Results 1 - 20 of 80
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Stultis the Fool Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125900 | ||
The "Law" is a burden too great to bear, and as CHRISTIANS we are not responsible for keeping It. [see Acts chapter 15 for context] On the other hand, as Christians, we are absolutely responsible for keeping the commandments of Christ [John 14:15,21,24]. Christ's commandment is summed up nicely (by Christ) in John 15:12, though you will find it written in many places in the scriptures. Christ commandment is a burden "easy" to bear [Mathew 11:30], and also FULLFILLS ALL THE LAW [Galatians 5:14]. When Christ tells us to be more righteous than the Pharisees, he is chastising the Pharisees. He tells us that the appearant righteousness of the Pharisees is outward and not true. He tells us the Pharisees are like tombs... white outside and full of rot and stink within. He also tells us to "beware the leaven of the Pharisees". The Pharisees are a suitable example of how we, as Christians, are NOT to behave. |
||||||
2 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125901 | ||
Following Him Your refference to 1 John 1:8 and 1:9 is very ambiguous... If we are cleansed of all unrighteousness, do we still have sin? This same book (1 John) proclaims that a believer cannot sin... If this holds true, there is no ambiguity in verses 1:8 and 9. If not, verses 1:8 and 9 are blatantly contradictory. Are you certain that this portion of the letter is directed to a believer? Or is it written to someone who needs to confess and be "CLEANSED" from "ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS?" Either the one holds true or the other... we are either forever sinners and Liars or we are forever cleansed from all unrighteousness. Which of the two makes sense with the rest of the letter? It seems that in context we confess our sins, we are forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness, and we will not and cannot sin. |
||||||
3 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125902 | ||
Christ speaks a number of teachings from the cross, his last being "It is finished." [John 19:30]. He also tells us that he came to "fullfill the Law." Either he completed all his tasks as appointed, or he did not. His own words testify to his accomplishment of all that he was charged with. | ||||||
4 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125928 | ||
I am affraid you are confusing what I am saying with a false teaching. I in no way advocate a Christian should depart from the commands of our Lord... I do, however, advocate observing the commandment of Christ, [evidenced John 14:15,21,24 and others] and that commandment being that we are to love one another [John 15:12, others]. I believe "total depravity", if I follow your connotation, to be of little or no use against the flesh [Colossians 2:23]. As far as popular doctrine goes, popularity, in my opinion, neither makes sound doctrine nor debunks/rebukes plain scripture. The truth does not depend upon popular opinion. As to "In your opinion, stultis, when Christ said to do what the pharisees said to do, He didn't mean it?" I cannot descern wether you are in a quandry or mocking me. I am most definately saying that we are not to behave as hypocrites, and Christ declared the Pharisees "hypocrites" MANY times (20 or so KJV). I am arguing that we should not sin, as it is contrary to God. Christ stipulates to forgiven sinners that they are to "go forth and sin no more." I choose to abide in Christ, and as such, I reject sin. My master is righteousness, and I am no longer a slave to sin. We can serve only one master. Ought I to do what men say, or what God says? Please, expound more upon your question. | ||||||
5 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125959 | ||
You are quite accurate in your perception. In 1 John 3:6, the "Persons" concerned are those abiding in God. "If we are born of the Spirit then we are children of God and we practice righteousness and we love our brother. I believe that is the point that "Got it" has made and that this 1 John passage is about." This is absolutely correct. Continue reading, particularly verse 4:7 through 4:17. You will see that God is Love, and thus, if the Spirit abides in us, the Spirit of Love abides in us. If we love, then we abide in God, and God abides in us, and his love is perfected in us [4:17]. If we abide in God, we are not sinning. Thus, those who love do not sin, but those who do not love are wicked. Just as it was the love of God that brought Christ to us [John 3:16], it is that same love that brings us to him [1John 4:12-13]. |
||||||
6 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126033 | ||
Ray, to clarify, Read 1 John 4:8... "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." That is probably as straight-forward as it gets. Also, 2 Timothy 1:7... "For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline." Additionaly, I capitolize here on this forum and also in correspondance as a matter of courtesy to the reader. |
||||||
7 | Where does the Bible SAY that? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126034 | ||
It is important to note, and this is posted elsewhere, that many things have passed from the Law (much more, anyway, than a jot or tittle). There are no more sacrifices, there is no more observance of the traditional holidays, there is no longer tithe paid to the Levites, there is no selection of a high priest, no more scapegoat, circumcision, burning of incense, offerings of grain, rituals of purification following childbirth, nocturnal emission, leprosy etc. The list goes on... Any reconciliation MUST incorporate the fact that more than a jot or tittle has passed from the Law. Additionaly, do not casually dismiss Ephesians 2:15; it clearly states that the Law of commandments as well as the ordanances against us were abolished. Also consider Hebrews 8:13 "When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." I would like to point out here that the word appearing in Mathew 5:17 [abolish] is not the same word present in Ephesians 2:15 [abolish]. In fact, the word present in Mathew is KATALUO, which translated is Demolish, Destroy, Disintegrate. The word in Ephesians is KATARGEO, which translated is "to render useless," Abolish. I assure you that Christ did not Destroy the Law, as it is the guideline by which all who DO NOT know Christ are judged. However, for those that are Christian, the Law is of no value: it is abolished. Paul says "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" [Galatians 5:4], and again "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" [Galatians 2:21], and again "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" [Romans 10:4] and again "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God" [Romans 7:4]. |
||||||
8 | why are discussions restricted | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126692 | ||
I still don't understand what is in debate here... | ||||||
9 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126704 | ||
You wrote: "there was no sin nature in him" This, if I understand your statement, is incorrect. I agree that the Christ did not sin, but I argue that he had every opportunity to sin. That is why he endured temptation. If he could not choose to sin, there would be no temptation following his forty days fast in the wilderness, nor a temptation to flee his course when Peter (Satan) told him never to go to Jerusalem. If I misunderstand your statement, then I appologize. |
||||||
10 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126710 | ||
It is hermenueticaly sound to compare Paul (a first century Pharisee living in Jerusalem with other Pharisees) with Josephus (a first century Pharisee living in Jerusalem with other Pharisees). Also, I aknowledge that if we don't understand "the literal creation," then we are lost without a foundation. However, the "litteral creation," as written by Moses, is viewed as alegorical by at least 2 direct sources, including the Author of Hebrews, and the historian and hebrew pharisee Josephus. It is also completely unreasonable to deny that appart from understanding of "the literal creation," that there is possibility of allegory designed specifically (and all scripture is "inspired") for our understanding. |
||||||
11 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126714 | ||
According to the simple dynamics of what I see, if there was no "opportunity" to sin, then he wasn't really tempted. It's like tempting a eunich with female companionship, if you catch my drift. He has no need or desire for it, but a normal man does. How can we have a high priest that sympathizes with our weakness and has been tempted in all things as we are if he isn't subject to the same temptation in the same exact capacity? A person that has just eaten is not going to be tempted by food. A eunich, as stated before, can't be tempted by women. If he were not in a temptable state, then he can't sympathize with us. Nor can he choose to resist what is not, in truth, a genuine temptation. Therefore, if he is tempted, he has opportunity. At the moment of temptation, he chose to say no. Because of this, having been tempted of the devil, having resisted temptation, having declined to sin given opportunity and desire to do so, he kept himself separated from sin by not doing it. Now, your first paragraph, I'm wondering: Are you trying to suggest the age-old "Original Sin" concept? I hope this does not have to become a debatable subject, but I am strongly of the opinion that sin is something that has to be comitted. Scripture says that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, but it also says that "all have sinned" and fallen short of the glory of God. You have to do sin to have sin. It's not automatic, else we will have to go back to the days of St. Augustine and start baptizing children so they won't go to hell if they die in infancy. |
||||||
12 | What then do we need to sin? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126733 | ||
Genesis 4:7 reads: "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." Here we learn that sin was not in Cain, but, seeking to have him, crouched "at the door." Cain chose to open that door and allow sin to master him, instead of mastering sin. Jesus, on the other hand, chose to shut the door on sin, and thus mastered sin. We do not "sin because we are sinners." We are created "in the image of God." What is God's image? God is spirit [15:47]. We are sinners because we have sinned, not because someone else did: Ezekiel 18:18 "As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity. Ezek 18:19 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. Ezek 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. We sin because we are tempted: James 1:14 and 15: "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." What you describe is akin to Paul in Romans chapter 7. This is a description of man in the flesh. We know from this chapter that the flesh is "weak," and James tells us it is prone to lusts. In the Psalm you quote, David is speaking of recieving life in his corruptable flesh. Christ came to us in the same corruptable flesh [Romans 8:3]. Allow me to reiterate Hebrews 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." As in the examples above, we are not "born with sin." We are born with fleshly bodies, corruptible and given to lust, and sin seeks to have us all. As there is no one person that is righteous, no not one, we have all failed the test and fallen short of the mark ... until Christ, who, born in the same corruptible flesh did not allow sin to have him, but mastered it where we failed, and offered himself as the spotless lamb to be the propitiation for our sins. But he could not have done such a thing had he not put himself into the same image of man, tempted by the same lusts of the flesh, thus allowing him to sympathize and suffer as we do. |
||||||
13 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126734 | ||
I will repeat another post: Genesis 4:7 reads: "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." Here we learn that sin was not in Cain, but, seeking to have him, crouched "at the door." Cain chose to open that door and allow sin to master him, instead of mastering sin. Jesus, on the other hand, chose to shut the door on sin, and thus mastered sin. We do not "sin because we are sinners." We are created "in the image of God." What is God's image? God is spirit [15:47]. We are sinners because we have sinned, not because someone else did: Ezekiel 18:18 "As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity. Ezek 18:19 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. Ezek 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. We sin because we are tempted: James 1:14 and 15: "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." What you describe is akin to Paul in Romans chapter 7. This is a description of man in the flesh. We know from this chapter that the flesh is "weak," and James tells us it is prone to lusts. In the Psalm you quote, David is speaking of recieving life in his corruptable flesh. Christ came to us in the same corruptable flesh [Romans 8:3]. Allow me to reiterate Hebrews 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." As in the examples above, we are not "born with sin." We are born with fleshly bodies, corruptible and given to lust, and sin seeks to have us all. As there is no one person that is righteous, no not one, we have all failed the test and fallen short of the mark ... until Christ, who, born in the same corruptible flesh did not allow sin to have him, but mastered it where we failed, and offered himself as the spotless lamb to be the propitiation for our sins. But he could not have done such a thing had he not put himself into the same image of man, tempted by the same lusts of the flesh, thus allowing him to sympathize and suffer as we do. |
||||||
14 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126738 | ||
I will reply as follows: Josephus confesses Jesus as the Messiah. See pp. 480 "The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition, Translated by William Whiston" Published by Hendrickson Publishers, 1987 (I hope I have provided adequate bibliographical notation, apologies if "no") Esp. The Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3. "... He was the Christ ..." Do you understand "hermenuetics" by definition? I don't mean to offend, but I would like to gather information to provide you with a better answer. Just to be brief, sound hermenuetics requires consideration of time period, circumstance, culture, etc. This is why I include pharisaic topical refference to Josephus. Furthermore, to demonstrate creation allegory in Hebrews, I will refer you to a post I have already made on the subject: "How then do you explain Paul's description of "Sabaths" or "Holy Days" in Colosians 2:16 and 17 when compared to the Author of Hebrews explanation of the creation of man and God's rest found in Hebrew's 3:5 through 4:11. Here (Hebrews) the author thoroughly explains that "God's rest", or the 7th day of creation, is something we strive to enter, and while it is "Today", which, by intent, we can surmise must refer to the 6th day, we should strive to enter "God's rest." Either the author is allegorizing the 7 days of creation, or else he is displaying quite literally that the 6th and 7th days of creation were no more 24 hour periods than the first 4 days. In either case, something is debunked here: 24 hour creaction period following day four OR allegory not being present in the creation. Again, I find Paul's refference to "shadows" lends great credance to this concept." I hope this helps you understand why I write what I write. |
||||||
15 | How do you explain? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126742 | ||
I agree that the spirit is to be our teacher. However, I am not trying to define the passages in Hebrews with a fleshly mind, nor am I trying to spiritualize them. I am not even trying to explain what the Author's intent is. My point is this: to demonstrate the use of allegory on the part of the Author of Hebrews in relation to "the creation" as in Genesis. I hope this helps you understand why I write what I write. | ||||||
16 | Allegorical? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126743 | ||
Thank you for agreeing with me regarding these scriptures! | ||||||
17 | why are discussions restricted | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126744 | ||
I see. Well, I suppose he should phrase his responses more adequately as to not cause folks to stumble. Thank you for the information. | ||||||
18 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126748 | ||
I am sorry Angel, but you are very much misunderstanding what is being explained. The point of debate here is Ancient explaining where we get the modern story of Eve picking an "apple" from the tree of knowledge. I do not believe that in any way he advocates this scenario as "sexual conciousness," nor do I believe he is "simplifying" the sin of Adam and Eve and Satan. Again, he is relating the mythology of the "apple" (as in fruit of the apple tree) in the creation story, as opposed to some other type of fruit. For example, we do not hold to the idea that Eve picked a Coconut or a Watermelon from the tree, nor a peach nor a nectarine. For some reason, the popular idea places an "apple" in Eve's hand. It was Ancient's intention to offer an explanation of where that myth may come from, and not an attempt to advocate that the sin was "sexual conciousness" or any other effect of a sexual nature. I hope this helps you understand the debate. Please read the entire thread. Thank you! |
||||||
19 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126764 | ||
BradK, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, however your allegations against me of blasphemy are not appreciated. I have chosen to treat you like I love you, and conduct a normal conversation with you. We should refute with sound scripture, and exhort one another with love. Instead, you have begun ridiculing me and calling me names. We know that we will know a vine by its fruits. Look at your signature, and emulate what it professes. Bear good fruit, not poison. As to your response, I will point out that there are many scriptures that tell us we are born of a corruptable flesh, and I believe you are confusing these things with "original sin." You quote Romans 5:9 claiming we inherit a sinful nature because of Adam, but I tell you plainly that Roman's 5:9 says nothing of the sort. I know that Romans 5:12 says that through one man sin and death "entered the world," but that does not make us guilty of sin from birth. You quote Jeremiah 17:9, but you do not know that that verse does not describe a Christian, or have you never read that God will "...cleanse us from all unrighteousness?" Or again that God abides in us? Do you call the Holy Spirit that dwells within all who are saints "no good thing?" Additionallym in Romans 8:3, you tell me that I ignore the context, but I assure you that the context is to tell us that our Lord was tempted in all the ways we are tempted, and to assure us that he overcame temptation. Have you never read that we will not be tempted beyond what we can bare? Are you not aware that our birth is a thing that there is no way out of? Look to our example of how sin entered the world... the Serpent TEMPTED man, and he committed sin. Do you suggest that God created Adam in a state of sin? Or have you never read that the Devil sinned from the beginning? What you have attempted to methodically orient is a direct contradiction of various scriptures. The explanation of sin you make defies the context of Ezekial chapter 18. Continue reading in context what is discussed in Romans chapter 8. You will see two things. First, the old testament is being quoted to describe Jews and Gentiles under the Law, not Christians who have repented and are now "apart from the Law," further, you will identify the fact that Paul describes their sins as those "previously committed," [Romans 3:25] and not those "derived from creation." You argue symantics over the word "likeness," claiming that it does not mean "likeness." I assure you that the word is used in context with sinful flesh, and by implication of scripture, places Christ in the same shoes we walk in [Hebrews 4:15]. Additionally, James paints an excellent description of how sin occurs, [James 1:14 and 15]. If you are not tempted to sin, I envy you. However, I assure you that we are at war for our soles, even with the flesh (read Romans chapter 7). You say we are created with sin, but I tell you also that Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil (those works being sin),[1 John 3:8], and I tell you that Christ has not come to destroy men. Again, have you never read: "Whatsoever a man soeth, that shall he also reap." What sin has a child sewn, that he should reap it, or has the Lord sewn sin to the child? Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." David speaks of receiving a corruptable body of the flesh through natural birth, or is David not a man after God's own heart? Read Deuteronomy 1:39 "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it." Does this sound like someone born with sin? Have you not read 2 Kings 14:6? "But the sons of the slayers he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the Law of Moses, as the LORD commanded, saying, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the sons, nor the sons be put to death for the fathers; but each shall be put to death for his own sin."" The corruption in this world is through lust [2 Peter 1:4], and we have already seen how James explains lust as temptation leading to sin.. and not sin an unfortuanate eventuality of birth. Have you never heard the words of Jesus in Mathew 18:3 "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Does this sound as though children have sin? And again Christ said [Mathew 18:10]: "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." Does this sound as though there is nothing good in children? Or as though children are wicked sinners? More continued in the next post. |
||||||
20 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126765 | ||
CONTINUED... And again [Mathew 18:14]"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." Does this sound as though God creates children with sin? No sir, you are mistaken. Man is in no wise born in sin, lest it is the Lords desire that all should perish. Have you never read that anyone who transgresses part of the Law transgresses the Whole Law, and that all sin is transgression, and that he who commits adultery also commits murder? Have you read that no murderer shall inherit the kingdom of God? You do not understand what you affirm nor why you affirm it. Sir, I assure you that your doctrine condemns so many children to wrath that it wounds me just thinking about it. Good day to you. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |