Results 41 - 60 of 62
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Robin Hass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170909 | ||
I find if funny that fundamentalist “Bible Christians” continually appeal to the Reformers as if they themselves represent unalloyed Reformation Christianity. Luther, Calvin ‘and others’ were sacramentalist, baby-baptisers. Luther recited the Creeds, believed in ‘consubstantiation’, and held a high Mariology. Contemporary American fundamentalists would find more common ground with the Anabaptists whom Luther oversaw being drowned. Clearly, he felt this was some kind of physical pun regarding their wish to be fully immersed as adults. When he wasn’t writing books such as ‘On the Jews and Their Lies.’ I find it fairly sad that you can only identify with 16th-century Reformers who probably would have drowned any fundamentalists they could have got hold of, and some 19th-century Baptist icon. Talk about selective; if you choose to dismiss 2,000 years of Christian history then that's your loss. As for us, we High Anglicans particularly contend we 'own' the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Your Scripture selections are fairly dismal. The warning about adding or removing things in the Book of Revelation refers to tampering with the aforesaid text. Nor does Jesus stating 'Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will not pass away' teach anything that supports the "Bible Only" dogma. My quote which you mock "Whatever the Bible means, it is certainly referring to MORE INFORMATION." belonged with 2 Jn 12, which you you chose not to include: Having many things to write unto you, I would not [write] with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, THAT OUR JOY MAY BE FULL. John is not refering to what he will write on Patmos but to his oral teaching which will add some kind of completion to what he has already delivered. All you had to do was read the biblical quotation with a little care, at face value and in context. Robin |
||||||
42 | Scripture does teach. | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170911 | ||
I'm repeating myself now. 2 Pet 3:16 asserts 'as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand...'which is completely the opposite of what you assert! Acts 8:30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. The practical proof that Scripture is not perspicuous is the diversity of evangelical sects and their many conflicting opinions. In what way do you interpret 2 Peter 1:20, this verse states there is only one true interpretation for any Biblical verse, namely the official one taught by the Church: The Church of the living God, which 'the pillar and support of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). Scripture does not say the 'Bible is pillar and support of the truth.' |
||||||
43 | Subordinate? | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170912 | ||
The Word of God in the fullest sense in Jesus, God the Son. The Bible is God's written Word. The Bible is not my God. Nor is the Bible part of the Trinity; it is the Church's infallible book about God. It is subordinate, perhaps not a great word choice: i) In it's true interpretation by the Church for individual men. ii) The Church's birthday was the Day of Pentecost, no book of the NT had even been written. The Church was led infallibly by the Holy Spirit to later define the Biblical canon. |
||||||
44 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170916 | ||
Because Scripture teaches so in 2 Thess 2:15. Not the Book of Mormon or the Koran but 'the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter FROM US. Simple really! This is exactly what the Christian Church, East and West taught until Martin Luther introduced novelty in the 16th-century. Scripture and Ecclesiastical Tradition. A fine example of the latter being Nicea's definition of the Trinity in 325 AD. |
||||||
45 | "Here I stand; I can do no other." | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170919 | ||
The 66 books of the Bible are indeed in their entirety the Word of God. But the Word of God is more than this. It is Jesus Christ, it is the preached Word, it is the oral teaching of Jesus to his Apostles and held in the bosom of His teaching Church. All of which Scripture teaches. Where ever Luther chose to 'stand' thank the Lord you were standing somewhere else as Luther drowned believers in re-baptism / adult baptisers like yourself. Odd that he's a hero of yours when he would have had you murdered! http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.Arnold.RMT.10.HTML PERSECUTION OF ANABAPTISTS While many of the persecutions were invited on the Anabaptists by their own fanatics, others who were sound in faith were persecuted for their convictions on the Bible. The doctrinal, political and social views of the Anabaptists were obnoxious to both the Catholics and the Lutherans. Anabaptists were fined, drowned, burned at the stake, tortured, and persecuted in all the manners of the day for such crimes as refusal to pay tithes, re-fusal to attend church, refusal to refrain from Bible study groups in private homes, refusal to refrain from preaching, and other offences against the church-state. Thousands of Anabaptists were put to death. |
||||||
46 | "Here I stand; I can do no other." | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170925 | ||
True, but my main gripe is that fundamentalist / Evangelical "Bible Christians" too often want to identify themselves as unalloyed Reformation Christians conveniently forgetting the men they cite were extremely dissimilar in their theology: sacramentalists, believers in 'consubstantiation, people with high views of Mary, liturgical and creed reciters, etc. | ||||||
47 | "Here I stand; I can do no other." | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170929 | ||
The Bible doesn't speak, we read it and interpret it. Without a living human to read it the Bible is nothing more than a dead book, no more than lifeless ink and paper. A man picks up a Bible, reads it, or hears it, and comes to an understanding, a construal, an interpretation. By whatever means he reaches his understanding of the Bible, I contend he is wrong to call his own, or his denomination’s, interpretation simply ‘the Bible’ and another interpretation tradition. Historic Christianity, rather than your "Non-conformist" brands as we say in England believe the Church interprets the Bible and eschew private judgement following Peter’s admonition that ‘first of all, no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation’ (2 Peter 1:20). And look to the ‘church of the living God’ as the only dependable interpreter of biblical truth that Scripture assures us is ‘the pillar and support of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). The Bible does not say that the Bible is ‘the pillar and support of the truth’ but that the Church is. I can only state have studied the History of Theology at one of the world's foremost universities that the histories of the anti-Catholic polemicists are often fanciful. Not that people haven't been killed by Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans. I am hardly getting into some revisionist "Holocaust Denial" mode here, simply asking you to consider that the mainstream histories are truer and more reliable. |
||||||
48 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170931 | ||
My only knowledge of the 'Via Media' is the well known work by the one-time Anglican Cardinal John Henry Newman and the fact that the Anglican Church is known here as the 'via media' or the 'bridge church.' However, thanks for this I will check out the site. However, I am definitely akin to the conservative Church Fathers, a small "c" catholic, and neither in the liberal or fundamentalist camp: an historic Christian, the whole way back. Not 150 years like the other two camps. |
||||||
49 | "Here I stand; I can do no other." | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170933 | ||
Dear Tim, I have to say you are coming across with a good Christlike attitude and are not getting rattled. IMHO the problem you have is that the aforesaid Evangelicalism is a system of interpretation and you people in general are often forced to deny the plain, face value, literal meaning of the text because you are a-sacramentalist. The Nicene Creed states 'We acknowlege one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' , the Scripture says the same in Acts 2:38 yet your theological suppositions forced you to contort and deny the Scripture. You have so many 'difficult verses' that need the theological mallet! I see this all over the place in Evangelical dogma, denial of the literal meaning of James 2:24, denial of the literal meaning of John 6, denial of the plain words of Scripture, left, right and centre. I feel you fundamentalists have made a deep cardinal error regarding faith, that it is the channel through which God operates and never mere matter and then you have to deny a lot of the plain meanings. The full meaning of a bodily-incarnational theology has not been assimulated into your exegetical system. I don't know of any widely held doctrines of the Church Fathers that I think are not utterly Scriptural. Robin |
||||||
50 | "Here I stand; I can do no other." | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170935 | ||
I will in due course. It's approaching midnight here and I shall soon retire for the night. Also, I rarely get the opportunity to use the PC for as long as I have tonight in the midst of my busy life. Thanks for your input and your patient manner. Robin |
||||||
51 | Subordinate? | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170937 | ||
"Chrysostom clearly believes in a divine oral tradition that teaches some things, not contained in scripture. While we would strongly disagree with Chrysostom on this point, we honestly admit that he seems to take such a view." http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers-chrysostom.htm This is from a pro "Bible Only" Site |
||||||
52 | Women less sinful than us?? | 1 Tim 2:14 | Robin Hass | 157951 | ||
Why is it, that women seem to be far less sinful than men? Women swear less, they don’t generally get into fights, they are rarely ‘violent drunks’, they seldom abuse children. Prisons are full of men (the ratio is 8:1 I think); most serial killers are men. When women are jailed for murder often there is some ‘svengali’ male character involved that influenced and led them. Most churches are full of women too, whether Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox or Catholic. I have observed and pondered this many times. What exactly is going on? it seems really odd to me that half the human race seems to be less affected by their fallen nature. I reflect on the situation in Northern Ireland where the Catholics and Protestants (men) hate, kill, shoot and blow each other up. It always seems to be the women that are the ones desirous of peace. Why is this? |
||||||
53 | Women less sinful than us?? | 1 Tim 2:14 | Robin Hass | 157955 | ||
I'm fully aware that there are bad women around, I carefully worded my post. But what about the 8:1 ratio in the prisons. When was the last time your friend was glassed in the eye by a women. Do women shoot people in drive bys. Do divorced women kill their children to hurt their ex-partners?? | ||||||
54 | Translating 'Tradition' | 2 Tim 3:16 | Robin Hass | 170915 | ||
This is a weak observation because I am referring to Scripture's positive use of the word TRADITION. The word tradition (paradosis) occurs 12 times in the New Testament, thrice positively. 1 Cor 11:2 2 Thess 2:15 2 Thess 3:6 These are all positive examples. Am I to take it that you opine that tradition is proscribed by the New Testament. Furthermore, it is very common for Protestant and Evangelical Bibles (but not the NASB) to translate 'paradosis' as tradition where tradition is critiqued and something else where Tradition is spoken of positively. Which is bent. And a sure sign that some translators don't like what Scripture is teaching so they need to cheat. 1 Cor 11:2 NIV I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the TEACHINGS, just as I passed them on to you. Mark 7:5 NIV So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the TRADITION of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" 1 Cor 11:2 KJV Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ORDINANCES, as I delivered them to you. Mark 7:5 KJV Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the TRADITION of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? And with no dishonestly, our trustworthy host: 1 Cor 11:2 NASB Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the TRADITIONS, just as I delivered them to you. Mark 7:5 NASB The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the TRADITION of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?" What say ye of this foul play? |
||||||
55 | Translating 'Tradition' | 2 Tim 3:16 | Robin Hass | 170923 | ||
Hello Steve, I understand that tradition pertains to a body of teaching that is handed down/over to someone else. It can be either positive or negative. Good definition. The 'conspiracy' is that some Protestant Bibles are not following concordance in translating 'paradosis'. So the Bible student using the NIV would not be able to do a legitimate Bible search on the word tradition. He would only find examples of tradition being bad. Where 'PARADOSIS' is good such as 2 Thess 2:15, only when it is 'good tradition' do these dodgy Bibles not render the Greek word paradosis as tradition. This is a theological agenda, they refuse to have a positive reference to Tradition in their translations. |
||||||
56 | DOES IT SAY JESUS IS GOD OR god? | Heb 1:8 | Robin Hass | 157776 | ||
Hello SELAM, I presume you belong to a group that denies the divinity of Christ, perhaps you are a Muslim, a Jehovah’s Witness or such like. If you write a short profile we would be able to answer your questions more accurately. Do you claim the scriptures are infallible and inspired as a JW would, corrupted as a Muslim would, or not to be taken literally as a ‘liberal’ Unitarian would? Where are you coming from? You already have your ideas why Jesus is not God. If you would consider yourself a scholar I challenge to you to be able to present both sides of the argument. If you learn to present the “hypothetical” case for Christ’s divinity, as well as you present you own case, you prove that you truly understand the issues. All academic thinkers can do this for their opponent’s positions. The only way to do this properly is to become well-read, read all the arguments of the various sides and do not accept ‘straw-man’ presentations of the Christian position by our opponents! Here are some assorted arguments: “Christ’s divinity is shown over and over again in the New Testament. For example, in John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God." In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59). In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!") In Philippians 2:6, Paul tells us that Christ Jesus "[w]ho, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was "in very nature God." Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12). This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13). This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).” |
||||||
57 | Dead works | Heb 6:1 | Robin Hass | 170785 | ||
What does the biblical writer mean by repentance from 'dead works'. The NLT paraphases it 'evil deeds' which of course is more obvious as to the meaning but merely an interpretation. What are 'dead works' in this context? Robin |
||||||
58 | Dead works | Heb 6:1 | Robin Hass | 170818 | ||
Thanks for the great reply. I suppose 'dead works' could also include works of the Jewish Law performed before conversion to Christianity, particularly as the letter is to the Hebrews. | ||||||
59 | Biblical Interpretation Term | Heb 10:11 | Robin Hass | 170323 | ||
I want to ask whether a specific method of biblical interpretation is valid and does it have a term. (Please don’t get too hung up on the specific example I choose because I’m interested in the validity of the principle, not the specific example.) Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; The above verse contrasts Christ’s once and for all sacrifice with the ongoing sacrifices of the OT Jews. Now sacerdotalist Christians (Catholics, Orthodox etc) say ‘their Eucharist is a sacrifice’ which clearly is repeated daily. Heb 10:11 is not specifically referring to the Catholic Mass but to the repeated sacrifices of Judaism. Obviously similar, but not exactly the same. So is this type of extrapolation a valid way of reading the Bible. It is simply a clumsy way of reading Scripture or allowable? Please remember I’m asking about a principle, I could have given another example. But I think that the principle is very important. |
||||||
60 | Biblical Interpretation Term | Heb 10:11 | Robin Hass | 170346 | ||
Thanks for your reply. Very interesting. I will study your thread #156916 when time allows. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |