The Upper Room - 2017-03-21

« first day (2036 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2599 days later) »

3:12 PM

“And in particular when Satan, who is a spiritual being corrupts the world it is not the world of nature that he corrupts, but the world of the human heart, mind, and actions, and of human interactions and human society. Any corrupting effect on the physical universe would be secondary to that of Satan's corruption of the human heart and spirit”

- True that Satan is a spiritual being. So his

corruption, of course, was first of all on the spiritual level – thus, one third of angels (also spiritual beings) also followed him. However, that spiritual corruption has, of course, reflected on the physical universe, too. Spiritual level is sort of the source and the origin, while the physical level is the outcome and the expression.

“Further, scientifically there is no evidence of any past biological Golden Age in which there were no predators and no violence in nature”

- Firstly, the science is only dealing with the physical level. The spiritual level is out of reach for the science…

3:24 PM

@brilliant Well, that is certainly a novel interpretation. That the earth was already corrupt after the very first verse of Genesis 1, and that Satan has been in charge of it ever since. Which, of course, is flatly contradicted by the final verse of Genesis 1:

> God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

@brilliant What your essay really shows is what amazing lengths biblical literalists will go to attempt to make everything in the Bible literal, even to the point of stretching the Bible's words all out of shape and context.

@brilliant And about metaphor: Of course it draws its imagery from things that actually exist. People who compose stories using metaphors don't make up whole new objects and beings to embody the deeper realities they want to convey. They use existing people, animals, plants, and natural phenomena that people are familiar with to convey those deeper meanings.

This makes the stories memorable even for small children, while conveying deeper meanings to those whose eyes are open to see them.

But if you really want to know the metaphors contained in those early chapters of Genesis, get a copy of Swedenborg's Secrets of Heaven, volume 1. It's all laid out there.

@brilliant Further, even you can't avoid drawing some line between parts of the Bible to be read metaphorically and parts to be read literally. Everyone draws that line, because some things in the Bible cannot be read in any other way than metaphorically. Try to tell me how Jesus' parable of the Sower is actually a literal account of the kingdom of God.

The idea that everything in the Bible must be taken literally is patently ridiculous. And there is no basis whatsoever in the Bible itself to insist that the Creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 must be taken literally.

4:21 PM

“Further, even you can't avoid drawing some line between parts of the Bible to be read metaphorically and parts to be read literally. Everyone draws that line, because some things in the Bible cannot be read in any other way than metaphorically. Try to tell me how Jesus' parable of the Sower is actually a literal account of the kingdom of God.”

- I don’t insist on interpreting everything literally – you misinterpreted my words. What I do insist on, though, is setting up a clear rule in your interpretation that would define clearly which things must be taken literally and which metaphorical…

4:54 PM

@brilliant What, then, is your clear rule on what to interpret literally and what to interpret metaphorically? Are you able to go through the entire Bible and say, "This verse is literal, this verse is metaphorical, this verse is literal, this verse is metaphorical"?

@brilliant The whole idea that the Creation story must be taken literally is only a century or two old. It is, in fact, a reaction to new developments in science that showed that the world is not, in fact, only 6,000 years old. Before that, whether or not the Creation story was literally true wasn't a big issue.

@brilliant The scientific evidence is that the earth is billions of years old. And that's easy to reconcile with the biblical dating: the biblical dating on which that 6,000 year old hypothesis is based occurs primarily in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which were never intended to be taken literally. The Bible is primarily a spiritual book.

@brilliant And yes, I can deny that certain things in the Creation account are exactly what they are and not metaphors. In fact, I do deny that. Just because there is an actual earth, that doesn't mean "earth" in Genesis 1 isn't a metaphor. Just (as I already said) that the metaphor uses things we know of (in this case, the earth) to speak of higher things.

Ditto for the animals created in Genesis 1:25. And clearly Isaiah is using them as metaphors also, and is not concerned with literal, physical carnivores becoming herbivores. Why would God, in God's Word, bother talking about such trivial things?

The Bible is full of metaphor. And it assumes a certain amount of intelligence in the reader, such that it doesn't continually add the label, "The following account is a metaphor. Read it metaphorically, not literally."

I really suspect that the early humans who passed down the Creation stories orally, and then wrote them down, are looking down at today's "Christians," doing a facepalm, and saying, "How could they be such idiots? Don't they understand anything?!?"

For a very brief synopsis of the spiritual metaphors involved in the seven days of creation, see the end of my article, Can We Really Believe the Bible?.

For a slightly more detailed version, see my article, Heaven, Regeneration, and the Meaning of Life on Earth.

For a considerably more detailed version, see Volume 1 of Secrets of Heaven‌, by Emanuel Swedenborg. It's all explained there, including the spiritual meanings of the earth, the water, the plants, the animals, and so on.

@brilliant And incidentally, though Genesis 1:1 is commonly translated as, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," it should really be translated, "the sky and the land." The ancient Hebrews did not have our concept of the Earth as a globe in space. Their concept was of the land stretching to the horizon, and the sky above it. So right from the outset Genesis 1 simply doesn't describe what we think of as "the Earth."

