ponder, are you basing this on, Dan?

    It seems that while 

I support my view with scripture, you put forth ideological conjecture.

    No, I was quite specific, Terrance.

    The level of specificity with which you crafted your argument has no bearing on its solidity. You are separating the context of that statement to support your argument, but you and I both know that once context is added, once people realize you quoted a historical narrative from one of the Old Testament’s historical accounts, your argument is shattered.

  31. On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
    “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
    He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
    “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
    Luke 10:25-28

    Did Jesus tell him about believing he was the Christ? He didn’t.

    Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
    John 9:41

  32. Isu,

    I see. So because you misunderstand the point of Luke 10:25 – 28, we’re supposed to throw out the rest of Scripture? Grow up. Jesus was referring to the Old Law.

  33. paynehollow says:

    The point, Terrance, Craig, is that there are multiple passages with Jesus saying “This is what you must do to be saved.” We use OUR reason and OUR interpretations to prioritize and understand them. Thus, using OUR human reasoning and interpretations, they are subjective and not demonstrably the one and only way one must believe.

    What does it mean to “believe that Jesus is the Messiah,” for instance? You are deciding that it MUST mean this and only this, but in fact, it is open to interpretation. The Bible tells us that the demons in hell believe that Jesus is the risen Messiah, and yet, they are not saved, are they? So clearly, it’s not merely a matter of assenting, “Yes, Jesus is the risen Messiah.” You see my point?

    You are interpreting these things to mean something specific, it appears, and I’m just pointing out the reality that these conclusions are our human and fallible conclusions. Factually speaking.

    And when we’re speaking of OUR human opinions, we must be a bit more humble and circumspect and not confuse OUR opinions with God’s Word. That comes close to being what the Bible calls blasphemy and perhaps even a sign of our not being saved. According to the Bible. If you interpret it that way.

    Craig…

    at this point it’s still objective

    If you all can’t understand the difference between opinion and fact, objective and subjective, that’s all the more reason for you to adopt a bit more humility in your human interpretations. I know God, I’ve known God for years, and my brothers, you are not God.

    Nor, thank God, am I.

  34. “So demonstrate how you are objectively always the One with the demonstrably right answer, please.”

    In a hurry, but my answer stands complete. I am familiar with the words and their meanings and thus I can be completely confident that my explanations for what a given passage says is an accurate reflection of the intent of the author. What more do you demand I need? I could add that every explanation of the original language only confirms my understanding, but I would wager that, too, is insufficient for someone who cannot accept the clear teaching. Better to question whether the meaning of the text can truly be known so as to create space for an interpretation more to your liking.

    “My guess is that you agree with me that you feel confident in your SUBJECTIVE opinion and find YOUR INTERPRETATION to be reasonable TO YOU, but you can’t REALLY demonstrate that it is objectively the ONE RIGHT ANSWER, especially when we expand your genius to EVERY POSSIBLE TOPIC in the universe.”

    Well, that’s an incredibly inane guess on your part. I very much disagree with you as to whether or not my opinion is subjective. Indeed, I find YOUR interpretations to be very self-serving and worldly, as in “of the world”. They align nicely with the cultural shift. Once again, my original answer does indeed demonstrate objectively because of the fact that an objective reading cannot result in your position. And by the way, I don’t claim to have the answer to every possible topic and never have. That is not required for me to have the proper understanding on those topics I do discuss. However, between the two of us, the smart money would be on my answers. Our history together bears that out.

    • Dan

      Just because someone can ALWAYS gainsay an explanation doesn’t mean it hasn’t been shown to be objectively true. Your application of hyper-skepticism is unreasonable at best, and intentionally self serving at worst.

      Taking your view on this particular topic one could say 2+2=4 is only a subjective opinion because you couldn’t prove it to be objective (if someone were to insist on a different answer). Yet 2+2=4 can be objectively proved regardless of a person or persons being willing to disagree.

  35. Dan,
    I’m so relieved to know that I’m not God, except I never claimed to be. Unfortunately your blithe dismissal of my comment doesn’t actually deal with the point raised. In order to save you from going back I’ll re state it.

    Your assumption that anyone is actually using a one time, historical, command from God to Israel to act a certain way in a certain time and a certain place, in order to justify acting in a similar way now is ludicrous. No one is suggesting this bizarre interpretation. Even if some one was, it still doesn’t move the original command from objective to subjective.

    Along the same lines is your repeated insistence that Glen or Marshall or whoever is claiming to the be the only person with completely absolutely perfect knowledge of God’s will ( or whatever). It is simply demonstrably false to suggest this. Yet you seem to think it scores you points.

    I know it’s a go to rhetorical strategy for you, but making up some bizarre extreme argument and using it to make an unrelated point really isn’t that effective. Perhaps a change of tactics is in order so you can more persuasively make your point.

  36. TerranceH

    “Jesus was referring to the Old Law.”

    False. Jesus was referring to the man’s question: “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    And Jesus didn’t say anything about believing he was the Christ for his personal salvation.

  37. Dan,

    Your comment was so scandalously convoluted that I’ve no reason to respond in detail. You are making absolutely no sense. Jesus flat-out states that one cannot be saved unless they believe He is the Messiah, yet somehow that doesn’t mean exactly what it says…The fact there are other requirements (loving they neighbor, etc…) is totally irrelevant to the reality that at least one requirement is to believe Jesus is the Messiah (John 8:24).

    Since everything is subjective, why are you even a Christian? Should we even believe the Christian doctrine, Dan? Should we believe Jesus rose from the dead? In your world, it seems, it’s nothingness without end. It’s all subjective, therefore unverifiable, and therefore meaningless.

    Isu,

    False. The man was questioning Jesus’ understanding of the Old Law.

    In order for your argument to hold water, you must throw away John 3:36, John 8:24, John 14:6, among others.

    For your argument to be true, those passages have to be false. Because despite Dan’s incoherent comments, there is no other reasonable interpretation of those passages, particularly John 8:24.

    Either you’re wrong or the entire Gospel of John is suspect. Which one of those seems more likely?

    Exactly. You’re wrong.

  38. Trabue cites C.S. Lewis as an authority on who is saved! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

  39. TerranceH

    “The man was questioning Jesus’ understanding of the Old Law.”

    False. The question is very clear: “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” and it has nothing to do with the understanding of the Old Law.

    There are other reasonable interpretations:
    In John 3:36, “rejects” is not the same as “believes not in”, someone can believe Jesus is the Christ and, at the same time, can reject him.
    In John 14:6, “coming to the Father” is not the same as “salvation” o “eternal life”. There could be certain conditions in afterlive before going to the Father.
    According to the context, the targets of John 8:24 (“you”) are the pharisees, not everyone.

  40. Dan,

    I think I had a eureka moment when trying to understand why you persist in insisting that the command to Israel is to be objective. Here goes.

    You agree that it is objective reality that the words are written in the Bible, so we’re good so far.

    I think that where it gets subjective for you is that you just aren’t sure that the person who wrote it all down got it quite right. I think your point is that even though it’s objectively written down, determining if God actually said those words is subjective. It’s possible that the prophet misunderstood what God said. Maybe he was delusional, or drunk, or confused, or couldn’t understand what God said, or sleepy, or in some way just got it wrong. It’s possible that the scribe misunderstood the prophet, or was one of the previous list.

    While I agree that this scenario is certainly possible, the problem is that it then raises the same sort of question about any literature of antiquity. So, while the text objectively contains the words; “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised…”, to actually attribute those words to the actual person of Jesus or to presume that they are recorded properly is where it gets subjective.

    I get it now, It doesn’t make sense, but I think I understand.

  41. CS Lewis not “Christian” enough for you, either, Glenn? Well, we don’t all hold perfect knowledge that can not be mistaken on at least some topics, as you do, my brother. We who are but poor sinners pray for a bit of grace from our betters.

    And, whether or not you like it, you ARE my brother, so what would you have me call you?

  42. Craig…

    I think that where it gets subjective for you is that you just aren’t sure that the person who wrote it all down got it quite right.

    Sigh. I’ve really spent all the time here I can afford, but no, you are not understanding my point.

    Objective reality, easily demonstrated: The Bible contains a line that says, in effect, “God commands Israel to kill the Amelekites, including their infants.”

    That is an objective statement.

    Subjective opinion: “The statement about God commanding Israel to kill the Amelekites and their infants MEANS THAT we, too, when fighting an enemy, should kill them all, including their infants…”

    I’m not saying that ANYONE has said this. I’m stating a fact that this conclusion is subjective. It is an INTERPRETATION made up in someone’s mind (hypothetically). Likewise, the statement, “The Amalekite passage should not be taken to mean that God endorses people killing the enemy and their infants,” this TOO, is a subjective interpretation. These are both examples of interpretations that are subjective and examples of someone’s opinion. The person who interprets this to mean that God does NOT want us to kill the enemy’s infants can not demonstrate objectively that it is factually true. To objectively demonstrate either of these positions (or any other statement about what “God” wants), they’d have to have some means of objectively getting God’s opinion.

    We. Do. Not. Have. That. Ability.

    If you disagree, then demonstrate how we can objectiely get God’s opinion, demonstrably so.

    If you merely cite “but the Bible says…” you still have to demonstrate

    1. That God demonstrably exists.
    2. That objectively, the Bible was written by God.
    3. That you have demonstrably and objectively rightly interpreted the passage.

  43. Dan, Gus, Payne,
    OK then I misunderstood your opinion, thanks for clarifying. However, this just get’s you back to your initial problem. Which is, NO ONE is suggesting that God’s command to Israel is anything but time/place/nation specific. NO ONE, is using this passage as justification for ANYTHING. What is being said is that at a certain time and in a certain place God commanded His people to do certain things.

    As to your desire to set conditions, you are starting to sound more and more like an atheist. If you are serious then you’ve completely undercut every point you’ve ever made regarding scripture. So, perhaps you might do a post where you lay out your responses to the three points and why anyone should take any of your takes on scripture seriously?

  44. I have not SAID that anyone has said anything. What I did was lay out two examples of a subjective interpretation of a passage. As a point of fact, there are certainly those who agree with/have stated the latter example (the Amalekite passage can’t be treated as a reason to kill our enemies and their babies). But whether or not anyone states them, those ARE examples of a subjective interpretation.

    Do you understand now, and agree with the point I’m making?

  45. As to this from Craig…

    As to your desire to set conditions, you are starting to sound more and more like an atheist.

    I simply don’t even know what you’re suggesting. I’m simply stating an observable, demonstrable fact: That when we – any of us – state an INTERPRETATION of a passage and, in that personal, human INTERPRETATION make a claim about what God thinks, we are doing so subjectively and in a manner that is not demonstrable.

    To that point (which is the point of this post and which John won’t address, even though he’s asking others to address it), do we agree?

    That I state an observable real world reality does not make me sound like an atheist, not in any way that I can imagine. How does stating observable real world facts make someone sound like an atheist?

  46. C.S.Lewis had a lot of screwed up theology, including being an ardent evolutionist. He was a member of the Anglican church, which is essentially Roman Catholicism without a pope. He often preached universalism, which is heresy.

    He was often an excellent apologist, but he had too much baggage from his atheist past to be someone who could be cited unreservedly.

  47. Well, Glenn, as I noted, not everyone has your unique genius, not even an undisputed genius like Lewis who was only a genius, and yet still capable of being mistaken on some points, whereas you have (by your admission) reached a higher plane where you CAN NOT be mistaken on at least some undefined, vague subset of opinions.

    Please pray for us poor sinners and be gracious.

  48. Thanks for the grace, brother.

    • Is there some reason Gus/Dan/pain hollow all have the same email address and very similar writing styles?

    • Why do you use different names in the first place? Sounds kind of shady. Makes me think you are the troll you have been accused of being.

    • Marshal doesn’t switch around all during the same discussion and MarshalArt is not a name per se. Gus Ravenwheel is. Dan Traube is. Its not the use of a pseudonym, its the multiple as well as the different picture on Gus which is a different person than Dan on the pain hollow blog. I don’t like it and have some considering to do.

  49. It is me, Dan Trabue. My email is paynehollow and my facebook is Gus. WordPress (or whoever your blog site is) has changed things and for some reason, I have to use my facebook name. Apologies for any confusion.

    Glenn, is it the case that you’re backing away from your claim that there are SOME topics that you can NOT be mistaken on?

    Or, if not, could you provide us a list of those topics on which you, Glenn Chatfield, can NOT possibly be mistaken on and, having done that, provide some rational and/or biblical evidence for your god-like inability to perfect knowledge on those topics?

    Because I know of ZERO rational or biblical support for anyone making a claim of even partial perfection of knowledge. I fear it makes you sound either megalomaniacal or just a little out of touch with reality, dear brother, and would suggest a more humble approach.

    In Christ,

    Dan Trabue

    • Trabue,
      First, I have no respect for people who have to have different identities on the internet, especially with a Facebook page. You are lying to the world about who you are.

      EVERYONE should have some topics in which they are not mistaken or in error in any way. If they don’t, then they are totally stupid. Imagine telling someone that they might be mistaken in saying that 2+2=4, or that rain is wet, or that the earth orbits the sun. That does not mean anyone who knows such facts is pretending to have a “god-like” ability.

      As to the topic of homosexual behavior being a sin in every instance, I do have perfect knowledge of that because I take the Bible for what it says – unlike you who practice eisegesis with it to support your personal agenda. You have been many times by many people on many blogs been provided SOLID rational and Biblical evidence that homosexual behavior is perverse as well as sinful. But you just keep saying, “It’s just your hunch,” etc.

      The only one here out of touch with reality is Dan Trabue, rank heretic and false teacher who presents sophistry as his “intellectual” debate. I call on you to repent of your heresy, blasphemy and false teachings. Now, I really do want to cease any more communication with you on this string – you are a fool, and and I am throwing pearls before swine every time I communicate with you.

  50. Dan, I get what you’re saying and there is truth to it. However, for a christian it is logical to say that he can know things about God objectively. If our starting assumption is that God inspired the writers of the bible and the bible has reliably been transcribed and correctly translated then it is true that we can know things about God objectively. Since the bible does have some objective truths plainly declared within the bible. For example, God is love. That is a simple statement that we know as objectively true if the bible was inspired by God, has reliably been transcribed and properly translated. Even if improperly translated we still can do research to find the proper translation. It still stands that we can’t be objectively certain of that truth since we can’t absolutely prove the inspiration of God or the reliability of transcription. Although we could give evidence that points to those things being true. If the starting assumptions are true, then we do know things about God as absolutely true to the extent that they are stated plainly within the bible. Things that don’t need reading into or explanation. I’m guessing you already understand all that and your point was just that we can’t have absolute certainty of anything without direct firsthand revelation from God.

  51. paynehollow says:

    Lots of folk use internet names (Marshall Art, for instance). When I started blogging, I deliberately always have used my real name (while referencing my real email handle, which just happens to be paynehollow). I have been abundantly clear about who I am (whereas you don’t even know on the blogosphere what Marshall’s real name is, he keeps to using a pseudonym). Are you condemning Marshall, then, or is this simply an ad hom attack based on a partisan agenda and that is actually baseless, since I’m clearly identifying myself as Dan Trabue?

    =====

    So, you are wholly incapable of being mistaken on one and only one topic, Glenn, or are there multiple areas where you are incapable of being mistaken?

    Do you have perfect knowledge of the sin status of…

    Abortion?
    Drinking alcohol?
    Smoking tobacco?
    Smoking marijuana?
    The “correct” understanding of the term “atonement…”?
    Paying taxes?

    …I could be mistaken, but I believe you hold that you have perfect knowledge on a multitude of areas. If so, say so.

    But then, be a rational being and give some biblical and rational support for why you think you have perfect knowledge in those areas and that you are wholly incapable of being mistaken.

    • I already responded to your stupid sophistry, Trabue. Quit pretending otherwise.

      As for pseudonyms on blogs, some people have to be somewhat anonymous for fear of what they say in public forcing loss of their occupation because liberals don’t believe we should have a personal life when not on duty at work. Others remain anonymous because the subject matter has lead to threats of violence.

      BUT, if you are not in either of those categories, then you are just being deceitful or cowardly. And that is especially true if you have a fake ID for you Facebook page.

  52. wiley16350 says:

    I think you guys are getting carried away with the Dan/Gus thing. It was obvious from his first 2 Gus posts that it was Dan. He addressed statements made to Dan and took acceptance for them by using I. He also referred to the Brother statement that Glenn addressed to Dan in his first post. I never got the impression that he was trying to portray himself as someone else defending Dan. It seems very likely that it was just the way he entered the information down. At times, my posts will be Richard, but other times it will be wiley16350 just because I didn’t type my name in the name field and word press will enter wiley16350.

  53. wiley16350 says:

    In fact it just did it. When I am logged into wordpress, it will enter wiley16350. If I write the post without being logged into wordpress it will make me put a name in the name field and I will type my actual name which is Richard. It is an honest mistake, with absolutely no intention to deceive.

  54. wiley16350 says:

    John,

    Perhaps that is true. I haven’t seen everything he has written or the way he argues. Although, I have seen many arguments between him and Glenn. In this instance though it does seem like he had no intentions of deceiving. He said his wordpress account is Gus Ravenwheel and his e-mail was paynehollow. So i’m guessing that he would come to this page without being logged into wordpress and so he had to fill out the information that follows the comment. So he entered his e-mail name. To his credit at the end of his first post he acknowledged his real name as Dan. Everytime that he entered his e-mail it probably directed him to log into wordpress, even though he was logged into wordpress it would still show the name that he wrote in the name field. As long as he continued to close the window and basically log out of wordpress he would have to continue to fill out the information for the e-mail and name field. Then when it switched from paynehollow to Gus Ravenwheel it would have been because he stayed logged into his wordpress account. In that case it wouldn’t give him the option to enter in a name or e-mail it would automatically use the wordpress information. So all I’m saying, is give him a break on this, all the evidence says he wasn’t trying to be deceitful.

  55. Isu,

    You’re plain wrong. The very fact Jesus was being tested proves that it was His understanding of the Old Law that was being questioned. I’m sure they were also interested in seeing if Jesus would “blaspheme” by telling the crowd to believe in Him.

    No, there are no reasonable interpretations of the passages in John aside from those I already discussed. And to suggest, as you have, that John 8:24 is specifically for Pharisees is yet more nonsense you’ve pulled out of thin air. You’re basically saying that different groups must accomplish different things in order to be saved. Nonsense. There is no biblical basis for this whatsoever.

    You are wrong, but then again, not exactly a new thing for you, ‘eh?

  56. 1. That God demonstrably exists.
    2. That objectively, the Bible was written by God.
    3. That you have demonstrably and objectively rightly interpreted the passage.

    Dan,

    Perhaps you forgot the set of conditions you attempted to impose. If so, I pasted them above to refresh your memory. These do not sound like something a christian would set. They, in fact, sound like what the many atheists have said.

    As far as your continued used of the “some might use the Amelikite command to justify murdering children or raping puppies or whatever”. It is a ridiculous and silly ‘example”. It is, like most of your “examples” so far from anything anyone has actually said as to just be ridiculous. It is one thing, and eminently reasonable, to take that passage as literal objective truth in it’s context. Which is what folks here have done. It is quite another to set up a straw man example that is so far from reality as to be useless in terms of moving the conversation anywhere. You do this often enough to make one wonder if it is simply a dodge, in order to avoid making any sort of definitive statement. It’s so much easier to say “well what about the puppy rapers” or “what about those folks who use the OT to justify killing innocent babies” or “Well, you guy’s don’t perfectly know the perfect will or opinion of God” than to actually stake out a position and defend it with actual evidence. C,mon, I know you can do better than this tired old dodge.

  57. TerranceH

    I’m not wrong. He wasn’t asked for his knowledge of Old Law, he would have failed the test by asking “What is written in the Law?”. He was asked a question and Jesus answered to that question accordingly.

    There are other reasonable.interpretations and I have introduced them, your blindy denial doesn’t make them unreasonable. John 8:24 is part of a dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees, as can be seen in 8:13. There is biblical basis for different judgement according the group characteristics: John 9:41 is a clear sample.

  58. Isu,

    Yes, you are wrong. Jesus was being asked how one could be saved via Old Testament law. What did Jesus say? Let’s go over the entire passage line by line and see if we can’t figure this out.

    Luke 10:25, “On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’

    It says, an expert in the law. And since the New Testament was yet to be written, clearly the man was referring to Old Testament law.

    Then Jesus says in Luke 10:26, “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

    Jesus asked the man what is written. Clearly, Jesus is referring to law handed down by God to the Israelites, otherwise known as the Old Testament.

    The lawyer says in Luke 10:27, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”

    Jesus replied in Luke 10:28, “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

    The man asks in Luke 10:29, ” But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

    Jesus replied in Luke 10:30 – 36, ” In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32, So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34.He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ 36. “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

    In Luke 10:37, “The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

    Let’s look at Luke 18:18-27, 18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’ ” 21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?” 27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”

    From this story we know it is impossible for humans beings to keep every law and be saved on their own. If you can keep every law, then sure, you can be saved on your own. But no human being is capable of this. We have all broken the commandments. Even being angry with someone is breaking the Fifth Commandment in your heart (1 John 3:15: 4:19-21). So none of us are capable of receiving eternal life unless we accept Jesus Christ and believe in Him.

    The first story is of Jesus explaining how one could be saved through Old Testament law. But we know that the Israelites had to offer sacrifices, didn’t they? Why should this be so, if they were keeping all the commandments? Because they weren’t. Because it is impossible for human beings to be truly righteous. We are sinful human beings that will always be missing something without Christ. In Luke 18: 18-27, this is affirmed.

    So you are wrong, Isu. You’re like every other liberal Christian. You pretend like you know something, but in reality you’re merely reflecting your own ignorance. The New Testament is clear, in many passages, that without Christ, we are dead in our sins.

  59. Just to clarify, using a nom de plume on a blog can mean many things. In my case, it’s just for grins. If the handle is highlighted, it will take the reader to a profile page. Mine has my real name and contact info. Someday, hopefully before the turn of the next century, I will complete the transition from Blogger to WordPress and my name disparities will be addressed. Don’t hold your breath.

  60. TerranceH

    Jesus was not asked how to be saved via Old Testament.
    Reasons:
    – It’s not included in the question.
    – The man calls him “teacher”, so it isn’t a test.
    – The man aswers to his questions about the law, so it isn’t a test about the law.
    – An “expert in the law” can ask questions out of the law.
    – The man “wanted to justify himself”, so it wasn’t a test but a personal (for “himself”) question.

    Luke 18:18-27 is another sample of a personal answer to a personal question (“what must I do”).
    Otherwise, you must “Sell everything you have and give to the poor” to inherit eternal life. Have you?

  61. So Isu is going to argue with what Scripture clearly says in referring to the “testing” of Jesus by His questioner? Apparently, Isu has inside info of the events that Luke didn’t.

    • I think Isu is very much like Trabue. No clue as to proper Biblical hermeneutics, and only interpret things in such a way as to make them fit a personal agenda. Like all false teachers. Ignore the hermeneutics, ignore the historical understanding by both Jews and Christians (regardless of denomination), ignore all the scholars except those who just happen to agree with you and just happen to have begun appearing within the past few decades with “new” insights that no one ever found before.

  62. marshalart

    I didn’t argue with the “testing”, I argued with what was being tested and it clearly doesn’t say it was a test on “knowledge of Old Law”.

  63. Glenn,

    I know that your lack of reasons to support your ungrounded dogmatical interpretations leads you to desperate ways such as patent lies and ad hominem attacks. You are the ones who interpret things in such a way you are the “ones” fitting your personal agenda.

    The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.
    Proverbs 12:22

    • Isu pulled out the Trabue “lying” card! Proof that he and Trabue are of the same ilk.

      It wasn’t an ad hominem, it was merely a statement of fact as to why you, like Dan, never seem to understand what the Bible actually says. You prove over and over that you have no proper Biblical hermeneutic.

  64. Glenn,

    Once again spreading your lies as “statement of fact”. Fanatics of dogma, such as you, misrepresent their flawed interpretation as the only interpretation. Not matching your own dogma is no proof of wrong interpretation, save in your irrational dogmatism.

  65. Glenn, it sounds like Isu has you down pat. But praytell, enlighten us: What IS a proper biblical hermeneutic? Is there one and only one correct way to interpret the Bible and are you the holder of that hermeneutic? If so and you want others to be as enlightened as you, wouldn’t you want to share that?

    Seems like I’ve shared my hermeneutic with you and you could not point out any problems at all with my hermeneutic. Here, I’ll do it again and you can tell me where I err:

    1. We interpret the Bible prayerfully and rationally, using our God-given reasoning.
    2. We interpret obscure Scripture/ideas through clear Scripture/ideas.
    3. We interpret the individual passage in light of the whole Bible.
    4. We i(who are Christians – followers of the Christ) nterpret the whole Bible through the words/teachings of the Christ.
    5. We strive to take into account text and context…

    For starters. That’s not a complete hermeneutic, but it’s a large chunk of what I do in reading the Bible. If you-who-can’t-be-mistaken on some topics want to help the world, then by all means, tell we-who-CAN-be-mistaken what we are doing wrong. Be specific, please.

    ~Dan Trabue

  66. Richard, thank you for the kind and respectful thoughts. I think we’re having a problem with semantics, perhaps. You said…

    However, for a christian it is logical to say that he can know things about God objectively. If our starting assumption is that God inspired the writers of the bible and the bible has reliably been transcribed and correctly translated then it is true that we can know things about God objectively.

    If we are starting with an assumption that is not demonstrable/provable, then are we not beginning from a point of subjectivity?

    By objective, I mean…

    objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers (Merriam Webster).

    In that standard English definition, a claim can be objective IF it is related to an object or condition that can be observed in the realm of sensible experience – it can be weighed, tested, measured and is not dependent upon a pre-existing individual thought. It is perceptible to ALL observers.

    In that sense, IF we begin with a philosophy/idea that can NOT be measured, tested, weighed… that is not perceptible to all observers, then we are NOT beginning with an objective reality.

    Let’s just begin with that idea. Are we in agreement that, with at least that standard English definition, that OUR HUMAN INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture are not objective? Are you using some other definition of objective?

    In Christ,

    Dan Trabue

  67. And thanks to Wiley/Richard (whoEVER you are! ha!) for the defense.

    Indeed, as stated and as anyone can see, I’ve always used my real name for blogging, ever since the beginning – for over a decade. So, each and every time I’ve commented here over years now, it’s been with my own name.

    It is entirely due to the recent changes in your blog system that is requiring me to use my facebook account (which I use for fun and thus, use the “fun” name “Gus Ravenwheel,” based upon a tall tale about a bicyclist) that I’ve been appearing as “Gus Ravenwheel.” I try to remember to sign my actual name (although sometimes, admittedly, I forget, or let it go once I’ve established who I am), to further make it clear.

    There is no duplicity or attempt to deceive, any more than Marshall Art using a pseudonym for his blogging. If I wanted to use a fake name, why wouldn’t I have done that years ago? How does that make sense?

    I think that sometimes, once we’ve found a brother or sister with whom we have frequent disagreements, it’s easy to get carried away in the heat of the moment, rather than just looking at the facts.

    Thanks again, Richard. Thank God for God’s amazing grace shared in the lives of those who embrace it!

  68. And I’d point out that my question to Glenn appears to be right in line with John’s questions that he’s asking others (but unwilling to answer himself, strangely)…

    How do you know this is true?
    Where did you get this knowledge?

    It appears that many of our more conservative brothers here are claiming they get their knowledge (which they appear to think has only one “right” way to interpret it and that THEY know the right way, thus, their knowledge) through reading the Bible.

    Since I, too, read the Bible to glean knowledge and wisdom and yet you disagree with my interpretations, you all appear to agree with me that it is possible to read the Bible and come up with mistaken interpretations. And so, HOW we read the Bible/what our hermeneutics are… this is a critical piece of the answer to John’s questions.

    Of course, it still won’t deal with the subjective nature of our interpretations issue, but it at least will help inform us as to how we reach our conclusions.

    Having said that, since my hermeneutic is pretty orthodox and probably most people here will agree with it, then we’re back to reading the same Bible and even starting with the same hermeneutic and yet reaching different opinions about how best to interpret the Bible and form reasonable conclusions… but you tell me.

  69. wiley16350 says:

    @Dan
    Yes, I agree that we are starting with subjectivity because we start with an assumption. We can’t prove that assumption absolutely true, so therefore we can’t say we’re being strictly objective. Therefore, In general, I agree with you. My continued point was to say that if our assumptions are absolutely true as we believe then we actually do know things objectively. We just don’t know it for certainty because of our limited knowledge and perspective. It probably is semantics. But it is important to recognize when you have two people debating over an issue that have the same starting assumption. For an example, if two christians where debating whether God is love or if God love’s. If both believe that the bible is inspired by God, has reliably been transcribed and agree on the proper translation then they should be able to look at plainly written passages and come to what they both believe is an objective truth. When one points out the verse that plainly declares that God is love, the other can’t come back and say “well you don’t know that objectively”. Once he does so, he is denying the starting assumption that they previously agreed on. The argument would then become pointless since they have different beliefs. Even still, It is possible that one of them is objectively right (from God’s perspective) even though he can’t know he is objectively right from his own perspective. So I guess the overall points are; That it is possible for Christians to debate what they believe to be an objective truth from the bible if they have the same starting assumption. And that people have been revealed objective truth and therefore know objective truth without actually knowing it objectively.

  70. Hmmm… I’m not sure that I can agree. I mean, you can see my short list of bible hermeneutics. I’m starting with the assumption that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, that God tells no lies, that we have the Bible as scripture to us and, thus, it is God-inspired and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness… I’m starting with these assumptions and probably most conservatives here are, as well.

    And yet, if Joe Conservative says, “The Bible says that men lying with men is a sin and they should be put to death, therefore, all instances of homosexuality are wrong in God’s eyes…” (for instance) and Ralph Liberal replies, “Well, I don’t find that to be a plausible interpretation of what the bible as a whole has to say about the topic. Clearly, those things that are good, noble, true, pure, loving… etc, are OF GOD and, thus, clearly it seems abundantly obvious that a marriage relationship is of God, gay or straight…” (for instance).

    In those instances, Ralph and Joe are starting from the same point and yet reaching different SUBJECTIVE opinions about God’s opinion about marriage between gay folk. Do we agree that, in at least that example, we’re speaking of subjective opinions, not objective facts?

    ~Dan

  71. Richard, let me clarify that IF it turns out that factually speaking God is OPPOSED to Behavior X, and considers it a sin, then one day, we WILL learn objectively that Behavior X is a sin in God’s eyes. It may indeed be an objective fact.

    I’m differentiating between what we may or may discover objectively ONE DAY and what we interpret TODAY, with the interpretation being, in English usage, a subjective opinion.

    If I read the Bible and deduced that dragons actually do/did exist (since they’re mentioned in the Bible) and I say to people, “It is my understanding that dragons exist…” that may be an objective proof that could ONE DAY be objectively demonstrated.

    But in the meantime, MY OPINION about it, since I can not demonstrate it in the realm of observable, perceptible senses and since it can’t be independently realized by all other people… MY OPINION will remain subjective, in the standard English usage of those words. Yes?

  72. wiley16350 says:

    I’m not saying everything in the bible is objective truth. I’m just saying that there are objective truths in there. Jesus died on a cross or Jesus rose from the dead are examples. Those things are plainly stated in the bible. So for a chrisitan to deny those things he would have to deny the starting assumptions. If he is denying the starting assumptions then he needs to prove that he has good reason to do so. Translation can be the biggest culprit in bad interpretations and the most valid reason for not accepting a plain statement in the bible. That’s why I said that the people involved must agree on a translation as a starting assumption. There are plenty of things that are poetic, symbolic and specific to context that bring in a lot more subjectivity to the interpretation of the bible and makes it hard to be definitive on the truth. Therefore many things are subjective.

    In your example Joe Conservative is taking the bible at it’s face value and not reading into it. It seems like a plain statement and so he has nothing to explain further. If Ralph liberal disagrees with a plain statement then he needs to give good arguments of what it is Ralph is missing. Is it context, bad translation or is the passage symbolic. In your example Ralph doesn’t argue against those things. He argues using assumptions that he hasn’t proven. He hasn’t proven that the bible declares all of those things are of God. He also hasn’t proven that gay marriage is good, noble, true or pure. The verse in Leviticus says man-man sexual relationships are detestable. Which is in opposition to Ralph’s assumption that man-man sexual relationships are good and noble. So it would seem that Ralph would have to show that detestable is a mistranslation or that this was only destable for the Jews. The more unproved assumptions one uses to defend his opinion, the more he is liable to be wrong.

  73. Maybe so, maybe so. But in the real world, both Ralph and Joe are holding subjective opinions, not objective facts. Right?

    As to the “unproven assumptions,” we’d still be back to “unproven to whom? and on what basis?” In Ralph’s subjective opinion, the weight of the whole Bible rules against a “God hates gay folk marrying” interpretation. For Joe, the five or so apparent mentions of some form of gay behavior, added to the absence of any positive mentions of marriage between gays rules against acceptance of ANY gay behavior. How do we weigh, measure and otherwise “prove” these points? On what basis?

    That is why I think it is very important to be precise in our language. We hold subjective interpretations of various biblical passages that neither of us can prove but for which we both find ample reason (if not objective proof) to support our hunches. If we don’t hang tight to the English reality of those words, then we run the risk of conflating our subjective unprovable opinions with God’s holy Word – a potentially blasphemous place to be (if you interpret the Bible as I do).

    Do you see my point there?

  74. Thanks for fixing my name, John (I assume you did that), but it’s “Trabue,” not “Traube.” I wouldn’t want to be accused of using a false name.

    ~Dan Trabue

  75. Richard…

    The verse in Leviticus says man-man sexual relationships are detestable.

    That is ONE possible interpretation. It’s not the one that I hold. That is, I think clearly in context, there is SOME sexual misdeed being spoken of, but those passages are not a reference to any and all male-male behavior. Rather, it appears clearly to be a reference to some specific subset of gay sex practiced by the pagans “in the land,” most likely the temple sex rituals they observed.

    It all gets back to good exegesis and good hermeneutics and I think reading “Therefore, God hates all gay behavior” is an example of EISEGESIS – of reading into the text something that clearly isn’t there. How do we know? Well, because the Bible makes clear (and our own God-given reasoning supports this) that those things that are good, loving, noble, pure, etc… that these things ARE OF GOD.

    So, to interpret that Leviticus passage as saying even a good, loving, noble, pure marriage relationship that is self-evidently a beautiful thing… that THAT would be included in what Leviticus is speaking of, that would make the Bible contradictory. And besides which, the passage appears to be clearly referring to some specific acts that the pagans took part in, like the temple sex rituals. This is supported by the Romans 1 passage, which again, clearly references some pagan worship practices.

    And I could go on, but this isn’t the place to debate that topic, I’m just using that as an example. The point being, what some SUBJECTIVELY see as “clear,” others SUBJECTIVELY see as clear, but in the opposite direction of the Other. The point is, the opinions/interpretations are not objective – elsewise, we could demonstrate their correct-ness. They are subjective, and it’s important to keep that in mind, for our own humility’s sake and to avoid the blasphemous behavior of setting ourselves in God’s place.

  76. wiley16350 says:

    @ Dan
    I know that is your main point and I totally agree with it. Just wanted to point out that when you have two people debating over a point that have the same starting assumption then there are arguments where you will basically be debating the objective truth as seen by each party.

