Quote:BHN: Information is not the same to all observers.
Neologist : You would need to explain that, otherwise it is merely a statement from your own authority.
So I take it I am to assume that your observation is that information carries the same information to all observers, and this is of course an implied statement merely from your own authority, since you offer no explanation.
Fine, let us see if there is any agreement between my unsupported statement and your own unsupported implied statement.
‘The Bible is a body of information.’ – I ask for your agreement, or explanation of why the Bible is not a body of information.
‘Christians base their religious beliefs on the Bible.’ A house is built on a foundation. The foundation is not the whole house. The foundation of Christianity is the bible, not the whole religion, but the basic foundation. Agree or explain your disagreement, if you would be so kind.
‘Christians justify their religious belief with the Bible.’ If we ask them why they believe this or that about what Christianity requires or entails, they reply “It is in the Bible.” Do you disagree, or not?
There are over 10,000 Christian denominations, each with a unique understanding of what the Bible requires or entails in a Christian’s walk with god. Some of these differences are very minor, some very great, but these differences stem from differing interpretations of the same body of information, the Bible. Do you are or not?
You disagree with my observation that if a group of people look at the same body of information, they may take different meanings of the same information.
Your justification for this belief -so far – is your own authority.
Quote: BHN: Information entails subjective interpretation
Neologist : While it is true that much of the scriptures rely on allegory, that is not the same as subjectivity.
Well no disagreement from me.
However many Christians deny the use of allegory in Biblical accounts. We can refer to them as literalists. So our claim of allegories is subjective. How are we to know the intent of the words written so long ago? By reason I have made this determination, and by reason others disagree.
I am left wondering what allegories have to do with my observation.
My statement is about information in general, your reply is about a literary technique of the writers of the Bible.
Quote:BHN: It is true that Jesus was a Jew, and it is true that many teachings of the various sects of Christianity seem to ignore this fact, still, it should go without saying that Christians do not view much of the Old Testament the same as Jews. - DUH!
Neologist : Ore else, they would be Christian, right? Oh! Wait! DOH!
No, they would be Jewish.
Quote:BHN: If we want to discuss the teachings of Solomon, we would be ignorant to not do so in the light of Jewish beliefs and teachings.
Neologist : If you are speaking of current Jewish teachings, I would disagree. If we want to arrive at the truth, we should consider his writings in accord with what they meant to the Jews of his time, and their intent towards posterity.
So, you know what the Jews in the time of Solomon were thinking, you know what they understood when they read his words.
Interesting. What is the source of your authority?
Quote:BHN: If you are Jewish, reading Solomon is fine, if you are Christian, you will do better with Paul. Just the way things are.
Neologist: Actually, Paul agreed with Solomon. See 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
Well, Paul says he agrees with all Biblical Scripture, but this is begging the question – “What do the scripture mean?” We have already agreed that Christians and Jews do not agree on heaven, hell, and the fruits of sin, and both sides base these beliefs on scripture.
It is not the same as saying “I agree with what Neologist says about what Solomon says.”
The followers that Paul instructed accepted the scriptures, still, Paul guided them on what the words meant. So did Jesus, who instructed the Pharisees about the meaning of scripture. Neither doubted the authority of the Torah, but they disagreed on the meaning of the words.
Quote:BHN: The teachings of Solomon are not inconsistent with Judaism.
Neologist : Speaking of those understood in the first century, yes. Things have changed.
What is it you are saying?
The teachings of Solomon are inconsistent with the Beliefs of the first century Jews? You offer no evidence, no explanation.
Please remember 2 Timothy 3:16.
Quote:(BHN quotes a Rabbi (Aron Moss) who answers the question “Do Jews believe in Hell?”.
in reply we have:
Neologist : Actually, Gehinnon refers to the valley of Hinnom, referred to in the Greek as Gehenna. This is the place outside of Jerusalem where, at one time, Baal worshiping Israelites sacrificed their children to idols. In Jesus' time, it was a garbage dump where sulfurous fires burned constantly and where besides garbage, the bodies of dead animals and executed criminals were dumped. But, since, even dead criminals are no longer conscious, the burning represented, not eternal punishment, but complete destruction.
So now Neologist corrects the teaching of the Rabbi, on Jewish beliefs.
Well, maybe “corrects” is not the correct term.
Maybe Neologists simply makes an unrelated comment. I do not see the connect between my comment, quoting the Rabbi, and the reply.
Assuming it is related, then ‘correction’ seems to be what is attempted.
Disagreement with what the Rabbi says, and correction.
Interesting.
Quote: BHN: If you want to find fault with Christian teaching being inconsistent with Judaism - Hello! - Christians are waiting for the Second Coming of the savior, Jews are waiting for the First Coming, but I realize you probably did not know that.
Neologist : Well, you do confuse nominal christians with true Christians, a forgivable misunderstanding. Jesus' second 'coming' or parousia (presence) was to take place at the end of the gentile times. Jews missed the first. Everyone else seems to have missed the import of the second. But that's another story.
Oh, ladies and gentlemen, we have one of “Those” in our midst.
One who has the authority to discern and announce who is, or is not a “True Christian”.
And where does this authority come from – let me guess – the Bible. The Bible tells you so.
No offense meant, but when we have one of ‘those’ in a room, generally they are Baptist.
There are many others, the self-appointed protectors of the Truth of the Scriptures. The ones who will say who are - not just christians (small c), - but true Christians (capital C).
I’m not saying you are Baptist (not that there would be anything wrong with that), only that from my experience, Baptists are quick to point out who is not a ‘true Christian’..
Quote:BHN: And as a footnote, I do need to add that a Christian is offered eternal Bliss (hardly something to be dreaded), for simply asking for it.
Neologist: Who gave you that idea?
Where is your disagreement?
Surely a Bible scholar such as yourself knows about Grace – forgiveness of all sins by simple repentance, washed clean through the blood of Christ the savior, the final sacrificial lamb.
By Grace all have entrance into Heaven – for who believe and are repentant -, which is certainly nothing less than eternal bliss. That comes from everything I have heard from hundreds of sources.
Is it that you do not believe that the heaven of Christianity is eternal bliss?
Do you not believe that this is the teaching of Christians (reality may differ, but it is what they are promised).
Who gave me that idea, indeed.
Every Christian minister, priest, author, that I have been exposed to.
Who gave you an idea to the contrary? Let me guess – the Bible.
Quote:BHN Does sin deserve infinite Bliss? - that would have been a more relevant question to pose - if you understood the Christian perspective.
But then, you don't, you only think you do, and that is a definition of ignorance.
Neologist: Until you can explain from the scriptures how your suggested question has merit, the pointy hat belongs to you.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I contend that “eternal life through Jesus Christ” is a euphemism for ‘eternal bliss’.
If you prefer we can say ‘eternal bliss’ is a euphemism for ‘eternal life through Jesus Christ’.
I know of no Christian denomination that that does not teach that no person is deserving of eternal life, in heaven, with God and Jesus. None.
I know of no denomination that does not teach that all persons are sinful, and deserve death. None.
People are sinful and deserve death, but by the Grace of God, and the spilled blood of Christ, eternal life is available.
We give sinful acts, completely miss the mark, and we get eternal life, infinite Bliss, an eternity with God and his son Christ, in return.
This provokes the question “Does Sin deserve infinite bliss?”
Hope this helps.
Selected Answer