Further, the human authors of that story were not so stupid as not to realize that the sun was the source of the light that God created. They did not think that God first created light, and only three days later created the source of the light. You would have to think that those early humans were idiots to think that they were not speaking metaphorically.

They were also not so stupid that they couldn't recognize that the second Creation story, in Genesis 2:4-25, tells a completely different story of Creation than the first Creation story, in Genesis 1:1-2:3. Do you think they didn't notice that the two stories say that things were created in a completely different way, and a completely different order?

The first Creation story has things created in this order:
1. Plants and trees
2. Fish and birds
3. Land animals
4. Humans, both male and female

The second Creation story has things created in this order:
1. Humans
2. Plants and trees
3. Land animals and birds (fish are not mentioned in Genesis 2)
4. Female humans as separate from male humans

The second Creation story is not a more detailed version of the first. It is a completely different story of Creation. Do you think the early human authors and compilers of the Bible were so stupid that they didn't notice that?

If they had meant their stories to be literal accounts of the physical creation of the universe, don't you think they would have done a better job of harmonizing the two stories, instead of making them flatly contradict one another, as they do?

Clearly the human authors and compilers of the Bible were not thinking literally, but metaphorically, when they wrote down those stories. They were not thinking about how the world was physically created, but about how God created humans as spiritual beings in relationship with God, and how the story of humanity's relationship with God unfolded.

5:26 PM

Differences in order don't make the Earth, sky, animals and so on less physical and more metaphorical .

@brilliant But people who are speaking about physical events, and want to be taken seriously, will make their stories work. And as physical accounts of the creation of the world, the two Creation stories just don't work--despite the heroic efforts of biblical literalists to reconcile the two when they simply can't be reconciled literally.

It is just like Gospels - the order of events in them is different, but that doesn't bother Christians and don't make them thing that all those stories about Jesus are merely myths and metaphors.

@brilliant There is no "merely" about myths and metaphors. Myths and metaphors are far greater than textbooks of science, because myths and metaphors speak of divine and spiritual realities, whereas science textbooks merely speak of physical realities.

"But people who are speaking about physical events, and want to be taken seriously, will make their stories work" - NOt at all. It all depends on what the main goal of the book is

Are Jesus parables merely parables? Are they not the highest form of divine speech, in which God tells us of spiritual realities in words and stories that we can picture and understand?

5:29 PM

If the goal is to show that the man fall, than the account of creation to detail is minor

Jesus didn't tell "mere" parables. He told parables because that was the greatest form of conveying to us the deeper realities he wanted us to recognize and understand.

@brilliant The main goal of the Bible is to bring about our salvation. How the earth was physically created is a mere triviality compared to that.

Even if Genesis 1-2 had anything to do with the physical creation of the universe (which it does not), that would be so unimportant compared to its real message as to be not even worth bothering with.

And yet Creationists of all stripes have spent enormous time, effort, and energy focusing on that trivial, unimportant matter, while totally missing the true message of Genesis 1-2, not to mention Genesis 3 and beyond.

"Myths and metaphors are far greater" - :) Fine, you can exclude the word "myths". Discrepancies between the Gospel still don't make Christians think that the events with Jesus were merely metaphors.

The whole effort of Creationists is a complete travesty of God's word.

@brilliant Sure. There was a historical Jesus. And the Gospel accounts do generally indicate what his life and teachings were. But the fact that the Gospels actually do contradict each other on various details, and that the Gospel of John tells quite a different story, with quite a different chronology, than the synoptics, should put us on notice that the important thing is not whether the Gospels are historically accurate.

The historical Jesus is indeed an interesting study. But it pales in comparison to the spiritual message, and the purpose for which Jesus came in the first place. Getting stuck on whether the Gospels tell the precise literal story of Jesus' life and teachings is, once again, a travesty of God's word and its message.

"notice that the important thing is not whether the Gospels are historically accurate" - So, are you saying that it's not important for Christians whether Christ really died and resurrected then? :)

El'endia Starman

@brilliant That's a pretty blatant strawman.

5:35 PM

What do you mean?

El'endia Starman

You're basically saying that Lee is saying something that he's definitely not.

@brilliant There are certain things in the Gospels that do have to have happened for Christianity to have any basis at all. In my view, the virgin birth, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension are among them. But if those things didn't happen quite the way they are described in the Gospels, that wouldn't matter at all.

The Gospels do convey the basics of what we need to believe about the historical event that happened, which we call the Incarnation. But even the Gospels themselves apparently don't think that it's very important that the story is literally accurate, because the various Gospels do contradict one another on various details.

"But if those things didn't happen quite the way they are described ... that wouldn't matter at all" - Which is exactly what I was saying with regard to the discrepancies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Even the Synoptics, which draw on a common source, feel free to disagree with one another in the telling of the stories. If their authors had thought that literal, historical accuracy was very important, they would have made sure that their stories agreed with one another.

@brilliant Okay, here's the basics: God did actually create the universe. And so in that way, the Genesis 1 & 2 creation stories are "literally true." But that's a mere trivial matter. Because the creation of the world was only being used as a metaphor for the new Creation of humanity in general, and individual humans in particular, as spiritual beings, made in the image of the divine nature of God.

That's what the Creation stories are really about. Any similarity to what actually, physically happened is simply the background of the metaphorical language.

Besides, we now know that God didn't create the universe in anything like the way that is described in the first two chapters of Genesis.

"we now know that God didn't create the universe in anything like the way that is described in the first two chapters of Genesis" - How do you know that?

5:41 PM

@brilliant Science.

"Science" is too broad. Some things are just theories. Some are evidence, and some are proof. What do you mean exactly?

And can you, please, elaborate more on first 11 chapters of Genesis?

@brilliant I mean that over the past several hundred years science has established a fairly coherent picture of how the physical universe came into being. And that picture looks nothing at all like what is described in Genesis 1-2.

@brilliant The first approximately 10.5 chapters of Genesis are pure metaphor. They were never intended even by their original human authors, still less by God, the Divine Author, to be read as literal accounts of the creation of the earth and its early history.

Genesis 11 bridges the gap between purely metaphorical stories and stories that are likely about actual human beings. Exactly where real, individual humans start in the story is difficult to pin down. But by the time we get to Terah and Abram/Abraham, we seem to be talking about actual, individual human beings, whether or not the stories are literally, historically accurate.

"And that picture looks nothing at all like what is described in Genesis 1-2" - Well, you still need to proof that the real creation did not take place billions of years prior to the time when God said "Let there be the light"

Some Bible scholars think even the Patriarchs and the twelve sons of Jacob are not meant to be about individuals, but about clans. I tend to think, though, that there were historical figures starting at least with Abraham.

@brilliant Why do I need such proof, when Genesis 1-2 say no such thing? Genesis 1 starts, "In the beginning," or as some prefer to translate it, "In beginning." "Beginning" means "beginning," not "billions of years later."

Really, you're just grasping at straws to try to hang onto the completely untenable position that the early chapters of Genesis are describing actual, historical, physical events.

It would be much easier for you if you simply recognized that the Bible is, above all, a spiritual and divine book, that speaks of spiritual and divine subjects, and that any resemblance to historical events is purely for the sake of conveying that spiritual and divine message.

In my view, Creationists are insulting both God and the Bible by their insistence on its being about the trivialities of the material world and the physical universe.

"Genesis 1 starts, "In the beginning," or as some prefer to translate it, "In beginning." "Beginning" means "beginning," not "billions of years later."" - Why "later"??? I said "prior"! You misread my words.

5:52 PM

God doesn't need to tell us about those physical, material things. We can figure them out for ourselves. But God does need to tell us about spiritual and divine things, which we would never figure out for ourselves.

@brilliant You seem to be saying that the beginning mentioned in Genesis 1 was not the actual beginning. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

Yes, you are misunderstanding me

If, instead, you're saying there were billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, there's no basis for that in the text of the Bible either.

I already pointed out the basis to you in my earlier "essay". That's not proof, but that's the basis.

From Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1-5, the text says, "there was evening and there was morning--the first day."

@brilliant Nowhere does it say anything about there being a vast amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:5. Instead, it says, "there was evening, and there was morning, one day."

To stretch that out to billions of years to fit your ideas about this really being a literal account of the physical creation of the universe is, as I said, stretching the Bible's words all out of shape and context.

What we have is a cacophony of discordant Creationist voices, each with its own completely unbiblical and unscientific "explanation" of how the Bible really is a textbook of science. None of them make any sense, and none of them are the slightest bit "scientific."

"Nowhere does it say anything about there being a vast amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:5" - What does it have to do with Genesis 1:5???? I was talking about the time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

5:58 PM

And all of them are concocted by people whose minds are stuck on the flesh that kills instead of on the spirit that gives life. In other words, the Creationists are materialists, and that's why they have so badly misunderstood the Bible, including Jesus' own teachings.

@brilliant Genesis 1:5 completes the first day of Creation that begins with Genesis 1:1.

They can equally claim the same thing about you.

"Genesis 1:5 completes the first day of Creation that begins with Genesis 1:1" - How do you know that? After all the earth was already created in Genesis 1:1

@brilliant That I'm a materialist? Hah! I'd like to see them try, considering that I believe that the entire Bible tells the spiritual story of our new Creation in Christ, not to mention the story of the Lord's spiritual and divine life while he was here on earth.

"That I'm a materialist? Hah! " - No! But that your mind is stuck on the flesh.

> In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3)

It's a seamless story. There's not the slightest hint of any vast gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

So, as you can see both heavens and the earth are already created in Genesis 1:1

6:01 PM

@brilliant Haha! You don't even know my mind. But you can think that if you want to. I'm not the one insisting that the Bible is about physical, material things.

@brilliant They weren't "already" created in Genesis 1:1. They were created in Genesis 1:1. There's no hint that there was some prior creation.

"You don't even know my mind" - As well as you don't know creationists' minds.

@brilliant I know that their minds are quite literally stuck in "the flesh" of material thinking. I know that because they expend enormous energy trying to "prove" that Genesis 1 is about physical, material events. If their minds were not materialistic, they wouldn't care so much about Genesis being about material events.

They are materialists. I know them by their fruits.

"They weren't "already" created in Genesis 1:1. They were created in Genesis 1:1" - What difference does it make? Still created.

Many of them also believe that we will be physically resurrected, and will physically live to eternity on this physical earth. That, too, is because they are materialists, unable to lift their minds up to higher, spiritual levels of thinking.

The hint is "the earth became void and without form"

6:05 PM

@brilliant The action of creation takes place in Genesis 1:1.

@brilliant It doesn't say the earth became void and without form. It says the earth was void and without form.

It can also mean “became”. The same word, for example, is used in Deuteronomy 27:9: “this day YOU’VE BECOME the people of the Lord thy God”.

And what would you say about Peter's words then: “Long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire…” (2nd Peter 3:5-7)

@brilliant Take a look at all the translations of Genesis 1:2 at Biblegateway.com. Though there are variations in language, not a single one of them translates it as "became." So apparently every single one of the translators of all of those versions thinks you're wrong.

@brilliant Peter, too, was speaking metaphorically more than physically. Why do you think the minds of the Apostles were so fleshly and materialistic? Why do you insist upon reading everything according to the letter that kills, and not according to the spirit that gives life?

@brilliant Back to Genesis 1:2, you are trying to force the text to say what you think it should by pushing the Hebrew into an unnatural English translation that has no basis in the Hebrew text and the context of that word.

Instead of letting the Bible say what it says, you're trying to force it to say something that it doesn't in order to confirm your materialistic, physical-minded theories about what the Bible should be saying.

The whole edifice you are standing on is built on the human sands of materialistic, unspiritual thinking. It is based on a vast effort of biblical literalists to force the Bible to be a literal, scientific document when that was never its intent--not by God, not by its original human authors.

I've spent way too much time reading all of these ridiculous Creationist theories and fabrications, and the totally unscientific "science" that they invent to try to make it sound like there is any basis whatsoever for their human inventions. It is a sad, sad thing to see how humans have taken the Divine Word and made it into a mere human science textbook--and a very bad and sloppy one, at that.

It's a natural narrative sense. It can be rendered as "was", but the meaning could be "became". Look: "Max came to Dehli and spent 20 years there. And Dehli WAS poor, and decided Max to go to Calcutta" The "WAS" here does not mean that Dehli was poor even back in time when Max first came there.

"Peter, too, was speaking metaphorically more than physically" - So, are trying to say that Peter is not speaking here about the earth?

@brilliant "Became" is not at all natural or narrative when Genesis 1:2 is read in its context. That's why no reputable translator ever translates it that way. Once again, you're grasping at straws to try to make the Bible say what you want it to say, instead of what it actually does say.

Why do you feel you have to rewrite the Bible?

It would be much better to let the Bible rewrite your fallacies and replace them with genuine truth.

I am not re-writing the Bible, however, you still need to prove that the "WAS" in Genesis 1:2 cannot mean "became"

""Became" is not at all natural or narrative when Genesis 1:2 is read" - Why not??? It sounds quite narrative to me.

6:18 PM

@brilliant What Peter himself thought I cannot say. But I strongly suspect that he didn't think it was very important exactly how the earth was created. Rather, I think he was very familiar with metaphorical language, because he spent three years being taught by Jesus, who was a master of metaphor and parable.

How could Peter spend all that time with Jesus and not pick up the habit of speaking metaphorically? He'd have to be a complete dunce not to get the idea that there's more to Jesus' words than mere flesh, but that there are deeper meanings to everything.

So when he spoke of the world ending in fire, I really doubt he thought there was going to be a literal fire that would burn up the world. Jesus had taught him too well for that sort of materialistic thinking.

@brilliant That's because your brain has convinced you that it must say that in order for the Bible to mean what you think it means. But the simple fact of the matter is that no translator who actually knows Hebrew well translates it that way. That should cause you to stop and think.

When I took Hebrew in college, we studied those verses very carefully. At no time did it ever look like it was meant to say "became," and not "was."

Once again, you're trying to get the Bible to say something that it simply doesn't say.

That, in fact, is one of my biggest objections to Protestant theology in general. It bends over backwards to try like heck to get the Bible to say all sorts of things that it simply doesn't say.

"How could Peter spend all that time with Jesus and not pick up the habit of speaking metaphorically?" - Did Jesus never speak in direct words? If Peter spoke here in metaphor, then he really did a poor job then, because instead of conveying some pure and clear meaning by his metaphor he only made things quite obscure.

The Bible doesn't say that faith alone saves. It doesn't say that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. It doesn't say that God is a Trinity of Persons. And it doesn't say many other things that Protestants (not to mention Catholics) keep trying like heck to get it to say.

@brilliant No. He made things obscure to people who think materialistically. Read John 6. There, Jesus separates those who can think spiritually from those who can think only materialistically. The ones who can think only materialistically are offended by his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, because they can only think "cannibalism."

Peter was Jesus' disciple for three years. He saw these things happen. He saw Jesus offend those who could think only physically, materialistically, "according to the flesh." He knew that their ears were stopped up and made gross by their fleshly thinking. And he, too, spoke in a way that was obscure to fleshly thinkers, but that shines clearly for those that can think according to the spirit.

"Metaphorical" is just a modern word for "having deeper, spiritual meaning.

The entire Bible becomes an obscure tissue of tangles and contradictions to those who can think only materially, but it shines like a beautiful crystal in the sunlight for those who can see the spiritual meaning within the literal words.

"The Bible doesn't say that faith alone saves" - "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9)

When I read the literalists' big, long essays intended to harmonize all the literal contradictions in the literal meaning of the Bible, all I can think is:

> For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and their ears are hard of hearing,
and they have shut their eyes;
so that they might not look with their eyes,
and listen with their ears,
and understand with their heart and turn—
and I would heal them. (Matthew 13:15)

@brilliant Where in there does it say, "faith alone saves"? I don't see it.

"Once again, you're trying to get the Bible to say something that it simply doesn't say" - Once again, you still need to prove that the Bible really doesn't say that. "Translators never translated that way", "In my Hebrew lessons it was never read that way" are all not proofs.

6:30 PM

@brilliant If you want to ignore every skilled Hebraist who has every translated the Bible from Hebrew into English, and insist that they are wrong and you are right, then I'm sorry, I cannot give you any "proof." If you ignore everyone who actually knows what their talking about in favor of your own pet theory, what more can I say to you?

"Where in there does it say, "faith alone saves"? I don't see it" - "by grace", "gift of God", "Not of works".

@brilliant I still don't see where it says, "faith alone saves." Where does it say that?

What do you mean by "faith alone" in the first place?

And where does it say that we are justified by faith alone? I haven't been able to find that verse. Only where it says that we are not justified by faith alone, but by our works:

> You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

@brilliant Where does the Bible say faith alone? The Bible would actually have to say it for us to argue about what it means. But the Bible never does say "faith alone" except to reject it. So we shouldn't even be having this conversation.

It's a very simple question: Where does the Bible actually say that we are justified or saved by faith alone? Show me the verse.

"If you want to ignore every skilled Hebraist who has every translated the Bible from Hebrew into English, and insist that they are wrong and you are right" - I didn't insist they were wrong. And... are you sure that every skilled Hebraist would claim that "WAS" in that verse can never mean "became"?

6:33 PM

@brilliant Did you actually follow the link I gave you earlier and read how all of those skilled Hebraists translated it?

NO

There is no reason whatsoever to translate it as "became" except that you want it to say that in order to support your completely unsupportable theory about Creation.

Does that link say that all those skilled Hebraist would claim that "WAS" in that verse can never mean "became"?

But the Bible doesn't say things to confirm your theories. It says what it says. And our job is to read it and understand it, not try to make it say something it doesn't.

@brilliant Read the translations. That's just not how they translate it. 'Nuff said.

"But the Bible doesn't say things to confirm your theories" - The question is not whether it confirms my theory or not. The question is: can it really not mean "became"?

6:36 PM

You can't just take every verse of the Bible, say, "well, it could mean that!" and then base an entire theory on your conjecture of what the Bible might or could mean when no responsible translator actually says it means that.

@brilliant No. The question isn't whether it could mean become. The question is what it does mean. It's really a very simple verse. There's not any great mystery about what it means.

However, if you want to keep believing it says something that it doesn't, and you think you're smarter and more enlightened than every skilled translator who has ever translated Genesis 1 from Hebrew into English, then there is nothing I can say that will dissuade you. Clearly you believe you're just right, and damn any evidence to the contrary.

This exactly how not to read the Bible.

And it's why, for the most part, I don't even bother with your ridiculous theories, or others like them.

To get fixated only on what the traditional way of translating was and not even consider possible connotations is quite a religious and narrow-minded way.

Jesus was rebuking such people not even once.

@brilliant To try to force the Bible to say something it doesn't is to show supreme disdain and disregard for the Bible, and for God, its author. You don't want the Bible to teach you. You think you can teach God.

You don't give a **** about what the Bible actually says. You're too intent to try to make it say what you think it should say.

"To try to force the Bible to say something it doesn't is to show supreme disdain and disregard for the Bible" - I agree here with you. Now I need to figure out that the Bible really doesn't say that.

@brilliant Just read it. It doesn't say that.

"You're too intent to try to make it say what you think it should say" - Not at all. I am just trying to find a valid disproof to the idea that "was" may mean "became". So far I haven't found that.

6:44 PM

There is absolutely no reason to think it says that except to confirm your theory. Which the Bible also doesn't say. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that there are billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. That is a pure human invention. And you are basing your beliefs on pure human inventions, not on the Bible.