  77. Okay, and I just wanted to point out that I don’t think that is a proper English usage of the word “objective.” But thanks for the exceedingly polite discussion.

  78. Trying to fix my name problem, per John. Test 1… I have three options: Post as WordPress, Twitter (don’t have an account) or Facebook. My facebook name is Gus Ravenwheel, but down below, it looks like it offers me a place to change “Gus” to “Dan” but when I try to type there, it physically won’t let me type.

    Is there maybe a setting on your side, John? In addition to the inability to use my actual name, the display is all screwed up…

  79. Proper hermeneutics:
    http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/03/hermeneutics.html
    http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/08/basic-bible-interpretation.html

    By following these principles, you won’t come up with Trabue’s interpretation of the passages in the Bible which speak of homosexuality.

  80. Test 2, since John appears to be deleting comments over this. I can see above that it DID post as Dan Trabue/paynehollow, but I honestly don’t know what I have done to make that one show up, and the subsequent ones not to show up. Trying something different.

    Here’s my deleted post:

    Glenn, you say my hermeneutics are “poor,” and yet, I’ve offered some of them for you. What SPECIFICALLY am I doing wrong that makes my hermeneutics poor?

    Is it that I believe in using our God-given reasoning? Are you suggesting that is a mistake?

    Or is it that I strive to understand the text and context, is that wrong?

    Or that I believe in praying over it? Is that stupid on my part?

    Rather than vague, unsupported charges, common decency and reason suggests if you want to make a criticism, be specific and tell me specifically where my hermeneutics are “poor.” My dear conservative mother says, “If you can’t say something nice AND/OR constructive (even if it’s in disagreement), then don’t say anything at all.”

    Is she mistaken, too? Where specifically?

    Can you understand that reasonable adults are not particular impressed with vague and unsupported charges that, on the face of it, appear to be a blatant false witness?

  81. Man, John, what kind of cynic are you! I am just floundering here hitting buttons. When I hit that last one, it locked my computer up for 15+ minutes, so I guess it worked, but it also doesn’t work well.

    You may disagree with me John, and that’s fine. But when I tell you something, I’m telling you my actual opinions and my actual position/what I’m actually doing. Do you think I have time to go around and just play childish jokes? How old are you?

    Again, I’ve been posting here for years under my name. YOUR system changed something and it’s not at all clear to me how to put on a comment in a way that pleases you. I’m sorry if my ignorance of your system is off-putting, but I’m not playing any games, and it seems rather childish of you to suspect as much.

    This is Dan Trabue, trying to sign off again as Dan Trabue at paynehollow (which I guess is my google account here, I can’t really tell…)

  82. paynehollow says:

    There, I posted and nothing showed up. Let me repeat what I JUST posted a second time to see if it appears…

    Man, John, what kind of cynic are you! I am just floundering here hitting buttons. When I hit that last one, it locked my computer up for 15+ minutes, so I guess it worked, but it also doesn’t work well.

    You may disagree with me John, and that’s fine. But when I tell you something, I’m telling you my actual opinions and my actual position/what I’m actually doing. Do you think I have time to go around and just play childish jokes? How old are you?

    Again, I’ve been posting here for years under my name. YOUR system changed something and it’s not at all clear to me how to put on a comment in a way that pleases you. I’m sorry if my ignorance of your system is off-putting, but I’m not playing any games, and it seems rather childish of you to suspect as much.

    This is Dan Trabue, trying to sign off again as Dan Trabue at paynehollow (which I guess is my google account here, I can’t really tell…)

    • Dan

      I’m not playing games. I should have washed my hands of you years ago but I haven’t. As much as I disagree with you I don’t ban people I disagree with. If you want to try to say this baloney is because of your positions, you’re just trying to manipulate onlookers. You know I don’t ban people I don’t agree with. That said…again, I’m not going to have you posting with different names and signing off with different names than the one next to the comment, it’s confusing for people just coming in. And though I don’t have a problem with aliases on the internet, yours goes beyond an online moniker on to using an entirely different identity. Now you can either drop it and continue with the off topic discussion this has turned into, or you can complain further.

      I do find it rather suspicious that you couldnt figure out how to post under your real name insisting you were unable. Then your comments got deleted and whadda you know, you figured it out.

  83. paynehollow says:

    So, Glenn, you link to some posts, but you still can’t tell me specifically where I’m going wrong?

    And you want people to take that seriously?

    I looked at your list and I don’t see any significant difference from what I’ve said. So, it appears that you and I are USING THE SAME HERMENEUTIC. Now what? Are you suggesting that someone can’t use my/your hermeneutic and be mistaken (in your subjective opinion)?

    But I’m using my/your hermeneutic and you think I’m mistaken. So, now what? What SPECIFICALLY am I doing wrong, in your mind?

    ~Dan Trabue

    • Trabue, Are you really that dense? In those links I post what proper hermeneutical principles are. Anyone reading those – including YOU – should be able to compare what they describe with the way you interpret the Bible and see that you miss just about every proper hermeneutical principle possible.

      You are in denial, but since you are a rank heretic and false teacher, it isn’t surprising. Good bye – I’m wiping your dust from my feet.

  84. For instance..? Just give me ONE THING that I’m doing wrongly, Glenn. If it’s obvious and easy, then it should be no problem.

    Keeping in mind that one thing you would be tempted to say, I’m sure (since you’ve said it in the past) is you’d be mistaken to say I changed my position from anti-supportive of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to being supportive due to your number 10…

    Do not seek to change plain meanings of texts just because they might offend.

    …since that is not a reason that I’ve changed my mind. On the gay topic, I believed as you did, I didn’t know any gay folk, I wasn’t concerned about offending gay folk, AND YET, following serious Bible study using my/your hermeneutics, I had to turn AWAY from that position because I didn’t think that hermeneutic led to that conclusion. Indeed, I found your position/my old position to have engaged in the mistake of EISEGESIS (which you rightly warn of) – I was READING INTO the text something that wasn’t there.

    So, it wasn’t eisegesis or seeking not to offend that I’ve got wrong, since I was deliberately striving to avoid those. So Glenn, JUST ONE EXAMPLE: Where have I made a mistake in my hermeneutic?

    If you can’t name even one, then I’m going to have to assume you can’t find any problem and this is more of an emotional disagreement/snit over cultural traditions rather than any problems with my actual arguments.

    • Trabue,
      You can claim all you want that you follow those hermeneutic principles, but you deceive no one except yourself. It is impossible to apply proper hermeneutic principles and come to the conclusion that homosexual behavior is not always a sin, let alone your many other unbiblical claims.
      So, keep lying, keep deceiving yourself. I’m done here.

  85. paynehollow says:

    Annnnd… having to post this one for the second time, too…

    Glenn, if there is even ONE point where you can point to my hermeneutic and say, “THIS Dan, is where you are making your mistake…” then you should be able to do it easily enough. But you aren’t doing it because you can’t. As much as it might trouble you, you are using my hermeneutic (or vice versa) for the most part. We are approaching Bible study the same way – staying away from eisegesis, interpreting Scripture through Scripture, not being swayed by modern cultural biases, considering the text and subtext… in at least nearly every way except that you don’t seem to give the priority to Jesus’ specific teachings the way I (we, anabaptists and others like us) do.

    Do you think maybe that’s where I’m getting in error, by relying TOO much on the direct teachings of Christ our Lord? You can tell me if that’s what you think.

    But saying, “You DO make mistakes! You just do! YOU DO!!! Nyaaa!!” well, I hope you can see that this is not a very mature way to approach disagreements/differences of opinions.

    If you all believe what you believe (that I’m making some sort of hermeneutical error, that you can’t be mistaken on some points, that your interpretations of the Bible are not subjective), then be men. Stand up and make your case and be specific.

    Come brothers, let us reason together…

    ~Dan Trabue, trying to post this for the second time…

  86. paynehollow says:

    Cynicism does not become you, John. Embrace grace.

  87. Clearly, those things that are good, noble, true, pure, loving… etc, are OF GOD and, thus, clearly it seems abundantly obvious that a marriage relationship is of God, gay or straight…”

    Yet, you are unwilling to provide any positive support for this position from scripture.

  88. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    You can claim all you want that you follow those hermeneutic principles, but you deceive no one except yourself.

    Then prove it Glenn. Like this:

    “Dan, when you say …X… it is wrong because…”

    You can’t just say, “Nu-uh! y’ddidn’t!” not in a rational, adult level conversation. I’m open to being corrected, but you HAVE to point to some mistake I’ve made. I’ve given you my criteria (essentially the same as yours). WHERE is my hermeneutic mistaken? On WHICH point?

    Answer the question or admit that you have nothing.
    ====
    Craig, I don’t have any “proof” from Scripture that it’s good to plant trees or clear trails or adopt a child. Are all of those “bad” because we can’t “prove” it with some proof text?

    The Bible isn’t a rule book we go to in order to get rulings on specific behaviors. It’s a book of truth, telling us how to live lives of grace and love.

    On the face of it, self-evidently, two people living a loving marriage arrangement is good, pure and noble. Your “side” is making the rather unbelievable claim that it’s not. It’s on you to demonstrate why it’s bad, and you can’t do that with proof texts from the Bible, either. Not objectively, demonstrably.

    You can offer opinions, and I can offer opinions. We’ll disagree as to which is the most rational and biblically sound.

    Now what?

    Or, more to John’s original question: What proof/evidence do you have that you have THE ONE objective and demonstrable truth?

  89. Indeed, Craig. I’ve asked often when Dan goes there by whose standards or definitions of “good”, “noble”, “true”, “pure”, “loving” does one go? For example, as God has clearly called males lying with males an abomination, how can it possibly be called “good”, “true”, “pure” or “loving”? As to that abomination, there is nothing in the text that suggests a specific form or context whereby the behavior would be an abomination, and any possible alternative by which it would not. NOTHING in the text suggests that. Dan likes to appeal to Lev 18:

    “You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.”

    From this, and/or some unknown verse he has yet to provide, Dan insists this has something to do with pagan rituals. But it doesn’t say religious practices, does it? It just says “practices”. It could be their practice to pick their noses while eating. It could be their practice to drive on the wrong side of the road. A practice does not denote a religious ritual.

    God’s notion of “good” could not, therefore, include a practice He has labeled an abomination.

    I just found the place where Dan was running his standard lie. It went like this:
    —————————————————————————————————-
    Richard…

    The verse in Leviticus says man-man sexual relationships are detestable.

    That is ONE possible interpretation. It’s not the one that I hold. That is, I think clearly in context, there is SOME sexual misdeed being spoken of, but those passages are not a reference to any and all male-male behavior. Rather, it appears clearly to be a reference to some specific subset of gay sex practiced by the pagans “in the land,” most likely the temple sex rituals they observed.
    —————————————————————————————————-

    It’s far more than a mere interpretation. It is exactly what the verse says. It makes absolutely no reference of any kind to exceptions, any particular contexts in which the behavior takes place, no pagan rituals….NOTHING. The sexual misdeed of which it speaks is man/man sexual behavior. Period. Definitely no “clear appearance” of some “specific subset” of anything. This is pure Dan adding what he wants it to mean. Indeed, there are those who insist that talk of pagan sexual rituals is highly overblown. But again, it doesn’t matter to what extent homosexual behavior took place in the pagan religions. No verse makes the connection between the prohibition on homosexual behavior and pagan religious rituals. It simply says “don’t do this behavior”. So again, it is not merely ONE possible interpretation. It is THE interpretation. It is what Scripture is saying.

  90. Dan,
    I’m thrilled that you find arguments form silence persuasive. Personally, I really don’t find them to be effective in the least. Can I point out that John was asking the question to universalist types. I’d love to hear you answer the question though, and since you’re normal modus operandi is to avoid answering questions until people answer yours, I’ll play.

    With the caveat, that you will be unsatisfied with any “proof” that anyone might offer, and with the caveat that the question is “What proof/evidence do YOU have that YOU have THE ONE objective and demonstrable truth?”, here goes.

