Is hell enough as punishment?

[_Gunnar]

Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim.

Neither can the Bible--at least not honestly. See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you how poor a batting average Biblical prophecies actually have, and you have yet to make a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to that.

As noted, the Greek here is a bit slightly ambiguous and could go either way. Let's back up a bit, and see the whole quote:

On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” (John 7:37-38 ESV)

Consider that ancient Greek has no punctuation, and take this quote as a whole. Parsing it differently, you can see this rendered “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink, whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”

That is, "whoever" is referring to him who thirsts ("if anyone thirsts, let him come"), and the water is coming from Jesus ("let him come to me and drink"). Then the Scripture is not saying water will come from the believer but instead from Jesus. And, indeed this seems more plausible. Several passages teach similarly, but before looking at them more closely, it's necessary to take a step back further yet.

Verse 37 refers to a feast, but one has to go all the way back to verse 2 to see that this is referring to the Feast of Booths (a.k.a Feast of Tabernacles). Though this feast was instituted in Leviticus, it was more often than not honored in the breach. One instance when it was celebrated, however, was during the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah.

Beginning in Nehemiah 8:13 and continuing through Nehemiah 9, we see the Feast of Booths celebration taking place, and those present honored God by remembering what he had done for them. Several times in this prayer, the priests remembered God's provision for them from the rock that Moses struck to brought forth water (see Exodus 17:6):

You gave them bread from heaven for their hunger and brought water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and you told them to go in to possess the land that you had sworn to give them. (Nehemiah 9:15 ESV)

So then, flowing water has been connected to the Feast of Booths before; and this is not the last word that Scripture says about this rock from which water sprang either--in 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul explains it always was from Christ that the water sprung: For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
So then, Christ to be the source of water flowing for the thirsty is no new thing at all--he was the source for Israelites in the Exodus as he is for all who believe in him.
This theme of water flows throughout the Bible, including those passages mentioned by @Richard. He has already dealt with those, so I will not rehash that specifically, except to note that (as Richard did) these verses refer to the source of living water as God, which is more consistent with understanding the source in John 7:38 to be Christ rather than the believer.
Ezekiel 47 refers to water flowing from within the temple, which would be at least awkward if the source of water is the believer. Again, consider Jesus. If the temple is the meeting place between God and man, Jesus is the ultimate meeting place between God and man--the temple par excellence. It is natural for him to be equated with the temple, and the source of water in Ezekiel 47.

If you honestly think that this response of yours was a reasonable and coherent rebuttal to the overwhelming evidence of the abysmally poor batting average of Biblical prophecy, you are even more severely deluded than I thought! Nothing in your response even begins to address the problems raised by the link I provided!

[_LittleNipper]

If you honestly think that this response of yours was a reasonable and coherent rebuttal to the overwhelming evidence of the abysmally poor batting average of Biblical prophecy, you are even more severely deluded than I thought! Nothing in your response even begins to address the problems raised by the link I provided!

The quotation about the thirty pieces of silver is highly reminiscent of Zechariah, and it is, therefore, assumed that Matthew made a mistake. If Matthew did make a mistake, then the concept of scriptural inerrancy is undermined.

The most significant error that the skeptics make is to approach this passage deliberately looking for an error. If we look at the passage, while assuming scriptural inerrancy, we can see that there are several rationalizations of the alleged problem that have been discussed over the years. In short they are:
1.Said by Jeremiah but later written by Zechariah
2.Zechariah’s second name is Jeremiah, like “Simon Peter” for Peter
3.Copyist mistake, but the Syriac and Persian versions have no prophet listed and all the Greek versions do
4.This is quoting from an apocryphal work of Jeremiah, like Jude quoting from Enoch
5.The last four chapters of Zechariah were actually written by Jeremiah
6.Due to a different order of books in the Jewish canon, Jeremiah could be given proper credit for any of the minor prophets
7.This passage refers to both sections of Jeremiah and Zechariah, and only Jeremiah is mentioned

The first five are less likely, with the last two being the more common explanations (6 and 7).

[_madeleine]

Of course, I addressed Your post.
You have the right to misunderstand me...
As Bret Ripley in a certain thread wrote about me (deservedly...):

Does it matter that I don't understand three-fifths of what he writes? No! Does it matter that the images he posts bring color to the cheeks of the very innocent? No! Does it matter that I don't get his jokes? Maybe a little!

OK, step by step... literal vs figurative vs symbolic

Exodus 23:19 - "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk"
What does this mean?

Does it mean the same it says? Is this literal?
Is this a simple command: if you butcher a goat and kid, you shouldn't cook them in a special way - even no alternative presented (how to cook the two body to be kosher?)

Does it mean "don't marry a mother and her daughter"? (expressed in a weird way...)
The Bible doesn't say that in explicit words. Leviticus 18:17 "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness."
Is uncover the nakedness mean marriage?
I've read this explanation - please don't ask, where!

Does it mean it is the base of stupid Jewish culinary system - it is forbidden to eat meat cooked in a vessel that had ever contained milk, or drink milk from a vessel that had ever contained meat, no matter how thoroughly these vessels were cleaned after each use, even these can not clean in the same washing step. It is forbidden to store these vessels on the same shelf.

One of my sister in laws - when she was out of job fitting to her qualification - was a housekeeper of an orthodox jewish family. She cooked, cleaned, prepared the children to go to school and such - and was checked for a week if she follows the law, if she uses the vessels properly during cooking.
After passing the test she could have eaten together with the family.
(by the way a few years later she did the same for a Vietnamese family, and cooked dog's meat - but this is another story...)

--- and this is very well documented around the internet. I am lucky enough to hear a firsthand description.

That is. If we begin re-re-re-interpret the words, the result is unpredictable. In many programming language has the function "randomize"...

God - if exist - has no right to be misty. Or symbolic. This is the task of the human artists.

... but perhaps you can explain the amazing leaps of "logic'....in your post.

Call it free association. You know, copulae of the Martian's brain cells are not the same as for humans.

Well, I don't seek to re-re-re-interpret words but to understand what the writers are conveying.

Exodus is portraying a literal event, the freeing of the Hebrews from Egypt, but used symbolic means to describe the people. I didn't think it was so hard. If you know the repeated use of certain numbers has symbolic meaning, but choose to ignore the meaning, that is re-interpretation.

Where does the reinterpretation begin? It was Luther who rejected the allegorical. It was Calvin who insisted on sola scriptura. Mormons and American atheists are steeped in Protestantism, because America is steeped in Protestantism. Freedom of religion meant to the Mass. colony, freedom from popery. It was illegal to be a Catholic in the "free" New World.

Culturally, the Protestant reinterpretation of Christianity is accepted as the norm. Mormons have reinterpreted Christianity to the point it isn't recognized by Christians as Christianity at all.

I'm sure some believe God wrote the KJV and dropped it from heaven. That is not how I understand the origin of scripture. Mormons especially have this idea that everything in the KJV is literal. That is not, and never has been, the Catholic/Orthodox understanding. The authors were human, and humans use literary devices. It is reinterpretation to think a literary device is un-Godly. How very American Puritan. What would the Martians think? The authors were humans. Humans are created by God and art is an expression of the soul.

[_madeleine]

See my post above. If that doesn't help explain, the Cross is a literal, living, Person. Not an imaginary God of the human mind.

I did, but I don't see how it establishes a way to know literal beliefs are true. You also use the evidence without saying what the evidence is. The evidence of the cross does not really relay any information.

LDS have a methodology they think is the way to learn literal truths, but I think you agree that it doesn't really work.

The evidence of the Cross is the evidence for God's acting in the world. Of course, our faith professes Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. Any reference to the Cross infers reference to the entirety of what we profess.

Reason and faith work together. I can discern via reason that Christ established a Church on Peter, gave to him a commission to bring people to Himself. Feed my sheep. I can discern in the writings of Paul, that he ordained and instructed Timothy to carefully preserve and hand on what he was taught by Paul and the Apostles.

I can then look to ECF writings, to discern if and where the continuation of Apostolic teaching was maintained.

By faith and reason, I can discern that Jesus gave to His Church, the guidance of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. (What we call the birthday of the Church.) Jesus said He would never leave us as orphans, which I trust by faith and reason. I can by reason, observe the witness of the Church through he ages. I can discern by reason the continuity of faith, and come to a conclusion that the commission given to Peter, then to a successor to the Apostles, Timothy, has been preserved and handed on. So by reason and faith I have concluded that the Catholic Church is a reliable authority for interpreting what it has held and handed on, in continuity, through the ages, to me.

It can of course be argued that the same Apostolic succession and authority resides in the Orthodox churches. Which is an argument that Catholics are in agreement with. We are in schism with the Orthodox, but recognize they hold the same Apostolic teachings and authority.

I briefly considered baptism into the Orthodox Church. The only reason I did not was because here in the States, the Orthodox churches are very ethnically/culturally oriented. I'm not Greek or Russian, and didn't find a cultural fit. The Latin church (Roman Catholic) was a cultural shock for this Mormon turned atheist. My baptism felt like I had found a home, in Christ, but I still after more than five years find cultural things I need to stop and figure out. It's kind of humorous at times, but I don't worry about it. Just do my thing, as there's room for all cultures in the RC Church and bringing my own culture to it is encouraged. :)

So anyway! As you can see, discernment is the process that Catholics are taught. Faith and reason inform each other, the root of this being, we believe we are created by God as rational creatures, able to reason. We don't believe God will contradict faith with reason, or contradict reason with faith. Discernment is a process of study, prayer, observation, and acting.

John the Evangelist calls Jesus, the logos, interpreted as Word, but it's meaning implies reason. The root of the word logic. Reason itself is Jesus, thus why you will see / hear Catholics say, Jesus is Truth itself. As we understand Jesus to be the Word of God (logos) fully and perfectly revealed.

Isaiah invites: come let us reason together.

[_Gunnar]

The quotation about the thirty pieces of silver is highly reminiscent of Zechariah, and it is, therefore, assumed that Matthew made a mistake. If Matthew did make a mistake, then the concept of scriptural inerrancy is undermined.

The most significant error that the skeptics make is to approach this passage deliberately looking for an error. If we look at the passage, while assuming scriptural inerrancy, we can see that there are several rationalizations of the alleged problem that have been discussed over the years. In short they are:
1.Said by Jeremiah but later written by Zechariah
2.Zechariah’s second name is Jeremiah, like “Simon Peter” for Peter
3.Copyist mistake, but the Syriac and Persian versions have no prophet listed and all the Greek versions do
4.This is quoting from an apocryphal work of Jeremiah, like Jude quoting from Enoch
5.The last four chapters of Zechariah were actually written by Jeremiah
6.Due to a different order of books in the Jewish canon, Jeremiah could be given proper credit for any of the minor prophets
7.This passage refers to both sections of Jeremiah and Zechariah, and only Jeremiah is mentioned

The first five are less likely, with the last two being the more common explanations (6 and 7).

LittleNipper, did you actually read the whole link? That answer is an incredibly weak and unconvincing response to only one of the many problems raised by it, and one of the most minor. Your response consists of nothing but flat, unsupported assertion and speculation. Most of the other failed prophecies cited in that article are far more damaging to your case than the one you chose to try to (unsuccessfully) defend.

[_LittleNipper]

The quotation about the thirty pieces of silver is highly reminiscent of Zechariah, and it is, therefore, assumed that Matthew made a mistake. If Matthew did make a mistake, then the concept of scriptural inerrancy is undermined.

The most significant error that the skeptics make is to approach this passage deliberately looking for an error. If we look at the passage, while assuming scriptural inerrancy, we can see that there are several rationalizations of the alleged problem that have been discussed over the years. In short they are:
1.Said by Jeremiah but later written by Zechariah
2.Zechariah’s second name is Jeremiah, like “Simon Peter” for Peter
3.Copyist mistake, but the Syriac and Persian versions have no prophet listed and all the Greek versions do
4.This is quoting from an apocryphal work of Jeremiah, like Jude quoting from Enoch
5.The last four chapters of Zechariah were actually written by Jeremiah
6.Due to a different order of books in the Jewish canon, Jeremiah could be given proper credit for any of the minor prophets
7.This passage refers to both sections of Jeremiah and Zechariah, and only Jeremiah is mentioned

The first five are less likely, with the last two being the more common explanations (6 and 7).

LittleNipper, did you actually read the whole link? That answer is an incredibly weak and unconvincing response to only one of the many problems raised by it, and one of the most minor. Your response consists of nothing but flat, unsupported assertion and speculation. Most of the other failed prophecies cited in that article are far more damaging to your case than the one you chose to try to (unsuccessfully) defend.

The rest of the points have been explained again and again. All one needs to do is type a specific concern and one will find that there are many, many sites already explaining these issues. If someone is truly interested they will seek opposing views and study.

[_Themis]

So anyway! As you can see, discernment is the process that Catholics are taught. Faith and reason inform each other, the root of this being, we believe we are created by God as rational creatures, able to reason. We don't believe God will contradict faith with reason, or contradict reason with faith. Discernment is a process of study, prayer, observation, and acting.

What I see is jumping to conclusions about things you cannot really know and have little chance of being accurate. There is little evidence of Jesus being a real person. There is even less for many of the claims made about him and the road map you think leads to Catholics being his church. Reason cannot really get one there.

John the Evangelist calls Jesus, the logos, interpreted as Word, but it's meaning implies reason. The root of the word logic. Reason itself is Jesus, thus why you will see / hear Catholics say, Jesus is Truth itself. As we understand Jesus to be the Word of God (logos) fully and perfectly revealed.

I may understand to some extent why people want to bastardize certain words, but this may explain the problem when I ask about how one knows the truth. Truth is in the proposition. It's only about whether the proposition is true or false, right or wrong, correct or incorrect.

The evidence of the Cross is the evidence for God's acting in the world.

Could you give a specific example of evidence of God acting in the world. Also maybe evidence for God actually existing as well.

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...Could you give a specific example of evidence of God acting in the world. Also maybe evidence for God actually existing as well.

and evidence that liberty or justice exists...or that Themis exists....or that happiness exists....or that love exists.....or that wrong exists....or that inspiration exists...or that thoughts exist....
Themis can only affirm that which is tangible...yet is unable to affirm that tangible exists beyond Themis' own little paw...ironic really.

[_Bazooka]

...(snip)...Could you give a specific example of evidence of God acting in the world. Also maybe evidence for God actually existing as well.

and evidence that liberty or justice exists...or that Themis exists....or that happiness exists....or that love exists.....or that wrong exists....or that inspiration exists...or that thoughts exist....
Themis can only affirm that which is tangible...yet is unable to affirm that tangible exists beyond Themis' own little paw...ironic really.

So is that a "No" from you subby?

[_Themis]

So is that a "No" from you subby?

Of course it is. I don't care what he has to say anyways. I am aware of what the LDS church teaches and the problems with it. I was asking madeleine since she seems to understand the LDS problems as well but also claims to be able to determine literal truths. So far I don't feel I have gotten specific answers yet. How does a Christian determine that Jesus is the son of God and was resurrected?