Ted wrote: OpenMind:-6
Scholarly reseearch into the writing of ancient sacred scrolls shows that the creation stories were borrowed from the Mesopotamians just as was the concept of satan and as far as Noah goes there has never been scientific confirmation of any world wide flood of the kind.
It is inconsistent with the scientific findings.
I would also say that common sense will dictate that it is pure myth.
You are right about evidence for "Adam". There has been discoveries in Aftrica to show that it was the seat of all human life. So they gave the name Adam to whatever remains of an individual they found.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I have read that there is evidence of a great flood in the area at about the time that Adam lived. It was not worldwide, but large enough to cover such a mass of land that the inhabitants would have considered it world wide (given that they knew nothing much about the planet).
Ancient Sumerian tablets, I believe have been discovered that alude to the creation of Adamun. Adamun in Sumerian I am told translates to red clay and/or blood. But in the tablets, they allegedy refer to a process used to create a man using IVF who was then referred to as Adamun.
Are you aware of this at all?
The Second Coming
The Second Coming
Telequapacky. I'd be interested to know where you get your information from. I'd be interested in the empirical evidence used.
The Second Coming
OpenMind:-6
I'm not aware of the particular creations story. However, I am aware of a local flood. That is one of the reasons the story of Noah is referred to as a legend. It is possible that there was some historic underpinning to the story. One of the things the ancient writers did over time was to embellish their stories to make them sound better and for a specific reason.
Anderson's book "Understanding the Old Testament" has a very good section on this part of the Bible. As it is lenghty I will only quote a small part from P 160. "The motifs of creation, paradise, the flood, and the deliverance of humankind from total destruction were expressed in various forms in the myths and legends of the wnacient Near East"
Sumeria was also a source of these stories.' The " Gilgamish Epic" is a story of a legendary Sumerian King and contains the flood story as well. These are early bronze age stories and may even go back as far as the stone age. Oral transmission of stories was the way they were passed on.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'm not aware of the particular creations story. However, I am aware of a local flood. That is one of the reasons the story of Noah is referred to as a legend. It is possible that there was some historic underpinning to the story. One of the things the ancient writers did over time was to embellish their stories to make them sound better and for a specific reason.
Anderson's book "Understanding the Old Testament" has a very good section on this part of the Bible. As it is lenghty I will only quote a small part from P 160. "The motifs of creation, paradise, the flood, and the deliverance of humankind from total destruction were expressed in various forms in the myths and legends of the wnacient Near East"
Sumeria was also a source of these stories.' The " Gilgamish Epic" is a story of a legendary Sumerian King and contains the flood story as well. These are early bronze age stories and may even go back as far as the stone age. Oral transmission of stories was the way they were passed on.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: Telequapacky. I'd be interested to know where you get your information from. I'd be interested in the empirical evidence used.
I get my information from the Bible. Empirical evidence? Here's one. This happened about 27 years ago in Malibu. I fell from the top of that black line to the bottom. Free-fall. About forty-five degrees from plumb vertical and more than fifty feet. Defied the laws of gravity. When the rescuers found me, and asked me where I fell from, they did not believe me. When the ranger asked my companions where I fell from, he did not believe them. I came back to the scene and took these pictures and joined them together. If not for God working a miracle I would have been killed or paralyzed. People generally don’t survive falling off that rock.
Psalm 91:11-12
For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; 12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
That’s the only encounter with God I have any photo documentation of. There are others, but you weren’t there, and nothing I could say could adequately convey them- even if I could remember them all. God and His Word, the Bible are real, and have been more than sufficiently proven to me. There is also textual and historical evidence also of prophecies fulfilled. I don’t have time to explain them now, but sometimes I post them when the need arises.
In general, though, spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Luke 16:31
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"
God has a funny way that sometimes He dummies up when skeptics who demand proof, and other times He blows them away. He knows what He’s doing- I don’t know why God chooses to reveal Himself to some people and not to others. I think it has to do with the attitude with which you approach Him. A skeptic friend of mine told me that he was once looking up in the starry night sky and asked God if He exists to do something to prove it. Just then, as if in answer to his request, a large meteor track appeared in the sky exactly where he was looking. Of course, he never came to believe.
I’ve heard that if a person really prays to God, and sincerely, and open-mindedly invites God to take them on an adventure that will reveal Himself to them, and I think it requires others to pray for that person as well- sometimes God will do it. But the attitude would have to be more than a mere idle curiosity for supernatural parlor tricks, with no intention of making a life commitment if God answers.
I get my information from the Bible. Empirical evidence? Here's one. This happened about 27 years ago in Malibu. I fell from the top of that black line to the bottom. Free-fall. About forty-five degrees from plumb vertical and more than fifty feet. Defied the laws of gravity. When the rescuers found me, and asked me where I fell from, they did not believe me. When the ranger asked my companions where I fell from, he did not believe them. I came back to the scene and took these pictures and joined them together. If not for God working a miracle I would have been killed or paralyzed. People generally don’t survive falling off that rock.
Psalm 91:11-12
For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; 12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
That’s the only encounter with God I have any photo documentation of. There are others, but you weren’t there, and nothing I could say could adequately convey them- even if I could remember them all. God and His Word, the Bible are real, and have been more than sufficiently proven to me. There is also textual and historical evidence also of prophecies fulfilled. I don’t have time to explain them now, but sometimes I post them when the need arises.
In general, though, spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Luke 16:31
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"
God has a funny way that sometimes He dummies up when skeptics who demand proof, and other times He blows them away. He knows what He’s doing- I don’t know why God chooses to reveal Himself to some people and not to others. I think it has to do with the attitude with which you approach Him. A skeptic friend of mine told me that he was once looking up in the starry night sky and asked God if He exists to do something to prove it. Just then, as if in answer to his request, a large meteor track appeared in the sky exactly where he was looking. Of course, he never came to believe.
I’ve heard that if a person really prays to God, and sincerely, and open-mindedly invites God to take them on an adventure that will reveal Himself to them, and I think it requires others to pray for that person as well- sometimes God will do it. But the attitude would have to be more than a mere idle curiosity for supernatural parlor tricks, with no intention of making a life commitment if God answers.
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: OpenMind:-6
I'm not aware of the particular creations story. However, I am aware of a local flood. That is one of the reasons the story of Noah is referred to as a legend. It is possible that there was some historic underpinning to the story. One of the things the ancient writers did over time was to embellish their stories to make them sound better and for a specific reason.
Anderson's book "Understanding the Old Testament" has a very good section on this part of the Bible. As it is lenghty I will only quote a small part from P 160. "The motifs of creation, paradise, the flood, and the deliverance of humankind from total destruction were expressed in various forms in the myths and legends of the wnacient Near East"
Sumeria was also a source of these stories.' The " Gilgamish Epic" is a story of a legendary Sumerian King and contains the flood story as well. These are early bronze age stories and may even go back as far as the stone age. Oral transmission of stories was the way they were passed on.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That's interesting, Ted. Thank you.
I'm not aware of the particular creations story. However, I am aware of a local flood. That is one of the reasons the story of Noah is referred to as a legend. It is possible that there was some historic underpinning to the story. One of the things the ancient writers did over time was to embellish their stories to make them sound better and for a specific reason.
Anderson's book "Understanding the Old Testament" has a very good section on this part of the Bible. As it is lenghty I will only quote a small part from P 160. "The motifs of creation, paradise, the flood, and the deliverance of humankind from total destruction were expressed in various forms in the myths and legends of the wnacient Near East"
Sumeria was also a source of these stories.' The " Gilgamish Epic" is a story of a legendary Sumerian King and contains the flood story as well. These are early bronze age stories and may even go back as far as the stone age. Oral transmission of stories was the way they were passed on.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That's interesting, Ted. Thank you.
The Second Coming
Telequapacky, your survival would, indeed, be an act of God. I wouldn't refute this.
But the reason I asked the question is because of various statements you make.
Such as: In Genesis 6:2-4 the sons of God would be the male descendents of Seth, a believing patriarch, and the daughters of men would be the female descendents of Cain, a rebel who murdered his obedient brother Abel.
I cannot see anything to support this as fact.Therefore, I would presume this to be your opinion. Although you state it as a fact.
God made man and woman and all their descendants are men and women. They have not been described as sons and daughters of God.
Your quotes from the bible, I do not refute. The wording would depend on which version you use and there are many versions of the bible. I would personally like to have copies of "The New English Bible" and of "The Jerusalem Bible". For aesthetic purposes, I would like a copy each of the bibles written by John Wycliffe and William Tyndale.
But the reason I asked the question is because of various statements you make.
Such as: In Genesis 6:2-4 the sons of God would be the male descendents of Seth, a believing patriarch, and the daughters of men would be the female descendents of Cain, a rebel who murdered his obedient brother Abel.
I cannot see anything to support this as fact.Therefore, I would presume this to be your opinion. Although you state it as a fact.
God made man and woman and all their descendants are men and women. They have not been described as sons and daughters of God.
Your quotes from the bible, I do not refute. The wording would depend on which version you use and there are many versions of the bible. I would personally like to have copies of "The New English Bible" and of "The Jerusalem Bible". For aesthetic purposes, I would like a copy each of the bibles written by John Wycliffe and William Tyndale.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Second Coming
Openmind,
You weren't clear when you asked for "empirical evidence." I think what you really want is "where I got it," because there would be no empirical evidence for the matter in question.
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol 1, page 250:
The sons of God. This phrase has been interpreted in various ways. Ancient Jewish commentators, the early church Fathers, and many modern expositors have thought these "sons" to be angels, comparing them with the "sons of God" of Job 1:6; 2:1 38:7. This view must be rejected, because punishment soon to be meted out was for the sins of human beings (see v.3) and not of angels. Further, angels do not marry (Matt 22:30). The "sons of God" were none other than the desendants of Seth, and the "daughters of men" of the godless Cainites (PP 81) (my note: PP stands for "Patriarchs and Prophets," a book about Old Testament history written by Ellen White, whom Adventists, myself included, regard as a prophet- though not a canonical prophet) God later spoke of Israel as His "firstborn son" (Ex. 4:22), and Moses called the people of Israel "children of the Lord your God (Deut 14:1)
There's more, but first, is this more what you were asking?
You weren't clear when you asked for "empirical evidence." I think what you really want is "where I got it," because there would be no empirical evidence for the matter in question.
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol 1, page 250:
The sons of God. This phrase has been interpreted in various ways. Ancient Jewish commentators, the early church Fathers, and many modern expositors have thought these "sons" to be angels, comparing them with the "sons of God" of Job 1:6; 2:1 38:7. This view must be rejected, because punishment soon to be meted out was for the sins of human beings (see v.3) and not of angels. Further, angels do not marry (Matt 22:30). The "sons of God" were none other than the desendants of Seth, and the "daughters of men" of the godless Cainites (PP 81) (my note: PP stands for "Patriarchs and Prophets," a book about Old Testament history written by Ellen White, whom Adventists, myself included, regard as a prophet- though not a canonical prophet) God later spoke of Israel as His "firstborn son" (Ex. 4:22), and Moses called the people of Israel "children of the Lord your God (Deut 14:1)
There's more, but first, is this more what you were asking?
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Second Coming
Telaquapacky. Thank you.
This is more in the direction I am seeking. However, I am not familiar with Ellen White's works. Since Jesus himself stated that there would be no more prophets after himself, then I find it hard to consider Ellen White as a prophet.
I am aware that much is written concerning the bible which is nothing more than theory and a postulation of ideas. It is enough that I am expected to believe the bible without being able to verify the facts. To use the bible itself to authorise a conjectured meaning usually ends up with a tangle of concepts that confuse the issue further. Matt.22:30, for instance, refers specifically to men and does imply that angels do not marry. But there is no qualification given here that angels are the sons of God.
By all accounts and purposes, God created man from the dust of the ground. To be God's son, I would expect him to have been the product of His seed.
Regarding Ex.4:22, if Israel is God's firstborn, where does that leave those that were lived before him. Again, Deut.14:1 stands in direct conflict with the creation of Adam. This would appear to me to be a rhetorical statement, or, Israel was not a direct descendant of Adam. But, according to Genesis, Israel is a descendant of Adam. Therefoe, I must conclude that Deut.14:1 is rhetorical.
What qualification is there that the daughters of men were Canaanites? Empirical evidence is what I mean. The bible itself provides no evidence per se. For this reason, I read the bible at face value. Where there is a conflict between statements, I leave the interpretation open. I have my own conjectures, but I wouldn't accept any conjecture without empirical proof.
I hope you appreciate what I mean when I say that I lay my faith in the bible and not in man's interpretation thereof. For that, I would require hard irrefutable evidence.
This is more in the direction I am seeking. However, I am not familiar with Ellen White's works. Since Jesus himself stated that there would be no more prophets after himself, then I find it hard to consider Ellen White as a prophet.
I am aware that much is written concerning the bible which is nothing more than theory and a postulation of ideas. It is enough that I am expected to believe the bible without being able to verify the facts. To use the bible itself to authorise a conjectured meaning usually ends up with a tangle of concepts that confuse the issue further. Matt.22:30, for instance, refers specifically to men and does imply that angels do not marry. But there is no qualification given here that angels are the sons of God.
By all accounts and purposes, God created man from the dust of the ground. To be God's son, I would expect him to have been the product of His seed.
Regarding Ex.4:22, if Israel is God's firstborn, where does that leave those that were lived before him. Again, Deut.14:1 stands in direct conflict with the creation of Adam. This would appear to me to be a rhetorical statement, or, Israel was not a direct descendant of Adam. But, according to Genesis, Israel is a descendant of Adam. Therefoe, I must conclude that Deut.14:1 is rhetorical.
What qualification is there that the daughters of men were Canaanites? Empirical evidence is what I mean. The bible itself provides no evidence per se. For this reason, I read the bible at face value. Where there is a conflict between statements, I leave the interpretation open. I have my own conjectures, but I wouldn't accept any conjecture without empirical proof.
I hope you appreciate what I mean when I say that I lay my faith in the bible and not in man's interpretation thereof. For that, I would require hard irrefutable evidence.
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: Tel:-6
While I do not believe in Satan as an entity I do not deny there is a power of evil in the world. Nor do I deny that all living human do and will make mistakes.
However, I think that we must rethink our view of this concept os sin or error or mistakes. We are not born with original sin. This was Augustine's view and many theologians today regard the whole idea of original sin as wrong.
Augustine had some wierd notions about sex and sexuality. This whole idea that we are born in sin is a reference to the sexual act that created us.
We are imperfect. We do make mistakes. It is time that we as humans admitted that we are imperfect and accept ourselves as imperfect just as God has done already. Own up to our mistakes. Right them in some way or another and get on with life.
One might discuss for a long time the purpose for which we are here on earth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
:) there is only one purpose, that is to learn. but the subject matter varies with each incarnation (i believe firmly in re-incarnation, but not as a lower form like is prevelant in other religions of the far east). we set up certain conditions to face and try to overcome those things that are not good for us, while trying to advance ourselves in what some refer to as the spiritual. when we err, we must either try again in this, or another life to get past the problem we seem to have not gotten past before. life in the physical form is then just so we can overcome our natural urges, and do what is best, not just for ourselves, but for those who are affected by ur actions. death is just a period of rest, and as we progress in the knowledg needed to attain that which we are, we prepare for the next incarnation. no, don't say it isn't true, for even jesus said it was when he identified john the baptist as an incarnation of a prophet of old. also, most other religions, though not all, do believe in re-incarnation in some form or other.:-4
While I do not believe in Satan as an entity I do not deny there is a power of evil in the world. Nor do I deny that all living human do and will make mistakes.
However, I think that we must rethink our view of this concept os sin or error or mistakes. We are not born with original sin. This was Augustine's view and many theologians today regard the whole idea of original sin as wrong.
Augustine had some wierd notions about sex and sexuality. This whole idea that we are born in sin is a reference to the sexual act that created us.
We are imperfect. We do make mistakes. It is time that we as humans admitted that we are imperfect and accept ourselves as imperfect just as God has done already. Own up to our mistakes. Right them in some way or another and get on with life.
One might discuss for a long time the purpose for which we are here on earth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
:) there is only one purpose, that is to learn. but the subject matter varies with each incarnation (i believe firmly in re-incarnation, but not as a lower form like is prevelant in other religions of the far east). we set up certain conditions to face and try to overcome those things that are not good for us, while trying to advance ourselves in what some refer to as the spiritual. when we err, we must either try again in this, or another life to get past the problem we seem to have not gotten past before. life in the physical form is then just so we can overcome our natural urges, and do what is best, not just for ourselves, but for those who are affected by ur actions. death is just a period of rest, and as we progress in the knowledg needed to attain that which we are, we prepare for the next incarnation. no, don't say it isn't true, for even jesus said it was when he identified john the baptist as an incarnation of a prophet of old. also, most other religions, though not all, do believe in re-incarnation in some form or other.:-4
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
telaquapacky wrote: Hi, Charles! I think understanding and learning are all well and good, but I believe that people need more than merely to be educated- we need to be saved. Jeremiah wrote in Jeremiah 13:23, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil." Like Jesus told Nicodemus in John Chapter 3, we need to be reborn from above through the Holy Spirit. Jesus has to live in and thorough us in a supernatural way. Merely knowing what we are supposed to do doesn't make it happen, because we are not capable of living righteous lives in our own strength. Even if we could by our grit and willpower do what's right, it wouldn't count, because salvation is not by behavior modification. The saved person does behave differently than they did before- yes- but that change comes from God's power, not by their own effort. God accepts us as we are, but He loves us too much to allow us to stay that way.
I believe the purpose of education is to get to know Jesus better. The closer we come to Jesus, the more we learn about what righteousnes really is, and the more we see our own spiritual poverty. Then we try to act like Him, and we fail, because we have a fallen nature. Then we are left with a choice: either to bury ourselves in denial about our true condition and create an alternative "Jesus" and an elaborate religious structure for ourselves that requires no change on our part, no submission to God's will for us; or we may fall at the feet of the only One who can help us and submit to His cleansing- the Real Jesus. Only He can transform us. But it's a humbling experience. He makes sure that happens in a way that we know it's Him doing it, so we won't be proud or look down upon others.
:) are you, as pope john paul 2, then condemning all who are not believers as you to hell? how self-centered and hypocritical. who said judge not, lest ye be judged, for with the same RIGHTEOUS judgement, so shall ye be judged? some idiot who didn't know anything? a modern day prophet? a babbler of foolish non-sense? are billions of non-christians going to hell on your beliewfs. i think not. don't say you havge to be saved, and born of the spirit if you don't know what jesus was talking about. his disciples didn't understand, and neither do most others. nor do many christian believers even practice what they preach. but they are very good at making noises about things they themse;lves don't even do.:-4 :-4
I believe the purpose of education is to get to know Jesus better. The closer we come to Jesus, the more we learn about what righteousnes really is, and the more we see our own spiritual poverty. Then we try to act like Him, and we fail, because we have a fallen nature. Then we are left with a choice: either to bury ourselves in denial about our true condition and create an alternative "Jesus" and an elaborate religious structure for ourselves that requires no change on our part, no submission to God's will for us; or we may fall at the feet of the only One who can help us and submit to His cleansing- the Real Jesus. Only He can transform us. But it's a humbling experience. He makes sure that happens in a way that we know it's Him doing it, so we won't be proud or look down upon others.
:) are you, as pope john paul 2, then condemning all who are not believers as you to hell? how self-centered and hypocritical. who said judge not, lest ye be judged, for with the same RIGHTEOUS judgement, so shall ye be judged? some idiot who didn't know anything? a modern day prophet? a babbler of foolish non-sense? are billions of non-christians going to hell on your beliewfs. i think not. don't say you havge to be saved, and born of the spirit if you don't know what jesus was talking about. his disciples didn't understand, and neither do most others. nor do many christian believers even practice what they preach. but they are very good at making noises about things they themse;lves don't even do.:-4 :-4
The Second Coming
Charles:-6
Personally I do not believe in reincarnation but I have no problem if that is your belief.
Where do you see Jesus stating that John was a reincarnation? Just a question so that I may check that out. I've never heard that said before.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Personally I do not believe in reincarnation but I have no problem if that is your belief.
Where do you see Jesus stating that John was a reincarnation? Just a question so that I may check that out. I've never heard that said before.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Second Coming
A few comments on "The Second Coming".
It would appear that scientists today are beginning to think there was no beginning or ending to the universe. What there is is constant recycling of birth, growth, death and rebirth of all things in the cosmos.
Now I happen to accept that there is more to reality then just what we can see and to life as well. I do believe that God has something for us beyond this earthly realm. I do not know what it is nor do we know how it is to come about. All of our speculations are just that and by virtue of the nature of human language metaphorical.
The idea that Jesus will descend from the clouds or that a new Jerusalem will somehow come down out of the clouds is metaphorical thinking. Sometimes I do wonder if this New Jerusalem will come complete with a decent infrastructure. LOL
So I place my trust in the God revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and go about what I am called to do here on earth and leave the rest to God. The clearest expression of this is in Micah 6:8. We are to "do justice, love kindliness, and walk humbly with our God."
Shalom
Ted
It would appear that scientists today are beginning to think there was no beginning or ending to the universe. What there is is constant recycling of birth, growth, death and rebirth of all things in the cosmos.
Now I happen to accept that there is more to reality then just what we can see and to life as well. I do believe that God has something for us beyond this earthly realm. I do not know what it is nor do we know how it is to come about. All of our speculations are just that and by virtue of the nature of human language metaphorical.
The idea that Jesus will descend from the clouds or that a new Jerusalem will somehow come down out of the clouds is metaphorical thinking. Sometimes I do wonder if this New Jerusalem will come complete with a decent infrastructure. LOL
So I place my trust in the God revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and go about what I am called to do here on earth and leave the rest to God. The clearest expression of this is in Micah 6:8. We are to "do justice, love kindliness, and walk humbly with our God."
Shalom
Ted
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: Charles:-6
Personally I do not believe in reincarnation but I have no problem if that is your belief.
Where do you see Jesus stating that John was a reincarnation? Just a question so that I may check that out. I've never heard that said before.
Shalom
Ted:-6
:) remember what jc said when asked about whether john was the expected messiah, or something along those lines, what his reply was? read the entire chapter and you'll get a better idea of why i say what i do, though you may disagree. most do agree and take it out of context to support the opposite. :-4
Personally I do not believe in reincarnation but I have no problem if that is your belief.
Where do you see Jesus stating that John was a reincarnation? Just a question so that I may check that out. I've never heard that said before.
Shalom
Ted:-6
:) remember what jc said when asked about whether john was the expected messiah, or something along those lines, what his reply was? read the entire chapter and you'll get a better idea of why i say what i do, though you may disagree. most do agree and take it out of context to support the opposite. :-4
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
ted meant to say don't agree and take it out ofd comntext.:-4 :-4
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: A few comments on "The Second Coming".
It would appear that scientists today are beginning to think there was no beginning or ending to the universe. What there is is constant recycling of birth, growth, death and rebirth of all things in the cosmos.
Now I happen to accept that there is more to reality then just what we can see and to life as well. I do believe that God has something for us beyond this earthly realm. I do not know what it is nor do we know how it is to come about. All of our speculations are just that and by virtue of the nature of human language metaphorical.
The idea that Jesus will descend from the clouds or that a new Jerusalem will somehow come down out of the clouds is metaphorical thinking. Sometimes I do wonder if this New Jerusalem will come complete with a decent infrastructure. LOL
So I place my trust in the God revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and go about what I am called to do here on earth and leave the rest to God. The clearest expression of this is in Micah 6:8. We are to "do justice, love kindliness, and walk humbly with our God."
Shalom
Ted
:driving: when i read the bible, whichever version i'm reading at the time, i take it for what it is. an instruction manual of how things can be, but aren't and what was, but only because of the archeological evidence supports somuch, but as history, not perfectly accurate, because it has to be interpreted by whoever is reading it. it has both good and bad, true and misleading, fact and fictional accounts. it no more than a book, so revised, edited, and sanitized by whatever forces were around at the time that for it to be something to worship by, it is totlly lacking sufficient credibility as to be very strange.:-4 :-4 :-4
It would appear that scientists today are beginning to think there was no beginning or ending to the universe. What there is is constant recycling of birth, growth, death and rebirth of all things in the cosmos.
Now I happen to accept that there is more to reality then just what we can see and to life as well. I do believe that God has something for us beyond this earthly realm. I do not know what it is nor do we know how it is to come about. All of our speculations are just that and by virtue of the nature of human language metaphorical.
The idea that Jesus will descend from the clouds or that a new Jerusalem will somehow come down out of the clouds is metaphorical thinking. Sometimes I do wonder if this New Jerusalem will come complete with a decent infrastructure. LOL
So I place my trust in the God revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and go about what I am called to do here on earth and leave the rest to God. The clearest expression of this is in Micah 6:8. We are to "do justice, love kindliness, and walk humbly with our God."
Shalom
Ted
:driving: when i read the bible, whichever version i'm reading at the time, i take it for what it is. an instruction manual of how things can be, but aren't and what was, but only because of the archeological evidence supports somuch, but as history, not perfectly accurate, because it has to be interpreted by whoever is reading it. it has both good and bad, true and misleading, fact and fictional accounts. it no more than a book, so revised, edited, and sanitized by whatever forces were around at the time that for it to be something to worship by, it is totlly lacking sufficient credibility as to be very strange.:-4 :-4 :-4
The Second Coming
Charles:-6
I will read the chapter: which chapter and which gospel?
I will read the chapter: which chapter and which gospel?
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
mathew 17. it explains who john the baptist was in a previous life, that is elias. read the entire chapter, but understand the transfiguration.-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: A few comments on "The Second Coming".
It would appear that scientists today are beginning to think there was no beginning or ending to the universe. What there is is constant recycling of birth, growth, death and rebirth of all things in the cosmos.
Now I happen to accept that there is more to reality then just what we can see and to life as well. I do believe that God has something for us beyond this earthly realm. I do not know what it is nor do we know how it is to come about. All of our speculations are just that and by virtue of the nature of human language metaphorical.
The idea that Jesus will descend from the clouds or that a new Jerusalem will somehow come down out of the clouds is metaphorical thinking. Sometimes I do wonder if this New Jerusalem will come complete with a decent infrastructure. LOL
So I place my trust in the God revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and go about what I am called to do here on earth and leave the rest to God. The clearest expression of this is in Micah 6:8. We are to "do justice, love kindliness, and walk humbly with our God."
Shalom
Ted
just a quick comment about the universe overall. the age (using the big bang theory) is about -10 billion years. however, an astronomer or somthing has discovered some stars that are between 8 and12 billion years old. that would make the stars older than the universe. conclusion: nothying is certain, and even scientists are beginning to wonder if the big bang is a reliable theory or not. the arguments on both side are de3finitely going to go on for a looooooong time.:-5 :-4
It would appear that scientists today are beginning to think there was no beginning or ending to the universe. What there is is constant recycling of birth, growth, death and rebirth of all things in the cosmos.
Now I happen to accept that there is more to reality then just what we can see and to life as well. I do believe that God has something for us beyond this earthly realm. I do not know what it is nor do we know how it is to come about. All of our speculations are just that and by virtue of the nature of human language metaphorical.
The idea that Jesus will descend from the clouds or that a new Jerusalem will somehow come down out of the clouds is metaphorical thinking. Sometimes I do wonder if this New Jerusalem will come complete with a decent infrastructure. LOL
So I place my trust in the God revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and go about what I am called to do here on earth and leave the rest to God. The clearest expression of this is in Micah 6:8. We are to "do justice, love kindliness, and walk humbly with our God."
Shalom
Ted
just a quick comment about the universe overall. the age (using the big bang theory) is about -10 billion years. however, an astronomer or somthing has discovered some stars that are between 8 and12 billion years old. that would make the stars older than the universe. conclusion: nothying is certain, and even scientists are beginning to wonder if the big bang is a reliable theory or not. the arguments on both side are de3finitely going to go on for a looooooong time.:-5 :-4
The Second Coming
Charles:-6
Thanks.
A book you might find interesting is "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. It is an excellent description of the present New Testament.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks.
A book you might find interesting is "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. It is an excellent description of the present New Testament.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Second Coming
Charles:-6
I can see how one might come to the conclusion that this is an example of reincarnation. However, that would amount to a very literal translation when in fact the whole issue is a metaphorical expression. There were scribes who thought that Elijah would come back before the Messiah but it is not even certain who they were.
The writer is simply comparing the work of John the Baptist with Elijah. Theologians do not see this as an example of reincarnation.
The question to be be asked of the stories in the Bible is not "Did it really happen this way"? but "What is the meaning of the story"? The Bible is not an history book nor was it intended to be.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I can see how one might come to the conclusion that this is an example of reincarnation. However, that would amount to a very literal translation when in fact the whole issue is a metaphorical expression. There were scribes who thought that Elijah would come back before the Messiah but it is not even certain who they were.
The writer is simply comparing the work of John the Baptist with Elijah. Theologians do not see this as an example of reincarnation.
The question to be be asked of the stories in the Bible is not "Did it really happen this way"? but "What is the meaning of the story"? The Bible is not an history book nor was it intended to be.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: Charles:-6
I can see how one might come to the conclusion that this is an example of reincarnation. However, that would amount to a very literal translation when in fact the whole issue is a metaphorical expression. There were scribes who thought that Elijah would come back before the Messiah but it is not even certain who they were.
The writer is simply comparing the work of John the Baptist with Elijah. Theologians do not see this as an example of reincarnation.
The question to be be asked of the stories in the Bible is not "Did it really happen this way"? but "What is the meaning of the story"? The Bible is not an history book nor was it intended to be.
Shalom
Ted:-6
i have nothing against what others believe, but theologians have one thing i don't, preconceived notions, based on what other theologians have said. as for whether jc or any of the new testament writers actually said anything that is attributed to them, only the speakers know. neither of us were present so we have to take some things on faith, or with a grain of salt. i take the salt, not because i disbeleive, but because i consider the reasoning and the pupose of certain writings being allowed in and others not, and others denounced for heresy because they weren't what the church liked, to be just nothing but garbage thought. how much was lost, not just whether they were or wren't worthy of use and study, but how much may have been avctually correct, and first hand knowledge of the events that occurred. people are told what is and what isn't to be believed, and most follow along blindly, not even questioning anything as simple as were the words spoken, as written or were they compiled from many sources. of course many of the common things in the canon are accepted as fairly representative of what was acceptable to the main church, but what of those things that are sstill unknown, and presumably unknowable? and why were the leaders of the church so against anyone questioning what they wanted people to believe? i think it waqs just the same that jc faced in the temple. those in power were not going to give it up, and anyone who was a percieved, or actual, threat was to be destroyed along with whatever material they may have to lend credence to the other belief, regardless of right or wrong. i have read many of the nag hammadi and dead sea scroll texts as they were in translation. most were very odd, and some quite fantastical, but a few were enlightening. one i found most illuminating was the war between the sons of god and the sons of men. the other was the gospel of thomas, not because i believe it , but because it seems to be written as if the writer had actually heard the speaker. it seemed to me a more representative way of how the wqords would have been spoken. am i correct? who knows. i still have to wonder, though.:-4
i know many peolple don't accept reincarnation, but what they do accept, i find to be ridiculous. heaven, hell, purgatory. all are just ridiculously simple. that is nothing as bad as the pope telling the whole world that it's going to hell unless it believes as catholics what they need to be saved. who has ever gone to hell, except the fools who go to war? now that's hell.
I can see how one might come to the conclusion that this is an example of reincarnation. However, that would amount to a very literal translation when in fact the whole issue is a metaphorical expression. There were scribes who thought that Elijah would come back before the Messiah but it is not even certain who they were.
The writer is simply comparing the work of John the Baptist with Elijah. Theologians do not see this as an example of reincarnation.
The question to be be asked of the stories in the Bible is not "Did it really happen this way"? but "What is the meaning of the story"? The Bible is not an history book nor was it intended to be.
Shalom
Ted:-6
i have nothing against what others believe, but theologians have one thing i don't, preconceived notions, based on what other theologians have said. as for whether jc or any of the new testament writers actually said anything that is attributed to them, only the speakers know. neither of us were present so we have to take some things on faith, or with a grain of salt. i take the salt, not because i disbeleive, but because i consider the reasoning and the pupose of certain writings being allowed in and others not, and others denounced for heresy because they weren't what the church liked, to be just nothing but garbage thought. how much was lost, not just whether they were or wren't worthy of use and study, but how much may have been avctually correct, and first hand knowledge of the events that occurred. people are told what is and what isn't to be believed, and most follow along blindly, not even questioning anything as simple as were the words spoken, as written or were they compiled from many sources. of course many of the common things in the canon are accepted as fairly representative of what was acceptable to the main church, but what of those things that are sstill unknown, and presumably unknowable? and why were the leaders of the church so against anyone questioning what they wanted people to believe? i think it waqs just the same that jc faced in the temple. those in power were not going to give it up, and anyone who was a percieved, or actual, threat was to be destroyed along with whatever material they may have to lend credence to the other belief, regardless of right or wrong. i have read many of the nag hammadi and dead sea scroll texts as they were in translation. most were very odd, and some quite fantastical, but a few were enlightening. one i found most illuminating was the war between the sons of god and the sons of men. the other was the gospel of thomas, not because i believe it , but because it seems to be written as if the writer had actually heard the speaker. it seemed to me a more representative way of how the wqords would have been spoken. am i correct? who knows. i still have to wonder, though.:-4i know many peolple don't accept reincarnation, but what they do accept, i find to be ridiculous. heaven, hell, purgatory. all are just ridiculously simple. that is nothing as bad as the pope telling the whole world that it's going to hell unless it believes as catholics what they need to be saved. who has ever gone to hell, except the fools who go to war? now that's hell.
The Second Coming
Charles:-6
Those are precisely the reasons I turn to the work of the scholars many of whom as Felinessa has said are historians and quite knowledgeable about the history of the era. It is not quite as simple as you would make it out to be.
Many of these folks are not the representative of any particular church but do scholarship in its own right.
Now no one is telling anyone what to believe or not believe. All I pass on is the work of the scholars. If you don't like it or agree with it that is fine with me. I study so that I am not guessing in the dark.
As I said you might find the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman quite interesting.
Of course history is not an exact science but it can come reasonably close.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Those are precisely the reasons I turn to the work of the scholars many of whom as Felinessa has said are historians and quite knowledgeable about the history of the era. It is not quite as simple as you would make it out to be.
Many of these folks are not the representative of any particular church but do scholarship in its own right.
Now no one is telling anyone what to believe or not believe. All I pass on is the work of the scholars. If you don't like it or agree with it that is fine with me. I study so that I am not guessing in the dark.
As I said you might find the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman quite interesting.
Of course history is not an exact science but it can come reasonably close.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Second Coming
Thank you, OpenMind for your thoughtful reply. You have brought up some good points to discuss.
OpenMind wrote: I am not familiar with Ellen White's works. Since Jesus himself stated that there would be no more prophets after himself, then I find it hard to consider Ellen White as a prophet.
No Prophets After Jesus?
I looked for the quote you mentioned where Jesus said there would be no more prophets after Him. Help me if I haven’t found the verse(s) you were talking about, but here are two verses you might be thinking of:
Matthew11:12, 13
From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
Luke 16:16
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
The term, “The Law and the Prophets†is what the Jews called the Bible, in other words, the “Law and the Prophets†means the Old Testament books from Genesis to Malachi. The Law and the Prophets were God’s primary message from God up until John’s day. Jesus’ words taken at face value don’t necessarily mean that there would be no more prophets after John or Jesus. I don’t think Jesus said He would be the last prophet, because we have Revelation, which is explicitly prophetic, and also some prophetic texts in the epistles.
The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament Church
The New Testament clearly says that the gift of prophecy will be present in the Church. Paul encouraged Christians to respect and even seek the gift of prophecy. Paul believed that some Christians prophesy- he had seen church members prophesy, and he approved of prophecy as being among the most desirable of spiritual gifts.
Romans 12:6
We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith.
1 Corinthians 14:1-4
Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
1 Corinthians 14:24
But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25 and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
Ellen White A Prophet?
Ellen White is a controversial figure because Adventists believe she had the gift of prophecy. Whether or not you believe that, another question is, does a gift of prophecy, or the fact that a person prophesies, make them a prophet? I might bake a cupcake, but that doesn’t make me a baker. I think that whether a person is prophet or not has to do with whether they have a prophetic ministry. One who prophesies on occasion is not a necessarily a prophet.
Infallibility is not the test of a prophet. John the Baptist was a prophet, yet when John was arrested and thrown into prison by Herod, he started to doubt that Jesus was really the Messiah.
Luke 7:20
When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?'"
John the Baptist wasn’t infallible, yet Jesus said John the Baptist was a prophet and even more than a prophet.
Matthew 11:9,10
Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written: "'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'
Ellen White had a full-time prophetic ministry, and wrote dozens of books. She is the most widely published female author. She is not infallible, so her writings are not equal to Scripture. But in my opinion they contain the best interpretations of Scripture available anywhere, because they are guided by the Spirit of Prophecy. I believe she serves in the best sense the function of the New Testament prophetic gift- to help us understand the Bible (“Help†means we still need to study it for ourselves. Sister White criticized people who merely got all their Bible instruction from reading her writings and were too lazy to study the Scriptures for themselves). She also had some visions that were specific to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, guiding our leaders in directions to take in our mission. Although Sister White had a prophetic mission, she did not have an office or position of power in the church, and they did not always listen to her. Adventists did not elect a replacement for her, because making prophets or giving prophetic gifts is God’s prerogative, not ours.
If you would like to become acquainted with Ellen White’s writings, her best book without question is “The Desire of Ages.†It’s the story of Jesus’ life and ministry. Try this website, and you can read and text-search anything she wrote without having to shell out money for books yourself:
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/ ... id=default
There are also a multitude of anti-Ellen White websites which can be had for a google. If you want to hear the other side of the story, try www.ellen-white.com
OpenMind wrote: I am aware that much is written concerning the bible which is nothing more than theory and a postulation of ideas. It is enough that I am expected to believe the bible without being able to verify the facts. To use the bible itself to authorise a conjectured meaning usually ends up with a tangle of concepts that confuse the issue further.
The exegesis of Scripture is a very big subject. There is a lot to it. I have textbooks on it, but I’m not a minister, and I don’t often have the time or discipline to use every tool of exegetical analysis. Everyone arrives at their own view regarding Scripture in their own way. The reason that Bible study ends up in confusion is because we all approach Scripture with our own pre-conceived notions. I do. You do. (I’m one of the very few who will admit this to you, but everyone who doesn’t admit that is either a liar, or not very self-aware). When we begin with a faulty premise, we prejudice our view of the Scripture, and we aren’t even aware that we’re doing it, because the faulty premise is our paradigm.
The paradigm I advocate is simply one of reading it with the desire to know and to do God’s will. I get the sense, Openmind, that you take this same view.
John 7:17
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
One major misuse of Scripture is when the question is whether “A†or “B.†Lets say a dozen verses in various places in the Bible say “A,†and one is ambiguously worded and may mean “A†or “B.†A person who desperately wants to believe “B†constructs a whole theology around the “A/B†verse as if it explicitly said “B†with the thunders and lightnings of heaven to confirm “Bâ€, and they harp on and on endlessly about their pet verse and ignore all the others. I think our paradigm, or the major theme of our theology should be in harmony with the tenor of Scripture- what most verses clearly say. Then we go from the known to the unknown to interpret the ambiguous or “minority report†ones in light of what is known. Most people who object to the Bible, saying it is full of contradictions, would be surprised if they were open minded enough to study it with discipline, that the book is remarkably consistent for having been written by so many people over so long a period of time.
But the Bible has two strikes against it in the opinions of many people. One, it describes miracles. A person who is “scientifically-minded†and skeptical, and who has never experienced the supernatural will reject that, or attempt to reduce the miracle accounts to myths and fables. Two, the Bible delineates a system of morality, and describes which behaviors and lifestyles God approves of, and those which He does not. People whose personal morality doesn’t agree with the morality of the Bible, or who live in ways proscribed by the Bible, will either reject the Bible wholesale, or invent interpretations of it that agree with their preferences.
Even if you use all the proper tools, and you have no “scientific†or moral attitudes that compromise your objectivity in understanding the Bible, you are really only halfway there. The Holy Spirit reveals to us the deep things of God, and makes Scripture understandable. He only reveals to us certain truths when we have reached the state of surrender where we are willing to obey whatever is revealed. It is because 1, we don’t use all the tools, 2, we start with faulty prejudices, and 3, we aren’t willing to obey what God reveals to us, that the Bible is not made clear to us. God is a very willing communicator. The communication breakdown is entirely our fault.
John 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
OpenMind wrote: Matt.22:30, for instance, refers specifically to men and does imply that angels do not marry. But there is no qualification given here that angels are the sons of God.
You’re right. I’m not aware of any verse of Scripture that clearly calls angels “sons of God.†A search with my Bible software shows only six times in the whole Bible that the expression “sons of God†is used, and it’s always referring to men- specifically believers. That’s another reason why Genesis 6:2 probably refers to believers and not to angels. That’s one of the simplest study tools open to duffers like me with a computer. Do a search and see how a certain word or phrase is used throughout Scripture and it helps you understand what it means. I use QuickVerse versions 4 and 6. You're also right about using different translations. I sometimes look up the Greek or Hebrew word and see how it appears in other verses to see what it means.
OpenMind wrote: By all accounts and purposes, God created man from the dust of the ground. To be God's son, I would expect him to have been the product of His seed.
The genealogy in Luke that ends in Luke 3:38 calls Adam the son of God. But what you’re saying is spiritually true. Through faith in Jesus we become sons of God and heirs of the promise. It’s sonship through adoption.
Galatians 3:26
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus
John 1:12
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
I think, and this is only my reasoning, not written in the Bible, but if God made Adam, and Adam came to believe in a Savior, and so Adam became a “son of God,†It seems logical to me that angels, whom God made, though of different stuff, and who believe in God’s son and serve His purposes, may equally be entitled to be called “sons of God.â€
OpenMind wrote: Regarding Ex.4:22, if Israel is God's firstborn, where does that leave those that were lived before him.
Here’s my opinion: I think it’s all spiritual symbolism. In ancient Jewish tradition firstborn is the one who inherits all the best stuff from his father. God loves us all so much that He wants to give every one of us the best He has, so I believe He spiritually and symbolically calls all believers collectively His “firstborn.†Israel is not merely Jacob, or Jesus. It is not merely a country in the Middle East. I believe that Spiritual Israel is the body of believers. We have a spiritual connection with Jesus, who really is God’s firstborn, because God views us as if we were Jesus, as if we lived the perfect life He lived. He is our righteousness, and died the death we deserve so we could gain the eternal life His perfect life deserves. The topic of “who is Israel†is a very complicated and controversial issue in Christianity, that has profound theological, prophetic and political ramifications. Nobody has a view on it that can be proven conclusively by Scripture, and most people’s positions on it, including mine, take long-winded arguments that can’t change anyone’s mind who disagrees. There’s one of our pre-conceptions. One day we’ll all know for sure.
OpenMind wrote: Again, Deut.14:1 stands in direct conflict with the creation of Adam. This would appear to me to be a rhetorical statement, or, Israel was not a direct descendant of Adam. But, according to Genesis, Israel is a descendant of Adam. Therefoe, I must conclude that Deut.14:1 is rhetorical.
Deuteronomy 14:1,2
You are the children of the LORD your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, 2 for you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession.
Solidarity
I think I agree with you, Openmind. I think all statements about us being sons or children of God are symbolic and spiritual- though I’m not sure what you mean by “rhetorical.†The son/daughter/children motif is part of Middle Eastern thinking. It’s very foreign to our western way of thinking, but I believe it’s a feature in the Bible. In the way the ancient Jews thought, a person was present in the life of their ancestor. For example, in ancient Hebrew thinking, when Adam did what he did, we were there and participated in a vicarious way. I’ve heard this principle called “solidarity,†in other words, we have a spiritual solidarity to our ancestors. There are two New Testament arguments that come to mind that employ the principle of solidarity to illustrate gospel truth. One is found in Hebrews:
Hebrews 6:19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,
Heb 6:20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
Heb 7:1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,
Heb 7:2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace."
Heb 7:3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.
Heb 7:4 Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder!
Heb 7:5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people--that is, their brothers--even though their brothers are descended from Abraham.
Heb 7:6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.
Heb 7:7 And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater.
Heb 7:8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living.
Heb 7:9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham,
Heb 7:10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.
Heb 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
To understand this point the author of Hebrews is making, you have to go back to this short and enigmatic account of Abraham’s encounter with the Priest-King, Melchizedek
Gennesis 14:18
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,
Gen 14:19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.
Gen 14:20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
Here is the point the author of Hebrews is making: Melchizedek is either Jesus or a type (pre-runner or symbol) of Jesus. When Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe, and when Melchizedek blessed Abraham, Abraham was acknowledging Melchizedek as the representative of God, as one greater and closer to God than Abraham was. The priests collect a tenth from the people, v. 7:5 and the greater blesses the lesser, v. 7:7. He says that “Levi was in the body of his ancestor (Abraham)†In 6:20, Hebrews tells us that Jesus has become a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. So the writer of Hebrews is using the concept of solidarity to explain why the eternal Melchizedek priesthood, of which Jesus is the High Priest, is superior to the Levitical priesthood, because Levi (in Abraham through solidarity) paid tithes to Jesus (as Melchizedek). The Hebrews, who first read this epistle understood this perfectly, because they believed in the concept of solidarity.
Another example of solidarity is found in 1 Corinthians. Paul used solidarity symbolism when he wrote…
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
In other words, through solidarity, all humankind were present in the loins of Adam when he committed the first sin. We all participated in it in some way. If this is too far-fetched for you, consider that all Adam and Eve did was simply to decide which of the commands God gave they would obey, and which they would disobey- to attribute to themselves the “knowledge of good and evil.†(If you know anyone who has never done this, please tell me- I would very much like to meet that person!)
Paul goes on with the illustration:
1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
1 Cor 15:46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
1 Cor 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
1 Cor 15:48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
1 Cor 15:49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
Now, in John 6:38, Jesus identifies Himself as the One who came down from heaven. Therefore, this “second man from heaven†in verse 47 is Jesus. The point of this is, in our unconverted state, we are sons of Adam. In Adam, through the principle of solidarity, we participated in the sin of deciding for ourselves which of God’s commandments to keep and which to break, based on our own preferences. But in Christ, through solidarity, it’s as if we are not children of Adam, but children of Christ instead. Then it’s as if we came from heaven and lived a life of perfect obedience to God’s law. Jesus’ history becomes our history. In God’s eyes, we participate in Jesus’ perfect, holy life. In another way, it means our sins are covered, because when Jesus died on the cross, and paid the penalty for sin, It’s as if we were there too, dying on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins- so no further penalty is required!
Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
What I am saying is that the concept of solidarity means that the expression, “sons of God†has much deeper meaning than is apparent if you only read a verse or two. That’s why we have to read the whole Bible and see all the inter-related parts to understand the little verses that apparently don’t make sense. (and it does help to hear sermons preached and read books written by people who know their stuff if you don’t have the time or opportunity to gain all that education yourself).
OpenMind wrote: What qualification is there that the daughters of men were Canaanites?
‘Aint none. It’s by process of elimination. We learned that angels don’t marry, and “sons of God†in the Bible, most often refers to believers, therefore, the “sons of God†in Genesis 6:3 were believers. Who does that leave to be the “daughters of men?†Unbelievers. The unbelievers are not considered spiritually to be sons or daughters of God, if through receiving and believing we gain the right to become children of God, according to John 1:12. (You might argue that the author of Genesis had not read John 1:12 when he wrote verse 6:3, but I don’t worry about that because I believe both authors were inspired by the same Source)
Now, my statement that the “daughters of men†were descendents of Cain was an assumption that I need to reconsider. That would assume that all the descendents of Seth all remained believers, and that all the descendents of Cain all remained unbelievers, and I have to admit that is an unwarranted assumption. (did I say Canaanites? I meant Cainites.). I stand corrected on that.
OpenMind wrote: Empirical evidence is what I mean. The bible itself provides no evidence per se. For this reason, I read the bible at face value. Where there is a conflict between statements, I leave the interpretation open. I have my own conjectures, but I wouldn't accept any conjecture without empirical proof.
I hope you appreciate what I mean when I say that I lay my faith in the bible and not in man's interpretation thereof. For that, I would require hard irrefutable evidence.
I admire your objectivity. I think you are very wise and very right to say we must lay our faith in the Bible and not in man’s interpretation thereof. But when we hear from other people concepts that may be ancient but are new to us, and if they seem to fit, and help us understand better, I think it’s good to accept them. Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Test everything. Hold on to the good.â€
When you say you would require hard irrefutable evidence to accept any man’s interpretation, I wonder if you are positive that you have not already accepted someone else’s teaching, that has, without your conscious knowledge, become part of your paradigm, and that is not supported by irrefutable evidence. I think that since we see “through a glass darkly†(1 Cor 13:12 KJV), we all have preconceived notions about Scripture, whether we are aware or it or will admit it or not.
OpenMind wrote: I am not familiar with Ellen White's works. Since Jesus himself stated that there would be no more prophets after himself, then I find it hard to consider Ellen White as a prophet.
No Prophets After Jesus?
I looked for the quote you mentioned where Jesus said there would be no more prophets after Him. Help me if I haven’t found the verse(s) you were talking about, but here are two verses you might be thinking of:
Matthew11:12, 13
From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
Luke 16:16
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
The term, “The Law and the Prophets†is what the Jews called the Bible, in other words, the “Law and the Prophets†means the Old Testament books from Genesis to Malachi. The Law and the Prophets were God’s primary message from God up until John’s day. Jesus’ words taken at face value don’t necessarily mean that there would be no more prophets after John or Jesus. I don’t think Jesus said He would be the last prophet, because we have Revelation, which is explicitly prophetic, and also some prophetic texts in the epistles.
The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament Church
The New Testament clearly says that the gift of prophecy will be present in the Church. Paul encouraged Christians to respect and even seek the gift of prophecy. Paul believed that some Christians prophesy- he had seen church members prophesy, and he approved of prophecy as being among the most desirable of spiritual gifts.
Romans 12:6
We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith.
1 Corinthians 14:1-4
Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
1 Corinthians 14:24
But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25 and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
Ellen White A Prophet?
Ellen White is a controversial figure because Adventists believe she had the gift of prophecy. Whether or not you believe that, another question is, does a gift of prophecy, or the fact that a person prophesies, make them a prophet? I might bake a cupcake, but that doesn’t make me a baker. I think that whether a person is prophet or not has to do with whether they have a prophetic ministry. One who prophesies on occasion is not a necessarily a prophet.
Infallibility is not the test of a prophet. John the Baptist was a prophet, yet when John was arrested and thrown into prison by Herod, he started to doubt that Jesus was really the Messiah.
Luke 7:20
When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?'"
John the Baptist wasn’t infallible, yet Jesus said John the Baptist was a prophet and even more than a prophet.
Matthew 11:9,10
Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written: "'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'
Ellen White had a full-time prophetic ministry, and wrote dozens of books. She is the most widely published female author. She is not infallible, so her writings are not equal to Scripture. But in my opinion they contain the best interpretations of Scripture available anywhere, because they are guided by the Spirit of Prophecy. I believe she serves in the best sense the function of the New Testament prophetic gift- to help us understand the Bible (“Help†means we still need to study it for ourselves. Sister White criticized people who merely got all their Bible instruction from reading her writings and were too lazy to study the Scriptures for themselves). She also had some visions that were specific to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, guiding our leaders in directions to take in our mission. Although Sister White had a prophetic mission, she did not have an office or position of power in the church, and they did not always listen to her. Adventists did not elect a replacement for her, because making prophets or giving prophetic gifts is God’s prerogative, not ours.
If you would like to become acquainted with Ellen White’s writings, her best book without question is “The Desire of Ages.†It’s the story of Jesus’ life and ministry. Try this website, and you can read and text-search anything she wrote without having to shell out money for books yourself:
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/ ... id=default
There are also a multitude of anti-Ellen White websites which can be had for a google. If you want to hear the other side of the story, try www.ellen-white.com
OpenMind wrote: I am aware that much is written concerning the bible which is nothing more than theory and a postulation of ideas. It is enough that I am expected to believe the bible without being able to verify the facts. To use the bible itself to authorise a conjectured meaning usually ends up with a tangle of concepts that confuse the issue further.
The exegesis of Scripture is a very big subject. There is a lot to it. I have textbooks on it, but I’m not a minister, and I don’t often have the time or discipline to use every tool of exegetical analysis. Everyone arrives at their own view regarding Scripture in their own way. The reason that Bible study ends up in confusion is because we all approach Scripture with our own pre-conceived notions. I do. You do. (I’m one of the very few who will admit this to you, but everyone who doesn’t admit that is either a liar, or not very self-aware). When we begin with a faulty premise, we prejudice our view of the Scripture, and we aren’t even aware that we’re doing it, because the faulty premise is our paradigm.
The paradigm I advocate is simply one of reading it with the desire to know and to do God’s will. I get the sense, Openmind, that you take this same view.
John 7:17
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
One major misuse of Scripture is when the question is whether “A†or “B.†Lets say a dozen verses in various places in the Bible say “A,†and one is ambiguously worded and may mean “A†or “B.†A person who desperately wants to believe “B†constructs a whole theology around the “A/B†verse as if it explicitly said “B†with the thunders and lightnings of heaven to confirm “Bâ€, and they harp on and on endlessly about their pet verse and ignore all the others. I think our paradigm, or the major theme of our theology should be in harmony with the tenor of Scripture- what most verses clearly say. Then we go from the known to the unknown to interpret the ambiguous or “minority report†ones in light of what is known. Most people who object to the Bible, saying it is full of contradictions, would be surprised if they were open minded enough to study it with discipline, that the book is remarkably consistent for having been written by so many people over so long a period of time.
But the Bible has two strikes against it in the opinions of many people. One, it describes miracles. A person who is “scientifically-minded†and skeptical, and who has never experienced the supernatural will reject that, or attempt to reduce the miracle accounts to myths and fables. Two, the Bible delineates a system of morality, and describes which behaviors and lifestyles God approves of, and those which He does not. People whose personal morality doesn’t agree with the morality of the Bible, or who live in ways proscribed by the Bible, will either reject the Bible wholesale, or invent interpretations of it that agree with their preferences.
Even if you use all the proper tools, and you have no “scientific†or moral attitudes that compromise your objectivity in understanding the Bible, you are really only halfway there. The Holy Spirit reveals to us the deep things of God, and makes Scripture understandable. He only reveals to us certain truths when we have reached the state of surrender where we are willing to obey whatever is revealed. It is because 1, we don’t use all the tools, 2, we start with faulty prejudices, and 3, we aren’t willing to obey what God reveals to us, that the Bible is not made clear to us. God is a very willing communicator. The communication breakdown is entirely our fault.
John 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
OpenMind wrote: Matt.22:30, for instance, refers specifically to men and does imply that angels do not marry. But there is no qualification given here that angels are the sons of God.
You’re right. I’m not aware of any verse of Scripture that clearly calls angels “sons of God.†A search with my Bible software shows only six times in the whole Bible that the expression “sons of God†is used, and it’s always referring to men- specifically believers. That’s another reason why Genesis 6:2 probably refers to believers and not to angels. That’s one of the simplest study tools open to duffers like me with a computer. Do a search and see how a certain word or phrase is used throughout Scripture and it helps you understand what it means. I use QuickVerse versions 4 and 6. You're also right about using different translations. I sometimes look up the Greek or Hebrew word and see how it appears in other verses to see what it means.
OpenMind wrote: By all accounts and purposes, God created man from the dust of the ground. To be God's son, I would expect him to have been the product of His seed.
The genealogy in Luke that ends in Luke 3:38 calls Adam the son of God. But what you’re saying is spiritually true. Through faith in Jesus we become sons of God and heirs of the promise. It’s sonship through adoption.
Galatians 3:26
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus
John 1:12
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
I think, and this is only my reasoning, not written in the Bible, but if God made Adam, and Adam came to believe in a Savior, and so Adam became a “son of God,†It seems logical to me that angels, whom God made, though of different stuff, and who believe in God’s son and serve His purposes, may equally be entitled to be called “sons of God.â€
OpenMind wrote: Regarding Ex.4:22, if Israel is God's firstborn, where does that leave those that were lived before him.
Here’s my opinion: I think it’s all spiritual symbolism. In ancient Jewish tradition firstborn is the one who inherits all the best stuff from his father. God loves us all so much that He wants to give every one of us the best He has, so I believe He spiritually and symbolically calls all believers collectively His “firstborn.†Israel is not merely Jacob, or Jesus. It is not merely a country in the Middle East. I believe that Spiritual Israel is the body of believers. We have a spiritual connection with Jesus, who really is God’s firstborn, because God views us as if we were Jesus, as if we lived the perfect life He lived. He is our righteousness, and died the death we deserve so we could gain the eternal life His perfect life deserves. The topic of “who is Israel†is a very complicated and controversial issue in Christianity, that has profound theological, prophetic and political ramifications. Nobody has a view on it that can be proven conclusively by Scripture, and most people’s positions on it, including mine, take long-winded arguments that can’t change anyone’s mind who disagrees. There’s one of our pre-conceptions. One day we’ll all know for sure.
OpenMind wrote: Again, Deut.14:1 stands in direct conflict with the creation of Adam. This would appear to me to be a rhetorical statement, or, Israel was not a direct descendant of Adam. But, according to Genesis, Israel is a descendant of Adam. Therefoe, I must conclude that Deut.14:1 is rhetorical.
Deuteronomy 14:1,2
You are the children of the LORD your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, 2 for you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession.
Solidarity
I think I agree with you, Openmind. I think all statements about us being sons or children of God are symbolic and spiritual- though I’m not sure what you mean by “rhetorical.†The son/daughter/children motif is part of Middle Eastern thinking. It’s very foreign to our western way of thinking, but I believe it’s a feature in the Bible. In the way the ancient Jews thought, a person was present in the life of their ancestor. For example, in ancient Hebrew thinking, when Adam did what he did, we were there and participated in a vicarious way. I’ve heard this principle called “solidarity,†in other words, we have a spiritual solidarity to our ancestors. There are two New Testament arguments that come to mind that employ the principle of solidarity to illustrate gospel truth. One is found in Hebrews:
Hebrews 6:19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,
Heb 6:20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
Heb 7:1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,
Heb 7:2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace."
Heb 7:3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.
Heb 7:4 Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder!
Heb 7:5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people--that is, their brothers--even though their brothers are descended from Abraham.
Heb 7:6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.
Heb 7:7 And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater.
Heb 7:8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living.
Heb 7:9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham,
Heb 7:10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.
Heb 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
To understand this point the author of Hebrews is making, you have to go back to this short and enigmatic account of Abraham’s encounter with the Priest-King, Melchizedek
Gennesis 14:18
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,
Gen 14:19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.
Gen 14:20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
Here is the point the author of Hebrews is making: Melchizedek is either Jesus or a type (pre-runner or symbol) of Jesus. When Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe, and when Melchizedek blessed Abraham, Abraham was acknowledging Melchizedek as the representative of God, as one greater and closer to God than Abraham was. The priests collect a tenth from the people, v. 7:5 and the greater blesses the lesser, v. 7:7. He says that “Levi was in the body of his ancestor (Abraham)†In 6:20, Hebrews tells us that Jesus has become a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. So the writer of Hebrews is using the concept of solidarity to explain why the eternal Melchizedek priesthood, of which Jesus is the High Priest, is superior to the Levitical priesthood, because Levi (in Abraham through solidarity) paid tithes to Jesus (as Melchizedek). The Hebrews, who first read this epistle understood this perfectly, because they believed in the concept of solidarity.
Another example of solidarity is found in 1 Corinthians. Paul used solidarity symbolism when he wrote…
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
In other words, through solidarity, all humankind were present in the loins of Adam when he committed the first sin. We all participated in it in some way. If this is too far-fetched for you, consider that all Adam and Eve did was simply to decide which of the commands God gave they would obey, and which they would disobey- to attribute to themselves the “knowledge of good and evil.†(If you know anyone who has never done this, please tell me- I would very much like to meet that person!)
Paul goes on with the illustration:
1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
1 Cor 15:46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
1 Cor 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
1 Cor 15:48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
1 Cor 15:49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
Now, in John 6:38, Jesus identifies Himself as the One who came down from heaven. Therefore, this “second man from heaven†in verse 47 is Jesus. The point of this is, in our unconverted state, we are sons of Adam. In Adam, through the principle of solidarity, we participated in the sin of deciding for ourselves which of God’s commandments to keep and which to break, based on our own preferences. But in Christ, through solidarity, it’s as if we are not children of Adam, but children of Christ instead. Then it’s as if we came from heaven and lived a life of perfect obedience to God’s law. Jesus’ history becomes our history. In God’s eyes, we participate in Jesus’ perfect, holy life. In another way, it means our sins are covered, because when Jesus died on the cross, and paid the penalty for sin, It’s as if we were there too, dying on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins- so no further penalty is required!
Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
What I am saying is that the concept of solidarity means that the expression, “sons of God†has much deeper meaning than is apparent if you only read a verse or two. That’s why we have to read the whole Bible and see all the inter-related parts to understand the little verses that apparently don’t make sense. (and it does help to hear sermons preached and read books written by people who know their stuff if you don’t have the time or opportunity to gain all that education yourself).
OpenMind wrote: What qualification is there that the daughters of men were Canaanites?
‘Aint none. It’s by process of elimination. We learned that angels don’t marry, and “sons of God†in the Bible, most often refers to believers, therefore, the “sons of God†in Genesis 6:3 were believers. Who does that leave to be the “daughters of men?†Unbelievers. The unbelievers are not considered spiritually to be sons or daughters of God, if through receiving and believing we gain the right to become children of God, according to John 1:12. (You might argue that the author of Genesis had not read John 1:12 when he wrote verse 6:3, but I don’t worry about that because I believe both authors were inspired by the same Source)
Now, my statement that the “daughters of men†were descendents of Cain was an assumption that I need to reconsider. That would assume that all the descendents of Seth all remained believers, and that all the descendents of Cain all remained unbelievers, and I have to admit that is an unwarranted assumption. (did I say Canaanites? I meant Cainites.). I stand corrected on that.
OpenMind wrote: Empirical evidence is what I mean. The bible itself provides no evidence per se. For this reason, I read the bible at face value. Where there is a conflict between statements, I leave the interpretation open. I have my own conjectures, but I wouldn't accept any conjecture without empirical proof.
I hope you appreciate what I mean when I say that I lay my faith in the bible and not in man's interpretation thereof. For that, I would require hard irrefutable evidence.
I admire your objectivity. I think you are very wise and very right to say we must lay our faith in the Bible and not in man’s interpretation thereof. But when we hear from other people concepts that may be ancient but are new to us, and if they seem to fit, and help us understand better, I think it’s good to accept them. Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Test everything. Hold on to the good.â€
When you say you would require hard irrefutable evidence to accept any man’s interpretation, I wonder if you are positive that you have not already accepted someone else’s teaching, that has, without your conscious knowledge, become part of your paradigm, and that is not supported by irrefutable evidence. I think that since we see “through a glass darkly†(1 Cor 13:12 KJV), we all have preconceived notions about Scripture, whether we are aware or it or will admit it or not.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: 
are you, as pope john paul 2, then condemning all who are not believers as you to hell? how self-centered and hypocritical. who said judge not, lest ye be judged, for with the same RIGHTEOUS judgement, so shall ye be judged? some idiot who didn't know anything? a modern day prophet? a babbler of foolish non-sense? are billions of non-christians going to hell on your beliewfs. i think not. don't say you havge to be saved, and born of the spirit if you don't know what jesus was talking about. his disciples didn't understand, and neither do most others. nor do many christian believers even practice what they preach. but they are very good at making noises about things they themse;lves don't even do.:-4 :-4Charles, I don’t believe in the hell you’re talking about, I’m not on the same team as John Paul II, and I did not write anything there to condemn anybody.
If you care to look it up, you’ll see that the same One who said, “judge not, lest ye be judged†also said this following quote:
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
I do not believe anyone is going to hell or anywhere else for that matter, on my beliefs. I cherish the fondest hope of seeing many people in heaven who have disagreed with me on quite a few points in this life. But since Jesus is the Savior, I think we should look into doing the things that please Him. My experience is that this doesn’t come naturally to me, and I have to constantly seek divine aid to stay close to Jesus. Maybe the Christian life and obedience is more effortless and natural to you. If this is the case, congratulations.
Are you saying that I don’t practice what I preach? I’m not defending myself or saying that I always practice what I preach, but have you observed me not practicing what I preach? Some feedback would be helpful to me.
Relax, Charles. What I wrote was only my attempt to inspire people to wholesome thinking. I need to be saved as much as you do. But then again, if you are some special exception to the "have to be saved" rule, congratulations.:rolleyes:
2 Peter 3:1
Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.
are you, as pope john paul 2, then condemning all who are not believers as you to hell? how self-centered and hypocritical. who said judge not, lest ye be judged, for with the same RIGHTEOUS judgement, so shall ye be judged? some idiot who didn't know anything? a modern day prophet? a babbler of foolish non-sense? are billions of non-christians going to hell on your beliewfs. i think not. don't say you havge to be saved, and born of the spirit if you don't know what jesus was talking about. his disciples didn't understand, and neither do most others. nor do many christian believers even practice what they preach. but they are very good at making noises about things they themse;lves don't even do.:-4 :-4Charles, I don’t believe in the hell you’re talking about, I’m not on the same team as John Paul II, and I did not write anything there to condemn anybody. If you care to look it up, you’ll see that the same One who said, “judge not, lest ye be judged†also said this following quote:
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
I do not believe anyone is going to hell or anywhere else for that matter, on my beliefs. I cherish the fondest hope of seeing many people in heaven who have disagreed with me on quite a few points in this life. But since Jesus is the Savior, I think we should look into doing the things that please Him. My experience is that this doesn’t come naturally to me, and I have to constantly seek divine aid to stay close to Jesus. Maybe the Christian life and obedience is more effortless and natural to you. If this is the case, congratulations.
Are you saying that I don’t practice what I preach? I’m not defending myself or saying that I always practice what I preach, but have you observed me not practicing what I preach? Some feedback would be helpful to me.
Relax, Charles. What I wrote was only my attempt to inspire people to wholesome thinking. I need to be saved as much as you do. But then again, if you are some special exception to the "have to be saved" rule, congratulations.:rolleyes:
2 Peter 3:1
Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Second Coming
It seems to me that before one can read and interpret the Bible there are factors that must be taken into consideration. If these are not taken into consideration than we are reading blindly, as it were.
First of all if one does not understand the writing style of the ancients than one can never really get at what they meant by what they wrote. Thus we can read into it whatever we want. I suppose a a piece of literature there is nothing wrong with that. However, is the intent to have it mean what the reader wants it to mean to to find out what the writers meant?
Secondly there are many other factors that effect how we interpret what the original writers meant: History of the time of writing, culture of the era, belief systems of the era, the accumulated fund of knowledge, the conceptualization ability of the people, the audience for which it was written, etc. Without these one is reading in the dark.
The Bible itself is not even clear about what sin is. In Leviticus it says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman. Then it says it is an abomination to eat shell fish. It is also an abomination to wear clothes made of two different fabice or fibers at the same time. Now if homosexuality is a sin for example than so is wearing the kind of clothing we have today, i.e. polyester and wool together or polyester and silk.
Another example is from Paul where he says that it is unnatural for a man to have long hair and it is unnatural for a woman to have short hair. He also says it is unnatural for a man to enter a synagogue with a hat on and it is unnatural for a woman to not enter having her head covered. Paul also complained in one point that women should be quiet in church and subject to their husbands yet Paul had women missionaries teaching and preaching. Then we read that homosexuality is unnatural.
Then we could take a look at the myths in Genesis where man is told to multiply and fill the earth. We have now multiplied so much that our very existence is in jeapordy. We've taken dominion of the earth and have raped it.
It is also known that in the ancient documents that we have on which we have based the NT there are some 400 000 variants between the documents. That is 10 different copies of Matt. have a great number of variations. Scholars do their best to decide what is probably the closes to the original. The only other problem that faces them is they are making copies of copies of copies of copies and so on. Baart D. Ehrman is a Biblical scholar and historian.
It is also known that the redactors have added their own takes on things as well.
Without the above mentioned factors to help us we are in fact really reading blindly.
We must learn to discern the very words of God from the very human words of the Bible. Without scholarship we would not have the Bible that we have today.
Then we must see how the messages in the Bible can be applied to today based on the above mentioned factors or we can read in the same way as those in the Dark Ages read it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
First of all if one does not understand the writing style of the ancients than one can never really get at what they meant by what they wrote. Thus we can read into it whatever we want. I suppose a a piece of literature there is nothing wrong with that. However, is the intent to have it mean what the reader wants it to mean to to find out what the writers meant?
Secondly there are many other factors that effect how we interpret what the original writers meant: History of the time of writing, culture of the era, belief systems of the era, the accumulated fund of knowledge, the conceptualization ability of the people, the audience for which it was written, etc. Without these one is reading in the dark.
The Bible itself is not even clear about what sin is. In Leviticus it says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman. Then it says it is an abomination to eat shell fish. It is also an abomination to wear clothes made of two different fabice or fibers at the same time. Now if homosexuality is a sin for example than so is wearing the kind of clothing we have today, i.e. polyester and wool together or polyester and silk.
Another example is from Paul where he says that it is unnatural for a man to have long hair and it is unnatural for a woman to have short hair. He also says it is unnatural for a man to enter a synagogue with a hat on and it is unnatural for a woman to not enter having her head covered. Paul also complained in one point that women should be quiet in church and subject to their husbands yet Paul had women missionaries teaching and preaching. Then we read that homosexuality is unnatural.
Then we could take a look at the myths in Genesis where man is told to multiply and fill the earth. We have now multiplied so much that our very existence is in jeapordy. We've taken dominion of the earth and have raped it.
It is also known that in the ancient documents that we have on which we have based the NT there are some 400 000 variants between the documents. That is 10 different copies of Matt. have a great number of variations. Scholars do their best to decide what is probably the closes to the original. The only other problem that faces them is they are making copies of copies of copies of copies and so on. Baart D. Ehrman is a Biblical scholar and historian.
It is also known that the redactors have added their own takes on things as well.
Without the above mentioned factors to help us we are in fact really reading blindly.
We must learn to discern the very words of God from the very human words of the Bible. Without scholarship we would not have the Bible that we have today.
Then we must see how the messages in the Bible can be applied to today based on the above mentioned factors or we can read in the same way as those in the Dark Ages read it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Second Coming
Thank you, Ted, for some good observations about interpreting Scripture and some interesting points to discuss. I wanted to address a statement you made to Charles:
Ted wrote:
The question to be be asked of the stories in the Bible is not "Did it really happen this way"? but "What is the meaning of the story"? The Bible is not an history book nor was it intended to be.I agree that the meaning of the story is of primary importance, however, we ought not let our limited notions of what is possible and what is not possible guide our belief of whether things happened exactly as the Bible says they did, otherwise, we reduce the Bible to the equivalent of the myths and legends of other cultures who knew not God, nor had any prophets.
1 Corinthians 10:11
These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.
Ted wrote: The Bible itself is not even clear about what sin is. In Leviticus it says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman. Then it says it is an abomination to eat shell fish. It is also an abomination to wear clothes made of two different fabice or fibers at the same time. Now if homosexuality is a sin for example than so is wearing the kind of clothing we have today, i.e. polyester and wool together or polyester and silk.Ted, you agree that using different translations, and viewing the original language helps us understand what the Bible writers originally meant. I referred to Strong’s Concordance for the Hebrew words from which the word “abomination†is translated in the scriptures you are referring to. I found that when referring to the eating of shellfish, the original Hebrew word is a different word, one denoting less offensivevness, than the Hebrew word used in reference to lying with a man as one lies with a woman. The shellfish “abomination†is the word, sheqets, which means “filth.†Shellfish are bottom feeders, therefore they eat and store in their flesh the waste products and impurities that concentrate on the bottom. They’re “filthy.â€
Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination (sheqets sheh-kets “filthâ€) unto you:
Lev 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Lev 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
The “abomination†in reference to lying with a man as one lies with a woman comes from the Hebrew word, toebah, which means “morally disgusting†or “an abhorrence,†according to Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary. In fact, the word toebah is also used in Deuteronomy 12:31 with regards to people burning their own sons and daughters in the worship of false gods.
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.(to-ay-baw- “disgusting,†an “abhorrenceâ€)
Deuteronomy 12:31
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination.(to-ay-baw- “disgusting,†an “abhorrenceâ€) to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
As for the reference to the statute in the Law of Moses that prohibits the wearing of mixed cloth, you’ll have to help me, because I was unable to find any verse calling it an abomination.
Deu 22:11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.
Leviticus 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
In any case, there is an account of a discussion by the Apostles and church leaders in the Book of Acts, where they appear to have jettisoned certain statutes of the Law of Moses, making them inapplicable and non-binding to the Christian Church. However, the prohibitions against sexual immorality are clearly preserved. I think the Bible is fairly clear about what sin is. We humans, myself included, fail in that we hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest.
Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
Acts 15:6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
Acts 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
Acts 15:8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
Acts 15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
Acts 15:10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
Acts 15:11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Acts 15:12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
Acts 15:13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me.
Acts 15:14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.
Acts 15:15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
Acts 15:16 "'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
Acts 15:17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'
Acts 15:18 that have been known for ages.
Acts 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Acts 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Ted wrote:
Then we could take a look at the myths in Genesis where man is told to multiply and fill the earth. We have now multiplied so much that our very existence is in jeapordy. We've taken dominion of the earth and have raped it.I would not reduce Genesis to a myth, considering these things happened to the people then as examples written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. I agree with you that mankind has raped the earth, but I believe that if mankind had combined “multiplying and filling the earth†with obeying God’s righteous law, we would not see the war and famine and disease and destruction of the environment that we see today. The devastation of this planet is solely a result of man’s sin and rebellion.
Revelation 11:18
The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great-- and for destroying those who destroy the earth."
Ted wrote:
The question to be be asked of the stories in the Bible is not "Did it really happen this way"? but "What is the meaning of the story"? The Bible is not an history book nor was it intended to be.I agree that the meaning of the story is of primary importance, however, we ought not let our limited notions of what is possible and what is not possible guide our belief of whether things happened exactly as the Bible says they did, otherwise, we reduce the Bible to the equivalent of the myths and legends of other cultures who knew not God, nor had any prophets.
1 Corinthians 10:11
These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.
Ted wrote: The Bible itself is not even clear about what sin is. In Leviticus it says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman. Then it says it is an abomination to eat shell fish. It is also an abomination to wear clothes made of two different fabice or fibers at the same time. Now if homosexuality is a sin for example than so is wearing the kind of clothing we have today, i.e. polyester and wool together or polyester and silk.Ted, you agree that using different translations, and viewing the original language helps us understand what the Bible writers originally meant. I referred to Strong’s Concordance for the Hebrew words from which the word “abomination†is translated in the scriptures you are referring to. I found that when referring to the eating of shellfish, the original Hebrew word is a different word, one denoting less offensivevness, than the Hebrew word used in reference to lying with a man as one lies with a woman. The shellfish “abomination†is the word, sheqets, which means “filth.†Shellfish are bottom feeders, therefore they eat and store in their flesh the waste products and impurities that concentrate on the bottom. They’re “filthy.â€
Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination (sheqets sheh-kets “filthâ€) unto you:
Lev 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Lev 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
The “abomination†in reference to lying with a man as one lies with a woman comes from the Hebrew word, toebah, which means “morally disgusting†or “an abhorrence,†according to Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary. In fact, the word toebah is also used in Deuteronomy 12:31 with regards to people burning their own sons and daughters in the worship of false gods.
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.(to-ay-baw- “disgusting,†an “abhorrenceâ€)
Deuteronomy 12:31
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination.(to-ay-baw- “disgusting,†an “abhorrenceâ€) to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
As for the reference to the statute in the Law of Moses that prohibits the wearing of mixed cloth, you’ll have to help me, because I was unable to find any verse calling it an abomination.
Deu 22:11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.
Leviticus 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
In any case, there is an account of a discussion by the Apostles and church leaders in the Book of Acts, where they appear to have jettisoned certain statutes of the Law of Moses, making them inapplicable and non-binding to the Christian Church. However, the prohibitions against sexual immorality are clearly preserved. I think the Bible is fairly clear about what sin is. We humans, myself included, fail in that we hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest.
Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
Acts 15:6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
Acts 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
Acts 15:8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
Acts 15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
Acts 15:10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
Acts 15:11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Acts 15:12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
Acts 15:13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me.
Acts 15:14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.
Acts 15:15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
Acts 15:16 "'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
Acts 15:17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'
Acts 15:18 that have been known for ages.
Acts 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Acts 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Ted wrote:
Then we could take a look at the myths in Genesis where man is told to multiply and fill the earth. We have now multiplied so much that our very existence is in jeapordy. We've taken dominion of the earth and have raped it.I would not reduce Genesis to a myth, considering these things happened to the people then as examples written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. I agree with you that mankind has raped the earth, but I believe that if mankind had combined “multiplying and filling the earth†with obeying God’s righteous law, we would not see the war and famine and disease and destruction of the environment that we see today. The devastation of this planet is solely a result of man’s sin and rebellion.
Revelation 11:18
The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great-- and for destroying those who destroy the earth."
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Second Coming
Tel:-6
You raise some interesting points.
I will begin with the Creation Stories in Genesis. They are considered by scholaraly people to be myth. They are not in any way historical. Anderson, Borg, Crossan, Spong, Gordon and a host of others. Having studied both Hebrew and Biblical history I can come to no other conclusion. Then when we look at the scientific research we also find them to be myth.
Yes the Hebrew does use to different words both shequets and toebah.
In Strong's complete dictionary I find the following: idolatrous object, abominable for sheqets # 8263 from the root shaqats #8262 to be filthy, toloathe, pollute, abhor, make abominable detest.
For toebah# 8441 Strong's Dictionary says something disgusting, an abhorrence, abominable , abomination.
From Young's Concordance I find for sheqets: abomination, deceitful, vain, fraud.
and for toebah I find: abominatile thing, abomination.
And from D. Gordon a scholar I hear that such cannot be considered a sin. It simply means that God does not like it. John Spong is in complete agreement.
Now we add to it your lovely work from Acts and we find that some laws can now be declared inapplicable. That means that they are subject to change depending on the cultural circumstances. Now I will go further as both Gordon and Spong have said that you cannot have it both ways either it is or is not a sin. One cannot say that we will make this inapplicable and that will still remain.
The same must hold true for Paul's comments as well. Obviously history and culture have dictated a change as it should.
When we look at the scientific research and we read that homosexuality is not a choice but a given in both the medical literature and the American Psychological Association.
The fact of the matter is that all of those factors I have listed in an earlier post must be taken into account both then and now. We must listen as the spirit leads us into more and more truth and not stay where we are because we do not like change. Change is from God and we were warned that we would be given more as we were able to grasp it.
Thus the question; Is homosexuality as sin? I would say no it is a gift from God to a specific small group of people, about 10% of society. In fact I doubt very much that God is concerned about the issue of homosexuality. But I am certain that He is concerned about the abuse and oppression to which we subject the homosexual community.
These folks were created by God with all of their warts and imperfections. How is it that we can blame them for what God has given them? Do they deserve any less fulfillment in life than others? If this is the case than God is not Just.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You raise some interesting points.
I will begin with the Creation Stories in Genesis. They are considered by scholaraly people to be myth. They are not in any way historical. Anderson, Borg, Crossan, Spong, Gordon and a host of others. Having studied both Hebrew and Biblical history I can come to no other conclusion. Then when we look at the scientific research we also find them to be myth.
Yes the Hebrew does use to different words both shequets and toebah.
In Strong's complete dictionary I find the following: idolatrous object, abominable for sheqets # 8263 from the root shaqats #8262 to be filthy, toloathe, pollute, abhor, make abominable detest.
For toebah# 8441 Strong's Dictionary says something disgusting, an abhorrence, abominable , abomination.
From Young's Concordance I find for sheqets: abomination, deceitful, vain, fraud.
and for toebah I find: abominatile thing, abomination.
And from D. Gordon a scholar I hear that such cannot be considered a sin. It simply means that God does not like it. John Spong is in complete agreement.
Now we add to it your lovely work from Acts and we find that some laws can now be declared inapplicable. That means that they are subject to change depending on the cultural circumstances. Now I will go further as both Gordon and Spong have said that you cannot have it both ways either it is or is not a sin. One cannot say that we will make this inapplicable and that will still remain.
The same must hold true for Paul's comments as well. Obviously history and culture have dictated a change as it should.
When we look at the scientific research and we read that homosexuality is not a choice but a given in both the medical literature and the American Psychological Association.
The fact of the matter is that all of those factors I have listed in an earlier post must be taken into account both then and now. We must listen as the spirit leads us into more and more truth and not stay where we are because we do not like change. Change is from God and we were warned that we would be given more as we were able to grasp it.
Thus the question; Is homosexuality as sin? I would say no it is a gift from God to a specific small group of people, about 10% of society. In fact I doubt very much that God is concerned about the issue of homosexuality. But I am certain that He is concerned about the abuse and oppression to which we subject the homosexual community.
These folks were created by God with all of their warts and imperfections. How is it that we can blame them for what God has given them? Do they deserve any less fulfillment in life than others? If this is the case than God is not Just.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: Tel:-6
You raise some interesting points.
I will begin with the Creation Stories in Genesis. They are considered by scholaraly people to be myth. They are not in any way historical. Anderson, Borg, Crossan, Spong, Gordon and a host of others. Having studied both Hebrew and Biblical history I can come to no other conclusion. Then when we look at the scientific research we also find them to be myth.
Yes the Hebrew does use to different words both shequets and toebah.
In Strong's complete dictionary I find the following: idolatrous object, abominable for sheqets # 8263 from the root shaqats #8262 to be filthy, toloathe, pollute, abhor, make abominable detest.
For toebah# 8441 Strong's Dictionary says something disgusting, an abhorrence, abominable , abomination.
From Young's Concordance I find for sheqets: abomination, deceitful, vain, fraud.
and for toebah I find: abominatile thing, abomination.
And from D. Gordon a scholar I hear that such cannot be considered a sin. It simply means that God does not like it. John Spong is in complete agreement.
Now we add to it your lovely work from Acts and we find that some laws can now be declared inapplicable. That means that they are subject to change depending on the cultural circumstances. Now I will go further as both Gordon and Spong have said that you cannot have it both ways either it is or is not a sin. One cannot say that we will make this inapplicable and that will still remain.
The same must hold true for Paul's comments as well. Obviously history and culture have dictated a change as it should.
When we look at the scientific research and we read that homosexuality is not a choice but a given in both the medical literature and the American Psychological Association.
The fact of the matter is that all of those factors I have listed in an earlier post must be taken into account both then and now. We must listen as the spirit leads us into more and more truth and not stay where we are because we do not like change. Change is from God and we were warned that we would be given more as we were able to grasp it.
Thus the question; Is homosexuality as sin? I would say no it is a gift from God to a specific small group of people, about 10% of society. In fact I doubt very much that God is concerned about the issue of homosexuality. But I am certain that He is concerned about the abuse and oppression to which we subject the homosexual community.
These folks were created by God with all of their warts and imperfections. How is it that we can blame them for what God has given them? Do they deserve any less fulfillment in life than others? If this is the case than God is not Just.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Very well said.
You raise some interesting points.
I will begin with the Creation Stories in Genesis. They are considered by scholaraly people to be myth. They are not in any way historical. Anderson, Borg, Crossan, Spong, Gordon and a host of others. Having studied both Hebrew and Biblical history I can come to no other conclusion. Then when we look at the scientific research we also find them to be myth.
Yes the Hebrew does use to different words both shequets and toebah.
In Strong's complete dictionary I find the following: idolatrous object, abominable for sheqets # 8263 from the root shaqats #8262 to be filthy, toloathe, pollute, abhor, make abominable detest.
For toebah# 8441 Strong's Dictionary says something disgusting, an abhorrence, abominable , abomination.
From Young's Concordance I find for sheqets: abomination, deceitful, vain, fraud.
and for toebah I find: abominatile thing, abomination.
And from D. Gordon a scholar I hear that such cannot be considered a sin. It simply means that God does not like it. John Spong is in complete agreement.
Now we add to it your lovely work from Acts and we find that some laws can now be declared inapplicable. That means that they are subject to change depending on the cultural circumstances. Now I will go further as both Gordon and Spong have said that you cannot have it both ways either it is or is not a sin. One cannot say that we will make this inapplicable and that will still remain.
The same must hold true for Paul's comments as well. Obviously history and culture have dictated a change as it should.
When we look at the scientific research and we read that homosexuality is not a choice but a given in both the medical literature and the American Psychological Association.
The fact of the matter is that all of those factors I have listed in an earlier post must be taken into account both then and now. We must listen as the spirit leads us into more and more truth and not stay where we are because we do not like change. Change is from God and we were warned that we would be given more as we were able to grasp it.
Thus the question; Is homosexuality as sin? I would say no it is a gift from God to a specific small group of people, about 10% of society. In fact I doubt very much that God is concerned about the issue of homosexuality. But I am certain that He is concerned about the abuse and oppression to which we subject the homosexual community.
These folks were created by God with all of their warts and imperfections. How is it that we can blame them for what God has given them? Do they deserve any less fulfillment in life than others? If this is the case than God is not Just.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Very well said.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
The Second Coming
zinkyusa:-6
Thanks. I just call it as I see it. In fact I have been doing considerable research on this particular topic. No, I am not Gay but I am concerned about oppression and injustice and I see both here in this matter.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks. I just call it as I see it. In fact I have been doing considerable research on this particular topic. No, I am not Gay but I am concerned about oppression and injustice and I see both here in this matter.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Second Coming
Ted, thats actually a way I had never looked at the gay question. Never had anything against them but never could wrap my noodle around whether it was a sin or not. Than you.
The Second Coming
YZGI:-6
It is difficult to get through to some folks who continue to see the issue through the eyes of the dark ages. If we are to blame anyone, and I think not, then perhaps we ought to blame God and so should the homosexual.
In some countries homosexuality is punishable by life imprisonment and even death. What utter nonsense and a great travesty of justice.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It is difficult to get through to some folks who continue to see the issue through the eyes of the dark ages. If we are to blame anyone, and I think not, then perhaps we ought to blame God and so should the homosexual.
In some countries homosexuality is punishable by life imprisonment and even death. What utter nonsense and a great travesty of justice.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Second Coming
It is interesting that folks accuse me of picking and choosing or to use another term cherry picking. I'm just following the lead of the apostles and early Christians.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
telaquapacky wrote: Charles, I don’t believe in the hell you’re talking about, I’m not on the same team as John Paul II, and I did not write anything there to condemn anybody.
If you care to look it up, you’ll see that the same One who said, “judge not, lest ye be judged†also said this following quote:
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
I do not believe anyone is going to hell or anywhere else for that matter, on my beliefs. I cherish the fondest hope of seeing many people in heaven who have disagreed with me on quite a few points in this life. But since Jesus is the Savior, I think we should look into doing the things that please Him. My experience is that this doesn’t come naturally to me, and I have to constantly seek divine aid to stay close to Jesus. Maybe the Christian life and obedience is more effortless and natural to you. If this is the case, congratulations.
Are you saying that I don’t practice what I preach? I’m not defending myself or saying that I always practice what I preach, but have you observed me not practicing what I preach? Some feedback would be helpful to me.
Relax, Charles. What I wrote was only my attempt to inspire people to wholesome thinking. I need to be saved as much as you do. But then again, if you are some special exception to the "have to be saved" rule, congratulations.:rolleyes:
2 Peter 3:1
Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.
when i said that condemnation is common among the churches, i meant in geeral, not specifically one person or individual. as i have attended many dfifferent churches, nbot just around here, but in many states, and even in foreign countries all over the far east, i have seen a commoin thread, that is a rush to judgement of anyone who may have a different idea. yu brought up homosexuality as one such difference. almost everywhere i've been and in nearly all circumstances it is condemned. that is nothing less than a judgement. as you quoted yourself judge not. though frowned upon, i donj't care what a person does if it harms me not. but so many claim it causes harm, but never have they offerred proof that such occurs. thewy imp[ly but never offer proof. even a medical degree cannot qualify anyone to claim it causes harm. as with anything, it can lead to problems, but even eating an apple can kill if it gets stuck. to claim something is against god is to place yourself in his place. no one. not even jc took that upon himself. he gave direction, but did not condemn. he pointed out, but did notcommand. anyone can be critical, but most prefer to condemn and can't see anything they do as wrong. it isn't the beliefs that i condemn, but the hypocrisy tha i see. i try with utmost effort not to judge anyone because i firmly believe that no one can see something in another, without it being within himself. in short, it takes one to know one. i see in others, just as much, and in many cases more in others than i myself have. whether anyone is right or wrong in anything is for god to judge, not me. i don't condemn anyone for what they do or don't believe but i don't let anyone judge me when they have never been in my shoes.no matter what quotes are taken from any book, if the qoute is taken out of the contextf the entire work, it is wrong. not because i believe it, but because it denied the correct qoute of the whole context it was in.anyone can qoute a verse and make a point, but by what feat of logic make it fully worthy of being true. it can't be, because it may heve been something other than that. evceryone can can qoute any verse in any religious work. but who truly knows the truth? i know i don't and i readily admit it. neither, though do i admit not being able to see things as they are, because i do. all religions have truth within them, none has it all, nor do all combined get anywhere near it. that is what will cause it to fall. not lack of beleivers, but lack of truth.:-4 :-4 :-4
If you care to look it up, you’ll see that the same One who said, “judge not, lest ye be judged†also said this following quote:
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
I do not believe anyone is going to hell or anywhere else for that matter, on my beliefs. I cherish the fondest hope of seeing many people in heaven who have disagreed with me on quite a few points in this life. But since Jesus is the Savior, I think we should look into doing the things that please Him. My experience is that this doesn’t come naturally to me, and I have to constantly seek divine aid to stay close to Jesus. Maybe the Christian life and obedience is more effortless and natural to you. If this is the case, congratulations.
Are you saying that I don’t practice what I preach? I’m not defending myself or saying that I always practice what I preach, but have you observed me not practicing what I preach? Some feedback would be helpful to me.
Relax, Charles. What I wrote was only my attempt to inspire people to wholesome thinking. I need to be saved as much as you do. But then again, if you are some special exception to the "have to be saved" rule, congratulations.:rolleyes:
2 Peter 3:1
Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.
when i said that condemnation is common among the churches, i meant in geeral, not specifically one person or individual. as i have attended many dfifferent churches, nbot just around here, but in many states, and even in foreign countries all over the far east, i have seen a commoin thread, that is a rush to judgement of anyone who may have a different idea. yu brought up homosexuality as one such difference. almost everywhere i've been and in nearly all circumstances it is condemned. that is nothing less than a judgement. as you quoted yourself judge not. though frowned upon, i donj't care what a person does if it harms me not. but so many claim it causes harm, but never have they offerred proof that such occurs. thewy imp[ly but never offer proof. even a medical degree cannot qualify anyone to claim it causes harm. as with anything, it can lead to problems, but even eating an apple can kill if it gets stuck. to claim something is against god is to place yourself in his place. no one. not even jc took that upon himself. he gave direction, but did not condemn. he pointed out, but did notcommand. anyone can be critical, but most prefer to condemn and can't see anything they do as wrong. it isn't the beliefs that i condemn, but the hypocrisy tha i see. i try with utmost effort not to judge anyone because i firmly believe that no one can see something in another, without it being within himself. in short, it takes one to know one. i see in others, just as much, and in many cases more in others than i myself have. whether anyone is right or wrong in anything is for god to judge, not me. i don't condemn anyone for what they do or don't believe but i don't let anyone judge me when they have never been in my shoes.no matter what quotes are taken from any book, if the qoute is taken out of the contextf the entire work, it is wrong. not because i believe it, but because it denied the correct qoute of the whole context it was in.anyone can qoute a verse and make a point, but by what feat of logic make it fully worthy of being true. it can't be, because it may heve been something other than that. evceryone can can qoute any verse in any religious work. but who truly knows the truth? i know i don't and i readily admit it. neither, though do i admit not being able to see things as they are, because i do. all religions have truth within them, none has it all, nor do all combined get anywhere near it. that is what will cause it to fall. not lack of beleivers, but lack of truth.:-4 :-4 :-4
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: YZGI:-6
It is difficult to get through to some folks who continue to see the issue through the eyes of the dark ages. If we are to blame anyone, and I think not, then perhaps we ought to blame God and so should the homosexual.
In some countries homosexuality is punishable by life imprisonment and even death. What utter nonsense and a great travesty of justice.
Shalom
Ted:-6
and some countries, mostly islamic, condemned crimals lose their heads, hands and other anotomical parts for simple offenses as well as serious ones. at the same time, one of the most heinous crimes, murder,, may only be an inconvenience of a few months in prison if it is an honor killing. religion has been, and in some places remains, the final justice. or lack of it. as for blame, why blame anyone but one's own person god didn't do anything, but man is always doing something. and many times it's just the same stupid thing that he's been doing since the beginning of time itself. maybe if he learned something, he would stop. but not in this lfe, as far as i can see.:-5
one day he'll be forced to accept responsibility, but all there seems to be today is blame. no one takes responsibility, but he'll sure blame someone for whatever comes next. life sure is interesting, though.:-4
It is difficult to get through to some folks who continue to see the issue through the eyes of the dark ages. If we are to blame anyone, and I think not, then perhaps we ought to blame God and so should the homosexual.
In some countries homosexuality is punishable by life imprisonment and even death. What utter nonsense and a great travesty of justice.
Shalom
Ted:-6
and some countries, mostly islamic, condemned crimals lose their heads, hands and other anotomical parts for simple offenses as well as serious ones. at the same time, one of the most heinous crimes, murder,, may only be an inconvenience of a few months in prison if it is an honor killing. religion has been, and in some places remains, the final justice. or lack of it. as for blame, why blame anyone but one's own person god didn't do anything, but man is always doing something. and many times it's just the same stupid thing that he's been doing since the beginning of time itself. maybe if he learned something, he would stop. but not in this lfe, as far as i can see.:-5
one day he'll be forced to accept responsibility, but all there seems to be today is blame. no one takes responsibility, but he'll sure blame someone for whatever comes next. life sure is interesting, though.:-4
The Second Coming
Charles:-6
One thing is for certain. The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.
Shalom
Ted:-6
One thing is for certain. The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
The Second Coming
Ted............
I have read most of this thread and once again I see it comes down to pure faith -vs- scholarship of religions. You must know by now there is no arguement against pure faith. How many of these people have read and studied ALL or more than 1 of the religious books and writings of the many faiths.
Who can say what is spiritual and which belief makes us feel at one with the place in our souls where we find peace with ourselves and are comfortable.
It bothers me people choose to say whose Diety is better............if there is one Diety.............he/she would be most sad at all the killing in his/her name.
Whose God chooses war and death? I get really bothered we have the same Diety and we kill each other in its name.........BULLSHIT. I cannot think this would be true if there was the true Diety.
I have read most of this thread and once again I see it comes down to pure faith -vs- scholarship of religions. You must know by now there is no arguement against pure faith. How many of these people have read and studied ALL or more than 1 of the religious books and writings of the many faiths.
Who can say what is spiritual and which belief makes us feel at one with the place in our souls where we find peace with ourselves and are comfortable.
It bothers me people choose to say whose Diety is better............if there is one Diety.............he/she would be most sad at all the killing in his/her name.
Whose God chooses war and death? I get really bothered we have the same Diety and we kill each other in its name.........BULLSHIT. I cannot think this would be true if there was the true Diety.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
The Second Coming
nvaleyvee:-6
It seems to me that the problem facing most is the idea of exclusivity. When we look at the basic tenets of all the great faiths they are exactly the same. Unfortunately every faith has its fundamentalist/extremists and they are the problem.
Do not blame the faiths for their misuse. That is a the human element.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It seems to me that the problem facing most is the idea of exclusivity. When we look at the basic tenets of all the great faiths they are exactly the same. Unfortunately every faith has its fundamentalist/extremists and they are the problem.
Do not blame the faiths for their misuse. That is a the human element.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: Charles:-6
One thing is for certain. The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.
Shalom
Ted:-6
one other thing we learn from history, how to keep being stupid.:-5 :-4
One thing is for certain. The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.
Shalom
Ted:-6
one other thing we learn from history, how to keep being stupid.:-5 :-4
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: nvaleyvee:-6
It seems to me that the problem facing most is the idea of exclusivity. When we look at the basic tenets of all the great faiths they are exactly the same. Unfortunately every faith has its fundamentalist/extremists and they are the problem.
Do not blame the faiths for their misuse. That is a the human element.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I believe the same and most heartily. It is absolutely human caused. How can every belief have the same basis and still fight? If there was a supreme being it would be the same for all religions............don't you think it gave up hope and might be turning over in its grave because there IS NO CONTROL????????:-5
It seems to me that the problem facing most is the idea of exclusivity. When we look at the basic tenets of all the great faiths they are exactly the same. Unfortunately every faith has its fundamentalist/extremists and they are the problem.
Do not blame the faiths for their misuse. That is a the human element.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I believe the same and most heartily. It is absolutely human caused. How can every belief have the same basis and still fight? If there was a supreme being it would be the same for all religions............don't you think it gave up hope and might be turning over in its grave because there IS NO CONTROL????????:-5
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: one other thing we learn from history, how to keep being stupid.:-5 :-4
As humans we do not learn........:-2
As humans we do not learn........:-2
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
nvalleyvee wrote: Ted............
I have read most of this thread and once again I see it comes down to pure faith -vs- scholarship of religions. You must know by now there is no arguement against pure faith. How many of these people have read and studied ALL or more than 1 of the religious books and writings of the many faiths.
Who can say what is spiritual and which belief makes us feel at one with the place in our souls where we find peace with ourselves and are comfortable.
It bothers me people choose to say whose Diety is better............if there is one Diety.............he/she would be most sad at all the killing in his/her name.
Whose God chooses war and death? I get really bothered we have the same Diety and we kill each other in its name.........BULLSHIT. I cannot think this would be true if there was the true Diety.
:-5 people have achoice. it's not anyones fault they keep making the same one.:-4
I have read most of this thread and once again I see it comes down to pure faith -vs- scholarship of religions. You must know by now there is no arguement against pure faith. How many of these people have read and studied ALL or more than 1 of the religious books and writings of the many faiths.
Who can say what is spiritual and which belief makes us feel at one with the place in our souls where we find peace with ourselves and are comfortable.
It bothers me people choose to say whose Diety is better............if there is one Diety.............he/she would be most sad at all the killing in his/her name.
Whose God chooses war and death? I get really bothered we have the same Diety and we kill each other in its name.........BULLSHIT. I cannot think this would be true if there was the true Diety.
:-5 people have achoice. it's not anyones fault they keep making the same one.:-4
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: nvaleyvee:-6
It seems to me that the problem facing most is the idea of exclusivity. When we look at the basic tenets of all the great faiths they are exactly the same. Unfortunately every faith has its fundamentalist/extremists and they are the problem.
Do not blame the faiths for their misuse. That is a the human element.
Shalom
Ted:-6
:-5 i don't blame any faith or any person. but i don't have to do as they do, either. i prefer to just let things go as long as they don't harm me. unfortunatly, the harm is always somewhere, and hence, it is against me as well. until the harmful elements are eliminated, stupidity will always be in front, leading the charge. i just decide whether i'll let it come at me, or by me. either way, it will not be the end of me, but it may be the end of someone somewhere.:-4
It seems to me that the problem facing most is the idea of exclusivity. When we look at the basic tenets of all the great faiths they are exactly the same. Unfortunately every faith has its fundamentalist/extremists and they are the problem.
Do not blame the faiths for their misuse. That is a the human element.
Shalom
Ted:-6
:-5 i don't blame any faith or any person. but i don't have to do as they do, either. i prefer to just let things go as long as they don't harm me. unfortunatly, the harm is always somewhere, and hence, it is against me as well. until the harmful elements are eliminated, stupidity will always be in front, leading the charge. i just decide whether i'll let it come at me, or by me. either way, it will not be the end of me, but it may be the end of someone somewhere.:-4
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
The Second Coming
I believe that is what I said.........
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
nvalleyvee wrote: I believe the same and most heartily. It is absolutely human caused. How can every belief have the same basis and still fight? If there was a supreme being it would be the same for all religions............don't you think it gave up hope and might be turning over in its grave because there IS NO CONTROL????????:-5
that's the point of religion. control. of every aspect of life, from what you are to bewlieve, to what you can eat, to what you can say, to what you can read. all aspects of life are to be under the control of whatever the religious leadership says is okay. and when you don't do as you're to;d, they condemn you. and some even kill to make sure they keep control. but the establishmmenbt of secular government put most of that to n0thing, but it still exists as an idea. men created the problem, but who will solve it? an interesting question, but not one i want to get into. :-4 :-4
that's the point of religion. control. of every aspect of life, from what you are to bewlieve, to what you can eat, to what you can say, to what you can read. all aspects of life are to be under the control of whatever the religious leadership says is okay. and when you don't do as you're to;d, they condemn you. and some even kill to make sure they keep control. but the establishmmenbt of secular government put most of that to n0thing, but it still exists as an idea. men created the problem, but who will solve it? an interesting question, but not one i want to get into. :-4 :-4
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
nvalleyvee wrote: I believe that is what I said.........
okay. now all i have to do is remember the question.....:-5 :-4 :-4
okay. now all i have to do is remember the question.....:-5 :-4 :-4
The Second Coming
tel:-6
I do thank you for your kind and considerate message. I choose to reply here because I think that others should see where I am coming from. I am not embarrased by my stand whatsoever. BTW. I am not a gay person but have absolutely no problem with those who are. They are children of God. I will try to go through what you said point by point as I think they are important.
You mentioned that we must read the Bible in context. I agree absolutely. It must also be interpreted in context. There is only one problem that I see being shown here. Context does not just mean chapter or paragraph. It also means the context in which is was written. Without this context we cannot know or understand what is said and why. In fact we cannot know what it means ultimately.
I will carry on with a quote from Paul in R
omans 14:13-14. "Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one antoher, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclearn in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean"
A very interesting thought from Paul.
Acts 15:19 "It is my judgement that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles "homosexuals" to turn to God."
What I see has happened is that the early church and the apostles realizing that not of the rules and regulations were no longer important. Now if eating shellfish is an abomination than so is homosexulaity. You cannot have it both ways. The early church in its wisdom so fit to ignore some laws. As you pointed out this has happened in other places as well. It woujld seem to me that if the early church and the apostles can do this then so can the later church and the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit do likewise. Either it is all sacrosanct or it is subject to change. Since it was written in a particular time in a particular culture than as times change and cultures change it must be reinterpreted, for the new time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Now who am I or you or anyone else to say that the Holy Spirit is not guiding the church into this change. Consdering that we now know that sexual orientation is a given and not a choice these people have been given this by God. If heterosexuals are not required to give up their sexual fulfillment in life than how can a just God demand that of what He has created. It simply is untenable.
You speak of sexual immorality. I would agree. Now I perceive this to mean wild sexual abandonment and not a sexual relationship between to loving, consenting adults.
You speak of the early church and the apostles as removing the necessity to keep the law of Moses. Another example of change with the times and the culture.
Let us look at Jesus life. Even though 10% of society has a different sexual orientation from others he made no comment whatsoever. In fact interpretation or hermeneutics if you will today realizes that when Jesus cured the slave upon request that in all likelihood this was a homosexual relationship. With such a large portion of society in alternative sexual orientation one would expect that if Jesus was at all concerned he would have said so.
You want Biblical proof of my stand. I will respond with a few questions? Where in the Bible does it say we cannot drive cars or watch TV or use chemo therapy? Where in the Bible does it say that we cannot use aircraft or space flight..
What I see is the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit felt led to disregard some of the rules and regulations. Thus they did some picking and choosing. Jesus made absolutely no comment on homosexuality and his is the measuring post, not Paul or anyone else. In reading Paul we must be careful to try to understand what is Paul's theology and what is from God.
You said that no apostle has repudiated the rules about homosexuality. This is a complete denial of the theology of apostolic succession. Those who follow in Jeus footsteps are indeed his apostles whether today or yesterday. Again who are any of us to tell someone or some church they are not being led by the Holy Spirit when they firmly believe that they are and in fact are so convinced. Not I.
I have to take issue with the statement that we do not naturally know right from wrong. I do not believe that for one moment. Most folks unless they have mental or are developmentally challenged have a very good idea of right and wrong. This comes from the fact that God has written His laws in their hearts.
I have addressed the idea of the Holy Spirit guiding the church. This is true and has been true for some 2000+ years. It is still happening today.
To say that God gives us the spirit of repentence sounds a bit like if He gives it to me OK and if not then I am condemned. Are you suggesting that a just God would pick and choose from His creation. After all the Bible does say "I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful.
You say that most all Christian churches teach in a particular way. Having been involved in formal studies and looking into the teachings of other churches that comment is simply not true. Many do and many do not.
I will close by referring you back to context as including the era of writing as well as Romans 14:13-14. When we chastise, oppress, disenfranchise or otherwise hinder anyone including Christian homosexuals from approaching and worshipping God or in any way hindering them, we are putting a stumbling block in their way. It is time to let go and let God.
The Holy Spirit is truly leading the church today and moving forward in light of our knowledge and understandings that we have gained over the centuries. Trust and have faith in that leading.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I do thank you for your kind and considerate message. I choose to reply here because I think that others should see where I am coming from. I am not embarrased by my stand whatsoever. BTW. I am not a gay person but have absolutely no problem with those who are. They are children of God. I will try to go through what you said point by point as I think they are important.
You mentioned that we must read the Bible in context. I agree absolutely. It must also be interpreted in context. There is only one problem that I see being shown here. Context does not just mean chapter or paragraph. It also means the context in which is was written. Without this context we cannot know or understand what is said and why. In fact we cannot know what it means ultimately.
I will carry on with a quote from Paul in R
omans 14:13-14. "Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one antoher, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclearn in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean"
A very interesting thought from Paul.
Acts 15:19 "It is my judgement that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles "homosexuals" to turn to God."
What I see has happened is that the early church and the apostles realizing that not of the rules and regulations were no longer important. Now if eating shellfish is an abomination than so is homosexulaity. You cannot have it both ways. The early church in its wisdom so fit to ignore some laws. As you pointed out this has happened in other places as well. It woujld seem to me that if the early church and the apostles can do this then so can the later church and the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit do likewise. Either it is all sacrosanct or it is subject to change. Since it was written in a particular time in a particular culture than as times change and cultures change it must be reinterpreted, for the new time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Now who am I or you or anyone else to say that the Holy Spirit is not guiding the church into this change. Consdering that we now know that sexual orientation is a given and not a choice these people have been given this by God. If heterosexuals are not required to give up their sexual fulfillment in life than how can a just God demand that of what He has created. It simply is untenable.
You speak of sexual immorality. I would agree. Now I perceive this to mean wild sexual abandonment and not a sexual relationship between to loving, consenting adults.
You speak of the early church and the apostles as removing the necessity to keep the law of Moses. Another example of change with the times and the culture.
Let us look at Jesus life. Even though 10% of society has a different sexual orientation from others he made no comment whatsoever. In fact interpretation or hermeneutics if you will today realizes that when Jesus cured the slave upon request that in all likelihood this was a homosexual relationship. With such a large portion of society in alternative sexual orientation one would expect that if Jesus was at all concerned he would have said so.
You want Biblical proof of my stand. I will respond with a few questions? Where in the Bible does it say we cannot drive cars or watch TV or use chemo therapy? Where in the Bible does it say that we cannot use aircraft or space flight..
What I see is the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit felt led to disregard some of the rules and regulations. Thus they did some picking and choosing. Jesus made absolutely no comment on homosexuality and his is the measuring post, not Paul or anyone else. In reading Paul we must be careful to try to understand what is Paul's theology and what is from God.
You said that no apostle has repudiated the rules about homosexuality. This is a complete denial of the theology of apostolic succession. Those who follow in Jeus footsteps are indeed his apostles whether today or yesterday. Again who are any of us to tell someone or some church they are not being led by the Holy Spirit when they firmly believe that they are and in fact are so convinced. Not I.
I have to take issue with the statement that we do not naturally know right from wrong. I do not believe that for one moment. Most folks unless they have mental or are developmentally challenged have a very good idea of right and wrong. This comes from the fact that God has written His laws in their hearts.
I have addressed the idea of the Holy Spirit guiding the church. This is true and has been true for some 2000+ years. It is still happening today.
To say that God gives us the spirit of repentence sounds a bit like if He gives it to me OK and if not then I am condemned. Are you suggesting that a just God would pick and choose from His creation. After all the Bible does say "I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful.
You say that most all Christian churches teach in a particular way. Having been involved in formal studies and looking into the teachings of other churches that comment is simply not true. Many do and many do not.
I will close by referring you back to context as including the era of writing as well as Romans 14:13-14. When we chastise, oppress, disenfranchise or otherwise hinder anyone including Christian homosexuals from approaching and worshipping God or in any way hindering them, we are putting a stumbling block in their way. It is time to let go and let God.
The Holy Spirit is truly leading the church today and moving forward in light of our knowledge and understandings that we have gained over the centuries. Trust and have faith in that leading.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: tel:-6
I do thank you for your kind and considerate message. I choose to reply here because I think that others should see where I am coming from. I am not embarrased by my stand whatsoever. BTW. I am not a gay person but have absolutely no problem with those who are. They are children of God. I will try to go through what you said point by point as I think they are important.
You mentioned that we must read the Bible in context. I agree absolutely. It must also be interpreted in context. There is only one problem that I see being shown here. Context does not just mean chapter or paragraph. It also means the context in which is was written. Without this context we cannot know or understand what is said and why. In fact we cannot know what it means ultimately.
I will carry on with a quote from Paul in R
omans 14:13-14. "Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one antoher, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclearn in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean"
A very interesting thought from Paul.
Acts 15:19 "It is my judgement that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles "homosexuals" to turn to God."
What I see has happened is that the early church and the apostles realizing that not of the rules and regulations were no longer important. Now if eating shellfish is an abomination than so is homosexulaity. You cannot have it both ways. The early church in its wisdom so fit to ignore some laws. As you pointed out this has happened in other places as well. It woujld seem to me that if the early church and the apostles can do this then so can the later church and the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit do likewise. Either it is all sacrosanct or it is subject to change. Since it was written in a particular time in a particular culture than as times change and cultures change it must be reinterpreted, for the new time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Now who am I or you or anyone else to say that the Holy Spirit is not guiding the church into this change. Consdering that we now know that sexual orientation is a given and not a choice these people have been given this by God. If heterosexuals are not required to give up their sexual fulfillment in life than how can a just God demand that of what He has created. It simply is untenable.
You speak of sexual immorality. I would agree. Now I perceive this to mean wild sexual abandonment and not a sexual relationship between to loving, consenting adults.
You speak of the early church and the apostles as removing the necessity to keep the law of Moses. Another example of change with the times and the culture.
Let us look at Jesus life. Even though 10% of society has a different sexual orientation from others he made no comment whatsoever. In fact interpretation or hermeneutics if you will today realizes that when Jesus cured the slave upon request that in all likelihood this was a homosexual relationship. With such a large portion of society in alternative sexual orientation one would expect that if Jesus was at all concerned he would have said so.
You want Biblical proof of my stand. I will respond with a few questions? Where in the Bible does it say we cannot drive cars or watch TV or use chemo therapy? Where in the Bible does it say that we cannot use aircraft or space flight..
What I see is the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit felt led to disregard some of the rules and regulations. Thus they did some picking and choosing. Jesus made absolutely no comment on homosexuality and his is the measuring post, not Paul or anyone else. In reading Paul we must be careful to try to understand what is Paul's theology and what is from God.
You said that no apostle has repudiated the rules about homosexuality. This is a complete denial of the theology of apostolic succession. Those who follow in Jeus footsteps are indeed his apostles whether today or yesterday. Again who are any of us to tell someone or some church they are not being led by the Holy Spirit when they firmly believe that they are and in fact are so convinced. Not I.
I have to take issue with the statement that we do not naturally know right from wrong. I do not believe that for one moment. Most folks unless they have mental or are developmentally challenged have a very good idea of right and wrong. This comes from the fact that God has written His laws in their hearts.
I have addressed the idea of the Holy Spirit guiding the church. This is true and has been true for some 2000+ years. It is still happening today.
To say that God gives us the spirit of repentence sounds a bit like if He gives it to me OK and if not then I am condemned. Are you suggesting that a just God would pick and choose from His creation. After all the Bible does say "I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful.
You say that most all Christian churches teach in a particular way. Having been involved in formal studies and looking into the teachings of other churches that comment is simply not true. Many do and many do not.
I will close by referring you back to context as including the era of writing as well as Romans 14:13-14. When we chastise, oppress, disenfranchise or otherwise hinder anyone including Christian homosexuals from approaching and worshipping God or in any way hindering them, we are putting a stumbling block in their way. It is time to let go and let God.
The Holy Spirit is truly leading the church today and moving forward in light of our knowledge and understandings that we have gained over the centuries. Trust and have faith in that leading.
Shalom
Ted:-6
the content and context of what the bible contains are the greatest problem man faces. not what it teaches, but in the meaning and the picking and choosing done to justify actions totally at odds with what is intended. i don't disagree with what you say, just in the attempts by so many to justify their own ideas of right or wrong. they qoute butonly to elevate themselves in their own eyes since i find them to be quite in error of both the meaning and the spirit of what is written. as for holy spirit, i have a quite different interpretation not only with what the bible says about it, but in what it is. my reason is simple. it has been so interpreted, by so many different people as to be more or less an agreed upon work, and not what may have been originally meant. even the words themselves had meaning but not always as was originally meant, but as interpreted by someone years, and decades after. because they weren't written at the time, and some were from word of mouth, i find it harder and harder to take it as written. as for paul's writings, i am reserved about them since he was so much an influence that over half the nt was his. and they were mere letters, and compiled under one book, hence not of true nature, but as decided upon. i just don't like how it is used to justify the hatefulness and ugliness of those who condemn an act or action they themselves don't care for.
I do thank you for your kind and considerate message. I choose to reply here because I think that others should see where I am coming from. I am not embarrased by my stand whatsoever. BTW. I am not a gay person but have absolutely no problem with those who are. They are children of God. I will try to go through what you said point by point as I think they are important.
You mentioned that we must read the Bible in context. I agree absolutely. It must also be interpreted in context. There is only one problem that I see being shown here. Context does not just mean chapter or paragraph. It also means the context in which is was written. Without this context we cannot know or understand what is said and why. In fact we cannot know what it means ultimately.
I will carry on with a quote from Paul in R
omans 14:13-14. "Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one antoher, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclearn in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean"
A very interesting thought from Paul.
Acts 15:19 "It is my judgement that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles "homosexuals" to turn to God."
What I see has happened is that the early church and the apostles realizing that not of the rules and regulations were no longer important. Now if eating shellfish is an abomination than so is homosexulaity. You cannot have it both ways. The early church in its wisdom so fit to ignore some laws. As you pointed out this has happened in other places as well. It woujld seem to me that if the early church and the apostles can do this then so can the later church and the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit do likewise. Either it is all sacrosanct or it is subject to change. Since it was written in a particular time in a particular culture than as times change and cultures change it must be reinterpreted, for the new time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Now who am I or you or anyone else to say that the Holy Spirit is not guiding the church into this change. Consdering that we now know that sexual orientation is a given and not a choice these people have been given this by God. If heterosexuals are not required to give up their sexual fulfillment in life than how can a just God demand that of what He has created. It simply is untenable.
You speak of sexual immorality. I would agree. Now I perceive this to mean wild sexual abandonment and not a sexual relationship between to loving, consenting adults.
You speak of the early church and the apostles as removing the necessity to keep the law of Moses. Another example of change with the times and the culture.
Let us look at Jesus life. Even though 10% of society has a different sexual orientation from others he made no comment whatsoever. In fact interpretation or hermeneutics if you will today realizes that when Jesus cured the slave upon request that in all likelihood this was a homosexual relationship. With such a large portion of society in alternative sexual orientation one would expect that if Jesus was at all concerned he would have said so.
You want Biblical proof of my stand. I will respond with a few questions? Where in the Bible does it say we cannot drive cars or watch TV or use chemo therapy? Where in the Bible does it say that we cannot use aircraft or space flight..
What I see is the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit felt led to disregard some of the rules and regulations. Thus they did some picking and choosing. Jesus made absolutely no comment on homosexuality and his is the measuring post, not Paul or anyone else. In reading Paul we must be careful to try to understand what is Paul's theology and what is from God.
You said that no apostle has repudiated the rules about homosexuality. This is a complete denial of the theology of apostolic succession. Those who follow in Jeus footsteps are indeed his apostles whether today or yesterday. Again who are any of us to tell someone or some church they are not being led by the Holy Spirit when they firmly believe that they are and in fact are so convinced. Not I.
I have to take issue with the statement that we do not naturally know right from wrong. I do not believe that for one moment. Most folks unless they have mental or are developmentally challenged have a very good idea of right and wrong. This comes from the fact that God has written His laws in their hearts.
I have addressed the idea of the Holy Spirit guiding the church. This is true and has been true for some 2000+ years. It is still happening today.
To say that God gives us the spirit of repentence sounds a bit like if He gives it to me OK and if not then I am condemned. Are you suggesting that a just God would pick and choose from His creation. After all the Bible does say "I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful.
You say that most all Christian churches teach in a particular way. Having been involved in formal studies and looking into the teachings of other churches that comment is simply not true. Many do and many do not.
I will close by referring you back to context as including the era of writing as well as Romans 14:13-14. When we chastise, oppress, disenfranchise or otherwise hinder anyone including Christian homosexuals from approaching and worshipping God or in any way hindering them, we are putting a stumbling block in their way. It is time to let go and let God.
The Holy Spirit is truly leading the church today and moving forward in light of our knowledge and understandings that we have gained over the centuries. Trust and have faith in that leading.
Shalom
Ted:-6
the content and context of what the bible contains are the greatest problem man faces. not what it teaches, but in the meaning and the picking and choosing done to justify actions totally at odds with what is intended. i don't disagree with what you say, just in the attempts by so many to justify their own ideas of right or wrong. they qoute butonly to elevate themselves in their own eyes since i find them to be quite in error of both the meaning and the spirit of what is written. as for holy spirit, i have a quite different interpretation not only with what the bible says about it, but in what it is. my reason is simple. it has been so interpreted, by so many different people as to be more or less an agreed upon work, and not what may have been originally meant. even the words themselves had meaning but not always as was originally meant, but as interpreted by someone years, and decades after. because they weren't written at the time, and some were from word of mouth, i find it harder and harder to take it as written. as for paul's writings, i am reserved about them since he was so much an influence that over half the nt was his. and they were mere letters, and compiled under one book, hence not of true nature, but as decided upon. i just don't like how it is used to justify the hatefulness and ugliness of those who condemn an act or action they themselves don't care for.
The Second Coming
charles:-6
I would agree that to use scripture to judge or condemn is a complete misuse of it.
As for Paul, yes much of the NT contains his name as the author. Actually of the 14 letters attributed to Paul only 7 are written by him and the rest, an acceptable practice in those days, written under his name by his followers.
One might also say that if it had not been for Paul the Christian faith might have disappeared. On that, who really knows.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I would agree that to use scripture to judge or condemn is a complete misuse of it.
As for Paul, yes much of the NT contains his name as the author. Actually of the 14 letters attributed to Paul only 7 are written by him and the rest, an acceptable practice in those days, written under his name by his followers.
One might also say that if it had not been for Paul the Christian faith might have disappeared. On that, who really knows.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: charles:-6
I would agree that to use scripture to judge or condemn is a complete misuse of it.
As for Paul, yes much of the NT contains his name as the author. Actually of the 14 letters attributed to Paul only 7 are written by him and the rest, an acceptable practice in those days, written under his name by his followers.
One might also say that if it had not been for Paul the Christian faith might have disappeared. On that, who really knows.
Shalom
Ted:-6
agreed on most as you say, but whether the faith would have disappeared, i must disagree. i think it would have been far better off thn what was finally put forward, not because of lack of converts, but that the direction it would have taken would have been closer to what it was intended. that it became what it fif was due to the desire to maintain the political and economic control under the roman empire of constantine. had it not been for his need for more troops to hold the empire together i seriously doubt the church could have survived as it did under him as the head of the empire. though it fell anyway, the short time it continued brought about a social developement that was eventually under religious leaders who wanted to maintain their positions of power and influence in the new society.:-4 :-4
I would agree that to use scripture to judge or condemn is a complete misuse of it.
As for Paul, yes much of the NT contains his name as the author. Actually of the 14 letters attributed to Paul only 7 are written by him and the rest, an acceptable practice in those days, written under his name by his followers.
One might also say that if it had not been for Paul the Christian faith might have disappeared. On that, who really knows.
Shalom
Ted:-6
agreed on most as you say, but whether the faith would have disappeared, i must disagree. i think it would have been far better off thn what was finally put forward, not because of lack of converts, but that the direction it would have taken would have been closer to what it was intended. that it became what it fif was due to the desire to maintain the political and economic control under the roman empire of constantine. had it not been for his need for more troops to hold the empire together i seriously doubt the church could have survived as it did under him as the head of the empire. though it fell anyway, the short time it continued brought about a social developement that was eventually under religious leaders who wanted to maintain their positions of power and influence in the new society.:-4 :-4
The Second Coming
Charles:-6
You may be correct. However, I cannot say as anything that we say in this nature is purely speculative.
One must not forget that what we have in the Bible as far as the gospels go, is a developing tradition. Each of the evangelists wrote what the early Christians had come to believe about this Jesus. None of them are biographica but midrash and parable for the most part. There are a few kernels of history there but not that many.
One should not ask the question did it really happen this way but what did the writer mean?
Shalom
Ted:-6
You may be correct. However, I cannot say as anything that we say in this nature is purely speculative.
One must not forget that what we have in the Bible as far as the gospels go, is a developing tradition. Each of the evangelists wrote what the early Christians had come to believe about this Jesus. None of them are biographica but midrash and parable for the most part. There are a few kernels of history there but not that many.
One should not ask the question did it really happen this way but what did the writer mean?
Shalom
Ted:-6