Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94455 | ||
My Creed Part 2-Incarnations When God and Goddess decided to take the flesh here on earth to get things done (every couple thousand years they seem to do this) they chose Mary as one of the humans they could channel through. You remember she was asked and agreed to the task. The Mother Goddess came and actually dwelt within Mary of Nazareth's body in order to give birth to the masculine god. And then a few years later, somewhere across the Sea of Galilee in a little merchant town called Magdala (still a village in Israel today) perhaps the Great Goddess also came long enough to give birth to Mary Magdalene, the feminine messiah. It is very likely that both Mary Magdalene and Mother Mary were representatives of the Goddess and served as priestesses in a Temple, be it the Second (Hebrew) Temple on the Temple Mount or one of the many pagan temples built by Solomon, the Romans or Greeks which existed and thrived during Yeshua's day in the city of Jerusalem, the province of Galilee and other cities of Israel. We know there was the Women's Court at both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and we know there is mention of the practice of sending young women there to "work." Mother Mary is said to have been dedicated to Temple work, she lived there, wove tapestries, altar cloths, prayed for the betterment of the people, etc. She is repeatedly called a "Temple Virgin" and apocryphal books tell of her adventures there under the Highpriest Zacharius. [Gospel of the Birth of Mary, written 300's AD, supposedly written by Matthew, and the Protevangelion, written by James, Yeshua's brother, one of Mary's other sons]. At one point another priest, Abiathar, wants Mary, known as a magikally powerful and beautiful priestess, to marry his son. It was custom after their service to the Temple, to give the Temple "Virgins" in marriage to prominent men of the community, usually nobles or priests. The Highpriest is perplexed what to do with Mary, she cannot marry just anyone, and so he enters the Holy of Holies and asks the Divine to send a sign. That's how she ends up betrothed to Joseph. Ancient pagan temples of both Old and New Testament times were populated with sacred "prostitutes." But these women were NOT what we consider prostitutes today. They were highly respected representatives of whichever goddess whose temple they served in. The words used to indicate them are not "whore" or prostitute, but Hierodules or Hetera (singular) heterae (plural), meaning sacred dedicant, sacred temple-worker. When Mary Magdalene was called a hetera or prostitute back in the early centuries of Christianity, the people of the time knew perfectly well what that meant, she was a Temple Priestess, serving the Goddess. Perhaps she was such a priestess, the ubiquitous name of "Mary" has been attributed to the fact that it might not be a woman's specific name at all, but might mean a priestess of the goddess religion. Either way, Mary Magdalene did have a life before she joined Yeshua's ministry, but we now know it was not selling her body on the street like modern-day prostitutes. What about Mother Mary? Did she actually sleep with men in the Temple? We will never know, but we do know the story of Pantera, a Greek-born Roman soldier assigned to guard the Temple precinct in Jerusalem. "News" records of the time say he met, and perhaps wooed, a Temple Tapestry weaver named Mary then got her with child, a child later claimed to be conceived of God. This story is historically recorded in the Jewish writings of the time, the Talmud, and even in a Roman record book. Jewish writings from the first century go on to say it was the same Mary who gave birth to the Christian messiah, Jesus. Even more fascinating, in the 1990's, the grave of Pantera was uncovered in Germany, and sure enough he lived during the time of Jesus' birth and was even stationed in Jerusalem at the time! He was the head of a legion in his later years and had been transferred to fight in Germany, but died there in his late 40's. Ian Wilson discusses the Pantera evidence in his book Jesus the Evidence. We know that Yeshua was divinely conceived, but some religionists like to think he still had a human "sperm donor" to make the baby start growing inside Mary's womb. Those of this camp assume that was Joseph, but since he protested having never slept with her, perhaps God used this Greco-Roman soldier with the fascinating name. Pantera may be a mixed form of Hebrew and Latin, Ben-Terra, which means Son of the Earth Goddess). |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 94463 | ||
Questions continued.... 3) Where in Scripture are we told that the 'Mother Goddess came and actually dwelt within Mary of Nazareth's body in order to give birth to the masculine god'? 4) Where does Scripture tell us that Mary had sex with any man prior to the birth of Christ? 5) Where does Scripture tell us any of these fantasy stories about Mary? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran 4) |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94470 | ||
It doesnt. These are oral traditions of the early gnostic church. | ||||||
4 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | Pastor Glenn | 94476 | ||
gbenntt76, You said: "These are oral traditions of the early gnostic church." You must realize that Apostle Paul never conveyed any "oral traditions" to anyone. He taught scripture and eyewitness accounts of the ressurection of Christ. So for you to grab onto all of this "oral traditions of the early gnostic church" just goes to show your lack of a foundation in Christ. Ephesians 4:14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, Pastor Glenn |
||||||
5 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94489 | ||
A Little Mormon Thought And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. 4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible•; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews•, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? 5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have acursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. 6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews? 7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two• nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my bwords according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. 10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. 11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written. 12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall bwrite it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. |
||||||
6 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94490 | ||
More Fuel Misconceptions held by the majority of this forum: 1)The Bible is so plain that what it means is "obvious." 2)Simply by quoting scriptures, everything will become clear. In doing so, they show very little knowledge of the Bible, or ability to think clearly. This is why: -If every Bible verse can be taken at face value, then the Bible is a mess of contradictions and mistakes. -If the meaning is so clear, then every thinking person would agree with them. But they do not. The truth is that the Bible has to be interpreted. So the great question is, why is one interpretation any better than another? Using the Bible to Test the Bible Circular Arguments: A critic wrote, "If I am shown interpretations other than those I already hold to, which make more sense than mine do in light of the whole of Scripture, I will listen." This belief is comforting but false. What "makes sense" when interpreting scripture will depend on our existing methods and assumptions. What if our view of "the whole of scripture" is faulty (for example, if we think that the Bible is all there is)? Then every other scripture will be judged according to this false standard. The Usual Protestant Rule of Biblical Interpretation: "If we are to believe that God gave us the Bible for a purpose, then it follows that... His purpose is for us to understand it, with His help" Exactly. "With his help." Since internal help would be circular, he must provide external help (the Holy Spirit, prophets, etc.) "Take the Bible literally where it is at all possible" I agree this is a good general rule, but it must not be relied on completely, because: This was the rule the ancient Pharisees used – e.g. they expected a Messiah who would literally be a "king." Consequently they missed Jesus when he came. It is just not practical. It is possible to take almost everything literally, an still be internally consistent. But who does? How many Christians only have one coat? How many give to everyone who asks? It goes against the examples in the New Testament. Right from Matthew chapters 1 and 2, we see prophecies that are not interpreted according to any literal rule, or by looking at the original context. For example, "out of Egypt I have called my son," by this method, must refer to the nation of Israel being led by Moses. "A virgin shall conceive" must have referred to an ordinary young woman in Isaiah's day. I am highly doubtful that most evangelical Protestants do follow this rule anyway. The last time I discussed this matter in any depth with a "Born Again Christian," he sent me a number of audio tapes from his church. One of them was about the Book of Revelation. His minister started by stating that it was practically all symbolic. "If God cannot author confusion, then any interpretative problems invariably arise from the human end (1 Cor 2:14; 2 Pet 3:16), not from the Scriptures themselves" I agree. But humans are sinful. We invariably get it wrong without divine help. This method of interpretation just about guarantees a false understanding of scripture. The verses quoted make clear that the final test of scripture is NOT more scripture. 1 Cor 2:14 suggests the final test is the Holy Spirit. The context of 2 Peter 3:16 (e.g. see verse 2) suggests the final test is the living apostles. (At the time, there was no cannoned New Testament.) The Myth of Context If you ask someone why a passage means one thing and not another, the usual answer is "context." In other words, they look at the surrounding verses and chapters. But this does not help – it is another circular argument. If the verse in question is open to different interpretations, so are the surrounding verses. Context IS important, but it does not give certainty. Which context do we look at? The previous verse? All the surrounding verses? The whole chapter? The message of the whole book? The speaker? The audience? Other similar scriptures? The historical context? The political context? The expected level of understanding? All of these things can potentially lead to different interpretations. Combining them in different ways just multiplies the potential confusion. Conclusion: Can or Should Scripture be Interpreted by Scripture? Scripture should be interpreted in the light of scripture, but this should not be the "first and foremost" way: It contradicts itself. The first thing we discover when we read scripture is that it is written by prophets and apostles. So it follows that prophets and apostles (since they create scripture) must be the preferred source. So the first task of a Bible believer must be to identify the true apostles. (This of course eliminates mainstream Protestantism as a potential source of truth.) |
||||||
7 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94491 | ||
Even More Fuel: Ten Reasons Why "Sola Scriptura" is Impossible, Illogical and Foolish: 1)If the Bible is complete, why does it not say so? Sometimes people point to verses that say "all scripture is given" – a very forced and unnatural interpretation. The first such passage is in Deuteronomy 4:3, which says (in effect) "do not add to this." So why don't believers in "sola scriptura" throw out the whole New Testament and all the Old Testament that was written after Deuteronomy? 2)Bible interpretation depends on the words of prophets. 3)Bible interpretation depends on having an accurate copy of the original texts. No such copy exists: All we have are copies of copies. The earliest copies show that whole passages – e.g. the last 12 verses of Mark – could be in doubt. 4)The current Bible canon was decided by Catholic theologians: So Protestants base their faith on uninspired men from a church they reject as apostate! 5)Scripture has to be interpreted: In practice, "sola scriptura" means that everyone interprets the scriptures for himself. So we have scriptural chaos. At the very least, the individual becomes the final judge of exactly what the scripture means, which places man above God. 6)Even the greatest thinkers will disagree over how to be saved: For example, "Luther thought Zwingli was "damned" because he denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist. If Luther didn't even regard him as a brother in Christ due to doctrinal disputes, then obviously they didn't agree on how one is saved! Clearly, Luther thought that the Eucharist was crucial to salvation. In this he would differ from Calvin as well, and the same thing applies to baptism, because Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, whereas Calvin (and, I believe, Zwingli) denied it." 7)There are many different ways of harmonising the Scripture. ALL can be defended indefinitely: So it is not enough to use one scripture to explain another. Calvinists have one way of doing this. Arminians have another way. Baptists have another way. They all come to different conclusions on significant questions. So do Lutherans, Anglicans, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Methodists, Plymouth Brethren, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mennonites, etc., etc. 8)Believers in "sola scriptura" rely on outside evidences: The idea is that the believer listens to churches, pastors, books, professors, commentaries spiritual experiences, traditions, creeds, hymns, etc., and then makes up their own mind. But this implies that these outside influences suggest possibilities that the believer would not have come up with on their own. In other words, he relies on them. 9)Believers in "sola scriptura" place their own subjective beliefs above the authority of the Bible: Luther recognised that some key teachings could not be reconciled from the Bible alone. For example, Paul seems to teach salvation by grace, and James appears to teach salvation by works. So Luther developed a concept known as the "analogy of faith." In other words, if Paul seemed to contradict James, Luther looked at his overall beliefs regarding Christ. But where do these overall beliefs come from, except from these same texts? Luther liked Paul better than James, so he (Luther) decided that Paul was more important. He wrote: "To sum it all up ... St. John's Gospel [not the synoptics], and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially those to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, and St. Peter's first epistle – these are the books which show you Christ and teach everything which is needful and blessed for you to know even if you don't see or even hear any other book. ... Wherefore St. James epistle is a true epistle of straw compared with them, for it contains nothing of an evangelical nature." See Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith for references and further discussion. 10)"Sola scriptura" was the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees: Jesus and his apostles were different. They spoke with authority. They could back up their words for scripture, but the churches of the day did not accept their interpretations. Many years ago I was reading the Bible and came across the following verse: 1 John 2:15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." This struck me as odd, because I had been brought up with another well known verse by the same author (the apostle John): John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Is it good to love the world? Yes? No? At that point, I began to realise that the Bible has to be interpreted. There is no getting away from that fact. The End |
||||||
8 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | Pastor Glenn | 94495 | ||
gbennett76, You said: "...I believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth...." However, oral tradition was attacked by Jesus: Mark 7 3For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. 5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" 6He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'[2] 8For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men[3] --the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." 9He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother';[4] and, "He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'[5] 11But you say, "If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"--' (that is, a gift to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do." Jesus and the apostles gave us the example of how scripture must be interpreted in light of scripture. Also, it is clear that the New Testament is built on the Old Testament: Luke 24:32 And they said to one another, "Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?" Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." Luke 24:45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Acts 8:32 The place in the Scripture which he read was this: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; And as a lamb before its shearer is silent, So He opened not His mouth. Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. Pastor Glenn |
||||||