    1. I have had personal experience that convinces me that the God of the Bible is real, personal, and active.
    2. I have spent enough time investigating the Biblical record, to feel confident that it contains God’s Truth.
    3. I am satisfied that there is adequate evidence to indicate that Jesus Christ lived, died, and was raised from the dead.

    You’re turn.

  91. I just want to add that the reason for my last comment is simple: I will not allow Dan’s perversion of clearly stated Scripture go unchallenged. It is so extremely rare when we ever cover a verse than can truly be said to potentially hold multiple possible interpretations. None of those regarding homosexual behavior are among them.

    To get to the topic, I would like to add that the Christian faith has the advantage of having the most manuscript evidence available to support it’s holy book, and an incredible amount of archeological evidence that supports it, with pretty much nothing that presents any of it as false. There is also evidence from other ancient cultures not sympathetic to Christianity that supports the Biblical record. Thus, Christians can feel quite confident in the objective truth of their Bible.

    With this in mind, what the Christian Bible teaches about the faith does have some level of tangible evidence behind it that other religions do not have. The verses Terrance provided to support the notion that only through Christ is anyone able to find salvation carries more weight than mere assertions that there are other paths aside from Him.

  92. marshalart.

    “The verses Terrance provided to support the notion that only through Christ is anyone able to find salvation carries more weight than mere assertions that there are other paths aside from Him.”

    The fact is that Jesus himself patently assert another path in Luke 10:28.

    As I said, there are other reasonable interpretations for the verses Terrance used:
    In John 3:36, “rejects” is not the same as “believes not in”, someone can believe Jesus is the Christ and, at the same time, can reject him.
    In John 14:6, “coming to the Father” is not the same as “salvation” o “eternal life”. There could be certain conditions in afterlive before going to the Father.
    According to the context, the targets of John 8:24 (“you”) are the pharisees, not everyone.

    Saying that they aren’t reasonable because they don’t match your interpretation is a fallacy.

  93. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    It’s far more than a mere interpretation. It is exactly what the verse says.

    This is off topic here – albeit a good example of what we “know” and what we THINK we know. In short, no, you are factually mistaken. To take a passage written to ancient Israel and say, “See this line? That is an indication that any and all gay behavior throughout all history is sinful…” THAT is a subjective interpretation. YOU are reading that conclusion in to the text, the text does not say that.

    That is simply a fact. The problem for many appears to be that you all can’t differentiate between opinion and fact.

    Craig…

    You’re [sic] turn.

    I answered on the very first comment, Craig. Here it is again:

    How do we know objectively and definitively that ANYTHING we “know” about God is true? We don’t.

    If we answer, “I know because my holy writ tells me this…,” we have to admit that, first of all, it is our understanding of the holy writ, not some magical scripture that tells us objectively and definitively. Secondly, if we recognize the observable reality that we lack perfect knowledge of all things, then anything that is our understanding of something unprovable will remain subjective, by definition.

    Factually speaking, we don’t know OBJECTIVELY and demonstrably that our opinions and interpretations are The ONE “Right” Opinion/Interpretation.

    Your three point answer is something I can say, too, but they don’t rationally lead to the conclusion, “Therefore, I know this objectively and demonstrably.”

    Another part of the problem here, seems to me, is that you all are uncomfortable admitting real world limitations. We CAN’T objectively demonstrate our opinions about God and what God wants are perfectly correct. We simply, factually can’t do that.

    And that’s okay.

    But you all appear to find it galling to admit the real world reality that you don’t have this semi-perfect knowledge. It’s okay not to know everything perfectly, we’re human, no one expects us to have even semi-perfect knowlege (ie, “I CAN’T be mistaken on this subset of points!”

    We should humbly admit that we find our positions to be REASONABLY COMPELLING, and yet, not objectively demonstrable, and that should be enough. There is no shame in admitting we lack perfect knowledge, even in a mere subset of areas.

    This is not that weird a view, it is entirely orthodox, from a Christian point of view, to be able to admit we can’t objectively demonstrate our hunches are perfectly correct. I have to believe that you all are merely misunderstanding my point. I’m not saying we might not find our arguments compelling and reasonable, I’m just pointing out the reality (that at least Richard appears to agree with) that our interpretations are not objectively demonstrable.

    Do you see the difference?

  94. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    God’s notion of “good” could not, therefore, include a practice He has labeled an abomination.

    Begging the question.

  95. wiley16350 says:

    @ Dan
    You’re right, I agree with what you’re saying in terms of subjectivity. The homosexual argument is probably an excellent example of my other point. The bible clearly declares this statement.

    And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]. I took that from Young’s literal translation to try and get the most accurate translation. The question to you would be is that an accurate translation or do you have evidence that it is not. If it is accurate then the statement seems pretty straight forward. It is an abomination for a male to lie with another male as he does with a woman. So the only way that you can attack that is to prove that there is more to the statement because of the context. It is true that the absolute context is that these statements were directed soley to the Israelites. We can’t argue that point. The bible also makes clear however that these things listed is what defiled the other nations. So if the clear statement that is made is that men lying with men is an abomination and it is listed as one of the reasons the surrounding nations were defiled to God, then the conclusion would be obvious that God doesn’t approve of men lying with men. The only way around this is to show us where the bible defines that these instances were only in consideration of pagan worship. If the bible doesn’t directly make that claim in the context, then you’re adding to what the bible is saying. So I ask you to give me the verse that clearly shows that it is in the context of pagan worship that men lying with men is wrong.

    I feel like if you do honest research into why people are gay (there are many reasons), the negative health effects of the lifestyle and have exposure to the ways people can be influenced to experiment into the lifestyle you’ll start to understand why God disapproves of it. Have you ever read some of the testimonies of people who worked to come out of that lifestyle. Go here http://narth.com/news-watch/interviewstestimonials/ and read some. I think we can be too hard on gays, but we also can’t be so flippant as to tell them there is nothing wrong with the lifestyle. If the health statistics and psychological issues are real, then we’re not helping anybody by letting them continue aimlessly into danger.

  96. Isu,

    Arguing with you is becoming a tedious affair. You’ve been proven wrong countless times, but you persist anyway. You’re entirely wrong about Luke and Jesus’ own words prove it, but let’s move on to Galatians 2: 19-21.

    19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

    Like I said previously, no human being can be saved by adhering to the law. It’s impossible. To be saved, we need Christ. Period.

  97. TerranceH

    Indeed, it’s a tedious affair since you don’t use dialogue nor arguing, but monologue and dogmatizing instead. I haven’t been proven wrong, but said I’m wrong and that’s is different. Jesus own words in Luke 10:28 prove that you are the one wrong.

    Galatians 2:21 talks about righteousness, not about salvation. On the other hand, it would be a point against the use of Leviticus 18:22 in the previous post.

    Jesus said to a man “Do this [love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself] and you will live”. Nothing is impossible with God. Mark 10:27. Period.

  98. Isu ,

    You live in a dreamworld. You’ve been proven wrong by five passages alone.

    You misinterpret Jesus’ words. Jesus asked the man, “What is written?” Meaning, what is written in the Old Testament. The man answered. Jesus told the man that if he could do those things, he could be saved. But we find out in other parts of the Bible that human beings cannot earn salvation by following the law simply because we cannot follow the law. Jesus was making a point and teaching the Old Testament, not providing another path to salvation. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

    Yes, Galatians talks about righteousness. But we know that only the righteous will be saved.

    1 Peter 4:18, “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”

    If we are not righteous, we cannot be saved. If we are righteous, we still might not be saved – but for Jesus Christ. In Him, we are reborn free of sin, righteous in God’s sight, and therefore saved.

    In Matthew 5:20, we read, “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

    In Romans 3:21-23, we read, “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

    Nothing is impossible with God. Mark 10:27. Period.

    But since human beings are inherently sinful (Romans 5:12) and have been given free will, God will not go against Himself and force us to be righteous. Except. Wait! He provided a path for us to be righteous when He sent Christ to die for us. Whoever believes in Christ is righteous in God’s sight. So, you’re right, nothing is impossible with God!

    How does it feel to be so wrong so often?

  99. Dan,

    I suspected that you would respond as you did. So I’ll push back on a couple of things.
    First, as you phrased the question, it has nothing to do with proving to someone else that I have the Truth. That is an entirely different question. Not to suggest that there is not ample proof available, just that that wasn’t your question.

    Second, you seem to be under the impression that there are people in this conversation who claim to know every and all Truth. This is simply flat out wrong. No one is claiming to know everything perfectly.

    Third, you seem to be operating under the impression that since we can’t know every bit of objective Truth, that we can not know any objective Truth. Again, just because you don’t like this doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

    Fourth, since no one is claiming to have any sort of perfect knowledge, your assertion that anyone finds it galling is totally without merit.

    Fifth, I would suggest that the case for Christianity is more than reasonably compelling for anyone who is willing set aside their biases and consider the evidence.

    Sixth, I see that you see a difference. I’m not sure that you understand the other position well enough to accurately assess what the difference is.

  100. TerranceH

    You persist in your wrong interpretation. The man asked “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” and Jesus answered accordlingly.
    According to you, Jesus lied to him and led him to a path for condemnation.

    1 Peter 4:18 doesn’t say that the ungodly and and the sinner aren’t saved, moreover when “human beings are inherently sinful”.

    Nothing to argue about Matthew 5:20. Easy to exceed if their righteousness was null due to their hypocrisy.
    On the other hand, the more you are given (such as revelation), the more you are expected to give in return (Matthew 25:14-30).

    Romans 3:21-23 clearly states that the Law also bears witness to the righteousness of God.

    Providing a path doesn’t mean that there is only a path.

    • John 14:6 “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Sounds like only one path to me!

      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.”

      Sounds like only one path to me.

      As I said, Trabue and Isu are clones. Twisted hermeneutics to support their personal agendas, and they refuse to acknowledge when they have been given irrefutable proof of their errors.

  101. Isu,

    Then why do the preceding lines say that he stood up to TEST Jesus? You’re twisting the context to support your own spurious belief.

    1 Peter 4:18 suggests that those who are not righteous are not saved. But everyone, in Christ, is righteous and is saved. The Bible is clear on this point.

    Furthermore, your contention that there is more than one path is easily proven wrong. Galations 2:21 utterly destroys your argument, which is why you’re now trying to convince us that, amazingly, being righteous in God’s sight and being saved are totally different things.

  102. Glenn…

    Twisted hermeneutics to support their personal agendas

    1. My personal agenda was OPPOSED to gay marriage and it was Bible study that led me AWAY from that position. False claim.

    2. I provided my hermeneutics (in part, anyway) and it matches yours. So, if MY hermeneutics are twisted (in some vague, unnamed way that you refuse to identify), then we have to suppose that YOUR hermeneutics are similarly twisted. At least in your mind.

    So, Glenn, that raises the question: In what specific ways are YOUR hermeneutics twisted, according to you?

    Because you just identified them as being twisted. I think it’s brave and honest of you to confess your twisting so publicly, do you want to spell out exactly HOW your hermeneutics are (in your mind) “twisted…”?

    • Dan

      Just an FYI, some of your comments are going into my spam filter because you keep posting with multiple names. No one else has this problem! Richard/wiley notes this when he is logged in vs logged out of WP but he doesnt have problems. This is your issue, not mine, I don’t run WordPress, and no one else has a problem. Maybe WP just knows when someone is full of s*** and tries to protect others from it?

  103. Terrance,
    “You persist in your wrong interpretation…”

    Wow he sure showed you. ;)

  104. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    as you phrased the question, it has nothing to do with proving to someone else that I have the Truth

    “Objective,” by definition, means demonstrable, observable to ALL not just “objective in my own little mind…” If it’s “objective” to you and only you, then there’s a word for that: Subjective.

    Craig…

    you seem to be under the impression that there are people in this conversation who claim to know every and all Truth. This is simply flat out wrong. No one is claiming to know everything perfectly.

    You seem to have misunderstood my words. I did not say anyone claims to know everything perfectly. So, you’ve simply misunderstood my words. I said quite specifically, “I CAN’T be mistaken on this subset of points!”

