[W: 344][W:64]Salvation by Faith vs. Salvation by Works

[Daisy]

Re: Salvation by Faith vs. Salvation by Works

The problem is that the bible should stand on its own as a work of fiction. Readers should not be concerned with context. If it contains anything of value the words of the story need to carry that.

It does stand on its own as a book of nonfiction...

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Salvation by Faith vs. Salvation by Works

It does stand on its own as a book of nonfiction...

Which parts of the Bible are non-fiction ?

The flood ?

The tower of Babel ?

 

[Omega Man]

Re: Salvation by Faith vs. Salvation by Works

The problem is that the bible should stand on its own as a work of fiction. Readers should not be concerned with context. If it contains anything of value the words of the story need to carry that.

Except in this case Paul's letters aren't fiction; and in either case context always applies, whether it's fiction or non-fiction. As a reader myself, I am always concerned with context.


OM

 

[Omega Man]

Re: Salvation by Faith vs. Salvation by Works

Which parts of the Bible are non-fiction ?

The flood ?

The tower of Babel ?

Letters written by an actual person.


OM

 

[devildavid]

Except in this case Paul's letters aren't fiction; and in either case context always applies, whether it's fiction or non-fiction. As a reader myself, I am always concerned with context.


OM

The contents of his letters are fiction even if he actually wrote the letter. When Jesus is quoted telling a parable the contents of the parable are fiction.

We can't possibly know the context of everything that is written. We have to go by the actual words and how they are presented to us. The letters of Paul are taken much differently than the letters of Thomas Jefferson due to how they are presented.

Should we care about the context of literature or the actual work by itself? The content needs to stand on its own independent of the context it was written in.

 

[Omega Man]

The contents of his letters are fiction even if he actually wrote the letter. When Jesus is quoted telling a parable the contents of the parable are fiction.

We can't possibly know the context of everything that is written. We have to go by the actual words and how they are presented to us. The letters of Paul are taken much differently than the letters of Thomas Jefferson due to how they are presented.

Should we care about the context of literature or the actual work by itself? The content needs to stand on its own independent of the context it was written in.

A real person writing a real letter to real people at a real church in a real location = not fiction, no matter what he's discussing. And if you'd ever care to read any of the Epistles (I certainly have), you would have noticed he's also discussing real things from his own set of values. Sorry, that's just how it works.


OM

 

[devildavid]

A real person writing a real letter to real people at a real church in a real location = not fiction, no matter what he's discussing. And if you'd ever care to read any of the Epistles (I certainly have), you would have noticed he's also discussing real things from his own set of values. Sorry, that's just how it works.


OM

Yet his letters are not presented as his words but claimed to be the words of god. That is the context in which they are presented. So no that is not how it works.

 

[Omega Man]

Yet his letters are not presented as his words but claimed to be the words of god. That is the context in which they are presented. So no that is not how it works.

Which in no way whatsoever changes the point I made about real letters from a real person, to other real people, with a personal message, in no way equates to fiction. It just doesn't. At all.


OM