Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | Wild Olive Shoot | 184528 | ||
Maybe a rephrase of the question... A credible source. Many a man has written his own theories. That doesn't mean they are correct or credible and surely doesn't mean we should by into them. Following the thread, I’d like to see some credible reference and ask you stick to that. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
2 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184551 | ||
Hi WOS, Well now you have me quite frankly puzzled. How can I possibly give a credible source for what I believe to be erroneous teaching? That is precisely my point. That early millennial belief, before the church as a whole condemned it, was based precisely on such undependable documents as I cited. There are no credible documents which teach a millennium in the sense in which millennialists teach it. I do not actually want you to buy in to millennial teaching. I was rather answering the question as to which intertestamental teaching was responsible for erroneous doctrine. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
3 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | Wild Olive Shoot | 184575 | ||
So you find no credible evidence to support a teaching, but make the strong assertion that we should base doctrinal standards from silence or lack of evidence? You stated in a previous post: “And no, one questionable passage is not sufficient to demonstrate such an important doctrine. If it was not important enough for Paul and Jesus to mention it is highly questionable.” Such an important doctrine, your words not mine, but it is acceptable that your opinion be correct from such a lack of discussion. On one hand you claim there was teaching, however erroneous it may be, that was discredited by the early church and should be abstained from. On the other, you lay a foundation based on the silence of the subject or the lack of it being mentioned in Scripture. Your stance, to me anyhow, seems to be just as dangerous. The fact of the matter is although many hold a particular position concerning eschatology many others will and do hold a different position. As I see it, there is more than one way of considering the end times and they have equally valid strong arguments supported by Scripture and to further disagree, although it is a valuable doctrine, it may not be as important as you claim. You also make reference to some as Luther and Calvin to have not bought into the teaching you claim was discredited or any other eschatological view point for that matter. You will find that both held strong opinions concerning this topic if one would care to look, however, neither of them focused on it. It just doesn’t seem to be a necessity to hold one view over the other. Reading back over your posts a bit, it seems to me that your own personal end times position is somewhat ambiguous, at least to me anyhow, but I’ve been called thick in the past, no need to assume that has changed. You seem to be a “semi” partial preterist with a futurist impression. You take historical accounts in the gospels as literal but only partially fulfilled, but future events are not taken literally as many futurist hold and you seem prone to only take literally that which supports your position. I have a hard time understanding just where it is you are coming from, and with that assume others may as well. That may be part of our problem in communicating. You also made the statement “But in the wider context we must sometimes do what you have done on Revelations 6. Recognise that symbolism MIGHT be involved. But we must not determine our use of symbolism simply in terms of what fits our position.” In fact brother, isn’t that what you have done time and time again. You stated: “And from then on they reigned with Christ whether they were on earth or raised up to be with Him as Paul says in Philippians 1.20-23. The 'thousand years, is the ideal period ahead for Christians before His coming.” Your post # 183691, you make this claim based on your position while others take it literally to support theirs. The pot shouldn’t call the kettle black my friend. In some instances your argument is sound, but in most, its just rather confusing and confusion tends to frustrate people, at least it does me. So I apologize if I came across rash and will look discerningly before becoming involved with topics as this with someone without a real clear position. By the way, the info I can find on 2 Baruch indicates its origin to be late first century maybe early second century. Can you still consider it an intertestamental teaching, or perhaps maybe just one of the early church before they had a chance to clear it out? Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
4 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184588 | ||
Hi WOS Out of courtesy I will reply, at least partially, to your criticisms, but may I suggest that if you seriously wish to take them up with me you do so by email. As I see it the forum is for positive Biblical contributions, not discussions on each other (we have wandered far from the tree of life). My email address is given in my details. I would however lovingly suggest that I have not ever called the kettle black. I constantly strive not to blacken others, and especially not simply because they disagree with me. I recognise that we are all sincerely seeking to find the truth, and will hold many different positions. When I put my points over (apart from when I am answering posts like this one) I always try to do so positively citing Scriptural backing, or in some cases the very surprising lack of it. I am not surprised that you find the situation confusing. That is one of the problems of having to deal with a vast and complicated subject by answering totally different types of questions in smallish snippets. To set out my position fully (as for anyone seeking to set out a position) I would have to write a book. As Jesus and Paul were not seeking to attack Millennialism there was no reason why they should mention it negatively if they did not believe in it, but as they both dealt constantly with eschatological matters I would certainly have expected them to mention it had they actually believed in it. The fact that they did not would be quite extraordinary. The argument from silence is therefore sound. With regard to your suggestion of lack of clarity. Has it struck you that those who are 'clear' on such a vast and complicated subject, are the ones who are naive and just accept a simplistic position? The only problem is that their 'clarity' results from ignoring everything that disagrees with their position. The Bible is in fact a vast and complicated book looking at things from many different angles. Thus bringing it all together is a huge and complicated task. I love your definition of me as 'a semi-partial preterist with a futurist impression'. Does it not strike you that that might support my position? The reason that there are both preterists and futurists among genuinely seeking Bible students is precisely because something of both positions is found in Scripture. I would therefore expect a balanced student to come somewhere between the two. With regard to Baruch, as with all such literature there is a problem with dating, but it was certainly early enough to have affected Papias' position (which was partly my point as Papias is the first known example of millemarianism, excluding a possible but doubtful reference in Revelation 20 which you will note does not mention a reign ON EARTH) and that must almost certainly date it in 1st century AD. As there was no New Testament as such until the mid-second century AD (only individial books being slowly gathered together)it can therefore be described as intertestamental. Furthermore there is little doubt in most scholars minds that it reflects earlier Jewish teaching. But I do not want to make a big thing about it. I was responding to a request for evidence of my statement that Jewish literature was partly responsible for millennial belief in the early church. It is irrelevant to Biblical exposition. With regard to the use of what you call 'symbolism' (a rather loaded term as it simply suggests not being literal, as though being 'literal' was somehow superior, while in fact most language is symbolic) we all have to feel our way through what is to be taken absolutely literally and what is to be taken as only partially so. To take the simple example of Jesus' statement 'if any man does not hate his father and mother he cannot be my disciple'. I hope none of us would take His words literally. The truth is we constantly have to read into statements and interpret them. Like others I do so the best I can. I would certainly never claim to be always right. Only an arrogant fool would do so. But with regard to books like the Book of Revelation I am always careful to interpret its symbolism in the light of other Scriptures, for that is what the write intended. It is chock full of references to earlier Scripture. If you do wish to take up anything of this, please do so by email so that we do not unnecessarily bore the forum. I have already been accused of doing so :-))))). Of course I recognise that what bores some, interests others. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
5 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | Wild Olive Shoot | 184593 | ||
It almost seems to me that there are possibly three types of Christians in this world. Ones who are sound in biblical doctrine and build on the foundation of rock. There are those not so biblically sound whose foundation is laid on sand. And then there are the eclectic, those whom take bits and pieces of sound and unsound doctrine and build half on rock and half on sand. For the eclectic, I pray that when the storm comes, they’re standing on the part built on rock so as not to be swept away with that built on the sand. My criticisms were not meant to be so unless they accurately apply to the faltering position one takes while piece milling that which one finds to support a position that is contradictory in and of itself, and not in complete harmony with Scripture. I’ve learned that if you critique another concerning their approach to supporting a particular doctrine or position, you better be well prepared to defend your own using those same critiques. By your own admission jonp, you fail to do that and therefore make it difficult for someone such as myself, to give your opinions full consideration. As I stated in the previous post, your position seems as dangerous as someone who would “purposely” submit to scattering falsehoods. You take some biblical truth and apply it to your thinking, but then disregard other “truths” that do not corroborate your thoughts. You must include all of the truths put forth in the Word in order to finally stand on a sound base. I actually can and do agree with some of what you posted on the topic, as well as others, but cannot identify with much of it and at this point am not truly concerned with trying to understand your position. Maybe that is here nor there but personally, I don’t want to continue to on a path that further displays our differences or lack of understanding one another. Just a quick response to my use of “symbolism” and it being a loaded word. Re-read my post. The only reference I made was a quote from you inserting symbolism, it wasn’t mine, although, I really have no problems using the term. I appreciate the invite to respond via e-mail, but I’ll keep correspondence with you publicly my friend. It benefits us both I think to have others who can help us to identify if a topic is still remaining fruitful or not. I’ll agree with you that this one has gone on long enough and far enough off track, as far as my participation is concerned. I’ll leave the last words to you should you chose. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||