    And Glenn and, apparently Terrance think that on at least SOME subset of their interpretations, they CAN NOT BE MISTAKEN. So, are you agreeing with me that they are mistaken to make such a claim? Good.

    So, you simply misunderstood my actual point. No problem, hopefully now you get it.

    Craig…

    ou seem to be operating under the impression that since we can’t know every bit of objective Truth, that we can not know any objective Truth.

    Again, you have misunderstood. We ABSOLUTELY can know objective Truth, or at least objective facts (to be more clear). Factually, we can objectively demonstrate that gravity exists, that drinking and driving a car is a dangerous risk, that dumping toxins in our water can be dangerous. Objectively, we can know these things.

    On the other hand, how can we objectively (ie, in a way that is demonstrable/perceptible to all humans in the real world) that MY opinion about what God thinks about marriage is THE ONE RIGHT OPINION!? Or that MY opinion about God’s purpose in writing the Bible (or IF God wrote a Bible, or inspired a Bible, or which books should be part of that canon…) is the ONE RIGHT OPINION!?

    How do we objectively demonstrate that, Craig.

    Again, I’m not saying anything weird or unorthodox here. Just stating objectively observable facts. You CAN NOT demonstrate that your hunches about what God thinks on any subset of ideals are objectively correct.

    But perhaps I’m mistaken. If so, by all means, demonstrate that your opinions about any one idea about God are correct in an objective manner (ie, in a way that is perceptible to anyone else in the real world, using our senses).

    Any one idea about God would be fine.

    I’ll wait right here…

  105. paynehollow says:

    Thanks, John, but I am using one and only one name now. I have created a WordPress account and WORDPRESS made me choose “paynehollow” (I guess because that’s my email address) and that is the one and only log-in name I’m using, since you forbade my using Facebook (which only let me use Gus Ravenwheel, but at least didn’t have the flakiness that wordpress is having).

    I’m not using any other names, John, just the one that WordPress is letting me use. Again, if WordPress or you could tell me how to log on in a way that lets me use just “Dan Trabue,” I’d be glad to do so.

    ~Dan Trabue

  106. Trabue,
    I don’t want to hear your lies about being opposed to homosexuality until you read the Bible.
    Also, you lie when you say you use the same hermeneutic principles as I do, because if you did you would never come to the conclusions about homosexuality that you come to, let alone other false teachings.

    It is easy to claim you use a particular hermeneutical method, but it also easy to prove you don’t based on the conclusions you come to – conclusions that no one in history prior to the late 20th century every came to! If it is new, it isn’t true; if it is true, it isn’t new.

    Quit lying to everyone – including yourself.

  107. paynehollow says:

    Real world evidence outweighs false claims, Glenn.

    I can easily demonstrate that factually, in the real world, I was raised conservative Southern Baptist; I took the bible “literally/inerrantly” (in the sense that religious fundamentalists/conservatives mean that); that I was vehemently opposed to any and all gay behavior; that I spoke out against any and all gay behavior and thought the Bible did, too… on and on, it’s all part of the public record for anyone who knew me then. IN THE REAL WORLD, Glenn, that is a fact.

    So, you can pretend that the facts are actually “lies” and make false claims to that effect, but then, what does that make you or say about your rationality?

    As to the hermeneutics, it appears now that you’re backing away from the claim that I have bad hermeneutics (at least in what I’ve provided for you) and now you’re claiming to know my mind enough to know that when I say “this is how I study the Bible,” that I don’t actually do this? That my hermeneutics list is perfectly FINE, but you just don’t believe that I actually use them?

    Okay, you’re forgiven for the first false claim.

    Now, it’s time to back up your second false claim: ON WHAT BASIS do you think I don’t actually use my hermeneutics? Keep in mind “He came to a conclusion different than me” is not objective evidence to support that false claim.

    If you’re going to make obviously and objectively and observably false claims, Glenn, you need to be prepared to back them up with some specific data or be prepared to be a good man and admit your error and ask for forgiveness.

    I forgive you, my brother. We all run the risk of getting carried away sometimes in a heat of emotion.

    But come, let’s set aside the emotional responses and reason together, like adults. What say you, dear Brother Glenn?

    In Christ our Lord,

    Dan Trabue

    • Trabue,
      Listen jackass – I have told you way too many times to not call my your brother. You are of your father the devil.

      I don’t care what church you were brought up in, etc. That proves nothing. I demonstrated with my link to my proper exegesis of the Biblical passages about homosexuality that there is only ONE true and factual way to read them. If you claim you use proper hermeneutics and come to any other conclusion, they you are deceiving yourself because you HAVE TO take your ideas into the text looking to support them.

      Every Jew since the O.T. was written, and every Christian for the past 2000 years, including top-notch scholars in the languages, etc, all understood God to be saying ANY homosexual activity is sinful. Only in the past half-century have liberals like you twisted the Scripture to your own destruction trying to say God is okay with homosexuality in specific contexts. You are making the claim that YOU and your ilk just happen to have new insight into passages that no one for over 4000 years found. And that isn’t enough proof for you to know you are in error!?!?!

      ARGH!!! WHY DO I LET THIS FOOL HOOK ME INTO THROWING MORE PEARLS AT HIM?!?!?!?!?!?

      I am seriously finished with your foolishness. You refuse to accept facts, you refuse to accept the truth, because it interferes with your pre-conceived ideas of approval of perversion.

  108. Dan,
    As the answer to the question you asked, I’m satisfied with where I stand. I suspected that you would not be, yet gave you an answer anyway. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible etc, and I can point you or anyone else to it.

    I will also stick to my position that while we can’t know everything perfectly, there are things that we can know perfectly. It is obvious that you disagree with this, I’m not quite sure why you are so convinced that you are completely right on this point. It’s almost like you are saying that you cannot be mistaken about this particular subset of points.

    So, you are suggesting that there is no possible way to know objective Truth/facts about God. Can you demonstrate this objectively?

    I do know as an objective fact that you are unable to prove objectively what God thinks about gay marriage, and yet you say that God “blesses” gay marriage. Can you objectively demonstrate that God “blesses” gay marriage?

    No, I didn’t think so.

  109. TerranceH

    “Then why do the preceding lines say that he stood up to TEST Jesus? You’re twisting the context to support your own spurious belief.”

    In not twisting the context. You interpret that the test is on knowledge on Old Law but it’s isn’t said so.
    The man asks a question and Jesus answers to THAT question. He didn’t have to accept a test and much less lying. Jesus simply answered the question.
    Anyway, your interpretations means that or Jesus failed the test or that the biblical inerrancy is false by a logical contradiction.

    “1 Peter 4:18 suggests that those who are not righteous are not saved.”
    I could suggest “harder”, but not a complete negation.

    “But everyone, in Christ, is righteous and is saved. The Bible is clear on this point.”

    A salvation “in Christ” is not the point discussed.

    You misinterpretate Galations 2:21 since you miss the context of reprimand of Cephas pretension.
    As I interpretate, what Paul says is that Christians don’t need to fullfill the Old Law to gain righteousness, not that it is only one way. On the contrary, if Christians should have to follow the Old Law, then “Christ died for nothing” because Christ would be superfluous.

  110. Dan,

    There is nothing subjective regarding my understanding of the Biblical prohibition on all homosexual behavior. Your still unsupported opinion that it refers to pagan ritual would allow for all the other sexual prohibitions that are also prohibited in the same chapter. For example, by your forced interpretation that satisfies your worldly outlook, you having sex with your sister would be allowable if you were monogamous, committed and loving so long as it is not in conjunction with pagan ritual. But you do nothing to resolve this conundrum. You focus only on homosexual behavior as if it stands alone. And while no verse in the Bible anywhere speaks as marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman, while no verse every speaks of family as other than comprised of mother and father, while no verse suggests in any way homosexual behavior as other than sinful, you insist there are exceptions. OK. Show them from Scripture.

    As I said, what He has called an abomination can never be regarded as a good unless there is some evidence somehow that He has provided an exception. Nothing in my understanding supports the charge that I am reading into Scripture what isn’t there. One must play the Bubba Clinton game, “that depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” You are playing that game.

    I would also say, yet again, that you must have had some motivation to research Scripture as it applies to homosexual behavior. One who claims as you do to have opposed it would not just, out of the blue, decide “Hey, maybe I’m wrong about that sin” without something or someone encouraging you to do so. You have, actually, implied (I say “implied” as I don’t feel like perusing millions of words over years of blog postings to find the exact conversation) that it was people you knew who did in fact compel you to re-assess. As all of your explanations match exactly the arguments of the homosexual activists and enablers, you can forgive us for finding your autobiography total crap. And even when a lesbian scholar disagrees with you, you can also forgive us for not being able to shake the justifiable feeling that you don’t believe your own crap, either, and are only defending people you know. (Funny how they all crawled out of the woodwork for you once you changed your tune.)

  111. paynehollow says:

    what He has called an abomination can never be regarded as a good unless there is some evidence somehow that He has provided an exception.

    Is it the case that you don’t understand what the logical fallacy, “Begging the question” means?

    You can’t have the question “Is Leviticus saying ALL gay behavior is wrong?” be answered by presuming the answer and then CITING your presumption.

    You can’t say, “We know the Leviticus passage is saying that all gay behavior is wrong because the Leviticus passage references all gay behavior and we know it’s speaking of all gay behavior because all gay behavior is wrong and therefore, it’s wrong… and that is what the passage speaks of, all gay behavior, and that’s how we know all gay behavior is wrong…”

    You can wrap that circle round and round and it will always be begging the question.

  112. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    I would also say, yet again, that you must have had some motivation to research Scripture as it applies to homosexual behavior

    Yes, as I’ve answered before: My reason was, I was challenged to look in to the matter and I did TO PROVE THAT I WAS RIGHT AND ANY AND ALL GAY BEHAVIOR IS WRONG. Thus, I looked into it to prove the traditional position and to have more/better ammo against “the gays and their enablers…” (sound familiar?) to “prove” to them that they’re wrong.

    Facts trump false conclusions.

  113. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    Funny how they all crawled out of the woodwork for you once you changed your tune.

    Funny that good, Christian people didn’t “out” themselves to me while I was saying that all “the gays” were sinners and hellbound unless they forsake their natural orientation?

    Funny that gay folk didn’t out themselves to me at a time I (like many here) would have said “You can’t be a Christian and a ‘practicing’ or ‘unrepentant’ gay at the same time…”?

    Funny that gay folk didn’t out themselves to me at a time I would have even said, “You can’t really even disagree on this point and be reasonable or moral…”?

    Believe it or not, Marshall, good decent folk don’t really want to be treated as a social leper and beat up all the time over a disagreement of interpretations – especially ten and twenty years ago. We’ve really progressed a lot in the last few decades, but gay people have been oppressed and treated like garbage for centuries and they’ve learned some quite rational defense mechanisms.

    I would have treated them just as you all treat folk who disagree with you and who needs that?

    They’re gay, not stupid.

  114. In not twisting the context. You interpret that the test is on knowledge on Old Law but it’s isn’t said so.

    Then what law, pray tell, was the man an expert in? And why did Jesus ask him, “What is written?”

    The man asks a question and Jesus answers to THAT question. He didn’t have to accept a test and much less lying. Jesus simply answered the question.
    Anyway, your interpretations means that or Jesus failed the test or that the biblical inerrancy is false by a logical contradiction.

    The man tested Jesus’ understanding of Old Testament law. This much is clear. And Jesus did not fail the test; according to the Old Testament, you may be saved by the law without any additional work. If not, then you must offer sacrifices to purify yourself. There is no contradiction. Jesus Christ served as our sacrifice. Mine, yours, John’s, everyone’s.

    You misinterpretate Galations 2:21 since you miss the context of reprimand of Cephas pretension.

    The reprimand doesn’t matter. Paul asks an interesting question. If we can be saved by adhering to the law, then why did Christ have to die? If what you say is true, Isu, then Christ didn’t need to suffer and die.

