Do you understand the New Testament

[AK4]

Your theory is not new the catholic church has a place called purgatory, (a chastising place) a laxative or cleaning place.

Only thing is that the catholics believe you are alive in purgatory i guess. No the scriptures teach that when you are dead, you are dead. Dead until resurrection and nothing else.

Ec 9:10 - Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

A question for you, am I correct that somewhere it is written "the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children for seven generations, and the blessings of the fathers will be poured upon the children for many generation, or words to that affects.

Yes,

 

[sojourner]

Correct and we also have to weight in the fact that the Apostle Paul was not a follower in the Lord’s ministry, that he was not a witness to the discourses and that the writer of the four Gospels were,

No, actually, we're pretty sure that the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry -- especially Luke and John.

Paul, writing earlier, would have been closer to the Jesus Tradition -- especially being Jewish, while Luke probably was not Jewish.

we must also consider that what we have of the Gospels is copies of copies.

The same is true of the Pauline epistles.

my statement/argument that the Apostle Paul contradict the Lord’s teaching on Salvation stands...

...on sinking sand.

Another interesting thing about his Epistles is his use of I.
There are more reference to I Paul references than to what the four Gospels witness to the Lord’s discourses,

Not surprising, since the epistles are personal letters, written by Paul to individuals or individual congregations. Letters are a completely different genre from gospels. therefore, the form and the use of the first person singular is to be expected in a letter, but not in a narrative.

there are little mentions of what the Lord taught so you are right it really depends, not upon "what Jesus taught" vs. "what Paul taught," but upon who wrote what.
The only quotations we have from Jesus are in the gospels. So we must depend upon those writers.

Except that you're forgetting that what is really important isn't what Jesus taught, but what the Church teaches. Jesus handed over the keys to the kingdom to the Church, according to Matthew. Jesus breathed Spirit upon the early Church, and sent the Holy Spirit upon her to carry on in his name. Both the gospels and the epistles are just that: The Church's teaching, based in Christ.

 

[emiliano]

No, actually, we're pretty sure that the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry -- especially Luke and John.

Paul, writing earlier, would have been closer to the Jesus Tradition -- especially being Jewish, while Luke probably was not Jewish.

The same is true of the Pauline epistles.

...on sinking sand.

Not surprising, since the epistles are personal letters, written by Paul to individuals or individual congregations. Letters are a completely different genre from gospels. therefore, the form and the use of the first person singular is to be expected in a letter, but not in a narrative.

Except that you're forgetting that what is really important isn't what Jesus taught, but what the Church teaches. Jesus handed over the keys to the kingdom to the Church, according to Matthew. Jesus breathed Spirit upon the early Church, and sent the Holy Spirit upon her to carry on in his name. Both the gospels and the epistles are just that: The Church's teaching, based in Christ.

Right on again, the Church has the helper:

Jhn 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.​

The role of the Church is to preach all the thing that the Lord taught and the Holy Spirit is with the Church to remind then of what the Lord said. Was Paul present when the Lord breathed the Holy Spirit on the Church? Was he at Pentecost?

Jhn 20:19
Then, the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, [fn] for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace [be] with you." ​

The Gospel of Mathew has the parable of weeds, what does this do the Universal Salvation theory? It ends: Gospels:

Mat 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' " ​

In the end is as you said a decision on who to believe; Paul’s Epistles or the Gospels.

 

[AK4]

Oh, that's right. Because the world is inherently "evil," and "of the flesh." Therefore, education is also "evil" and "of the flesh." Never mind that it's the teaching of the Church, which is the Body of Christ -- who, by the way, was also fully human...

Now that was a silly statement. Me thinks you should relearneth you those them there things or teachings of the "church", which this church you associate with is not the body of christ. Your church does have a king in it alright notice and who it is...

Re 2:13 -I know where you live--where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city--where Satan lives.
Notice satans throne is in the church and Jesus is in the midsts

Re 2:1 - Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks (which are the churches);
And since Jesus is in the midsts what does He say "Come out of her my people".

And yes He was fully human just as He was fully dead when He died. Do you believe that?

