Results 61 - 74 of 74
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Theo-Minor Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | searching for the truth | 1 Cor 11:3 | Theo-Minor | 125772 | ||
I posted to this earlier, but I think I put it in the wrong place, so I'll write it again so it can be part of the active conversation. This is what I think: The "perfect" in my opinion is identified in Ephesians 4:11-16. The perfecting is when we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, "to a perfect man", to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. This, unity in faith, is the answer on the fleshly level. The spiritual and individual level of perfection is a new and glorified body in the resurrection. (Phillipians 3:11-12) It is my "opinion" that the gifts are still for today. There is no scripture suggesting that the gifts will pass away barring "perfection," as stated earlier in this exchange. I do not think the body of Christ has been perfected. There are too many people misguided, and there are too many divisions in the church to believe there is unity in faith. The problem with the gifts is not their availability to us today, but the selflessness it requires to be worthy of such gifts. Until we relearn humility, selflessness, and self sacrifice, we will never see clear to the faith it takes to perform such miracles. This is my opinion on the matter. |
||||||
62 | searching for the truth | 1 Cor 11:3 | Theo-Minor | 125813 | ||
Ahhhh, I see. My mistake. I am personally of a dispensational theology. I believe that we should go from particular to general, concluding facts of doctrine from solid, discernable scripture, and not try to interpret scripture according to doctrine. If it doesn't say it, you may, if you choose, apply a principle to your own life that you may have gleaned from scripture, but that doesn't make it doctrinal fact, and any such theories should be kept in this light. If something is not said, it is not said, no matter how much we might like it to be. Origen did make an interesting point in The First Principles ... To paraphrase ('cause it's not right in front of me), "Those things that the apostles wanted us to know, they said clearly, and repeatedly. As for the rest, the mysteries of God are reserved for those that seek God earnestly and desire the deeper things of Holy Scripture." I do believe that there are mysteries in the Word, but once again I have to say that they are discernable through solid scripture. You simply need the spirit working in you to put the pieces together, and you need a good, solid background in the word. As for who's qualified ... anyone is qualified. Remember that God chose a young man to be one of the greatest prophets; he chose a child to slay a giant and become a king; he chose fishermen and farmers to become the ministers of a new age. God is no respector of persons. Someone can look at something once with a pure heart open to learn and see a mystery that eludes scholars. I do think, however, that with the more extensive background of a scholar, and with the obvious desire to learn evident by the wealth of knowledge they consume, a scholar is more likely to discover something deep and new. But again, this is not absolute. Theo-Minor |
||||||
63 | searching for the truth | 1 Cor 11:3 | Theo-Minor | 125827 | ||
When the scripture is silent, but a decision must be made, the Holy Spirit makes the call. 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him. Remember that love is the point. If you're talking about a point of doctrine, if it's not written, it's not doctrine, it's opinion. If it's a matter of behavior, "love one another" is the key. I came to that conclusion in a single night. I had no scripture to support it, but went to a Bible study and argued church Elders into the ground because it was so solid it tore their doctrine to shreds. I discovered later that I had quoted as many as twenty scriptures in the New Testament that I had never read. The understanding is this: that love is the key. The New Testament can be understood by the doctrine of love. As for all the denominations, I think it's evil. Multiple denominations exist because of pride. Period. Two people had a discussion. One brought up a new and possibly valid point. The other disagreed. The one doing the disagreeing was in control, so the other left and made a new church denomination. Point of fact, the very first church split was over the dispute of the translation of a single word. How's THAT for pride?! Respector of persons ... What was David when God chose him? A shepherd, yes? Moses, the adopted son of Pharoah? John, Peter, and James ... fishermen? I hear what you're saying, but did God respect them over others, or were they simply the ones He chose? Once chosen, is it becoming of God to abandon His promises to them? SOMEone had to be chosen. David was chosen because he had a heart after God's own. Who knows about Moses, or Elijah, or Jeremiah, or Isaiah. Again, SOMEone had to be chosen. That makes them blessed in my opinion, not respected more than others. The variety went from shepherd to king. By the same qualifications he chose David as a child, so, too, could he choose a young, unlearned person. That's sort of the point. There is no respect of persons with God. He chooses whom He wills, regardless of their station or experience. With Esau ... remember that Esau traded his birthright for a "bowl of that red stuff there." Also, the word hate being used there, in both the Hebrew and the Greek, is a word that means something more akin to "loved less." And this, because he traded his birthright for a bowl of soup. Theo-Minor |
||||||
64 | searching for the truth | 1 Cor 11:3 | Theo-Minor | 125834 | ||
Love your neighbor as yourself. That is the commandment of Christ. What matters in the end is that we all adhere to the doctrine: Believe in Jesus Christ, whom God raised from the dead, and love one another as he gave us commandment. As long as pride exists, we will never be in complete agreement, but having minor differences in doctrine does not make anyone any less of a Christian. Some believe in full submersion baptism. Others just a sprinkle. Some believe in speaking in tongues for this day in age, others that the gifts are only for the past. There are tons of doctrines out there. If we believe in Jesus, that God raised him from the dead, and love one another as he loved us, we are Christians, and that's that. The respector of persons deal I have to disagree with you on. I believe that who they were before God chose them is exactly the point. If God can choose a shepherd to become a king, he can choose a middle school student to learn the secrets that will baffle scholars. Whether or not this can be attributed to favoritism ... I choose not to have an opinion. Going through the many scriptures, which I choose not to expound upon right now, there are dozens of examples demonstrating precisely what it means to be a respector of persons, and scripture clearly tells us time and again that God does not act according to this behavior. |
||||||
65 | searching for the truth | 1 Cor 11:3 | Theo-Minor | 125864 | ||
Well said, Mark. Especially the end. It looks sound to me. Theo-Minor |
||||||
66 | searching for the truth | 1 Cor 11:3 | Theo-Minor | 125887 | ||
Hey Ed. I wasn't referring to Peter's use of the phrase. While it is certainly one amongst many that add weight to the discussion, there are many others to consider. As a matter of dispensation, we have to go from particular to general, not general to particular ... meaning that we should view all the evidence and form an opinion, not form an opinion and bend the evidence to that opinion. Consider these passages: Romans 2:11 For there is no partiality with God. Galatians 2:6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe. Job 34:18 Yet He is not partial to princes, Nor does He regard the rich more than the poor; For they are all the work of His hands. Job 37:23-24 As for the Almighty, we cannot find Him; He is excellent in power, In judgment and abundant justice; He does not oppress. Therefore men fear Him; He shows no partiality to any who are wise of heart. Somehow, I think you might be missing my point. God treats everyone the same. Some he blesses more than others, some he gifts more than others. There are some he chooses for things, and some he does not choose. My point was never that he does not or could not have a favorite. Only that your station in life has no bearing on God's decision. He will choose whom he will, whether rich or poor, king or servant, young or old, wise or foolish. God does not show partiality. Whether or not he favors one above another is not relevent to the point I was making originally that God can choose whomever he pleases. In this thing I am not mistaken. Remember that he once chose a donkey to rebuke Balaam. It isn't and wasn't my intention to say that God shows no favoritism. Only that he can choose anyone, and your age, race, social standing, education, trade, etc., has nothing to do with anything. Theo-Minor |
||||||
67 | The rapture, A comming event, Pg 3. | 1 Thess 4:16 | Theo-Minor | 126043 | ||
I know this is a forum for discussion, but it is my opinion and recommendation that this topic be dropped. Those that believe it happened already will continue to believe so because of the evidence they see. It is not disputable. Those that believe it has not happened yet will continue to believe so because of the evidence THEY see. It, too, is not disputable. Until and unless someone can interpret the Revelation to its utmost (which has yet to happen), neither side can guarantee they are correct. I see a normal reading of scripture according to dispensational theology as proclaiming the second coming of Christ in the time of the first century because Jesus says it will happen to that generation, the apostles all believed it would happen in their lifetimes, history supports supposed interpretations of the Revelation, and Jesus' coming would be like a thief in the night, or like lightning flashes from east to west (i.e. no one would see the coming itself, only the obvious results of it). In addition, prophetic voice of the Old Testament concurs with a fulfillment of the proposed preterist interpretations. Most particularly Daniel and his ten/eleven horns in correlation with the eleven Roman rulers (as seen from a first century Jewish perspective). Julius, Antony, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius. Ten in all ... then an eleventh, Vespasian, that pushes three horns, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, out