B. W. wrote: As for knowledge of the idioms and cultural context of bible books, I question your knowledge of both, since your statements disagree with what is generally agreed to among authorities in this field. This seems to apply more toward you than me and this is not an insult either.
Fortigurn wrote: Would you like to provide evidence of this? To date, I have seen you appeal to 1 John 5:7 as a legitimate passage of Scripture, when the relevant authorities all insist it is not. To date, I have seen you interpret the Greek word PARADEISOS in a manner which demonstrates that you do not know that it means 'garden', and that you do not know the Old Testament context in which it was used. To date, I have seen you refer to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in order to justify contemporary Christian beliefs on the state of the dead, when in fact it is an alteration of the beliefs of 1st century Pharisees (not a representation of the beliefs of contemporary Christians).
Response: Division Fallacy - assuming that the, what is true of the whole is true for the parts. Example: Rich man and Lazarus is false because it is alteration of the beliefs of 1st century Pharisees (not a representation of the beliefs of contemporary Christians). Therefore: John 6:63, John 8:31-32, John 14:6-7, is false and you can no longer trust anything Jesus says.
Next the Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim: Example — only an alteration of the beliefs of 1st century Pharisees (not a representation of the beliefs of contemporary Christians). Only Christadelphains are contemporary Christians and maintain the truth. We on this forum cannot interpret bible any other way except by Fortigurn's rules that dismiss entire Church History as irrelevant except when it conveniently agrees with Fortigurn's rules. How many pages on this thread are devoted to this? Just about them all.
B. W. wrote:You do have a way that marginalizes what passages can and cannot apply and that alone shows many reading this forum what you are doing: Marginalizing Christian faith and the advancement of a preconceived intellectual superiority.
Fortigurn wrote: What 'preconceived intellectual superiority' is this? What you actually mean is that I disagree with what you believe.
Response: see your own comment above as example of the - Ad hominim technique - Attacking the individual instead of the argument. More examples: B. W., Byblos, Forge, Felgar, PL, Thinker, IRQ Conflict, Locker, Kurieuo and others you are so stupid your arguments can't possibly be true about the Trinity as I have proven all wrong by my superior intellect. From page one to current page of this thread.
B. W. wrote: You should reassess your positions on what belongs in and out of scriptures and what makes a parable. This is advise and not insult.
Fortigurn wrote: I'm interested in your comments in this area, especially your assessment of the relevant textual scholarship and why you consider it to be wrong.
Response: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 it is you whom are defying scriptures by simply saying this scripture does not apply here, and cannot mean what it says there because the best opinions of men say so as long as they agree with you.
B. W. wrote: For example, Parables of Jesus are based on truths - not cute stories that can be dismissed because they do not fit your doctrine.
Fortigurn wrote: I agree entirely. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, for example, contains a powerful truth about who will and who will not be saved at the judgment.
B. W. wrote: The Rich man and Lazarus story is prime example of this as well as Jesus telling one of the criminals he was crucified next to that this person would be in paradise today, with Jesus. That should que you in that the spirit and soul of man live on in another realm waiting for the resurrection of the body at a latter time.
Fortigurn wrote: Firstly, you're doing this backwards - you're starting with the New Testament before reading the Old Testament. Secondly, you're demonstrating no knowledge of the 1st century cultural context in which the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was told, and no knowledge of the meaning of the Greek word PARADEISOS and the manner in which it was used in the LXX (not to mention Revelation).
Response: Another Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim: example, based on assumption one does not know meanings to Greek words or usage — Paradeisos - compound with use of the Ad hominim technique - Attacking the individual's intelligence instead of the argument so as to discredit them and mock their future response…
B. W. wrote: Again, I am not insulting you - just pointing out that you cannot pick and choose what scriptures apply and not. They all do.
Fortigurn wrote: I agree.
Response: it is apparent that you do not.
B. W. wrote: Also, please never tell another person that they do not know what they are talking about. This is a sign of an immature 'only kid in the sandbox' rule.
Fortigurn wrote: When it happens to be true, it is not a sign of immaturity, it is a simple fact. People shouldn't try to discuss issues on which they are uninformed. .
Response: This is a good example of you 'Poisoning the well' - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument. Example: B. W., Byblos, Forge, Felgar, PL, Thinker, IRQ Conclict, Locker, Kurieuo and others on this forum shouldn't try to discuss issues on which they are uninformed but go ahead and speak as I like to hear what you all have to say on the subject of the Trinity anyways.
B. W. wrote: As for From the CEV: Ecclesiastes 3:11 "God makes everything happen at the right time. Yet none of us can ever fully understand all he has done, and he puts questions in our minds about the past and the future." Yes it is what I meant and its point is clear - never be wise in your own eyes and always be of a teachable spirit.
Fortigurn wrote: I agree. So why did you use this passage in a list of passages which were supposed to be showing that people don't cease to exist when they die? What did this passage have to do with the subject? Did you actually quote it because you were thinking of the KJV translation of this passage, which says that God has placed eternity in man's heart, a reading which is commonly used by evangelicals to support their claim that God has put an immortal soul in every one of us?
No Fortigurn — you do not get it:
Proverbs 12:23 “Wise people don't make a show of their knowledge, but fools broadcast their folly.” New Living Bible
Proverbs 3:7 “Don't be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the LORD and turn your back on evil.” New Living Bible
Proverbs 12: 5-8 “The plans of the godly are just; the advice of the wicked is treacherous. The words of the wicked are like a murderous ambush, but the words of the godly save lives, the wicked perish and are gone, but the children of the godly stand firm. Everyone admires a person with good sense, but a warped mind is despised.” New Living Bible
Proverbs 6:16-19 “There are six things the LORD hates--no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord among brothers.” New Living Bible
Ecclesiastes 3:11 “God has made everything beautiful for its own time. He has planted eternity in the human heart, but even so, people cannot see the whole scope of God's work from beginning to end.” New Living Bible
You choose a version that missed a word but according to your opinion, eternity is not an option implied; only your interpretations are valid and all others are false. This reveals much about who you really are and what you believe — a Pharisee of the Word.
However, question about eternity is moot as we all will face death someday. I face it with complete hope and extreme confidence as I know what lies beyond the grave is more than a mere hole in the ground.