Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166505 | ||
Hi Doc, Good stuff! When I wrote "center man", I meant "center of man". Ok, metaphor, label, when you say that the "writers of the Bible used heart as a label for that part of man that is invisible", yet meanwhile acknowledging that they were aware of the organ and it's funtion, is this not a metaphor? To call an invisible part by the name of the visible? And did they not also consider the gut to also be the seat of some of those invisible things as well? And are their not several passages that make similar statements about the "gut" as the heart? Anyway, no matter. . . But that goes towards why I elected to write "center of man" (or at least, attempted to write!), to get away from the descriptive word that had a greater meaning to the ancients, as we tend to use "heart" as referring to the seat of our emotions only, and not bringing in the rest of the many things you listed as being part of this "essential person". That was my main purpose in this point, was to include in our discussion of this topic all the elements that the ancients would have included. I found your list to be comprehensive, and I appreciate your work towards compiling it. Regarding the demonic influence present at the crucifixion, this is the logical meaning of the reference in 1 Cor 2:8. I would be more specific and factual in saying, rather than demons, fallen angels. Most people do not distinguish between the two, and I have gotten into the bad habit of using the terms interchangably. Anyway, if you disagree with this, let's just set it aside. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | DocTrinsograce | 166517 | ||
Dear Mark, No, I can't find anyone suggesting that the heart, in Scripture, is not to be taken literally. The dichotomy and trichotomy stuff entered the world through the pagan Greeks, an idea alien to Hebrews. The Hebrews thought of men as unified beings. Death, an abnormal condition, would be resolved in the resurrection. We also carry around a lot of baggage from Gnostic teachings on this topic. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider the similar way the average American thinks of the brain. The modern man does not expect to cut into a brain and find the real person. The Hebrew would not have expected to cut into a heart and find the real person. The modern man does not use the term brain as a metaphor. The ancient Hebrew man did not use the term heart as a metaphor. Both understand that a blob of tissue exists, but both tend to think of it as somehow containing a man's essence. The "center of man" is probably as good a phrase as any. Essence might work... All our words don't quite sum it up very well. Maybe we shouldn't even try. After all, if the Bible calls it "heart" we should just use the same language, in spite of all the English stuff we carry along with the word. On the other topic: Looking at the context of 1 Corinthians 2:8 one does not find any reference to demons. Paul is assuring his readers that the Gospel is not based in the wisdom of men but the power of God (v5). The comparisons are persuasive speech (v1) versus the testimony of God (v2) and man's wisdom (v4) versus power of the Holy Spirit (v4). The wisdom of the world and the men ruling in the world comes "to nought" (v7), but God's wisdom is eternal and infallible (v7), but is unknown to the men ruling in the world (v8). (Albert Barnes comments on this verse, "referring both to the Jewish rulers, and the Roman governor." John Gill and Matthew Henry concur.) Had the Jewish rulers and Roman governors understood what was involved, they would not have crucified Christ (v8). Sorry, I didn't "just set it aside." I'd really like to know if there is explicit Scriptural support for "demonic influence" in the Crucifiction. I've always assumed that there was -- even before seeing Mel Gibson's movie :-) -- but I hadn't thought it through until your chance comment. After searching the Scriptures I couldn't find an explicit statement to support the view. Now, this doesn't mean that it can't be rightly inferred... after all, we have that Judas passage... I just thought you might have seen a specific Scripture on the topic that I had missed. Questions aren't always challenges, Brother Mark... sometimes they are requests to improve our imperfect understanding. Sorry for getting you upset. In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166519 | ||
Hi Doc, I really do wish that you would not infer me to have a certain emotional state, it tends to get us going in the wrong direction. My comment to "set it aside" was to the intent of not getting completely off topic. Doc, it does not upset me to be challenged, or to be questioned. I do, however, find it difficult when others will not stay on their own side of the fence, as it were, and persist in assuming how I feel, or how I perceive, or how I react within, about things which we have not discussed. I suggest that it would be much more useful to ask, "Have I upset you?", than to simply assume it to be true, and proceed as if that assumption were fact. It might well be equally useful to ask my intent for making some request, or stating a preference, rather than, again, assuming and and accepting as fact that assumption. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
4 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | DocTrinsograce | 166541 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, I rescind my preemptive apology for upsetting you and, in its stead, apologize for interpreting your choice of words as reflecting an emotional state. Henceforth I will attempt to avoid interpreting your emotional states from your posts, but will, per your suggestion, query you explicitly about any such perceived states. Simultaneously, I would encourage you to learn from these incidents so as to reduce unintended impressions where possible. Effective communication, whether the venue is written or verbal, is a two-way street. Thank you for the correction of my poor interpretive skills, and the efforts to improve the utility of my participation in the forum. In this context and in the light of the post to which I am responding -- while making every effort to "stay on my side of the fence" -- I find myself with a single, burning question: Have I upset you? In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166553 | ||
Hi Doc, Thank you for your kind words. Have you upset me? No, you have not. I am somewhat upset with myself, in letting myself get sidetracked from a discussion that is of great interest to me. Communucation certainly is a two way street, and I agree completely that I would do well to more closely monitor my words. Doc, I just don't want this to be about personalities. When it becomes personal, it takes away from the study of the Word. So let's just focus on that, ok? And leave my feelings, and personal reactions, to me. I truly appreciate your kindness and understanding. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||