Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: shaunswoods Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | (What is one to think.) | Bible general Archive 2 | shaunswoods | 134504 | ||
I respectfully disagree with the viewpoint that has been expressed up to this point in this thread. There seems to be an attitude that testing the doctrines and origins is off-limits to christians, but the bible says to test all spirits (1John 4:1). When I read my bible, I find that when God gave the Law to Moses, he included within it that we are not to follow after the practices of the pagans of the world (Deuteronomy 18:9 and after, Leviticus 18:26 and after). Of more interest to the particular topic of christmas is Jeremiah 10:2-4. Here it appears that God is condemning the use of a decorated tree, telling us not to learn the ways of the heathen. Is it coincidence that the festival(s) the pagans and heathen used to celebrate many of their dieties (in reality, mere idols) births and the birth of the sun falls on the same day (in some cases within the week, like saturnalia, which you mentioned) that the church has chosen for the celebration of the birth of Christ? I don't think so when I learn of the history of the church, seeing many "comprimises" along the way. (Keep in mind, I am a biblical-literalist Christian) What about Santa Claus? What in the world does he have to do with Christ? Does anyone deny his origins in teutonic europe (pagan during the times of Rome)? What about yule logs, mistle-toe, (the before mentioned) christmas trees, holiday wreaths, etc.? These have nothing to do with Christ, and in Fact each and everyone of them has their origins in the very pagan holidays that fall either on or within the week of December 25th (to be accurate, along the winter solstice). To claim this is only a political issue dodges the real problem, and that is incorporating pagan and heathenistic practices into well-meaning and pure-hearted purposes. This is nothing to do with politics, but with the way we worship and honor God and Jesus Christ, thus making it at it's core a spiritual issue. My question to those who think I am off base is this: If it is okay to take pagan rituals and apply christian labels and meanings on them, then why can we not sacrifice our children in the fires of Molech, only dedicate them to Christ instead? The answer to this question is obvious, but too many christians do not apply that answer to other, seemingly harmless, pagan rituals. In Christ and with Love, Shaun |
||||||
2 | Further contemplation on God's Name | NT general Archive 1 | shaunswoods | 133349 | ||
Hi, Tim. I apologize if I appear to be difficult. I don't intend to be, I'm just trying to honestly find an answer to the question. Please don't take my questions and statements to mean that I am being rude. Let me begin by repeating that I recognize that scripture is inspired by YHWH, not any other entity. I trust that YHWH (I purposely do not use "the LORD," "God," or "Jehovah") is perfect, without defect. Please explain which god is being referred to when the books that comprise what we commonly denote as the New Testament speak of "Theos." How do you know? By the context? Is this the same context that the new-agers use? Or mormons? Or jehovah's witnesses? Do these groups (or cults, if you will) twist the context around to suit their purposes? How do you know Christians aren't guilty of the same crime? Are you sure that "Theos" doesn't refer to adonis, zeus, cupid, atlas, marduk, baal? How come? Even the Old Testament hebrews were guilty of worshiping other gods, even in light of their direct experiences during the 40 years in the wilderness. They attributed these miracles to other gods! (According to the book of Ezekiel) How do you know the New Testament God (Theos) isn't one of these gods? Forgive me, I'm not trying to be blasphemous. I know the rules of the forum state that this is not a site to dispute the validity of scripture, and I respect that. I am NOT disputing the validity of scripture. I do, however, recognize that the threat posed by the new-age movement and the return of many gnostic movements is to the Christian community. Why isn't God's Name, the Name by which he is to be known forever (Exodus 3:14-15), used to identify Him in the New Testament? This is a valid question. Finally, no matter what language or culture I am exposed to, my name, which is a representation of me, is Shaun. Why would YHWH be any different? If the way we pronounce His Name isn't really that important, can we pronounce His Name "Appollo," so long as God and I know who we are referring to? Or how about "Allah?" Or "Satan?" Where do we draw the line? This is an issue that has come upon my heart heavily the last few weeks. Maybe I am wrong, I must consider the possiblity, but it feels to me that what His Name is, and how It is used (remember the 3rd Commandment --Exodus 20:7), is as important as the plan of salvation and the divinity of Christ. Again, forgive me if I seem combative, I'm only trying to dip deep into this issue, and mean no ill will. In His Name, Shaun |
||||||
3 | God dosn't love everybody???? | Rom 9:13 | shaunswoods | 133346 | ||
The verse your "friend" was referring to is Romans 9:13, which is a quote from Malachi 1:2-3 These verses refer to the account of Jacob and Esau, found in Genesis 25:19 through Genesis 33. Of course God loves everyone, but not everyone loves God, which is really the point. God has provided us with life, intelligence, a place to live (earth), and a plan to live life to the fullest. But some people do not want to do things the way God has ordained, and are thus "rebelling" against God, to thier own detriment. In the case of Jacob and Esau, God, knowing all things, revealed that Jacob, the youngest, would inherit the rights of the first born, and we learn later that this is due to the lack of value Esau placed on his own birthright. Esau chose to do things his way, without trusting God, and gave up the very blessing that God had in store. When God says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," He isn't expressing a lack of love for Esau, just that the results of Esau's choices (and the choices of his descendents, which these verses are most likely refrencing more strongly)resulted in bad things. Then, in retrospect, when one compares the treatment afforded Jacob and Esau, one is "loved" and one is "hated." Another way to say it is that one was "blessed" because he trusted God, and one was "cursed" because he chose to trust himself over God. The facts are this: God does love everyone, but some people chose to engage in behaivor that hurts those around them. What is God to do with these people? He could just cut them off from His creation, He has the right, but chooses instead to provide a "second chance." Some people refuse even this. Esau (or more likely the nation that bears his name) would fit in this category. I hope I helped. Shaun |
||||||
4 | God's Name in the New Testament | NT general Archive 1 | shaunswoods | 133311 | ||
Hello, Mr Moran. I appreciate your attention to this topic. The post about all the latin versions threw me for a bit of a loop. Okay, here's my problem. I know that the name Jesus means "Yah-saves", or "Yah is my salvation," and is also transliterated as Joshua. It is also transliterated as Isaiah, though most people don't know that. But "Yah saves" is a different name than "YHWH" which is specifically used to distinctivly seperate the God of Israel (and the Bible) from all other false gods. The use of the word "Lord" is something that keeps coming up. "Lord" means master, and those who were copying the Bible would take away God's Name and add "LORD" in reverence to His Name and His third Commandment. (In hebrew, this word is "ADONAI"). For those following these posts who don't know, "LORD" in all caps denotes a place in scripture where His Name was originally intended. "Lord" with only the first, if any, letter capitalized denotes a place in scripture where the word "master" was intended. Over 3,000 times in the Old Testament God's Name is used, but not once in the New Testament. If scripture is inspired, and I would vehemently defend that position, that would mean God chose the words to use. He had no qualms about using His Name in the Old Testament. So why isn't His Name in the New Testament? The underlying problem here is the concept of "theos" and "kurios" in koine greek. In a pagan society, such as the 1st century Roman Empire, "theos" referred to that all encompassing force that is god, or the divine. Think "the force" of Star Wars. This is also the present day concept of new-agers and far-eastern mysticism. "Kurios" simply means master, as I stated previously. To put the two terms together, in 1st century Rome, would infer not the God of the Hebrews, but their concept of the "master god." To anyone who knows anything about Greek and Roman mythology, that would infer zeus or appollo. The New Testament is not speaking of zeus/appollo. This is a difficult topic to conquer, but we've been told in scripture that we are not to be ignorant, so we can find an answer. Pray that this question can be answered. Thank You, Shaun. |
||||||
5 | three philosophies of religion | Gen 3:1 | shaunswoods | 132592 | ||
Really, once you break it down to the basics, there are only two philosophies of religion. One is the biblical view that God is in charge, makes the rules, and we are in subjection and rebellion against Him. The second is the view (most notably manifested in paganism and the eastern religions) that man is in charge, makes the rules, and is in subjection to no one, because man is a part of God. The scholarly response would say there is mono-theism, poly-theism, and pantheism. However, polytheism (there are many gods) is actually a "physical" manifestation of panthiesm (God is all, all is God). At it's core, the explanations of polythiestic philosophies always turn to panthiestic principles. There would appear to be one exception to my answer that there are only two philosophies, and that is Islam. Islam is obviously a monothiestic religion. However, Islam mixes the philosophies of the biblical witness and ancient arab paganism. For example, the inclusion of Abraham, Ishmael, Jerusalem, and "one God" are clearly biblically based. On the flip side, though, praying five times a day, generational pilgrimages to Mecca, and even the term "Allah" are non-biblical pagan practices the ancient arab pagans were involved in long before Muhammad was given his "revelation." To avoid any friction, I use the term "pagan" to denote any religious expression that opposes the biblical witness of one God we are all subjects to, thus the term includes modern day muslims, buddhists, new-agers, etc. I hope my answer helps and isn't confusing. |
||||||
6 | God's Name in the New Testament | Not Specified | shaunswoods | 132590 | ||
Why isn't God's name used in the New Tesament? Even in the instances that the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, God's name isn't used (Compare Mark 12:36 with Psalms 110:1, or Hebrews 8:8-11 with Jeremiah 31:31-34). I ask this in order to refute an attack on the authority of scripture, particularily the New Testament. Thanks. | ||||||
7 | God's Name in the New Testament | NT general Archive 1 | shaunswoods | 132601 | ||
Why isn't God's name used in the New Tesament? Even in the instances that the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, God's name isn't used (Compare Mark 12:36 with Psalms 110:1, or Hebrews 8:8-11 with Jeremiah 31:31-34). I ask this in order to refute an attack on the authority of scripture, particularily the New Testament. Thanks. | ||||||
8 | God's Name in the New Testament | Acts 2:21 | shaunswoods | 132599 | ||
Why isn't God's name used in the New Tesament? Even in the instances that the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, God's name isn't used (Compare Mark 12:36 with Psalms 110:1, or Hebrews 8:8-11 with Jeremiah 31:31-34). I ask this in order to refute an attack on the authority of scripture, particularily the New Testament. Thanks. | ||||||