"Just read it. It doesn't say that" - I am sorry, but I don't read Hebrew.

"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that there are billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2." - There are many things that the Bible doesn't state plainly.

Yet, it doesn't mean that those things are not true.

So, what do you mean when you say "by faith alone"?

@brilliant Well, I do read some Hebrew, though I'm not an expert. And I've read and studied the whole Creation story in Hebrew. And I can tell you that הָיְתָ֥ה in Genesis 1:2 does not mean "became," and that's why nobody translates it as "became."

But if you think that you, who do not even know Hebrew, knows what the Hebrew Bible says better than those who do read Hebrew, then once again, there's really nothing I can say to you. It's clearly a case of, "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up."

My understanding of "by faith alone" is merely "not out of works".

@brilliant But if it were important to believe something for the sake of our eternal salvation, don't you think the Bible would say it plainly? Or is God really that bad at telling us what he wants us to know?

All of these theories built on things that "the Bible doesn't say plainly, but that's what it means" do nothing for me. Especially when they are made key, central tenets of "Christian" belief. Once again, it's a huge insult against God, as if God were incompetent to clearly communicate with us the most important things that we must believe to be Christians, and to be saved.

"And I can tell you that הָיְתָ֥ה in Genesis 1:2 does not mean "became,"" - I doubt there is any textbook of Hebrew claiming that "was" in Genesis 1:2 does not mean "become". However, almost every textbook, professor and dictionary would agree that הָיְתָ֥ה can also have a meaning "to become".

6:52 PM

I have no patience for Protestants who say, for example, "Even if the Bible doesn't actually say 'faith alone saves,' or 'we are justified by faith alone,' that's what it means. Well, if it's so important to believe that faith alone saves, why are Jesus and his Apostles so bad at telling us that? Why didn't they just come right out and say, "we are justified by faith alone"? It wouldn't have been all that hard, would it?

The entire edifice of Protestant doctrine is built on things that the Bible doesn't actually say. That's why it is not worthy of anyone's belief.

"But if it were important to believe something for the sake of our eternal salvation, don't you think the Bible would say it plainly?" - Of course, it would. But whether it's a billion of years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 or a fraction of a second, it's not important to our eternal salvation.

@brilliant I'm not going to argue with you about that anymore. You're wrong, but clearly you're not going to accept that, so there's nothing more I can say, and I'm not going to waste my breath confusing you with any facts.

@brilliant Then why do you think it's so important to make it say what you think it says? Why are you even wasting your time on that, if it's not important to our eternal salvation? Why would the Bible waste its time on anything that's not important to our eternal salvation.

Beyond any niggling about words, that is exactly why you're so wrong. You're expending tremendous effort to try to support things that are supremely unimportant and completely beside the point of what the Bible is meant to teach us. It's a total waste of time. And it causes you to misunderstand everything you read in the Bible.

"Then why do you think it's so important to make it say what you think it says?" - What do you mean? When did I say that this matter had any bearing on our eternal salvation??? I never said that.

When I think about all the time the Creationists waste on completely trivial and stupid things, it's a crying shame. They could be doing something useful, that actually contributes to God's plan of saving souls.

@brilliant Then why are you wasting time with your fanciful theories?

It's a complete waste of time.

"Then why are you wasting time with your fanciful theories?" - I am just curious. Why not?

6:58 PM

It's about as important as reading the entire New Testament to try to figure out what color Jesus' hair was. Total waste of time.

@brilliant Because it distracts from the real message of the Bible, and causes you to labor for the food that perishes instead of for the food that endures to eternal life.

Well, what can look as a waste of time to you, may not look so to me.

@brilliant At minimum, it has nothing to do with Christianity, salvation, or anything relating to eternal life.

Do you have hobbies in your life?

If you want to use your time examining the surface features of the Bible and spinning materialistic theories based on it instead of plumbing its spiritual depths, then I guess that's your choice. But don't think you're doing anything Christian, religious, or spiritual when you're doing so. It is a purely temporal and materialistic pursuit.

So sure, if you want to spend your time doing that, go for it. But it's not Christian.

And it has nothing to do with the message of the Bible.

"If you want to use your time examining the surface features of the Bible and spinning materialistic theories based on it instead of plumbing its spiritual depths" - I am not doing it instead, but rather in addition to. This is my hobby. Don't tell me you don't have hobbies. Of course, you do. Do all your hobbies distract you from the real message in the Bible?

"Well, if it's so important to believe that faith alone saves, why are Jesus and his Apostles so bad at telling us that?" - The words "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" are not bad telling us that at all.

7:06 PM

@brilliant My hobbies don't involve the Bible at all. I engage in them to give myself a physical and mental break from the intensive biblical and religious studies that are my life work. And I don't immerse my study of the Bible in materialistic trivialities that distract and detract from its spiritual message.

@brilliant They are also not telling us that faith alone saves. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that faith alone saves, or that faith alone justifies. Not in Ephesians 2:8-9. Not anywhere else.

You cannot show me a single verse in the entire Bible that says that.

Nor can you show me a single verse in the Bible that says that Christ paid the price or the penalty for our sins. That's not there either.

It was Luther, not the Bible, that said that we are justified by faith alone.

Well, it says "not out of works" and "by grace" - that suffice.

I'm still trying to figure out what human theologian first said that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. I don't think it was Luther. It might have been Calvin. See:

7

Q: When and where does the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" first appear?

The statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" does not appear in the Bible. When in the history of Christian theology did this specific statement first appear? Who said it? Please provide the actual text (and source) from the writings of the Christian theologians or teachers who first s...

soteriology origin phrase penal-substitution

@brilliant "Grace" is not the same thing as "faith." And the word "alone" occurs nowhere in connection with "grace," and in connection with "faith" only in James 2:24, where justification by faith alone is specifically rejected.

The most important thing is not wording, but what you mean by that

@brilliant Right. So what does Ephesians 2:8-9 mean, considering that James 2:24 says explicitly:

> You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (italics added)

Clearly Ephesians 2:8-9 does not mean that we aren't justified by works as James is using that term, "good works," because that would mean that Ephesians flatly contradicts James. So Ephesians must mean something other than "good works" by "works."

It means exactly what it says - that we are saved by grace through faith and this is not out of our works.

7:13 PM

@brilliant And what does James mean when he says that we are justified by works?

James means also exactly what he says - that we are justified by works. There is no contradiction here.

@brilliant Also, Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say "not of our works." It says, "not of works."

And the fact remains that the Bible never says that we are saved or justified by faith alone.

:) Okay, "not of works"

@brilliant It's important because Ephesians is using "works" as a technical term here. It actually doesn't mean "our works." It means "the works of the Law"--i.e. being an observant Jew.

That is the fundamental misunderstanding of Paul that has vitiated the entirety of Protestant doctrine.

There is a reason the Bible never says that faith alone saves or justifies. The reason it doesn't say that is because that's a false teaching. Neither Paul nor any of the other Apostles taught that. And Jesus Christ certainly didn't teach it.

"It means "the works of the Law"--i.e. being an observant Jew" - The whole context of that chapter is totally not about the law. Besides, Ephesians were Gentiles.

7:17 PM

It's the same reason the Bible never says that Jesus paid the price or penalty for our sins. That is false. It was invented some time shortly after the Protestant Reformation.

@brilliant It is also making the point that we can't buy our own salvation through piling up good works. But that was never the reason we were supposed to do good works in the first place, so it's really a side issue, although Protestants have made a mountain out of that molehill.

"There is a reason the Bible never says that faith alone saves or justifies" - Bible says that we are saved by grace through faith - that's what matters!

@brilliant And if the Ephesians were Gentiles, why does the letter immediately afterward start talking about circumcision?

> 11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

The letter is all about how it used to be only the circumcised who were part of God's kingdom, but now the uncircumcised are as well, through faith in Christ, who has fulfilled all the laws of circumcision, sacrifice, and so on, so that we no longer need to observe those laws.

"And if the Ephesians were Gentiles, why does the letter immediately afterward start talking about circumcision?" - Verse 12 says it all - to show that now, despite the fact that they are Gentiles formerly alienated from Israel, are now one with them in Christ.

The idea that Ephesians is here talking about "good works" as we think of it simply can't stand scrutiny. It is clearly talking about the works of the Jewish ritual Law, for which "the circumcision" is a short-form code word used throughout Paul's writings.

If you read the various "proof texts" that Protestants regularly bring forward to support their human-invented doctrine of justification by faith alone, you will find that the word "circumcision" is never far away. Read Acts 15. That will clue you in to what was going on here, and what Paul was arguing about in his letters.

Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee. His letters are full of the controversy between strict observance of the Jewish Law and the New Covenant in Jesus' blood. Without understanding that (which Protestant theologians uniformly don't), you simply can't understand Paul's letters.

"It is clearly talking about the works of the Jewish ritual Law" - It's already an addition to what the Bible doesn't say. However, what is really important is that Paul there states that "we are saved by grace through faith".

7:24 PM

@brilliant And notice that it says by grace through faith. The translation of the "by" could be quibbled, but what's clear is that it doesn't say by faith but through faith. So already it does not say anything like "we are saved by faith alone."

Acts 15 is merely about those in Antioch. Plus, it was quite an early time. Ephesians, however, is written way later and from prison - by that time Paul had already been far away from that controversy.

Now, the word translated "grace" is one of Greek's cornucopia of words for "love." It means God's lovingkindness and favor toward us. That is what saves us. Not faith or works. It happens through faith. And the actual "justification," or being made righteous, happens by our doing good works.

To think that you can be saved by faith without good works is sort of like saying that you can breathe without the heart.

Was the robber on the cross saved?

And no, good works are not "the fruits of faith." The Bible never says that, though there have been some efforts to make it say that. See:

5

Q: What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith?

It is common for Protestant doctrinal statements to say that good works are the fruits of faith. For example: We confess that good works are necessary fruits of faith in the life of a Christian and that they proceed from a renewed heart that is thankful to God for His mercy and love. Although...

protestantism faith works

and:

3

Q: Where did the formula, "Good works are the fruits of faith," originate?

A previous question of mine, "What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith?" provides examples of Protestant faith statements using the formula, "good works are the fruits of faith," and asks for the biblical basis of that belief. The answers to that question...

protestantism faith origin works phrase

"And no, good works are not "the fruits of faith."" - Did I ever say that here???

7:28 PM

@brilliant No, but that's where Protestants usually go next. We are saved by faith alone, and good works are the fruits of faith. And blah, blah, blah, more things the Bible doesn't say.

Well, right now you are not talking to Protestants, but to me only...

so it would be good to stay in one line

@brilliant Do you not consider yourself to be a Protestant?

Yes, I certainly do. But a lot of things that you attribute to me are wrong in my case.

@brilliant Well, I'm glad to hear that you don't swallow standard Protestant doctrine whole. Though it sounds like some of the things you believe are even more off-base than standard Protestant doctrine.

Well, it's not the first time for me to talk to an Orthodox believer, so I can understand that.

7:33 PM

@brilliant Acts 15 is widely recognized among traditional Christians as the first Christian council. And its debate was the debate among the Apostles of the time. It set the tone for Christian practice from then on, establishing that Christians do not have to be observant Jews. And that was Paul's big argument, as seen in Acts 15 itself.

@PeterTurner Having reviewed the answerers own comments, I have now voted to delete.

@brilliant "Orthodox believer"?

@LeeWoofenden I know that about Acts 15. But when Paul was writing Ephesians that was already way in the past.

So was the robber on the cross saved or not?

@brilliant I don't know the exact dating, but that controversy was an ongoing one, and it was a big issue for Paul.

@brilliant See: Are We Saved in an Instant? How was the Thief on the Cross Saved?

Yes, but by the time of writing Ephesians he had already left all hopes to save any of Jews.

7:36 PM

@brilliant It wasn't about saving Jews. It was about saving Gentiles. And making it clear to them that they did not have to become Jews to be saved.

And making sure that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem didn't push things back over into requiring circumcision and so on.

No! It was making it clear to them that they were now one in Christ with those who also believed in Christ from among Jews.

"See: Are We Saved in an Instant? How was the Thief on the Cross Saved?" - Can't you just give me a brief answer?

@brilliant Yes. That's all part of it. The main point being: keeping the Jewish ritual law is irrelevant. Salvation is the same both for those who do the works of the (Jewish) Law and for those who don't do those works. That was Paul's whole point. And Protestants have utterly missed it.

@brilliant He was saved. Jesus said he was.

" That was Paul's whole point. And Protestants have utterly missed it" - I am a Protestant and I never missed that point. However, you must take into account that Jewish influence in Ephesus was miserable.

@brilliant Miserable in what way?

In the way of making Ephesians observe the Jewish law.

7:43 PM

@brilliant Are you saying that Jews, or Judaising Christians, were trying to make the Ephesians observe Jewish Law? Or what are you saying?

No. What I am saying is that such notion like "unless you do what Moses taught, you can get saved" wouldn't really have any affect on Ephesians. It was merely not there mentality.

@brilliant Early church history is not my strong suit. However, I would be surprised if the Ephesians hadn't heard of the Jews, and their religious requirements. And Christians at that time were not yet well-differentiated from Jews in the minds of pagans. So Paul would have had to make it clear to them that he was not like all those other Jews they might have heard about.

Plus, Paul's letters were not intended only for those to whom they were addressed. They were copied and distributed among believers in many places. Paul may have been writing to the Christians at Ephesus, but he was writing for the entire body of Christians that existed at the time.

"So Paul would have had to make it clear to them that he was not like all those other Jews they might have heard about" - That would be true in case with Galatians, but not in case with Ephesians and Collossians.

"but he was writing for the entire body of Christians that existed at the time"

- That's true, but then again Ephesians was written much later than Galatians or, say, Corinthians. Paul's prison letters rarely touch upon the matter of Jews and Jewish law.

I should add that NT scholars commonly think that Ephesians was not actually written by Paul.

Whether or not Paul was its actual author, it certainly draws on Paul's thought, although it also seems to have its differences from the undisputed letters of Paul.

As well as, 1st Timothy, as far as I remember. However, we have no basis not to treat it as the Word of God.

All right. it's time for me to go to bed. Thanks for this fellowship and Christ be with you!

7:51 PM

@brilliant In fact, much of Paul's writing is about living a good and Christian life. It's unfortunate that Protestantism has extracted those segments in which Paul speaks of faith, and focused so heavily on them that it's easy to get the impression that faith is all that Paul talked about. The second part of Ephesians is all about becoming a new person and living a good life.

And that's from the supposed "faith alone" apostle (which he is not).

Good night.

« first day (2036 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2599 days later) »

Transcript for

Mar '1721

The Upper Room

General discussion for Christianity.SE, pseudo-meta support, a...

christianity discussion

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile