Stack Exchange
log in

Ray Butterworth

 Discussion between Anne and Ray Butte…

Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...
2
2
Ray Butterworth
17:01
You said: "The Giver of the Law is not ruled by Law, for that would make God obliged to it, subject to it.".
And I gave an analogy: "Suppose you run a business, and you post rules that describe how you do the things …".

I woke up this morning with a much better analogy of what I meant by "The law is a reflection of how God behaves, which is how all should aim to behave, so sin is behaving in a way that God would not behave.", which is what started this whole thing.
Ray Butterworth
16:10
> "IOUs for the debt that is owed" - where in the Bible does it say that?"

The original Greek word [G5498 - cheirographon](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g5498/kjv/tr/0-1/) means:
"a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at the appointed time".
— NIV: "canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness".
— ESV: "the record of debt that stood against us".
— NASB20: "canceled the certificate of debt".
Ray Butterworth
yst 20:13
@Anne says "the handwritten documents that were contrary to us, that were against us, by taking it away, nailing it to the cross" — Yes, but those documents were the IOUs for the debt that is owed, not God's law.
"why would anyone so liberated then turn around and walk back to the law" — So for someone that is free of the law, that means it's okay to kill, steal, etc. I don't think so.
The idea isn't to refrain from sinning because the law says "do not steal" (being "under the law"), but to be the kind of person whose natural behaviour demonstrates the law by not wanting to steal (being "un…
Ray Butterworth
yst 17:48
@Anne asks "Why cling on to it when Christ died to liberate us from bondage to legalism?" — Not bondage, but freedom. The goal is to think and behave as God does, naturally following the law, not because of obligation to obey it, but because being like God has become one's natural behaviour. The law simply describes what God is, and what one can become. ¶Biblical analogy: "thou shalt not steal" — OT: stealing is illegal and will result in a penalty. NT: God doesn't steal, why would I even think of doing so myself? Each view results in following the law, but one is bondage the other freedom.
Ray Butterworth
yst 17:48
"The Giver of the Law is not ruled by Law, for that would make God obliged to it, subject to it.". — Suppose you run a business, and you post rules that describe how you do the things your employees now do for you, believing yours is the best way. You want everyone to do it like that and you will fire anyone that doesn't follow your rules (though you will forgive those that admit error and change). ¶You yourself will follow the rules, but not because you are obliged to or are under the rules; you are the rules. And you are not subject to the rules; you are the subject of the rules.
Ray Butterworth
yst 17:48
"All that is not of faith is sin." — But the preceding context is "if you have doubts about whether or not you should …". The NLT says it more understandably as: "If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.". That may be true, but it is not "the definition of sin in the Christian Bible". A better definition of sin is in 1 John 3:4, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.". The law is a reflection of how God behaves, which is how all should aim to behave, so sin is behaving in a way that God would not behave.
 

 Discussion on question by Ruminator: …

Imported from a comment discussion on hermeneutics.stackexchan...
Ray Butterworth
Tue 16:47
@Ruminator, according to Online Etymology Dictionary, the Biblical city of Philadelphia "was so called in honor of Attalos II Philadelphos, 2c B.C.E. king of Pergamon, who founded it. His title is said to have meant "loving the brethren" or to be a reference to his affection for his brother Eumenes, whom he succeeded.". I don't see any implication of incest or any other inappropriate behaviour.
Ray Butterworth
Tue 16:47
@Ruminator, are you saying that John 13:23 doesn't refer to John, and that Lazarus was at the Last Supper?
Ray Butterworth
Tue 16:47
@Ruminator says, "shows them canoodling" — Where?
 

 Discussion on answer by Brandano DaPe…

Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...
Ray Butterworth
Feb 13 15:57
"Did you give me a minus grade for being annoyed that it wasnt spaced?" — That isn't inappropriate. The purpose of comments is to improve the question. ¶ Myself, I would have done it in the opposite order: suggested an obvious and major improvement, and downvote only after it is obvious that the suggestion is being ignored.
Ray Butterworth
Feb 13 15:57
This doesn't answer the question, "How do Trinitarians …". Instead it seems to answer a completely different (and inappropriate for this site) question, "What is your opinion about how Trinitarians are wrong about …".
 

 Discussion on question by user97698: …

Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...
Ray Butterworth
Feb 12 20:21
"What evidence is there that the apparitions of Jesus after his alleged resurrection were not a hoax performed by an alien civilization with advanced technology?" — That's not what I'm saying. In fact, if the event in Egypt was a hoax, I'd expect there to be convincing photographs that expose the hoax. I'm asking, given that it's in Egypt, what reason is there to believe that this is the mother of Jesus and not the mother of Moses?
Ray Butterworth
Feb 12 20:21
"it was not part of God's plan that high quality camera recordings of the apparitions were produced" — But Catholics do believe that it is God's plan to convert the world now. And consistently spoiling all visual recordings of the event for years would in itself be a miracle, but no one is claiming that.
Ray Butterworth
Feb 12 20:21
"I can play the same atheist/skeptic card." ­— It's not the same. My skepticism is about the claim that this phenomenon is specifically Mary, and not someone (e.g. Martha) or something (e.g. a demon or a space-alien) else. What evidence is there for this identification (other than people's wanting to believe)?
Ray Butterworth
Feb 12 20:21
@user97698 says "explain why he hasn't performed an undeniable miracle on camera." — because that wouldn't be part of his plan. God doesn't want to convert the whole world yet (Consider that if he did, he's been doing a really bad job of it.) This current age belongs to Satan.
Ray Butterworth
Feb 12 20:21
"If this firsthand eyewitness account doesn't do it for you" — It won't; no more than the green-men testimonies do. Given the technology available, the widespread knowledge of the event, and the number of times it occurred, explain why there is not a single in-focus good-resolution photograph or video recording of these events.
Ray Butterworth
Feb 12 20:21
Strange lights, things moving around in the sky, etc. I am willing to accept that such phenomena do happen and that there is no accepted scientific explanation for them. Some people see these events and claim it is little green men in flying saucers whilst others claim it is Mary. I'm looking for something that makes the Zeitun people different from the UFO people, but I'm not seeing it. All that has been presented so far appears to be the result of wishful thinking, not facts.
Ray Butterworth
Feb 12 20:21
@user97698, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not interested in any answer that requires my watching a YouTube video. If it can't be answered in a few words, there's a problem.
Ray Butterworth
Feb 12 20:21
The real miracle is that, with hundreds of appearances over a three year period, never was at least one decent camera and photographer present. ¶ Even if "the secular Egyptian government officially declared it supernatural", if we could see that report would it say anything more than that generality? ¶ In particular, what reason, beyond wishful thinking, is there for believing that the "supernatural" event actually was Mary?
 

 Discussion between Ruminator and Ray …

Imported from a comment discussion on hermeneutics.stackexchan...
Ray Butterworth
Feb 6 21:26
I also don't know why you think that "John always speaks of Lazarus in the third person" when most authorities say it was a reference to himself.
Ray Butterworth
Feb 6 21:24
My point is that the name Philadelphia incorporates the same Greek word that is used in John 11:3 as "love". That word does not have connotations of physical love.
Ray Butterworth
Feb 6 21:19
@Ruminator, according to Online Etymology Dictionary, the Biblical city of Philadelphia "was so called in honor of Attalos II Philadelphos, 2c B.C.E. king of Pergamon, who founded it. His title is said to have meant "loving the brethren" or to be a reference to his affection for his brother Eumenes, whom he succeeded.". I don't see any implication of incest or any other inappropriate behaviour.
Ray Butterworth
Feb 6 21:19
@Ruminator, are you saying that John 13:23 doesn't refer to John, and that Lazarus was at the Last Supper?
Ray Butterworth
Feb 6 21:19
@Ruminator says, "shows them canoodling" — Where?
 

 Discussion on answer by Dottard: Heav…

Imported from a comment discussion on hermeneutics.stackexchan...
Ray Butterworth
Jan 18 15:01
@Anne, Please see the answers from Dottard and myself for that same question.
 

 Discussion on question by Candid Moe:…

Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...
Ray Butterworth
Dec 30, 2024 20:19
@CandidMoe says "Your "rewording" looks like evading the question." — You asked two questions, which isn't allowed. As for the Creed question itself, as I already said, it is trivial to answer. No one disagrees with it. I'm not evading it; I'm discarding it as irrelevant to the real question.
Ray Butterworth
Dec 30, 2024 20:19
The problem with this question is that it is a double-barreled question: 1) Is there biblical support for the Creed's statement that Jesus "descended into hell" after his crucifixion? and 2) How can that be reconciled with Luke 23:43?. ¶The first question is trivial to answer, so all it does is make the second question seem a lot more complicated than it really is. A better wording would have been something like "Given Acts 2:31, and its confirmation by the Apostles' Creed, how can Luke 23:43 be reconciled with it?". ¶And there are already answers to that question elsewhere.
Ray Butterworth
Dec 30, 2024 20:19
@GratefulDisciple, the question asks "Is the Apostles' Creed wrong?". Acts 2:31 says: "the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell", so clearly he did go to hell, so clearly the Creed is correct. So we are left with the question in the Title question, "How to reconcile Luke 23:43 …?", and that is a duplicate.
Ray Butterworth
Dec 30, 2024 20:19
@GratefulDisciple asks "If Jesus descended into hell until his resurrection, he could not have gone to Paradise on the same day. Is the Apostles' Creed wrong?" — No, it's not wrong. The Creed says "he descended into hell", which does not conflict with "Truly, I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise". If the Creed is correct there must be an explanation for the apparent conflict. As answered in the older question, the placement of the comma was the arbitrary decision of the translators, not of the original text, so it is that decision that was wrong, not the scripture or the Creed.
Ray Butterworth
Dec 30, 2024 20:19
@NigelJ asks "What on earth would those words mean ? Ask me tomorrow, and I'll tell you something different ? ? ?" — The response is anti-parallel to the structure of the thief's request. "remember me — when thou comest into thy kingdom" ⇒ "I can tell you now — and I don't need to remember, I can assure you that you will see me there".
 

 Discussion on question by user80226: …

Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...
Ray Butterworth
Nov 2, 2024 02:54
@user80226 says "You are clearly not aware of many counterexamples that falsify this claim (one counterexample here)". Are you being ironic? That video is 12 hours long.
Ray Butterworth
Nov 2, 2024 02:54
@user80226 says "YouTube comes with [a] transcript of the video" — And it begins incomprehensibly with: "0:00 Leonard many people look at the world 0:02 and they uh they see evidence of 0:05 something beyond the physical people put 0:09 different names on it God or whatever 0:11 but uh people sense that even many 0:14 scientists do uh you've called the 0:18 remarkable coincidences that we see that 0:21 we need to live you you call it an 0:23 illusion of intelligent design uh 0:28 why why 0:30 um it looks to me like the way the world …". As I said, it isn't worth anyone's time.
Ray Butterworth
Nov 2, 2024 02:54
@user80226, that doesn't help with the 7 minute video as compared with scanning through a text document (or a transcript of the video) in a few seconds. YouTube is for entertainment, or visual demonstrations, not for discussions about God (or any other topic).
Ray Butterworth
Nov 2, 2024 02:54
@user80226 asks "What do you think about Leonard Susskind on God" — I think that watching several ads in order to find out that it will take another 7 minutes to hear what Susskind has to say isn't worth anyone's time, certainly not mine.
Ray Butterworth
Nov 2, 2024 02:54
@user80226, if I daily see people with cancer, rotting lungs, amputated legs, etc., and they almost all smoke, I will have to accept that there is a significant chance that I will be similarly affected. Yet I still choose to believe that it won't happen to me. There may be a much much smaller chance that the universe is happenstance, yet I will still choose to believe in a non-supernatural explanation. It really doesn't matter where we draw the line between improbable and impossible, because we willingly accept the probable as impossible.
Ray Butterworth
Nov 2, 2024 02:54
@user80226 says "Most people who smoke are well aware of the fact that smoking leads to cancer." — right, and people that have an understanding of the fine details of the universe are well aware that it isn't simply random happenstance, but are unwilling to accept a supernatural explanation for it.
Ray Butterworth
Nov 2, 2024 02:54
@user80226 says "If the evidence for design were so crystal clear, you would expect huge percentages for …". Obviously, just as when one continually sees the more than crystal clear effects of smoking; quitting is the almost certain result. The reality is different however: "Conclusion: Prevalence of smoking among physicians is high, around 21%. Family practitioners and medical students have the highest percentage of smokers.".
Ray Butterworth
Nov 2, 2024 02:54
"physicists … and biologists … largely fail to believe" — Are you asking that "largely" relative to chemists and geoscientists, or largely relative to all scientists, or largely relative to the general population? ¶ Whatever the case, is it really "largely" when 51% of all scientists do believe in a higher power?
 

 Discussion on question by brilliant: …

Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...
Ray Butterworth
Oct 17, 2024 23:59
@brilliant asks "are you saying that we don't have such verses like Luke 16:23, 1st Samuel 28:19, Matthew 17:03 or Rev 6:9-10? Or are you claiming that souls mentioned in those passages are, in fact, not real souls?" — The first three don't mention "soul" ??? ¶ All I'm saying is that your claim, "I disagree that biblical souls can die" is in blatant conflict with the Bible's "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" and other such passages.
Ray Butterworth
Oct 17, 2024 23:59
@brilliant says "I disagree that biblical souls can die" — It's not an opinion to disagree over: the Bible's Hebrew and Greek words translated into the English word "soul" are "nephes" and "psyche", and both are quite capable of dying. — Genesis 2:7: "man became a living soul[nephes]. Numbers 19:13: "*the dead body[nephes] of any man". Ezekiel 18:4: "the soul[nephes] that sinneth, it shall die.". Matthew 16:26: "lose his own soul[psyche]?". Revelation 16:3: "every living soul[psyche] died".
Ray Butterworth
Oct 17, 2024 23:59
Given all the comments, you might want to reword the question without using the word "soul". Clearly various people have different ideas as to what that word means, and from a biblical perspective "soul" refers to what people (and animals) are, not what they have; plus, biblical souls can die. ¶ Perhaps you really mean "spirit"?
 

 Discussion on question by Biff: How c…

Imported from a comment discussion on hermeneutics.stackexchan...
Ray Butterworth
Oct 17, 2024 12:00
@Biff: "I cannot find this in scripture" — Numbers 19:13: "Whosoever toucheth the dead body[nephesh] of any man". The word "body" is translated from the Hebrew "nephesh", which is the same word that is translated as "soul" elsewhere. Is that translation wrong; should it really say "the dead soul of any man"? Genesis 2:7: "man became a living soul[nephesh]". 1 Corinthians: "Adam was made a living soul". Genesis 1:24: "Let the earth bring forth the living creature[nephesh] after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast …". You are using English "soul" with its Pagan meaning.
Ray Butterworth
Oct 17, 2024 12:00
@Austin, Ephesians 2:1 says that you were effectively dead (i.e. condemned to death) because of sin. There is nothing there referring to "spiritual death"; you are importing that term from somewhere other than the Bible. If it isn't Biblical, it should be in Christianity.SE, not on this site.
Ray Butterworth
Oct 17, 2024 12:00
@Biff believes that: "A physical death is the separation of the soul from the body." — What you are saying is not from the Bible, which says that the soul is the body. We should be using exegesis on this site; eisegesis belongs on Christianity.SE.
Ray Butterworth
Oct 17, 2024 12:00
This question seems to be based on "If sin causes spiritual death". Is that a hypothetical question, or the doctrine of some specific denominations, or is there biblical text that states this?
 

 Discussion on answer by Ray Butterwor…

Imported from a comment discussion on hermeneutics.stackexchan...
Ray Butterworth
Oct 10, 2024 01:22
@Mr.Bond: "Jesus clearly told the thief that "TODAY" you shall be with Me in Paradise". No, Jesus clearly told the thief TODAY that he would be with him. ¶ "because he was not transferred "TODAY.'. Right, the thief did not go to Paradise TODAY*". ¶ "I did not say people get a second chance". True, you said that I was advocating that, when I did no such thing. I'll say it now, quite explicitly: The Bible contains nothing about getting a second chance at salvation. ¶ ""it is appointed for men to die ONCE and after this the judgment". Revelation mentions the "second death" four times.
Ray Butterworth
Oct 10, 2024 01:22
@Mr.Bond says "people get a second chance". No, the second resurrection is when people get their first and only chance. Before they met that day, the thief probably knew nothing about Jesus; he hadn't had his first (and only) chance yet.
Ray Butterworth
Oct 10, 2024 01:22
@Mr.Bond, why do you equate being in Paradise as receiving salvation? Why do you bind "today" with "be" rather than with "tell"? If I worked at a university, a high school student told me "remember me when you transfer to admissions", and I replied "I can tell you now that you'll be admitted", did that student receive a university diploma that very day?
Ray Butterworth
Oct 10, 2024 01:22
@Mr.Bond says "Also note this man received salvation without works." — No, he didn't receive salvation. He may very well do so in God's Kingdom after learning about God's way of life following his resurrection at the end of the Millennium (when he will "be with Christ"), but there is nothing in scripture to indicate that he received it before his death.
Ray Butterworth
Oct 10, 2024 01:22
@Mr.Bond asks "On what basis did Jesus determine the thief would be with Him in Paradise?" — See my answer to Is the thief on the cross the first person saved under the new covenant?. TL;DR:　The supplied comma is misplaced and Paradise isn't Heaven but the Earth at the end of the Millennium when the thief is part of the "second resurrection".