    You are wrong, Isu. This is painfully obvious to everyone on this thread. You’ve been proven wrong by countless passages; you continually take things out of context; you continually alter the definition of very simple words; you continually leave out pertinent information when discussing a passage; and you insist on discussing passages apart from their proper context.

    If you are right, then you should be able to explain why Jesus had to suffer and die. Well?

  115. TerranceH

    “Then what law, pray tell, was the man an expert in? And why did Jesus ask him, “What is written?””

    You can be expert in one thing and ask for testing in another thing.
    And Jesus asking and test answering prove it isn’t a test. In a test you don’t ask the examinator for the answers and much less the examinator will give you the answers as the man did.

    “The man tested Jesus’ understanding of Old Testament law. This much is clear.”

    It’s clear it wasn’t a test. In a test the examinator don’t give you the answers.

    “And Jesus did not fail the test; according to the Old Testament, you may be saved by the law without any additional work. If not, then you must offer sacrifices to purify yourself. There is no contradiction. Jesus Christ served as our sacrifice. Mine, yours, John’s, everyone’s.”

    There is contradiction since you may be saved by the law (and/or sacrifices) as opposed to your interpretation of the only way “in Christ”.

    “The reprimand doesn’t matter. Paul asks an interesting question. If we can be saved by adhering to the law, then why did Christ have to die? If what you say is true, Isu, then Christ didn’t need to suffer and die.”

    The fact is that you “may be saved by the law without any additional work” according to the Old Testament. That’s why Christ woud be superflous if following the law. You are intentionally missing the context of Paul’s speech.

    “You are wrong, Isu. This is painfully obvious to everyone on this thread.”

    That’s plainly false. I’m someone and I don’t see it obvious.

    “You’ve been proven wrong by countless passages; you continually take things out of context; you continually alter the definition of very simple words; you continually leave out pertinent information when discussing a passage; and you insist on discussing passages apart from their proper context”

    You have been dogmatically said that I’m wrong to save you flawed interpretation, you are the one who takes things out of context inventing a non-existent test and saying the context “doesn’t matter”, you continually introduce irrelevant information and alter it when discussing a passage; and you insist on discussing passages by your invented context or saying that the context “doesn’t matter”.

    “If you are right, then you should be able to explain why Jesus had to suffer and die. Well?”

    It’s explainable by the opening a new and improved way. That isn’t dying for nothing.

  116. wiley16350 says:

    @Isu
    What you seem to be missing is that Jesus didn’t just say “What is written”? He also asked “how do you read it”? The answer the guy gave was not to follow the law word for word but to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. This showed the condition of his heart which showed he had the proper attitude. Having that attitude has always been the way for people to receive good judgment(s) from God. Thats the attitude we must have to receive good judgment(s) from God today. Ultimately though, it isn’t what saves us. For if Jesus didn’t die on the cross and rise from the dead then we would be lost in our sins and death would be our end. You’re also missing the fact that the bible says no one seeks God and no one does good. The only way one seeks God is if God calls them and the only way they desire to do good is because of God. This work is accomplished through Jesus. Jesus may lead some through other religions, teaching them along the way but ultimately he is the reason they are saved. We are not saved through our own effort, we’re saved by the leading of Jesus. That path is different for everyone because of their choices, but the leader is the same whether they know it or not.

  117. You can be expert in one thing and ask for testing in another thing.
    And Jesus asking and test answering prove it isn’t a test.

    So you’re arguing that Luke is wrong. Luke the Evangelist wrote the book, yet somehow he’s not telling the story right. Is that about your argument? It must be. You say it wasn’t a test, yet Luke 10:25 reads, “On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    It’s disgusting the way leftists like yourself distort facts to fit your own agenda.

    In a test you don’t ask the examinator for the answers and much less the examinator will give you the answers as the man did.

    Jesus employed a rather common rhetorical device. He turned the question around on the questioner.

    It’s clear it wasn’t a test.

    And yet Luke 10:25 says it was a test.

    There is contradiction since you may be saved by the law (and/or sacrifices) as opposed to your interpretation of the only way “in Christ”.

    Because human beings are inherently sinful, no, we cannot be saved by following the law. This was the whole reason God sent Jesus to die for our sins.

    The fact is that you “may be saved by the law without any additional work” according to the Old Testament. That’s why Christ woud be superflous if following the law. You are intentionally missing the context of Paul’s speech.

    Let’s look at the full context.

    Galatians 2:14 – 21:

    11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

    14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

    15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

    17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

    19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

    In context, it still proves you wrong. Paul says something very relevant to our discussion: If doing good works and following the law is all that is needed for salvation, then Christ died for nothing.

    That’s plainly false. I’m someone and I don’t see it obvious.

    You damn well know you’re wrong. You made a stupid remark, got called on it, and have since spared no effort in trying to justify it. You cannot.

    You have been dogmatically said that I’m wrong to save you flawed interpretation, you are the one who takes things out of context inventing a non-existent test and saying the context “doesn’t matter”, you continually introduce irrelevant information and alter it when discussing a passage; and you insist on discussing passages by your invented context or saying that the context “doesn’t matter”

    I proved via Luke 10:25 that it was a test. So, you’re wrong right there. Furthermore, I have shown that the context of Paul’s speech is utterly irrelevant to the statement he made. You refuse to address it because you can’t think of a good answer. You know damn well that if good works and adherence to law was all one needed for salvation, then God wouldn’t have sent Jesus to suffer and die, we’re told, so that we may receive salvation.

    Your idiotic interpretation of the New Testament undermines central doctrines of the Christian faith. If faith in Christ is not required for salvation, then Christ died for nothing and the entire Christian faith is without merit.

    ?It’s explainable by the opening a new and improved way. That isn’t dying for nothing.

    Your position is logically inconsistent. If both paths lead to the same salvation, why is one better than another? Oh, that’s right , they wouldn’t be. You just have no other answer. You’re trying to justify your unbiblical beliefs. You are a false teacher and a heathen.

  118. Peter De Connick says:

    Geesh! 150 comments later! after reading them its clear taht paynehollow and isu are purposely misinterpreting scripture to fit their ownn view, imho.

    I also think that since religions have many gods and some religions believe gods are humans that lived honorably, and still some religions preach violence while others preachh peace…it’s all so much contradiction. they cannot all lead to one god.

    • Thank you peter for addressing the post I wrote! You’re right, with all the noncompatable characteristics they can’t all be pointing in the same direction.

  119. @wiley16350

    You miss the point which is being discussed.
    TerranceH said “If you do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of Man, you will die for your sins.”

    I don’t missed Jesus questions, simply they are no relevant to the point that Jesus doesn’t tell him that he had to believe he is the Messsiah in order to get salvation.
    The question is clear “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” and the answer is clear and not including that belief.

    I don’t discussed your point that “ultimately he is the reason they are saved”, the discussion is about what must be done.

  120. “Believe it or not, Marshall, good decent folk don’t really want to be treated as a social leper and beat up all the time over a disagreement of interpretations”

    More funny stuff, because that is exactly how the activists and enablers are treating good decent folk who support thousands of years of understanding. The worst part is they are not being treated that way based on substantive arguments and honesty.

    “Is it the case that you don’t understand what the logical fallacy, “Begging the question” means?”

    Not really. Especially since the example you offered does not describe the fallacy. I’m not using the premise to support my conclusion. The highlighted statement is a fact: there is nothing in Scripture that reverses God’s description of homosexual behavior as an abomination. There is nothing that even hints of any exception or context in which it might be considered anything other than an abomination. To date, neither you nor any truly wise homosexual apologist has been able to provide any such evidence that hasn’t been exhaustively trashed by better scholars. So instead, you try to run with this nonsense about hunches and subjectivity. THAT, in turn, leaves you room to pretend your laughably lame alternative interpretations should be taken seriously.

    As to your past, I’ve heard the stories before. They are convenient and not credible given the issue in question and the positions on it you have taken. You can claim it is the truth, but as it seems incredibly lame, I’m not required to take it as truth. Instead, without the ability to prove or disprove, I disregard and move on to what I know to be true, which is that your position is crap.

  121. wiley16350 says:

    @Isu

    My main reason for addressing you is because you claimed the bible is contradictory. I was trying to show that they’re complementary and not contradictory verses. Let me explain it differently since I wasn’t clear before. All the verses say something about those that attain eonion life. The guy in your verse obviously believed in Jesus and accepted his teachings. The proof of that was the way he answered the question. He answered with “To love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself.” If he was a Jew that believed the way the Pharisees did he would have said to follow the law completely and perfectly. So the point of the verse isn’t that if one follows the law he will be saved. The point of the verse is that the heart of the saved is to love God with all their heart and to love their neighbor as they love themselves. If you have that spirit, then you know you have eonion life. That spirit comes only from God through Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is the only way to salvation. Maybe I’m missing what your guy’s argument is about. My only reason for interjecting is to show that the bible isn’t in contradiction. There is a way to interpret the passages harmoniously.

  122. I don’t missed Jesus questions, simply they are no relevant to the point that Jesus doesn’t tell him that he had to believe he is the Messsiah in order to get salvation.

    Because Jesus was being tested regarding his knowledge of Old Testament Law. Remember Luke 10:25? He stood up to TEST Jesus.

    Furthermore, what does Jesus mean when he says, “I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the father except through me.”

    Let me guess, we’re all misinterpreting that one too, ‘eh? You’re ridiculous. But most importantly, you’re wrong. You’re merely stirring ashes now.

  123. wiley16350 says:

    @Isu
    To explain further. It’s true that the question is clear that the guy wanted to know how to obtain eonion life. The point you and the others are arguing over is exactly what Jesus was saying with his answer. You say that Jesus was directly giving the answer by saying that the guy would receive eonion life by loving God with all his heart and loving his neighbor as himself. Which seems legitimate at face value. However, others have provided other scriptures that as you admit seem to contradict that view. So you can do 1 of 2 things. Accept the contradiction or see if there is a way to harmonize the verses. You seemingly are accepting the contradiction. The rest want to harmonize, but I’m not sure if they have actually tried to explain how to harmonize. The way I see it, it is very easy to harmonize. In your verse the guy starts off by calling Jesus, “teacher” which shows that he at least has respect in Jesus’s teaching and some belief in who Jesus is. In response, Jesus doesn’t start by stating that the guy must follow what is written in the law. He starts by asking questions. He asks what is written in the law and how does the guy read the law. He does this to gauge (to show the reader) the man’s belief in Jesus’s teaching. Then Jesus shows approval of the man’s understanding of the law and assures him that he has eonion life if he continues to live that way. Jesus can tell him that because the man already demonstrated belief in Jesus.

  124. paynehollow says:

    “eonion…”? I’m guessing spellcheck is to blame, somehow?

  125. paynehollow says:

    John…

    Thank you peter for addressing the post I wrote!

    Ha! I’m guessing you don’t even see the irony here?

  126. wiley16350 says:

    @ Dan
    Yes and no…..I wasn’t for sure how to spell it and spell check doesn’t recognize the word so I left it be. Looking it up, it should be spelled eonian.

  127. It can be written two ways. Either Aeonian or Eonian. It means “eternal” or “everlasting.”

    I’m guessing Dan wasn’t aware of the term because though you spelled it wrong, it’s clear what you meant.

  128. wiley16350 says:

    @ Terrance
    True it is also spelled with an A. The primary meaning of the word is “of or relating to or constituting an eon or age”. It is also could be used to mean eternal or everlasting if context allows it to.

  129. TerranceH

    I’m not arguing that Luke is wrong. I’m arguing that your saying that is a test on knowledge of Old Law is wrong. When I say I wasn’t a test was in the sense of exam (on the Old Law). You intentionally forget the context and the kind of test I was referring to. It is not specified what the man was testing and it’s clear that now his knowledge since he gaves Jesus the answer: that isn’t done in a exam.

    Sorry, but I have no agenda and you are the ones altering facts (Bible says “test”, not test on knowledge of Old Law”) to match your flawed interpretation, and altering the fact that Jesus gave an answer to “inherit eternal life” without involving the belief of he was the Christ.

