Results 81 - 100 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233004 | ||
Tim, Yes, that was a possibility I had considered. Personally, coming to the passage with no prior theological reasons to object to Jesus drinking wine (since I don't see scripture as forbidding it), I simply find the passage to be more coherant when understanding the reference to regard alcohol rather than grape juice. That being said I readily concede to your point that we can't be dogmatic about it. In fact, even if we could know for certain I believe this is one issue scripture actually commands us not to be dogmatic about. This is specifically one of the examples in Romans 14 concerning which we are to not cause trouble and division over. However, in this case scripture pertaining to the issue was specifically asked for. Also I personally do not drink, so I have no real incentive to press the point. And I certainly don't announce from the pulpit that I think Jesus drank. ;-) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
82 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 232997 | ||
Doc, You might be interested to know that the denomination which I recently left would have a very serious disagreement in anybody not using unlevened bread. Though I do not challenge your point. : ) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
83 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 232996 | ||
00123, I grant that the accussation of the pharisee's was unfounded. But it was Christ who said that he "came drinking" and that John came "not drinking." So whatever Jesus meant here by that is true, not speculation. Those words do mean something. It is my opinion that their meaning directly answers your question. Here is why I think it answers your question. What possible meaning can we give to Jesus' statement that he "came drinking" which denies his consumption of alcohol and yet given that denial still makes sense of both John's "not drinking" and the reasonableness of the comparison being made in the passage. Here is an illustration of my point. Suppose somebody said: By saying he "came drinking" what Jesus really meant was that he was drinking grape juice. Then we have to say that "not drinking" for John was about him abstaining from grape juice. This makes little sense, and it doesn't make any sense of why Jesus would bring this up. A debate over obstaining from grape juice makes no sense. I can't think of any explination of the passage that doesn't break down unless we suggest that Christ did drink alcoholic beverages. And that this is exactly what he meant we he himself said that he "came drinking." At that point it makes perfect sense. The point then is that the pharisees were going to accuse of misconduct no matter what Jesus did. John didn't feast and drink alcoholic beverages and they called him a demon possessed fanatic. Jesus used such things in moderation and yet they accussed him in overindulgance with regards to both. He was in their estimate a glutton and a drunkard. There was no pleasing them no matter what path he took. Now you may think I'm wrong and that my exegisis of the passage falls very short, and that does not offend me. However I am attempting to give you a biblical answer. You might suggest my answer to be foolish, myself to be ignorant of facts, my tehcnique guilty of poorly interpreting scripture or several other possibilities, and all of these accusations may be true, but the one thing I am doing is answering you from scripture just like you requested. I am sorry it was unhelpful to you though, and I hope you are able to get a more productive answer from another member of the forum. (I say none of this in sarcasm.) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
84 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232911 | ||
EdB, You said, "End of discussion as far as I'm concerned unless you want to continue in this attempt to prove dispensationalist hold to Antinomianism" You continue to twist and misrepresent my words. I have never tried to suggest that modern dispensationalism as a rule advocates antinomianism. If you will go back to my first post you will see that I clearly distinguished modern dispensationalist from the ones found in its early days. Just because you reject that distinction does not give you permission to take my statements and suggest I personally am applying them without distinciton. Second, I have only attempted to show a link between early dispensational thought and antinomianism. I never suggested that they actively taught antinomianism by name. I'll thank you to stop misrepresenting my words and trying to present me as attacking those who I would gladly call brothers and friends. In Christ, Beja In Christ, Beja |
||||||
85 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232909 | ||
Ed, This is from Scofield it seems. "It is instructive, in this connection, to remember that God's appointed place for the tables of the law was within the ark of the testimony. With them were "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded" (types: the one of Christ our wilderness bread, the other of resurrection, and both speaking of grace), while they were covered from sight by the golden mercy seat upon which was sprinkled the blood of atonement. The eye of God could see His broken law only through the blood that completely vindicated His justice and propitiated His wrath (Heb. 9:4-5). It was reserved to modernists to wrench these holy and just but deathful tables from underneath the mercy seat and the atoning blood and erect them in Christian churches as the rule of Christian life." Now to be fair in the very same sermon he rejects "antinomianism." What he refers to as antinomianism is the suggestion that there is no rule of behavior in the believer's life. He simply denies that it is the ten commandmants or the Old Testament law. So here, we see the main popularizer of dispensationalism affirm that while there is infact a rule of behavior for Christians, it is most certainly not the OT law. Second, here is the webster's dictionary definition for antinomian. one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation. Here is the definition from the catholic encyclopedia. "The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law." Now...I accept that dispensationalist C Scofield did not teach antinomianism as he himself defines antinomianism. But he taught exactly what the websters dictionary and catholic encyclopedia taught is antinomianism. Is this sufficient documentation? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
86 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232907 | ||
EdB, You must have missed this one. http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/Torah/Dispensationalism_Root_Cause_of_Antinomianism.pdf In Christ, Beja |
||||||
87 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232904 | ||
EdB, "we have to suspect the motive of Doc of even suggesting it." I agree. At this point our moral obligation has shifted away from putting in extra effort to understand what he's saying and it has shifted instead to a moral obligation to slander him. But now that I'm on your side in this, I would suggest a mere google search on "history of dispensationalism" to you. I think it would help. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
88 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232900 | ||
EdB, I know that you and I aren't on the best terms, but I hope it is alright if I explain where the connection is. I am making no assertions here about all this, rather just helping clarify. Dispensationalism, as almost all stances, has undergone refinement. Almost nobody at all today holds to the original form of dispensationalism. But at the same time the modern notion still merely refers to itself as dispensationalism just like the old version. Now you'd have to be familiar with some of the older version to understand the link between antinomianism and dispensationalism. As Doc stated, the basic premise was that God acted in different ways in different dispensations. The original form went so far as to say that in each of these dispensations God actually saved people in different ways. For example, in the time of the Jewish nation prior to Christ, they asserted that Law was the means of saving people. Now in the modern dispensation God uses grace. So what they actually did was claim that the law was for the saints of a past dispensation and therefore had nothing to do with the current dispensation. Hence, old school dispensationalism did have a link with antinomianism so long as you define antinomianism as a rejection of Old Testament Law on today's believers. Now the reason you can be so shocked and have been dispensational all your life and never been around anybody who believes any such thing is because Old School dispensationalism has been pretty thoroughly crushed and shown to be wrong. Modern dispensationalists, from what I am aware, hold to dispensations but they don't claim a unique means of salvation in each. John McArthur as you stated (whom I'm fond of) would not at all embrace old school dispensationalism unless I'm sorely mistaken. So in Old School dispensationalism, there is a bit of a tendency for Antinomianism to come with it. However, they ofcourse teach certain rules. They just teach certain behavior restrictions seperate from the Old Testament law. So even in Old School Dispensationalism you really got more of a theological antinomianism without a practical one. In other words they formally rejected the old testament law, but they would still in practice forbid most of the things actually forbidden under the OT Law such as adultery, murder, lying, rape, stealing, etc. I hope this is helpful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
89 | What is the law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232891 | ||
elder4yhwh, Let me first confess my fears to you and then I will point you to answers. Now my fear is that you do not ask this question in sincerity. What I mean is that you ask me which laws he has fulfilled or done away with and you don't truly want to learn anything from any answer I might give. Rather that you think to be asking an impossible question and thus from the impossibility of answering it you have proven your point that such a notion is nonsense. Now I do not accuse you of this, I am simply afraid it could be the case. So here is how I shall answer your question, I shall point you to the answers and if you are willing to pursue them you shall have your answers. But if you are asking only in attempts to prove a point, then I will have no waisted my time arguing about it. 1.) First, you need to have a right understanding about what Christ has done. When we say that due to the work of Christ we are no longer under the law, we don't mean to say that the law is no longer a picture of righteousness any longer. We simply mean that our acceptance or condemnation before God is no longer based upon our fulfillment of the law for those who are in Christ. So due to what Christ has done and my partaking of the benefits via faith, I no longer am accepted or rejected by God based upon whether I have committed adultery. What we DO NOT mean is that I am now free to commit adultery. We do not hold to antinomianism, or lawlessness. The moral law remains our sure guide to right and wrong and rightly restrains wickedness. Now this could have a lot more to be said about it. Namely that Paul goes through lengths to show that the Spirit is the driving force of righteousness in Christians rather than the law. However, I simply want to assert that Christ has freed us from the covenant of the law, not the expectation of the law. I point you to a book called "The Marrow of Modern Divinity" to learn more about this. This book is a very easy and enjoyable read. I do not wish to push you to accept every doctrinal thought the author holds, but it very much helps to get the broad concept of being free from the law as a covenant while still holding to the law as the picture of righteousness fit to instruct the saints and sincerely obey. Oh, this book is available online in its entirety for free. 2.) Now we rightly say that some things have passed away entirely due to Christ having fulfilled them. And this point is more to what you are pressing for an answer on. I point you to John Calvin in the "Institutes of the Christian Religion." He deals with this very well. He will expound upon concepts such as the moral, ceremonial, and civil aspects of the old testament law. I think he rightly teaches it. So I offer these two sources for you. If you truly wish to know the answers to your questions, you will do well to pursue your answers in these sources. If you are in truth not seeking answers, but rather have begun this thread asking a question only to start a debate over a topic which you previously were quite convinced of your own position, and rather than seeking an answer were really only trying to engage in a discussion to sway others, then I suspect you will continue debating in this thread while putting out no effort to look into these books. I wish you well in your study. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
90 | Romans in the light of Jonah does it say | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232835 | ||
Yes. We have had an exposition of that. And afterwards you and I agreed it was best for us not to speak any further on these forums. Now you continue to press of an explination of my view from others immediately after that agreement. Do you think that is fair? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
91 | What is the law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232829 | ||
Doc, Its ok, you provided a good exegisis of my one line answer! :) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
92 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232828 | ||
elder4yhwh, Part 2 of my reply 2. Second, I think I point about hermeneutics would be in order considering your appeals to Acts 13, 17:2, and 18:4. Whenever we read scripture there is something of a priority order. We give cheif weight to a very clear and explicit teaching in scripture. Below that we have an example of something in scripture. And finally below that we have an inferrence as the weakest. I will attempt to explain. Whenever we are trying to understand what scripture would have us to believe and do, we as flawed people and dull of hearing sometimes see contradictions. They are not really contradictions but having missunderstood something, they appear so in our mind. How do we resolve that? Well first we study to see if we missunderstood a passage. But having come to the same conclusion after that we must consider what has the most weight. Let me use an example. Who is allowed to take the Lord's supper? I grew up in a group who believed that it was only to be the members of a specific local body. How did they get this teaching? They claimed that Jesus practiced his first Lord's supper with ONLY his immediate local church. They therefore "inferred" this to be meant for a model which all Christians should follow. Is this valid? Well, my objection is that in Acts 20 we see Paul actually practice communion with members of multiple different churches. We see that Paul clearly did not agree with this inference? A clear example is to be given more weight. Why? Simply because an inference never explicitly stated has more room for human error than a simple observation. Now suppose they had a clear text that said, "Only practice this with the local Church." That would trump my example. Why? Because we would have to assume I am somehow missinterpreting what I am seeing in Acts 20. The more room for human error, the less weight in apparent contradictions. We are fallible, the Bible is inerrant. These are our convictions. Now in the Acts references you are working with inferences. The passages you share state that on the Sabbath, on these occassions, Paul went to the synagogues in an attempt to pursuade the Jews. Everything beyond that you are inferring. You are inferring, "Therefore Paul considered that it was still a moral duty for us to observe the Sabbath." But it is entirely possible that Paul simply went there because he knew that was the best time to find a gathering of Jews, no? So you are working from the lowest of the lines of reasoning. So if we see any clear teaching in scripture contrary to it. We listen to the clear teaching over this inferrence. If we see any clear example of an authoritative figure disregarding the Sabbath, we take that over the inferrence. So Paul's teaching is greater or more weighty than why YOU think he happened to show up to those synagogues on those particular sabbaths. We do not ignore Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4, and Acts 13. We simply listen to what Paul told us rather than guess at his motives there. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
93 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232827 | ||
elder4yhwh, Two big thoughts regarding your post, next one will be in seperate post due to space limits. 1. What Paul says is God's word. That is one of the foundational convictions we have, the inspiration of the entire cannon. We hold it to be both inerrant and authoritative. That is also one of the views you affirm to work under when you sign into the forum. Now, from my reading of the TOU, that does not mean you actually must believe in the inerrancy of scripture to post here. Rather it simply means that all your posts must agree to work under that assumption. That means we do not divide Paul and Jesus. We seek to see how their words work in harmony. Because our fundamental assumption is that they agree since both are the words of God and God does not contradict himself. Now we then strive to prove their harmony. But we first hold that conviction and then strive towards the proof. Now it seems to me that your dissatisfaction with being answered from the words of Paul hint your rejection of that notion. I hope I'm wrong. There were many things that Jesus either did not teach, or did not teach with plainness during his time on earth. Jesus affirmed this and also assured us that the Holy Spirit would later lead us into all truth. He also informed his apostles as to a right reading of all of scripture and how to understand what had come about. Joh 16:12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. Joh 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. Luk 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. So we understand the apostles, including Paul, to be teaching authoritatively and accurately the things of God. Why do we include Paul? In Galatians and many other places (note the visions he claims in Ephesians and 2 Corinthians) he makes clear that no man taught him the things of God and the gospel but rather God himself has taught him. So that is how we must read the New Testament. I once had a seminary professor express disdain for red letter bibles. His reason was that it implies the red words are more so the words of God than the black words. Now I have no objection to red letter bibles but his point was valid. It is ALL the words of God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
94 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232794 | ||
EdB, Well, I'm not sure what to say to that. You definitely have a persecution complex and I feel very confident that any review of any of our exchanges by any authority figure would come to the same conclusion. However, if it lets you rest easier, you may be assured that I don't intend to exchange posts with you in the future if at all possible. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
95 | Wasn't yesterday better than today? | Eccl 7:10 | Beja | 232791 | ||
Doc, I recently heard a preacher say that all are equally dead, but we'll grant that the corpses may have different stages of decay. I rather liked that analogy. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
96 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232786 | ||
EdB, After rereading your earlier post I fear I might have put words into your mouth with regards to something. I said: Your statement was that there is no notion that they are property and that it allows them to be beaten/harmed. Now you did state the property part and the being beaten part but you did not connect the two explicitly in your post. So if that was an unfair reading of your view point forgive me. It was not my intention to misrepresent you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
97 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232785 | ||
EdB, Let me first make a plea for being given some benefit of the doubt. I do not advocate beating slaves to death, starving them, or any crazy cruelty. But I am wondering how tempered your statements have been by scripture. The two big instances that make me wonder are: 1. You state that seperating wife and children would be one aspect of slavery which God would not condone. Indeed the very idea that God would condone it would seriously offend you. However, have you considered this passage? Exo 21:1-4 And these are the judgments which thou dost set before them: When thou buyest a Hebrew servant--six years he doth serve, and in the seventh he goeth out as a freeman for nought; if by himself he cometh in, by himself he goeth out; if he is owner of a wife, then his wife hath gone out with him; if his lord give to him a wife, and she hath borne to him sons or daughters--the wife and her children are her lord's, and he goeth out by himself. How does this fit with your thoughts? 2. I'm by no means even competent in Hebrew. But I do know the word you are speaking of in Ex 21:20 and you are quite correct that it is most natural the word for "silver." However, does this change the idea so much? Your statement was that there is no notion that they are property and that it allows them to be beaten/harmed. Yet even with the word being translated "silver" is this not still at least slightly along that idea? If not how do you understand it? Let me post it again and substitute the word silver. Ex 21:20,21 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his silver. Does this really change basic idea of the two verses? Now, don't think that by this I mean all other nasty things that came with American slavery. All I'm saying is that your statements do not look like they have been tempered by scripture. If it matters, one way we might resolve some of the tension is to suggest there is not the connection between the idea of a slave being property or a possession with all these other things. I don't think I'm being unfair in bringing up scriptures like these. And again, please be gracious enough to not assume that I embrace every vile thing that has come with historical slavery simply because I post these verses. They are relevant. I ought not have to apologize for bringing up scripture. In Chris, Beja |
||||||
98 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232782 | ||
EdB, I claim no knowledge of Chattel slavery or even if it is actually a real word. I simply posted scripture that seemed to be related to your discussion. I know that when I am considering a question I appreciate it when people point me to scripture that may weigh in on the question. I try not to take offense if I then determine the suggested scripture does not. On a side note, our modern sensibilities are often offended by scripture, and I would suggest our discomfort or indignation to be an unfit measure of truth. Take the modern offense over scripture's stance on woman authority in churches and homosexuality for example. But once again, Beja isn't even sure if Chattel is a real word and has made zero assertions on the slavery question, only posted some verses for you guys to weigh. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
99 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232779 | ||
EdB, "Chattel - where the slave is no longer viewed a ss person but rather as a piece of property." "God never condoned Chattel Slavery" Lev 22:11 'But if a priest buys a slave as his property with his money, that one may eat of it, and those who are born in his house may eat of his food. Exo 21:20 "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. Exo 21:21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. For your consideration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
100 | Where did Jesus do away with the Sabbath | Luke 6:5 | Beja | 232705 | ||
elder4yhwh, In your view do we sin when we don't observe the sabbath? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [26] >> |