ForumGarden

BabyRider:-6

Thankyou and well put re the source of your faith. Exactly.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I find it rather amazing that you take someone at their word and they then mount personal attacks and give you sh*t. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

:-6

randall here,

Many, many thanks Ted and Spot for answering my queries as I have been wondering about them for many years.

You are all, indeed, a very deep mine of knowledge and it is wonderful to be able to ask something and have it answered so promptly and with great depth.

Of Downag, I would like to ask one simple question

Are you a "Christian Fundamentalist"?

One of the saddest things about me returning back to place where I was born is that I cannot indulge in the good natured discussions and arguments I enjoyed living in Hong Kong without everyone falling out with one another - as they do here in Buchan.

My father in law and his brother fell out over the church minister and even although they both lived in the same house and their doors were four feet apart, they never spoke to each other for two years - still both deacons on the same court in the same church.

In Buchan an argument equals a fight.

I never saw a true, reasoned argument until I went far from home and was literally amazed that some people could argue so eloquently and bring up point by point and - sometimes - shatter the other's point of view.

Yet they went home friends.

Are we all not supposed to be "Brothers In Christ."

God bless

randall

:)

randall:-6

Thanks for the post. Now if only I knew more then I do. One must also keep in mind that there are no real final answers in faith, at least not untill the end. They are speculations and thoughts based on much study, prayer, meditation and learning. I will grant you that they may sound reasonable and that is all we can hope for. We must use more then one authority. Thus many churches rely on the Bible, the counsels, tradition and of course, common sense. We must also keep in mind that others have valid opinions as well.

I understand your dilemma with the family. It is indeed, to bad that folks can't agree to disagree and get on with life. It is far too short for that kind of behaviour. We grow too old to soon and too smart too late.

Shalom

Ted:-6

memebias wrote: It makes perfect sense if you are someone who thinks British Columbia is part of the British Isles.


meme;

BINGO! Sorry, but I confused the BC obviously representing British Columbia for UK in my head. LOL. Hence my reference to an American youth going to be a missionery there.

To answer another question, No, I am not a fundamentalist. I do have a background with them, but rejected a sizable portion of their theology some years ago. Prostylitizing (sp?) , if it be your mission by the spirit is a go for those so sent.

It seems rather strange to me, that on the one hand, the fundamentalist movement seems to be the only place where one can find urgent concern for the soul of the unsaved (certainly, patially because of their belief in an imminant (sp?) "rapture)); which I now dismiss. While on the other hand, the older traditions seem complacent with letting God do his thing without their active participation because they see it mostly as a mystery and are not "moved" with compassion toward the lost. Both conditions lend themselves to an attitude of having the open and world shattering appearing of the Ancient of Days and his innumerable host, as coming upon them like a "snare" (as it is written)!

Evangelicalism, both the fundamentalist and pentecostal types, have done more to relating possible scenarios from the Bible to types evident in recent ebbs and flows, eddies and churnings of the "sea of humanity" than any old established order of theory. Jesus gave a list of signs that would point to the days preceding the end of the age. An increase of wars and earthquakes, to mention only two. The 20th century saw war on a scale never before seen. Earthquakes were on the increase, exponentially. Fundamentalists believe the 2 witnesses of the Book of Revelation are two men (literal). Case in point. Reformed theory about the two witnesses of the book of Revelation point to them being the church (the whole schmere) and the Bible. Their reasoning being that for a single man (times two) to imagine such a lofty station is not humility as "they see it", hence it is pride to think of oneself as a chosen vessel by God. This is the same reasoning they use to discount the "fundamentalist's" claim to knowing they are saved (assurance of salvation). I recently witnessed a Presbyterian service where the minister queried the congregation about "who here is a saint". One hand went up. Mine. I didn't make me a saint. Messiah did. BUT, that was very telling of what has been going on in the mainline denomination seminaries. And, aren't the flock a reflection of the pastor when it comes to doctrine (teaching)?

Ted says I make personal attacks instead of addressing the issue on topic. One can only see the light if one has his eyes open. Not all are saved.

An obvious illustration would be the arguement over the eucharist. One says the real body and blood are in the elements. The other says they are not, but they are for a sign. Who is right. One needs chose sides on the issue. I choose that they are for a sign. Who is right? The light I have is that they are a sign. I am absolutely sure of it. How can I be, you may ask. I know that I have the spirit of God in my heart. The Bible explains this "peace" which passes all understanding. Midrash explains nothing, but furthers confusion. Sometimes, things are just plain on their face.

d:-5

downag:-6

Sorry for the sunglasses. They come with the picture.

As far as the action or inaction of churches goes, you simply have no ideas about which you are talking.

Whether one is "saved" or not and is or is not a saint I will leave up to God. That judgment is His and His alone to make. It is neither yours to make nor mine.

I will leave the personal attacks thing to those who care to read back some posts. It is clearly their but others can take a look for themselves.

As far as the eucharist goes, once again you spout only half truths. For those who believe that the bread and the wine (of the fermented variety) become the body and blood of our Lord. What this really means is that we believe in the real presence of our Lord at the eucharistic feast.

Midrash is the style of ancient writing used in composing the scriptures. Now if we don't take that into account we cannot know what the ancients meant. If we cannot know what they meant then we are hard pressed to interpret the scriptures in light of our pesent day with its ever increasing fund of knowledge and understanding. Thus by ignoring midrash you haven't a hope of getting to the meat of the issue and then have to rely on ones own understanding.

I would like to make another point. We do not have the original autographs of the scriptures. What we have are copies of copies of copies, especially in the NT. There are several copies of each book. Among those several copies there are some 400 000 variants. The scholars had to choose which ones to use. We cannot be sure that we have the exact wording of the writers. Thus any argument re this word means or that word or phrase means is nothing more then playing games.

As far as the gospels go they are the writings of what the early church had come to believe about Jesus at the time of writing. Thus they become both history remembered and history metaphorized. Add to that the style of midrash . . .

I have a good idea as to whom is confused, but I'll let that go.

Shalom

Ted:-6

downag:-6

If we look closely at the teachings of Jesus not including those words put into Jesus mouth by the early church we see that he was very concerned about the poverty, the dominations systems of his day, the hungry and the disenfranchised. He was as concerned about them as he was the future of their souls. Not that that is not important. However, to concentrate on one at the expense of the other is to disregard a large part of the teachings of Jesus.

Shalom

Ted:-6

This would seem to be the best place to put this. It is an archaeological report on the Exodus. It becomes clearer as the years go on the the Exodus is based on the Egyptian expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta.

It also gives some interesting reading on the "parting of the Red or Reed sea.

It is definitely a contradiction but one of an external nature.

It also supports the view that the 40 years in the desert is more of myth or legend then one of 600 000 people marching through the desert for which there is not one shred of evidence.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

This article provides a very lengthy and scholarly bibliography as well.

Shalom

Ted:-6

No doubt I'm going to get told again that this is not what was wanted. However, one cannot and should not dismiss what is probably the truth for a Biblical stand that cannot be supported anywhere outside of the Bible.

Ted, it truly is a dead horse.

You are so full of excuses and denial about your own personal attacks, I will not address you further. The mouse you have in your pocket and you, have a nice day.

d:-5

downag:-6

As you wish.

I will leave it up to others to look back and see who has been commiting personal attacks.

It seems to me that you refuse to answer the difficult questions and when the issue of something like midrash comes up you have to resort to words like "tedrash" rather then looking up some things about midrash and learning about it. Perhaps you are afraid of the truth. Only you know that for sure.

Shalom

Ted:-6