This is the most absurd case of eisegesis I've seen in a while.

Good. Thanks for the compliment. Even though i dont eisegesis the scriptures.

In this eisegetical format, yes. In a proper exegetical format, no.

Figures

Because we know that a Biblical proof also depends upon reason, tradition and experience.

Really? Is that what the Word says? I believe it says just the opposite.

You don't like your fellow members-in-Christ much, do you!

Actually i love my fellow members in Christ--like minded individuals who has come and still coming out of babylon. There are not many of us i think, but then again i dont keep numbers nor worry about it.

And for those still in babylon i actually grieve for you guys because i know the deception and how strong it is and how hard it is to unlearn all the lies taught by the churches and man. I yearn for the day when everyone "will come to the knowledge of the truth"

 

[emiliano]

AK4,
I thought that we agreed that Jesus saves those that God draws to Him, whoever He has mercy on, now we get “So anyone, everyone, who is lost, a human, or a sinner, Jesus must save” ?

Rom 9:22
[What] if God, wanting to show [His] wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
​

and the scripture cannot be broken, Scripture says that

Tts 3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
1Pe 1:3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
​

I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Rom 9:15
For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."
​

So is not your condition as sinner that moves God to Mercy God demands repentance so is not your sins but your repentance that moves God to mercy.
I notice in Paul’s Epistles He make clear difference of what is God’s words and what are I Paul statements.

 

[AK4]

Right on again, the Church has the helper:

Jhn 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.​

The role of the Church is to preach all the thing that the Lord taught and the Holy Spirit is with the Church to remind then of what the Lord said. Was Paul present when the Lord breathed the Holy Spirit on the Church? Was he at Pentecost?

Jhn 20:19
Then, the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, [fn] for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace [be] with you." ​

The Gospel of Mathew has the parable of weeds, what does this do the Universal Salvation theory? It ends: Gospels:

Mat 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' " ​

In the end is as you said a decision on who to believe; Paul’s Epistles or the Gospels.

Why decide on just them? Here lets throw in Genesis....

Ge 12:3 - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Ge 26:4 - And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
I guess these "all" are saying only "as many as" too?

 

[sojourner]

The role of the Church is to preach all the thing that the Lord taught and the Holy Spirit is with the Church to remind then of what the Lord said. Was Paul present when the Lord breathed the Holy Spirit on the Church? Was he at Pentecost?

Were you? No. Were the gospel writers? No. Were any who compiled the Bible? No. Were the OT writers? No. What's your point? That only the "original Twelve" are "real Christians?"

The Gospel of Mathew has the parable of weeds, what does this do the Universal Salvation theory? It ends: Gospels:

Mat 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' " ​

In the end is as you said a decision on who to believe; Paul’s Epistles or the Gospels.

This conclusion can only be drawn if you haven't understood what Matthew is getting at by using the parable. It isn't a teaching on "Who gets in/who doesn't." It's a teaching on the nature of the Church.

Me thinks you should relearneth you those them there things or teachings of the "church", which this church you associate with is not the body of christ.

Methinks you should learneth how to write properly, so that we mayest understand thee.

which this church you associate with is not the body of christ.

Who died and made you jury and executioner over everyone you happen to disagree with?
That's a nice, loving and hospitable, Christian attitude you're displaying there.

He was fully human just as He was fully dead when He died. Do you believe that?

Of course.

Even though i dont eisegesis the scriptures.

And tigers don't have stripes, either.
(Folks, he's got some lovely land in Florida he'd love to sell you...)
There's a seeker born every minute.

Really? Is that what the Word says? I believe it says just the opposite.

What you "believe" isn't important to anyone but yourself. In fact, "the Word" doesn't say that. At all. Unless you twist some out-of-context passages to suit what you'd like to "believe." But then, that's standard practice for you...

Actually i love my fellow members in Christ--like minded individuals who has come and still coming out of babylon. There are not many of us i think, but then again i dont keep numbers nor worry about it.

Yes, it's easy to be a real Christian. You only have to concern yourself with the like-minded folk. Never mind that Master Jesus, in "the Word," never tells us to go out and include the different folkin the group that you consider "us like-minded individuals."

And for those still in babylon i actually grieve for you guys because i know the deception and how strong it is and how hard it is to unlearn all the lies taught by the churches and man. I yearn for the day when everyone "will come to the knowledge of the truth"

Methinks thou hast a log to dig out of thine own eye...

 

[AK4]

Methinks you should learneth how to write properly, so that we mayest understand thee.

Now why wloud i do sthimoneg lkie taht? Taht is not porepr

Who died and made you jury and executioner over everyone you happen to disagree with?
That's a nice, loving and hospitable, Christian attitude you're displaying there.

From what you post on here and compare it to the Word of God, then there you have your judge and jury.

I guess when Jesus was speaking all soft and cuddly when He was upbraiding the pharisee huh?

Of course.

:clap

And tigers don't have stripes, either.
(Folks, he's got some lovely land in Florida he'd love to sell you...)
There's a seeker born every minute.

Isa 28:13 - But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Yet you still refuse to believe this scripture to stick with your god of context and eisegesis. You probably think the bible is literal too.

What you "believe" isn't important to anyone but yourself. In fact, "the Word" doesn't say that. At all. Unless you twist some out-of-context passages to suit what you'd like to "believe." But then, that's standard practice for you...

1Co 3:19 - For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness
Mr 7:13 - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

just to name a few.

Yes, it's easy to be a real Christian. You only have to concern yourself with the like-minded folk. Never mind that Master Jesus, in "the Word," never tells us to go out and include the different folkin the group that you consider "us like-minded individuals."

NO youre dead wrong. To be a real christain (one who ACTUALLY BELIEVES the Word of God) it is the hardest thing you would ever do. the "church" teaches a complete watered down of what it takes to be a follower of Christ. Now in comes your eisegesis. Take one verse and make a doctrine out of it. Thats what you guys do. To make it worse you guys end up making it or that doctrine false because of that. Knocking it out of the CONTEXT of the whole Word of God. Ignoring the Isaiah 28:13
precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;

"all you gotta do is believe and thats it". "all you gotta do is accept Christ as your personal Saviour and your saved". Thats nonsense!!! Yet i bet you preach this nonsense to your congregation and they dont know what the scriptures really teach.

And actually i am willing to talk with anyone who wants to talk rather like minded or not.

Methinks thou hast a log to dig out of thine own eye..

No doubt i do. I aint perfect. Neither do i judge because i know that if it wasnt for grace of God, i would be you. (i no that sounds harsh but i am not meaning it that way)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My God what a depressing thread.

I keep looking for ways that I can contribute, but it's hopeless.

 

[AK4]

My God what a depressing thread.

I keep looking for ways that I can contribute, but it's hopeless.

Whats so depressing? I would like to see your insights.

 

[AK4]

To sojourner

About your theory of prooftexting and that what you say i and others maybe do is wrong.

Notice here what Peter did very early in the book of Acts 1:20

“For it is written in the book of Psalms let his habitation be desolate and let no man dwell therein and his bishopry let another one have.” Now that sounds like it might be a quote from one of the Psalms, right? No. He took two Psalms, part of this one and part of that one, and put them together. It says, “let his habitation..” It doesn’t say “his” habitation when you go back to read it, it says “their” habitation. He takes part of a verse here and part of a verse there, changes the words, and says, “this is what God says we should do.”

Yet you and theology say its prooftexting or you are taking something out of context. Notice what Peter did and it looks a bit over the top. Peter takes a scripture from here and there, part of one, part of another, CHANGES THE WORDS and says, “What God is telling us here is that we have got to find a replacement for Judas.” You don’t have to be too much of a theologian to look at that and try to find that in the book of Psalms, and you have to go to two Psalms, and then you find he changed the words…HOW DID HE GET AWAY WITH THAT??

Is that scriptural or is that heresy, what Peter did there? Jesus Christ, before He left, He opened up the scriptures to Peter. Yet you call it prooftexting or whatever and someone like me who may know a spiritual precept/truth and do this, we are wrong.

So now i guess you and your church/theological cemetaries know more than what Peter knew?