    In an exam you don’t ask rethorical questions to get the answer and less the examinator gives you the answer.

    Luke said it was a test, but it doesn’t mean a test on “knowledge of Old Law”, nor that Jesus had to give a false answer to the question.

    “Because human beings are inherently sinful, no, we cannot be saved by following the law. This was the whole reason God sent Jesus to die for our sins. ”

    But you said “according to the Old Testament, you may be saved by the law”. That logically means that or “we cannot be saved by following the law” is false, or that the Old Testament is false. If you say that “we cannot be saved by following the law” is true, then the Old Testament is false and therefore implying that biblical inenarrancy is false.

    You just keep ignoring the context to interpret Galations 2:21 as you have only marked it and interpreted it without taking into account that Paul was reprending Cephas pretension of Christians to follow the Old Law.

    “You damn well know you’re wrong. You made a stupid remark, got called on it, and have since spared no effort in trying to justify it. You cannot.”

    I don’t know I’m wrong. I introduced my reasonable interpretation and the reasons to support it. Your saying that I “spared no effor in trying to justify it” is a blatant lie.

    “I proved via Luke 10:25 that it was a test. So, you’re wrong right there.”

    You have not proven that it was a test on “knowledge of Old Testament” which was what I was being discussing.

    “I have shown that the context of Paul’s speech is utterly irrelevant to the statement he made.”

    “You’re trying to justify your unbiblical beliefs”

    That my interpretation doesn’t match yours doesn’t make it unbiblical.

    It is a patent contradiction since you say “proves you wrong”, if it is relevant proves nothing about the issue.

    “You refuse to address it because you can’t think of a good answer.”

    I addressed it and gave a good answer. If you deny it to protect your interests, it’s your fault.

    “You know damn well that if good works and adherence to law was all one needed for salvation, then God wouldn’t have sent Jesus to suffer and die, we’re told, so that we may receive salvation. ”

    That’s not the point in discussion. The point is that if “believe that Jesus is the Messiah” is a necessity for salvation, then the Old Law is a farse.

    “Your idiotic interpretation of the New Testament undermines central doctrines of the Christian faith”

    Your idiotic interpretations undermines the Bible.

    “If faith in Christ is not required for salvation, then Christ died for nothing and the entire Christian faith is without merit.”

    If faith in Christ is required then the Old Law is a farce.

    “Your position is logically inconsistent. If both paths lead to the same salvation, why is one better than another?”

    There is no logical inconsistency. Two paths of different quality can lead to the same destination.

    “You are a false teacher and a heathen.”

    That’s false because I don’t pretend to be a teacher. I’m autodidact and I’m introducing my own reasoned interpretations.

  130. @wiley16350

    “My main reason for addressing you is because you claimed the bible is contradictory.”

    You missed my point, I claimed (and still claim) that according to Terrance’s interpretation the Bible is contradictory.

    Regarding your interpretation, you miss the part of “test”-ing, which suggests that the man was skeptic about Jesus at the moment in which the question was made. His later becoming a believer in Jesus is a guessing.

  131. I’m not arguing that Luke is wrong. I’m arguing that your saying that is a test on knowledge of Old Law is wrong. When I say I wasn’t a test was in the sense of exam (on the Old Law). You intentionally forget the context and the kind of test I was referring to. It is not specified what the man was testing and it’s clear that now his knowledge since he gaves Jesus the answer: that isn’t done in a exam.

    Yes, you are. You’re offering some lame excuse now because you’ve been caught. But let’s parse the verse in question and see if we can’t discover why everything you just said is facepalmingly stupid.

    Luke 10:25 begins, “On one occasion, an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus…”

    Okay. So an expert in the Law of Moses stood up to test Jesus, to ask Him a question.

    The very next line is the question, or the test. “‘Teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’”

    So let’s review. The man stood up to test Jesus. How do you “test” someone? Most normally, you ask them a question, right? Yes. And the next line is that question. Therefore, that was the test.

    Your scandalous denial of reality quite aside, this is the only sensible way of interpreting the passage.

    Sorry, but I have no agenda and you are the ones altering facts (Bible says “test”, not test on knowledge of Old Law”) to match your flawed interpretation, and altering the fact that Jesus gave an answer to “inherit eternal life” without involving the belief of he was the Christ.

    I have altered no facts whatsoever. I have referenced each contention with scripture; you’ve given nothing but poorly written and scandalous interpretations based on nothing but your own opinion. It is evident to anyone with an elementary education that the “the test” was on Jewish law regarding salvation.

    In an exam you don’t ask rethorical questions to get the answer and less the examinator gives you the answer.

    This is meaningless noise.

    Luke said it was a test, but it doesn’t mean a test on “knowledge of Old Law”, nor that Jesus had to give a false answer to the question.

    Yeah. And maybe it was a beer chugging competition that Luke failed to elaborate on.

    But you said “according to the Old Testament, you may be saved by the law”. That logically means that or “we cannot be saved by following the law” is false, or that the Old Testament is false. If you say that “we cannot be saved by following the law” is true, then the Old Testament is false and therefore implying that biblical inenarrancy is false.

    The Old Testament gives guidelines for human beings to follow, and if they follow them, they may be saved. But God also allowed people to pay for their sins with sacrifices in case they didn’t follow the law. God did this because He knew that inherently sinful human beings could not follow the law to its letter. There is no contradiction but in your own mind.

    You just keep ignoring the context to interpret Galations 2:21 as you have only marked it and interpreted it without taking into account that Paul was reprending Cephas pretension of Christians to follow the Old Law.

    I have not ignored the context. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. Paul states that if good deeds and adherence to law is enough for salvation, then Jesus Christ died for nothing.

    Since you’re having so much trouble understanding why that statement is relevant to our discussion, let me ask you myself. Let’s leave Galatians and Paul out of it, okay?

    Tell me, Isu: If good deeds, loving others, and believing in a god is enough for one to be saved, then why did Christ have to die on that cross?

    I don’t know I’m wrong. I introduced my reasonable interpretation and the reasons to support it. Your saying that I “spared no effor in trying to justify it” is a blatant lie.

    Yes, you do know. It’s been proven. And, what? Are you on drugs? Your interpretation completely undermines the Christian faith, for crying out loud. How is that reasonable? And you have spared no effort in trying to justify your silliness.

    You have not proven that it was a test on “knowledge of Old Testament”…

    Yes, I have. It’s clear to anyone with a fifth-grade education.

    That my interpretation doesn’t match yours doesn’t make it unbiblical.

    It is unbiblical because it directly contradicts scripture. To act as though words have no meaning independent of someone’s arbitrary whim is to be illogical. Jesus is clear when He says, “I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to father except through me.”

    I addressed it and gave a good answer.

    No, you didn’t. You sidestepped it by crying irrelevancy. It’s not irrelevant; it actually does prove you wrong, thus it is very relevant.

    That’s not the point in discussion.

    Yes, it is.

    The point is that if “believe that Jesus is the Messiah” is a necessity for salvation, then the Old Law is a farse.

    The Law of Moses served its purpose. Jesus fulfilled it.

    Your idiotic interpretations undermines the Bible.

    Not hardly.

    If faith in Christ is required then the Old Law is a farce.

    No. Jesus fulfilled the law. The Law of Moses, the Old Testament, served its purpose.

    There is no logical inconsistency. Two paths of different quality can lead to the same destination.

    We’re talking about something of a divine nature. If it is not righteous then it is not divine. And, no, there are no degrees of righteousness in God’s sight. One either is or isn’t righteous; it’s that simple. So if both paths are righteous, meaning they lead to God, then one is not better than the other. So, why again did Jesus have to die on that cross?

    That’s false because I don’t pretend to be a teacher. I’m autodidact and I’m introducing my own reasoned interpretations.

    You’re not self-taught very well, that’s for sure. And your interpretations are nowhere close to reasoned.

  132. wiley16350 says:

    @Isu
    I did miss the testing part. So I could agree that he was a skeptic at first. However, It still stands that the skeptics answer reveals that his true belief is in-line with Jesus’s teaching on the law which is in contradiction to the jewish understanding of the law at that time. It would seem then he was a believer (yes that is an assumption, but a completely possible one) because of the way he understood the law. Jesus, knowing he was a believer told him he would have eonian life. That is an explanation that harmonizes all the verses. It would actually be impossible for that skeptic to deny Jesus and then love God with all his heart, mind and soul. The only way he could truly live that command is by accepting Jesus as the messiah. Especially since he met and talked to Jesus in the flesh.

  133. TerranceH

    “Because human beings are inherently sinful, no, we cannot be saved by following the law.”

    “The Old Testament gives guidelines for human beings to follow, and if they follow them, they may be saved.”

    “cannot” and “may” at the same time. Pure logical contradiction.

    Come back when you have learnt to think instead of sprouting nonsense.

  134. @wiley16350

    I agree that it’s an explanation that harmonizes all the verses.
    I don’t think is actually impossible to love God with all his heart, mind and soul and yet not consider Jesus a messiah. Don’t forget that, usually, another sort of messiah was understood at the time. And, are people previous to Jesus preaching, such as Moses, comndened? They didn’t believed Jesus was the messiah because they never knew about Jesus.
    On the other hand, people can believe Jesus is the messiah while don’t having love for God or the neighbour. Calling Jesus Lord doesn’t grant salvation (Matthew 7:21).

  135. Isu,

    I’m tired of explaining things to you as though you were a child.

    Biblical Fact 1: Human Beings are inherently sinful creatures.

    Biblical Fact 2: In Genesis 3:15, God promised to send a Sacrifice to take the punishment Adam & Eve deserved. In the meantime, Jews were to offer up the blood of innocent animals as an act of repentance for their sins. All of this is part of the Old Law.

    Biblical Fact 3: God is a righteous judge and cannot allow our sins to go unpunished, so He sent the only sinless human being to ever exist to pay the penalty.

    Biblical Note: In theory, if one COULD follow the commandments completely, he could be saved. But since no human being, aside from Jesus, has ever been capable of this, God gave us salvation through Christ.

    There is no contradiction in anything I said. In theory, if you could follow the Old Testament law to its letter, you could be saved. But as a practical matter, no, we cannot be saved since we are incapable of following it. Thus, we need Jesus.

  136. wiley16350 says:

    The command for people to believe in Jesus to inherit eonian life began when Jesus’s ministry began and is an extension of loving God with all your heart, mind and soul. So it wouldn’t be a requirement of the patriarchs except to believe in the promises God made concerning the Messiah. I don’t see these commands as saving commands (that’s where confusion comes in). I see them as statements of fact that those who inherit eonian life will follow these commands naturally. To simplify. You don’t do these things to get saved. You do these things because you are saved. That is the way I see it anyways. Salvation is the job of Jesus and is a very in depth topic on its own.

  137. @wiley16350

    Once again, you miss the point which is being discussed.
    TerranceH said “If you do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of Man, you will die for your sins.”

    Are people previous to Jesus preaching, such as Moses, comndened?
    I’m waiting for your answer to this question.

  138. wiley16350 says:

    @Isu
    I haven’t missed the point. I may have not addressed the main reason you and TerranceH are arguing but the reason I addressed you was the contradiction comment you made. I think we resolved that and pretty much agree. As for the main argument between Terrance and you, my last reply would still fit. Although, the thing you have to notice is that “die FOR your sins” is not correct. The actual text says “die IN your sins”. May seem like a little difference, but the actual meaning can be great, depending on the view of the entirety of scripture. Too much to go into detail at this time. Ultimately, it is a statement of fact made to the Pharisees. If they didn’t believe in Jesus, then they would die in their sins. What that means depends on other scriptures and who that extends to could probably be debated.
    I’m not exactly sure what the two of you are arguing about, because I’m not sure of what you believe. What is it that you disagree with, in terms of what Terrance is saying. Terrance appears to believe that you don’t believe that Jesus is the only way. That’s why he is arguing with you. I agree with Terrance that Jesus is the only way. Although, we may not agree with “how” he is the only way. I’m just not clear of what it is exactly that you’re arguing for.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: