Doctrinal Clarity or vagueness?

[ScottA]

In deference to dualism, it is both.

As Freud once said; "sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." And Ps 22 was not taken out of context by Jesus. The Psalms don't have context.

You can say that Psalm 22 is not "of" David...but that does not make it so.

It was first of David (in his context therefore) and then of Christ (in His context also). The point being, context does not necessary apply to prophecy as to other things by which the word is otherwise defined.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

If someone says, there’s nothing more to see here, move on, I look harder.

 

[Wrangler]

You can say that Psalm 22 is not "of" David...but that does not make it true.

It was first of David (in his context therefore) and then of Christ (in His context also).

You just make stuff up as you go. I never said anything about the relationship between Psalms and David.

Are you aware of the fact that not everything has context?

 

[ScottA]

You just make stuff up as you go. I never said anything about the relationship between Psalms and David.

Are you aware of the fact that not everything has context?

That just shows you're not paying attention. I did.

 

[Wrangler]

If someone says, there’s nothing more to see here, move on, I look harder.

Good on you!


I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
Isaac Newton

 

[Wrangler]

That just shows you're not paying attention. I did.

Don't try to tell me what I said or what I meant. And how from that exchange you conclude moral superiority is just another thing you make up.

Imposing a meaning or context that is not there is just as bad as any other form of poor reading comprehension.

Also, I noticed you did not answer my question and you ignored my point. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Are you aware of the fact that not everything has context?

Lol…
Blurbleblurble. That has no context.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Concerning doctrinal vagueness, which was why the op even brought up that parable in the first place, to say, if the 5 foolish had been given all the information they needed to make the wisest choice, of course they would have bought more oil, or at least they wold have been given the chance to, I see great doctrinal vagueness on outer darkness and lake of fire being the same thing.

I do understand that men say, oh, must be the same place since men are real upset about going to both places, but I’m real upset at having to go to both the dentist AND the Department of Motor Vehicles. Doesn’t make them the same place.
fire - darkness, doesn’t make sense those are the same place.

 

[Mr E]

Concerning doctrinal vagueness, which was why the op even brought up that parable in the first place, to say, if the 5 foolish had been given all the information they needed to make the wisest choice, of course they would have bought more oil, or at least they wold have been given the chance to, I see great doctrinal vagueness on outer darkness and lake of fire being the same thing.

I do understand that men say, oh, must be the same place since men are real upset about going to both places, but I’m real upset at having to go to both the dentist AND the Department of Motor Vehicles. Doesn’t make them the same place.
fire - darkness, doesn’t make sense those are the same place.

Apart from Episkopus-- where do you get the idea that the two groups of five, had different sets of information?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

And there is a vagueness in saying men are tormented forever in a fire but then also saying there IS no eternal life unless you are given the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wrangler]

Imagine writing a book. Then organizing it, not beginning to end but in descending length of each chapter. Contextless. Chronological Order of the Qur'an - WikiIslam

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Apart from Episkopus-- where do you get the idea that the two groups of five, had different sets of information?

Oh boy, it would be best for him to answer you. You would need to have an actual conversation with him.
It involves there being no distinction currently being made between the righteousness/right doing a man is capable of and holiness. And it involves being able to spot if a verse is talking about righteousness a man can do, righteousness that comes through trust, or holiness.

I listened to what he had to say, then I kept looking at the scriptures to see if it could be true, because it really was unlike anything I’d yet heard, and then I began seeing what he said EVERYWHERE, not just in the verses he used to explain it, but in many, many more besides.

And when I could finally see it without as much confused murkiness, scripture was way less puzzling to me. Honestly, a big part of my confusion came from a few bad doctrines that I accepted because everyone else seemed to think they were right.

 

[Wrangler]

And there is a vagueness in saying men are tormented forever in a fire but then also saying there IS no eternal life unless you are given the Holy Spirit.

Contradictions are not ambiguities.

In this case, perhaps there is a qualifier missing from 'men are tormented forever in a fire.' In fact, some say that is a translation error in the first place.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Contradictions are not ambiguities.

In this case, perhaps there is a qualifier missing from 'men are tormented forever in a fire.' In fact, some say that is a translation error in the first place.

That told me nothing.
Speak up.

 

[ScottA]

Don't try to tell me what I said or what I meant. And how from that exchange you conclude moral superiority is just another thing you make up.

Imposing a meaning or context that is not there is just as bad as any other form of poor reading comprehension.

Also, I noticed you did not answer my question and you ignored my point. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And yet mostly "The words that I speak to you are spirit" and not at all a matter of "reading comprehension."

You are out of context.

 

[Mr E]

Oh boy, it would be best for him to answer you. You would need to have an actual conversation with him.
It involves there being no distinction currently being made between the righteousness/right doing a man is capable of and holiness. And it involves being able to spot if a verse is talking about righteousness a man can do, righteousness that comes through trust, or holiness.

I listened to what he had to say, then I kept looking at the scriptures to see if it could be true, because it really was unlike anything I’d yet heard, and then I began seeing what he said EVERYWHERE, not just in the verses he used to explain it, but in many, many more besides.

And when I could finally see it without as much confused murkiness, scripture was way less puzzling to me. Honestly, a big part of my confusion came from a few bad doctrines that I accepted because everyone else seemed to think they were right.

In other words, only from him. His imaginings, became yours. You know, just like you became confused by a few bad doctrines from others, you will be confused by a few bad doctrines from him. If you keep looking at the scriptures to determine what is true, you are on the right track. Don't let any man steer you wrong. Use 'the light' of scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of Truth will be your guide.

Not any man.

You need to understand what the light is. The flame that comes from the oil that comes from the lampstand that comes from the olive tree.

These are heavenly (spiritual) things (concepts).

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Epi was here a moment ago and then left without saying anything. Either he’s busy or…do you think he’s waiting for us to come to something in particular until he speaks…?

I shared some doctrines I find vague and sort of like…because I said so, that’s why!
Anybody else find some are a bit vague anywhere?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

In other words, only from him. His imaginings, became yours.

Are you mad sir?? What part of “I kept looking at the scriptures to see if it could be true” did you not understand?

 

[Mr E]

Are you mad sir?? What part of “I kept looking at the scriptures to see if it could be true” did you not understand?

I was commending you for that approach. I asked you where you got the idea, apart from him. You had no answer to that other than to say I'd need to ask him.

 

[Nancy]

The born again......not the cult member who is water baptized and nothing more......but the born again, are "ONE with God". "made righteous", having become "the righteousness of God, in Christ".
So There is no judgment waiting for them..
There is a rewards situation, subsequent to death, that Jesus will provide to His redeemed (Bema Seat)...., that is based on "what you did in my body".
But that is not a JUDGEMENT, that is a reward.

Yes and Amen, there WILL be a rewards judgement but what of the scripture verses: "

"47 That servant who knows his master’s will but does not get ready or follow his instructions will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who unknowingly does things worthy of punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required;..."
Luke12:47,48

Not sure this plays in here as it's , well...vague!! Lol.
I've never understood this verse even well enough to know if this is speaking of different levels of Hell (which I don't find in scripture) or if this is speaking of Heaven/eternal life and some believers who actually WILL be punished yet still saved. A refining of sorts??
And no, not speaking of purgatory as most would know it.
things than make me go hmm.