Re: Questions for Assholewithquestions?

On May 3, 12:11 am, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 2, 1:37 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 1, 1:08 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"

<alwaysaskingquesti...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1177956682.977227.43440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[...]

There are plenty of metaphors in the Bible relaying facts of reality.

I agree totally.

Now please tell us who decides which passages are meant to be taken
literally and which passages are to be taken as metaphors.

Persons who are called by God to explain His word like the Prophet,
Pastor, Priest or Preacher?

That moves the problem back, at most, one step: who decides who is
really called by God to explain His word, as opposed to those being
called by their own pride, or their own greed, or perhaps their own
delusions?





Also, question presupposes that metaphors and allegories are not
offered intending to evidence facts of reality.

When Jesus said it is better to pluck your eye out rather than go to
hell with the ability to see, what did He mean?

Answer: He meant that if your eye is ***really*** the cause of your
sin then get rid of it since it is better to go to heaven with one eye
than go to hell with both eyes. ***BUT*** He was HOPING that
intelligent persons would see that plucking out one's eye was NOT an
option per se, Jesus was hoping that contrasted next to plucking out
one's eye (in order to prevent from going to hell) that said person or
persons would choose the only other option: have faith in Him, which
is the Gospel (means "good news"). The good news is that God will
accept faith alone (in place of works; plucking out one's eye) to walk
with Him and receive help and deliverance from the root cause
(inherited Adamic nature) that is causing the eye to sin in the first
place.

When I started that paragraph, I assumed that you had confused
"metaphor" (a figure of speech in which one thing stands for a
completely different thing) with "synecdoche" (a figure of speech in
which a part or aspect stands for the whole) or "hyperbole" (a figure
of speech in which a fact is exaggerated). Jesus' point, surely, was
that one ought to rid one's life of anything that tempts or causes one
to sin. There is no indication whatsoever in the passage that Jesus
is offering a choice between "faith" and "works," or that he sees any
contrast between the two. For that matter, Paul distinguished between
"faith" and "works" principally in regard to religious ritual: "works"
were things like circumcision and Sabbath observance, whose connection
with moral behavior was arbitrary and unnecessary. I think the
contrast between the views of Paul and James on faith and works has
been exaggerated both by skeptics and by "Paulinists" like Gene Scott.


Poor Ray. Has no clue what works or faith are. Jesus in many places
makes it clear that we are judged by our actions. Paul is in complete
accord with this. Of course Ray has no regard for holiness. From what
I can tell, Ray only claims to be a "Paulinist", but is really an
"Antinomian".


The answer is: IN CONTEXT: pluck out your eye (and discover that it
will not solve your problem) OR act upon the Gospel (= way of faith)
and receive grace and power from God to change the sinning nature.

You seem to define "in context" as "with whatever forcible
reinterpretation is necessary to get the Bible to agree with Dr. and
Pastor Scott." That is not, I think, the standard meaning of the
phrase.



Ray

-- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.