Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: winstonchurchill Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | how did we get the bible? | NT general Archive 1 | winstonchurchill | 116241 | ||
The various books of the (New Testament) Bible were written beginning about 20-30 years after the resurrection of Christ and were widely circulated in the ensuing years of the 1st and 2nd century. Gradually, a consensus formed as to which of the many available books were truly inspired by God (we know call them 'canonical'), culminating in the preparation of largely coterminous versions of the New Testament as early as the middle of the second century. Our earliest copies of the complete New Testament date from the mid-4th century, although we have many partial copies from earlier period. The Bible was difficult and voluminous to copy in ancient methods and it remained for the invention of the printing press to fully turn the power of the Scriptures loose upon the world. |
||||||
2 | What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? | Bible general Archive 1 | winstonchurchill | 81892 | ||
I have read a little on 'theonomy' and it seems to be that oxymoronic idea of an 'optimistic Calvinist'. They have kept the legalistic approach of Calvinism, but carried it to new degrees (think 17th century Geneva) and added kind of an optimistic 'Christianity will triumph in this world' form of post-millenialism. The 'latter rain' folks I am not familiar with, but they sound like another form of accretionists, i.e. their favored 'pope' or 'prophet' can add to the special revelation of the Bible. This always seems to have appeal to people. But Paul told us that should not surprise us: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires." |
||||||
3 | Who is the god of fortresses | Daniel | winstonchurchill | 81812 | ||
How you interpret Dan 11:38 probably depends on how you interpret all of Daniel and Revelation. The Reformers (really all Protestants -- both Calvinist and Arminian -- until the advent of dispensationalism in the late 1800's) routinely saw the worship of the "mauzzim" (or 'gods protectors') in 11:38 as referring to the adoption by the Roman church in the 4th to 8th centuries of the worship of saints and angels as guardians and protectors in lieu of the worship of the True God and only Mediator, Jesus Christ. Since I am not a dispensationalist, I have no idea how they would interpret 11:38, but I am sure that depends on the dispensationalist scheme to which one subscribes. |
||||||
4 | Proof of Christ | Bible general Archive 1 | winstonchurchill | 81809 | ||
Yes, I agree with Hank and would add this. Josephus said this, "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 ยง63 Moreover, the recent discovery of the ossuary of His brother James is exciting. The ossuary (i.e. bone box) is inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." While James, Joseph and Jesus were common names of the era, it is estimated statistically that there were only perhaps twenty families with this combination in Jerusalem in the first century. Moreover, while it was common to inscribe an ossuary "A, son of B", it was uncommon to mention any other family member unless he was very noteworthy. In this case, of course, He was. He was, indeed, the Son of God. |
||||||
5 | 2Cor6 | Eph 6:4 | winstonchurchill | 81703 | ||
While I am one who believes that we as Christians retain our free will to renounce our commitment to Christ (which I take to be the premise of the first phrase of your question), I do not think this passage is addressing that teaching. The word which the NASB translates as "in vain" here is "kenos". The NASB translates it in 10 of 18 occurrences as "in vain" but also as "empty", "empty-handed", "foolish" and "futile". I think the clear thrust is useless or ineffective. But is Paul speaking of rendering the grace of God useless or ineffective as to one's salvation or in the living of our lives? Context to the rescue -- again. While the Greek does not provide our sentence punctuation (and therefore different translations punctuate the sentences differently), the NASB wisely (in my view) treats 6:1-10 as a single sentence! Thus, we have to read all the way to verse 9 to see the subject and verb ("we live"). So, verse 1 is a lead-in to a lengthy adverbial (descriptive) clause describing the circumstances in which we should apply the grace of God and make it 'useful'. I think we could profitably make our own lists. For me, I might add, "in traffic jams, in lines at airports, etc". I think the context of verse 1 shows Paul to be cautioning us not to render the grace of God 'useless' or 'ineffective' in our daily lives as Christians. |
||||||
6 | Do parables alone prove doctrine? | Luke 12:47 | winstonchurchill | 81696 | ||
While there are many fine Christians who believe in the concept of 'once saved, always saved', 'eternal security' or 'perserverance of the saints' (as Calvin initially phrased it), whether one accepts that view has more to do with whether one accepts the deterministic world view that Augustine and Calvin brought to the Scriptures rather than the Scriptures themselves. From your passing comments, I suspect that you and I would disagree on whether the Scriptures really teach a deterministic world view, but I think that issue misses the very interesting question you raise on the use and interpretation of parables. Prior to the last century, there was a strong tendency among Christian writers and thinkers to 'spiritualize' parables and assign detailed 'meanings' to every detail of a parable. Wonderful sermons were given in this manner, with the preacher supplying detailed explanations of the 'deeper meaning' of each detail of a parable. However, I believe that most Bible teachers and expositors addressing hermeneutics (i.e. the study of the methodological principles of interpretation) now agree that parables were intended by Christ to have a single point or, at most, a single thrust for each participant in the parable (although this latter view has somewhat less support). So, the better question is not whether a parable can teach a 'doctrine', but whether the asserted teaching of the parable (however categorized) is the central thrust of the parable or some spiritualization of a detail of the parable. The latter is an unreliable use of Scripture whether directed at a 'doctrine' or some other category of teaching. I think yours was a wonderful question because so many people tend to 'digitize' Scripture and ignore both the literary and historical context. By asking the question you raise that issue. |
||||||
7 | Is this verse referring to Christians | Luke 12:47 | winstonchurchill | 81641 | ||
The context would indicate that it is. Note Peter's question that prompts the answer: "Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?" |
||||||