Could God reincarnate humans if he wanted to?

[One Bad Pig]

Doubling down on your trolling is duly noted.

[One Bad Pig]

So are you advocating only partial inspiration in some way?

No.

[Charles]

I missed this:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5, 20

Context, Chuck, look at the context. Maybe if we repeat that 50 more times then it'll finally penetrate your cast-iron skull.

First, here's the surrounding text:


Prior to Jesus' death and resurrection, the Old Covenant was still in effect, and under the Old Covenant, righteousness was based on one's ability to uphold the Law of Moses. That's what Jesus is talking about here. We, however, are living under the post-resurrection New Covenant -- this was the fulfillment of the law that Jesus mentions -- where righteousness is by grace through faith. Jesus is also taking a fairly obvious satirical jab at the scribes and Pharisees who were frequently portrayed as hypocrites throughout the gospels starting with John the Baptist's verbal beat-down in Matthew 3, so contrary to how you understood this passage, Jesus is, in fact, setting the bar humorously low.

Yep, you always refer to context assuming I am unaware of it which of course I am not. What we saw yesterday was a rather obvious example of you confusing the context and thus your talk about context lead to a contradiction of the text we discussed. And I note that once again we see no detailed description as to what the context means for the exact wording.

I also note that you tend to assume that only you know the context in which these words were said. You posted a Bible verse and I posted one. Somehow in your world only the one I quoted was "out of context". Interesting approach.

However I am not completely sure you understood the quote the way I do. You say: "[...]so contrary to how you understood this passage, Jesus is, in fact, setting the bar humorously low." I certainly don't think he is setting the bar low. It is correct that the scribes and Pharisees are often portrayed as hypocrites. However, among quite many other reasons, one reason is that they do a lot to appear just. In doing so they are actually behaving quite well in an outward manner. You would want one of them as your neighbour. The point is that none of this works. Pointing to this is not setting the bar low. It is setting the bar at a level human beings cannot reach by themselves. And that is the point with the quote which is why it was a relevant text to point to in the context because it seemed like you had forgotten this context.

[37818]

Not believing in literal dictation constitutes "partial inspiration"?

Actually denial of dictation (note Matthew 4:4) is effectively a denial of inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16). Dictation meaning to write what another has uttered. So either God spoke what is in the writings or He did not.

I don't see how one who holds to dictation would account for 1 Corinthians 7:12.

Paul prefaces that he got permission (v.6). What Paul wrote is just as much the word of God that he gave his opinion as God attributed the words of the Serpent (Genesis 3:1) or the words of Pontus Pilate (John 18:38).

[Doug Shaver]

So either God spoke what is in the writings or He did not.

Sure, it was one or the other.

You, obviously, believe he did, but why should I believe he did?

[Charles]

I'm not sure I can answer this any better than Sparko already has, so I'll steal from him: "The context of the whole section is about FALSEHOOD. LYING and pretending to be who they are not."

I can't answer better, but I will expand on it: Jesus explicitly refers to hypocrites and false prophets -- that is people who falsely invoke the Lord's name. And if someone is falsely invoking Jesus' name in this life then what makes you think they would suddenly utter it with sincerity in the next?

MM, this is rather simple. I pointed out you had missed part of the context. You had missed what the context was. You missed the distinction between false prophets and false disciples. How your response is to basically just insist it does not exist instead of showing it. Sparko wrote:"The context of the whole section is about FALSEHOOD. LYING and pretending to be who they are not." You both missed the part about persons who thought they did the right thing. Your description of what the context is is simply wrong or at least it is too limited to describe the entire context. It seems you think "context" is some magical words that make all the interesting details and the exact wording go away.

"Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?" In other words, "But, Lord, look at everything I did for you!" Who is expected to receive the honor in this statement? For an example of this in action, look at Acts 19 where a priest and his sons tried to bring honor to themselves by invoking Jesus' name to cast out a demon, and the demon responded, "Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?" -- which interestingly is very similar to the response that Jesus gives in Matthew 7:23: "I never knew you." -- and then the demon proceeded to beat the priest and his sons within an inch of their lives.

And this compares to "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?" There is no mentioning of these persons being beaten within inches of their lives. You are assuming the two situations compare. I fail to see how.

"Also notable is that Jesus refers to them as "evildoers" which suggests active participation in evil works -- "You will recognize them by their fruits" -- meaning these aren't people who were sincere and well-intentioned in their desire to follow Jesus' teachings yet somehow mistaken.

I like how once again you refer to the part about false prophets presupposing it is also about false disciples. You are not showing it, you just use the phrase as if it belongs in that context. We can all do that to create whatever context we want but if you cannot show it by actually pointing to the wording you are not even close. I am going, once again, to ask you to actually confront this:

What characterizes these people? They are calling the Lord their Lord. It simply makes no sense and it seems contrary to the Bible to claim these people don't believe. They are doing prophecies and insist it must be in the name of the Lord. They drive out demons and do so in the name of the Lord (or at least they think so). They even perform miracles and do so in the name of the Lord (or at least they think so). The most likely interpretation seems to be the one that these people believe they are actually doing the right thing. How else would you interpret their frustration of being refused? Why would they call the Lord the Lord and so on?

You need to actually read the sentences and what they say. Context is made up of sentences and verses and these need interpreation. You are completely failing on this part.

And whether they are false prophets or false disciples doesn't make a lick of difference as far as this passage is concerned -- and if you want to be literalist about it, where does it say "false disciples" anyway? Go ahead and try defending that one with something better than "But- but the NIV says...!"

The fact that the NIV says so is not unimportant and your fake and stuttering quote does nothing to take that significance away. And I already pointed to why it is rather obvious that this distinctins exists. Look at the box in which I quote myself above and see that that they clearly show that we are talking about other people than the false propets. Once you realise you have not answered my questions above you will realise you have not done so because they clearly point to a distinction you don't want to admit.

Jesus goes on to say that he is not talking about "the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Those people are explicitly excluded from his condemnation, so no matter how you twist it and turn it, this idea that people will stand before God and be genuinely shocked to discover that they're really not saved is not supported by this passage, or anywhere else in scripture.

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Read the sentence, please. And remember:

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ Matthew 25

You arrogantly claim to be getting close to the text, but you're not. You're just pulling the same stunt as the brainless wonders at Skeptics Annotated Bible and treating each verse as if it stands on its own while ignoring the larger context. And as proof of this, there's this howler in your reply to Sparko:

MM, sorry but personal attacks wont help you. You need to actually show that I am not getting close to the text. That is how a real debate works. The fact that you have not answer my questions based on a close reading of the text suggests that your personal attacks are intended to cover up the fact that you cannot answer. You are also - once again - referring to context without a proper understanding of how context is itself constituted by the content of the particular sentences and verses.

As if "what the text actually says" doesn't include the context in which it was said.

"Stupid atheist" tricks indeed.

It rather seems you think the context is not made up of the parts of the text. You would rather use it to ignore the content of particular parts of the text. Ad hominems wont cover up this rather obvious fact and calling it atheism is rather ironic when it is rahter obvious that you - once again - are arguing against the content of Bible verses.

[Mountain Man]

I am not completely sure you understood the quote the way I do.

I'm certain of it.

It is correct that the scribes and Pharisees are often portrayed as hypocrites. However, among quite many other reasons, one reason is that they do a lot to appear just. In doing so they are actually behaving quite well in an outward manner.

[Charles]

You seem to be caught on the phrase "doing God's will" in the quoted verses, correct?
That those he says "only those who do God's will" will be saved?' -- Some sort of work God wants us to perform for him?

What do you suppose that might be? What do we need to do to be saved and do the work God wants us to do?*

*Hint there is a passage that directly addresses this topic. See if you can find it. That is why context matters, and having a knowledge of more than one verse at a time.

Sparko, you are asking a question for which there is no simple anwer, and I need to tell you that after you state: "That is why context matters, and having a knowledge of more than one verse at a time." What I have shown quite clearly is that both you and MM have failed to see basic distinctions and that you are missing parts of the context thus not seeing things in context since you ignore important pieces of the text that actually create the context.

I am not the one who claims ther is a one-size-fits-all interpretation of all parts in the Bible or that there is an overall context in which every verse has a particular meaning making sure there are no contradictions. So I can point to different verses seemingly making different statements about what doing God's will is. Here is one. I have already quoted at least one other in texts that you and MM are yet to answer:

21Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. 1 John 3

So it is not a simple one thing to do. And you can find other verses pointing to different perspectives some which seem contradictory.

[Charles]

You forgot to quote me on this part:

However I am not completely sure you understood the quote the way I do. You say: "[...]so contrary to how you understood this passage, Jesus is, in fact, setting the bar humorously low." I certainly don't think he is setting the bar low. It is correct that the scribes and Pharisees are often portrayed as hypocrites. However, among quite many other reasons, one reason is that they do a lot to appear just. In doing so they are actually behaving quite well in an outward manner. You would want one of them as your neighbour. The point is that none of this works. Pointing to this is not setting the bar low. It is setting the bar at a level human beings cannot reach by themselves. And that is the point with the quote which is why it was a relevant text to point to in the context because it seemed like you had forgotten this context.

It seems you are trying to avoid your own point about setting the bar low. Where is he setting the bar low? He is setting the bar out of reach of human action. That is not setting it low but setting it high.

[One Bad Pig]

Actually denial of dictation (note Matthew 4:4) is effectively a denial of inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16).

Why is God's Greek worse in Mark than in Luke? Why did God tell Matthew, Mark, and Luke to describe the same event in different ways? If God dictated everything, 4 gospels would be triply redundant.

[Mountain Man]

Debating Chuck reminds me of this clip from the Laurel and Hardy short Our Wife:

https://youtu.be/P_vxfZWA8R8?t=3m59s

[Charles]

Debating Chuck reminds me of this clip from the Laurel and Hardy short Our Wife:

https://youtu.be/P_vxfZWA8R8?t=3m59s

Debating MM often ends with him posting pictures or - as in this case - videos. If this is what he can come up with I think it is fair to say he did not have anything of importance or subsance to confront my points.

[Mountain Man]

It seems you are trying to avoid your own point about setting the bar low.

I'm not avoiding anything. I said that Jesus was setting the bar humorously low; it's known as "sarcasm", you dimwit.

You also missed my point that this passage is talking to those living under the Old Covenant, which kicks your ignorant point to the curb that this passage has implications for Christians.

[One Bad Pig]

Debating MM often ends with him posting pictures or - as in this case - videos. If this is what he can come up with I think it is fair to say he did not have anything of importance or subsance to confront my points.

You're making an argument based on the headings inserted by a particular set of translators. I must admit, I've never seen anyone do that before. It's not an approach likely to be taken seriously.

[One Bad Pig]

You also missed my point that this passage is talking to those living under the Old Covenant, which kicks your ignorant point to the curb that this passage has implications for Christians.

The passage should at least be cause for introspection among Christians. One can ostensibly follow God for the wrong reasons, like Simon Magus.