 

[sojourner]

Now why wloud i do sthimoneg lkie taht? Taht is not porepr

eYe mei frooble ewe fr thet!

From what you post on here and compare it to the Word of God, then there you have your judge and jury.

Only as you care to understand "the Word."

I guess when Jesus was speaking all soft and cuddly when He was upbraiding the pharisee huh?

First of all, you're not Jesus.
Second, I'm not a Phaeisee.
Third, I haven't done anything to deserve an upbraiding, least of all from a person with no quthority over the internet.

Isa 28:13 - But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Yet you still refuse to believe this scripture to stick with your god of context and eisegesis. You probably think the bible is literal too.

I've already commented on this passage. Your use of it only proves my point, commented on in the posting to which you refer here.
Why on earth would I read the Bible literalistically? That's not how it was written. But you seem to have no problem interpreting it that way...

1Co 3:19 - For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness
Mr 7:13 - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

just to name a few.

Neither of which are germain to the circumstances we have outlined here.
But a wonderful example of eisegesis! Thanks!

Now in comes your eisegesis. Take one verse and make a doctrine out of it. Thats what you guys do. To make it worse you guys end up making it or that doctrine false because of that. Knocking it out of the CONTEXT of the whole Word of God. Ignoring the Isaiah 28:13
precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;

Oh, really? But you just said:

Yet you still refuse to believe this scripture to stick with your god of context and eisegesis.

Whick is it? do you place things in context, or do you believe that context is invalid? You've stated both here Which is it? Hint: You take passages out of context and quote them with an incorrect interpretation.

To be a real christain (one who ACTUALLY BELIEVES the Word of God) it is the hardest thing you would ever do. the "church" teaches a complete watered down of what it takes to be a follower of Christ.

All Christians believe the Word of God. Most Christians don't read the Bible literalistically.

"all you gotta do is believe and thats it". "all you gotta do is accept Christ as your personal Saviour and your saved". Thats nonsense!!! Yet i bet you preach this nonsense to your congregation and they dont know what the scriptures really teach.

Get ready to lose to the house again. You would have bet wrong. I've never taught that to my congo, because I don't think it's true.

Neither do i judge

Oh? What about this quote of yours:

which this church you associate with is not the body of christ.

and this:

Take one verse and make a doctrine out of it. Thats what you guys do. To make it worse you guys end up making it or that doctrine false because of that. Knocking it out of the CONTEXT of the whole Word of God.

Sounds pretty judgmental to me.

BTW, let's straighten out this little bugaboo while we're at it.
I have noticed a lot of eisegesis going on in your posts. You claim you don't do that.
Then, turn around and accuse me of doing the same, when I've been the one screaming "Context!"
Do you even know what the term "eisegesis" means?

 

[sojourner]

To sojourner

About your theory of prooftexting and that what you say i and others maybe do is wrong.

Notice here what Peter did very early in the book of Acts 1:20

“For it is written in the book of Psalms let his habitation be desolate and let no man dwell therein and his bishopry let another one have.” Now that sounds like it might be a quote from one of the Psalms, right? No. He took two Psalms, part of this one and part of that one, and put them together. It says, “let his habitation..” It doesn’t say “his” habitation when you go back to read it, it says “their” habitation. He takes part of a verse here and part of a verse there, changes the words, and says, “this is what God says we should do.”

Yet you and theology say its prooftexting or you are taking something out of context. Notice what Peter did and it looks a bit over the top. Peter takes a scripture from here and there, part of one, part of another, CHANGES THE WORDS and says, “What God is telling us here is that we have got to find a replacement for Judas.” You don’t have to be too much of a theologian to look at that and try to find that in the book of Psalms, and you have to go to two Psalms, and then you find he changed the words…HOW DID HE GET AWAY WITH THAT??

Is that scriptural or is that heresy, what Peter did there? Jesus Christ, before He left, He opened up the scriptures to Peter. Take one verse and make a doctrine out of it. Thats what you guys do. To make it worse you guys end up making it or that doctrine false because of that. Knocking it out of the CONTEXT of the whole Word of God.

Do you not understand "oral transmission/oral culture?" These people didn't care much about exact wording when quoting. They concerned themselves more with context and "gist."

First of all, Luke wrote Acts. We're pretty sure Luke wasn't a Jew, so it's likely that he got some of the words wrong. Since Luke is working in a largely oral culture, specifics wouldn't have concerned him much, at any rate. "changing words" is common for these folks.

Second, it's not theology that that concerns itself with proof-texting, it's exegesis. You don't have to be too much of an exegete to figure out what Luke is doing here, but none of it involves eisegesis. He got away with it, because he was writing about someone preaching. The book of Acts isn't exegetical in nature. It's a story with a theological basis.

Take one verse and make a doctrine out of it. Thats what you guys do. To make it worse you guys end up making it or that doctrine false because of that. Knocking it out of the CONTEXT of the whole Word of God.

Here's the problem, though: Nothing you've said here presents any kind of sound literary, theological or exegetical understanding of the texts. Maybe if you didn't engage in the eisegesis or the proof-texting, you might get somewhere.
We don't form doctrine through proof-texting. Doctrine is always formed out of context. I rather suspect that you are misunderstanding what "context" means here.

 

[sojourner]

So now i guess you and your church/theological cemetaries know more than what Peter knew?

That's not the issue here. But, I suspect that we are better equipped to read, write, and exegete scripture than Peter was, since Peter was likely illiterate.

 

[AK4]

eYe mei frooble ewe fr thet!

Only as you care to understand "the Word."

First of all, you're not Jesus.

No, but we are suppose to be like Him.

Second, I'm not a Phaeisee.

I didnt call you that either.

Third, I haven't done anything to deserve an upbraiding, least of all from a person with no quthority over the internet.

I wasnt upbraiding. I was "[1] preach with sound doctrine and [2] refute those who contradict it" [Titus 1:9 - NRSV] Actually i am not preaching to you at all.

I've already commented on this passage. Your use of it only proves my point, commented on in the posting to which you refer here.
Why on earth would I read the Bible literalistically? That's not how it was written. But you seem to have no problem interpreting it that way...

Please show me where i have done this. In some very few places It can be taken literally though.
Neither of which are germain to the circumstances we have outlined here.
But a wonderful example of eisegesis! Thanks!

Oh brother
Oh, really? But you just said:

Whick is it? do you place things in context, or do you believe that context is invalid? You've stated both here Which is it? Hint: You take passages out of context and quote them with an incorrect interpretation.

There is the context of the whole Word of God. And everything has to match spiritually. You wouldnt understand that. And yes sometimes you do have to use context of a passage for interpretation. BUT the interpretation have to match the context of the whole Word of God. I think this might be a little over your head.

All Christians believe the Word of God. Most Christians don't read the Bible literalistically.

The devils believe it too, but do they obey? Really? And thats why most believe that the Lake of Fire is a literal fire

Get ready to lose to the house again. You would have bet wrong. I've never taught that to my congo, because I don't think it's true.

If this is true i stand corrected and apologise for the assumption.
Oh? What about this quote of yours:

and this:

Sounds pretty judgmental to me.

BTW, let's straighten out this little bugaboo while we're at it.
I have noticed a lot of eisegesis going on in your posts. You claim you don't do that.
Then, turn around and accuse me of doing the same, when I've been the one screaming "Context!"
Do you even know what the term "eisegesis" means?

Gee uhm you got me. But there is this dictionary where i look words that i normally dont use because i dont really care for them.

eis⋅e⋅ge⋅sis –noun, plural -ses an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

See heres the difference. You "eisegesis" within one book like lets say Matthew. I "eisegesis" the one book too---the whole bible. Do you see the difference? This is how that precept upon precept verse and comparing spiritual with spiritual verse work. Heck lets add in that verse saying no scripture is of its own private interpretation. Am i eisegesis-ing again? When you learn that the whole bible is one big giant parable itself then you will know what i am talking about.


Actually when anyone disagrees with something youve posted you do exactly what i just stated in the paragraph above. You say they are wrong because "in the context of Matthew....." or "this is not what Matthew may been trying to portray...." So do see now how i see you "eisegesis-ing"

:no:

 

[free spirit]

Only thing is that the catholics believe you are alive in purgatory i guess. No the scriptures teach that when you are dead, you are dead. Dead until resurrection and nothing else.

Ec 9:10 - Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Well it is only speculations, the parable that Jesus told in Luke 16: 19 to 31 might shed some light on the subject, but then was Jesus speaking in reality or was he speaking as a metaphor.




Yes,

So, if the sins and the blessings of the fathers are visited on the children, that is our spiritual DNA, in other words God does not decide our spiritual destiny, the behavior of our forefather's do, but of cause we can reject the bad things that come knocking on our door, so we still have our free will, God on the other hand has the luxury to know how we will turn out before we are born, so he can make his choice known before we are born. Also in ACTS 13: 22, there is a good example of this spiritual DNA, for we read in part, "I have found IN David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who will do all my will." The key words here are "I have found" and not I have put there. In other words AK4 your theory is busted.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

words that i normally dont use because i dont really care for them.

You don't care to increase your vocabulary?
Willful ignorance at it's finest.

GhK.

 

[emiliano]

Why decide on just them? Here lets throw in Genesis....

Ge 12:3 - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Ge 26:4 - And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
I guess these "all" are saying only "as many as" too?

That is another thing that we all agree on “God has Mercy on who He wants” which contradict your doctrine that all will be saved you even said that Jesus must save all, that is like the genie in the lamp theory. You asked I guess these "all" are saying only "as many as" too?” I don’t know if you realized that if those that curse the Jews are cursed then not all are blessed. You do know that there are and there have been many that do exactly that don’t you?

Exd 33:19
And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. ​

 

[sojourner]

I was "[1] preach with sound doctrine and [2] refute those who contradict it"

No, you weren't. Your doctrine is not sound. I canot dispute good doctrine, if it is not present to dispute.

There is the context of the whole Word of God.

there is, but not in the way you're using it. the whole context involves large matters of spiritual importance, involving humanity in history. And it works with whole texts, compared to and contrasting with other whole texts, not with snippets here and there, that deal with very specific circumstatnces within Christianity.

And everything has to match spiritually.

Not necessarily. Wanting them to do that, and manipulating them so that they do is called "eisegesis."

You wouldnt understand that.

Yes. Yes, I do.

sometimes you do have to use context of a passage for interpretation.

Almost right. All the time you have to interpret in context. All the time.

BUT the interpretation have to match the context of the whole Word of God.

In terms of grand, overarching themes, yes. In terms of specific ideas, no.

I think this might be a little over your head.

LOL. ROFL. You're not in any position to make such a judgment. Least of all scholastically.

thats why most believe that the Lake of Fire is a literal fire

Maybe most you know. But I really hesitate to say that's true of most Christians worldwide.

See heres the difference. You "eisegesis" within one book like lets say Matthew. I "eisegesis" the one book too---the whole bible. Do you see the difference?

Yes, I see the difference. The difference is that I exegete texts within their specific context. In other words, I "read out of the text" what it says. you, on the other hand, "read into the text" what you want it to say.

This is how that precept upon precept verse and comparing spiritual with spiritual verse work. Heck lets add in that verse saying no scripture is of its own private interpretation. Am i eisegesis-ing again?

In this particular application of the text, yes.

This is how that precept upon precept verse and comparing spiritual with spiritual verse work. Heck lets add in that verse saying no scripture is of its own private interpretation. Am i eisegesis-ing again?

I don't think you understand that "parable" is a technical, literary term. But yes, I do understand that the Bible is one big epic. However, that being said, the epic breaks down into many sagas and stories, each of which must stand on its own merits, if it is to be understood as its own story, and how it fits together with all the other stories, so that the epic makes sense.

Actually when anyone disagrees with something youve posted you do exactly what i just stated in the paragraph above. You say they are wrong because "in the context of Matthew....." or "this is not what Matthew may been trying to portray...." So do see now how i see you "eisegesis-ing"

No, this is exegesis.

 

[Ghostaka]

One question bros,

Where did the New Testament come from?

Peace be upon you.