of the way. This in accordance with the beast of chapter 13. Seven heads, being seven kings according to chapter 17, one slain, but healed. Then there is an eighth according to chapter 17, which is actually one of the seven, and this one goes forth to ruin. "Ruin" an active verb in the syntax of the sentence. Julius is slain (the head that was wounded to death). So the first head becomes Antony (again from the first century Jewish perspective of rulers over Judea). The second head is Augustus. The third head is Tiberius. The fourth is Caligula. The fifth is Claudius. The sixth is Nero. The seventh, which will only remain for a short while (Chapter 17) is Galba who reigned for only seven months. Then there is an eigth, who is actually one of the seven, this being Vespasian. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius are not considered real emperors by most scholars and historians, and they have almost no place in the histories of Josephus in regard to them being emperors. Next, according to a normal reading of scripture, it should be noted that one of the kings was currently in power as stated in chapter 17. Now, with a proposed date of early 60s AD for the writing of the Revelation (See "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Dr. Kenneth Gentry, who makes a very good and credible arguement for the dating of the book), Nero fits the parameters. "Five have fallen, one is, and one is yet to come, and when he comes, he must remain a short while." At the time of Nero ... Antony fallen (having taken the place of Julius according to chapter 13) is one, Augustus fallen is two, Tiberius fallen is three, Caligula fallen is four, Claudius fallen is five. Nero is. Galba is yet to come, and when he comes, he will remain a short while (seven months). Then, on top of that, Nero Caesar written in Hebrew, counted according to the Hebrew counting system, totals 666 ... and this without any funky arithmetic. Each character has a value. Add them up and you have the number. In addition, textual criticism reveals versions that read 616. As it happens, when the Latin version of Nero Caesar is translated into Hebrew (which drops the end "Nero versus Neron"), the same Hebrew counting system talleys to 616 missing the value of 50 from the missing "N" in his first name. While this most certainly looked like I did what I suggested we should not do, understand that I am really just trying to make a point. The Revelation is a touchy subject. A preterist will not convince a premillenialist and vice versa. This topic is pointless. It is my suggestion that we focus on the things that matter today, in our own lives, and not on things that have either happened already or are yet to come. If it already happened, we are in the kingdom of Christ. We should live accordingly. If it hasn't happened yet, we should live accordingly, else we won't be ready when it does. Got it folks? This topic is a bad one, and WILL lead to strife, because no common ground will be discovered. Theo-Minor |
||||||
68 | The rapture, A comming event, Pg 3. | 1 Thess 4:16 | Theo-Minor | 126047 | ||
I agree with you. It can be interesting. It is also only a problem if we stubbornly cling to our views. This is precisely the point I'm making. Everyone is going to do just that. People have been debating this topic for almost two thousand years. They either believe that the second coming has not happened and spiritualize what does not adhere to this opinion. Else they believe it happened already and assume that which they cannot verify. History and logic support one view. Lack of history and logic support the other. Where is the common ground? What will be accomplished by this topic? I'll participate insomuch as this. Direct written history supports "virtually" all of the Revelation and the Olivet Discourse, barring the second coming itself. As for that, it is my opinion that Jesus told us plainly that we wouldn't know it except by certain signs, like armies surrounding the city, etc. His coming would be like lightning flashing from east to west. It would be like a thief in the night. It would be like the days of Noah; they wouldn't know until the woe was already upon them. It would be like the days of Sodom; they wouldn't know until it was too late. The only warning the Christians had was the abomination of desolation as spoken of by the prophet Daniel. When they saw him standing in the holy place (which could be viewed as either the temple, the inner sanctuary, or merely Jerusalem and the mountain it was built upon; "God's holy mountain") they were to flee. They were not to go back for anything. Historically, the Christians fled to Pella in 66 AD, as according to Eusebius (the father of church history). They are recorded as having believed that "the abomination of desolation" was surrounding the city. There is so much historacity behind a proposed 70 AD completion of prophecy, it would take a large volume book to write it all. I know, because I have them all over my shelves. Seutonius, Tacitus, Thallus, Josephus, Pliny younger, Julius Africanus, Diogenes, Aquilius Niger, etc. It is once again my "opinion" that no person can make an informed decision on the matter until they have thoroughly read the histories. The correlations between prophecy and historical happenings is frightening. This is all I really have to say on the matter. I'm eager to discuss something else, but I'll do the best I can to discuss reasonable questions and consider reasonable suggestions. Theo-Minor |
||||||
69 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:4 | Theo-Minor | 126315 | ||
These commentaries make many of the same arguments I have considered. What I am personally cognizant of is that the whole discussion of "habitually, practicing, actively" versus "not once, not ever" all boils down to the tenses of the words in 3:6 and 3:9, as these commentaries also point out each in turn. To use an example I previously made, there would be no question what's being said here if the statement read, "Those abiding in God do not 'eat carrots'" Would we try to understand this sentence as stating that, "Those abiding in God do not habitually eat carrots?" Or would we simply conclude that they don't eat carrots, period? Present tense, in any other context, would not imply a habitual and reoccurent happening of the act. The verb is defined by the sytax of its own sentence. Present tense means "now." So if you are abiding in God [now], then you are not committing a sin [now]. In ten minutes, when the future becomes the present, and this static statement again takes foot in its natural environment, you will again be abiding in God [now], and not committing a sin [now]. Do you see what I'm getting at? Present tense is not a denotation of the future but of the now. But to take this dispensationally, I also recognize the contingency laid down in 1st John 2:1-2. John is definitely recognizing the "possibility" for "little children" to make a mistake. In addition, if God is a merciful God, it wouldn't be very merciful to consider a single mistake as the end of salvation. The two contrasting, and both individually concrete, views are summed up together in 1st John 5:16-18: If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not to death, he shall ask and God will, for him, give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death. I do not say that he should make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not to death. We know that no one who is born of God sins, but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the evil one does not touch him. This particular passage is ambiguous right down to its toes at face value. In short, it seems to me that John is saying (to paraphrase the larger chunks of context): "Little children, it's possible for you to not sin. That's why I'm writing to you, to show you how to accomplish this goal. If any of you fail, do not fret, for God is greater than our hearts. We have an advocate. But strive for this perfection, because those abiding in God do not sin. Anyone that still sins, no matter how great or small, no matter once or ten times, simply does not understand God and has not experienced the true revelation of our relationship with him. So again, don't fret. Some of you won't get it right away. Those of you that do ... pray for them." What we have to be careful of in scrutinizing this passage to understand why we CAN still sin instead of wrapping our minds around the idea that we canNOT sin is that we cheapen forgiveness and make sin "no big deal." Even on this site within the last couple of days, someone said something akin to: "If it's sin, then no big deal. It's one of many you will commit." It wasn't worded exactly like that, but that was the gist. Sin IS a big deal, and should not be taken lightly. Our goal is to not sin AT ALL, and to start today. I look forward to doing this conversation. :o) Thanks for some good, solid response kalos. Theo-Minor |
||||||
70 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:4 | Theo-Minor | 126317 | ||
Understand up front that to my mind, my argument is entirely illogical in the sense that I'm suggesting we do not, will not, and cannot sin once we truly know God. This is a dangerous view that leaves no real room for error, and it is to my benefit for mistakes to be permissable. What if I make one myself? So I'm not making this argument because I'm weird. I want occasional sin to be okay and forgiveable as much as the next person. I really believe he's telling us that we do not, will not, and cannot sin once we know and understand God in truth. The second part of this interpretation comes from the context of the passage itself. He's directly relating verse 3:6 to verse 3:5. There is no sin "in" Christ, so those of us "in him" cannot have sin. If we have sin and dwell in him then there is sin in him. Then there are passages like Hebrews 10:26: For if we willfully sin after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice concerning sin. As you pointed out in another, lesser, post on this topic, it's 'willful,' and I would add that it's "after receiving the 'full' knowledge of the truth." This is consistent with what John is saying. "Those that sin have not truly recognized or fully understood him." The Proverbs concur by saying that an adulterous man lacks understanding. So by this standard, if you are sinning [once or twenty times], you simply don't understand what God is about. You haven't had the revelation of the fullness of the truth. Paul says that we should not live in sin anymore, for Christ is not the minister of sin. He doesn't say, "Don't live in sin anymore, but go back and visit the old neighborhood now and again." Jesus said to the adulteress, "Go, and sin no more." That's a brutal command to give to someone if it is not an attainable goal. He didn't say, "Go, and sin only sometimes when you just can't help yourself." So we must assume it can be done. More to the point, Jesus tells us that his yoke is easy and his burden is light. John says that keeping God's commands are not a burdensome thing. So if they say it's easy, but we think it's hard, is it possible that we are not fully understanding? Is it possible that living without sin is a simple task that we have unnecessarily complicated through confusion or ignorance? Awaiting new posts ... Thanks to all that participate in this topic. It is, in my opinion, worthy of discussion because of the great impact it has on all our Christian walks. Theo-Minor |
||||||
71 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:9 | Theo-Minor | 126318 | ||
I'm definitely a novice at Greek study. I'm working on it, but I'm English-speaking. *laugh* See my other posts, though, regarding the implications of present tense. I'm not thick-headed, but I think I'm making a reasonable point. Theo-Minor |
||||||
72 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:9 | Theo-Minor | 126323 | ||
Hey Tim, The other thing (and this is the crux of the problem) is that I can't wrap my mind around a present (or future) absolute negative action implying something occasionally positive. I think that's my real issue. Whether preset, future, or continuing, you still have an absolute value of the action. Actively I can see and appreciate. Those abiding in God [actively remaining and abiding now and continually] do not sin [actively perform the absolute negative of the action now and continually]. Practicing I can see, though I think it's a poor word to show what's being said. Those abiding in God [practicing (as in actively doing, not as in exercises to gain improvement like a musician would) the act of staying there now and continually] do not sin [practice (as in actively do the absolute negative of the action, not as in exercises to gain improvement of the absolute negative of the action) the absolute negative of the action]. Habitually, on the other hand, implies an occasional lapse of the substantiated action, and this is bad for two reasons. 1) It implies that we sometimes do the positive of the absolute negative, or that we do the absolute negative only "most of the time." 2) Because of the sequence of tenses, it implies that we sometimes do not abide in God, or that we just abide in Him "most of the time." Thus, Those abiding in God [make a habit of abiding in him, but occasionally absent by implication of habit] do not sin [make a habit of performing the positive action instead of doing the absolute negative of the action as the syntax requires]. Habitually makes no sense to what's actually being said. This is presumptuous in my opinion. It says what no one can guarantee is the intent of the author. Practicing is not wrong, but can be construed as habitually because of the common association of practice being a thing you do to "get better at something" versus a thing you actively do everyday. Actively carries the same implications as practicing for the same reasons. You actively do not sin, but by implication, it is something that occasionally lapses when the tense actually suggests something present, on-going, and indefinite according to what you've corrected me on (thanks, by the way). By this standard and comparison, the words habitually, actively, and practicing need to be kept out of the text, because they imply things that were neither intended nor said. If John wanted to say that we don't sin "most of the time" instead of "never at all," there's no reason he wouldn't have said, "Those abiding in God do not 'usually' sin." Waiting for follow up. :o) Theo-Minor |
||||||
73 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:9 | Theo-Minor | 126327 | ||
The original question post was #126296 kalos answered in posts: 126297, 126300, and 126301. Then I responded to him in posts: 126315 and 126317. I don't know what happened with the thread, but my question, asked only once, was also posted as 126298. You responded with post: 126299. I responded with posts: 126318 and 126323. You responded with post: 126324. Again, I don't know why the thread is divided, but this is the series of posts, pretty much in order of occurrence. Theo-Minor P.S. I'm currently going through "The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek." I will get a copy of the other once I've absorbed this one to the best of my ability. It's slow going, but it has really helped me learn to recognize the words. It's structure more than anything else that was the pain in my rear side (most particularly reconciling myself to "Sequence of tenses and moods" That got confusing at first, but I'm getting a decent grasp, I think.). |
||||||
74 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:9 | Theo-Minor | 126341 | ||
Perhaps this is the reason for some of the discrepencies. I'll get a copy of the other. I look forward to seeing some new info. :o) Theo-Minor |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] |