Results 1 - 20 of 41
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: wak Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why the Old and New Testament? | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 33372 | ||
I would add that that the New Testament is infintely more glorious than the Old. Don't know the verses that say that, but I believe somewhere in the NT, the moral codes in the OT are called lifeless. The NT changed all that. I think you always need to have the NT uppermost in you mind when you're reading the OT... the OT can be depressing/intimidating without that. I do wholeheartedly agree that the OT needs to be study,the symmetry is amazing....it has helped with me with my doubts. |
||||||
2 | Why the Old and New Testament? | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 33397 | ||
Hey Joe, you're making me do some bible research! I do agree with what you say. My overall point is that the OT is a "ministry of death in letters engraved on stone" UNLESS the saving grace of the NT story is kept in the forefront of one's mind. The Psalms are great but in many places the OT is depressing... even some "unpopular" Psalms. Perfectionisn is depressing! I think God wanted the OT to be dark, so that the "light" would be so much brighter. RE: O.T. Jews being depressed???. I don't know, but If I had to follow thousands upon thousands of Jewishs laws, I'd be depressed. I'm making this point so strongly because of God-fearing preachers who for the better part of history have had an OT mentality. I wish they had applied the following to their fire- breathing OT centered sermons: "But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart" but whenever a person turns to the Lord (Christ), the veil is taken away 2cor3:15-16 |
||||||
3 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 33610 | ||
Did Christ reject anyone who desired him? WAK (our desire for God and our works mean nothing in terms of salvation. God, in His mercy chooses us, period). |
||||||
4 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 33629 | ||
Curt OK, so using your conclusion of Romans 9 and just forgetting other sections and hundrends of non-qualifing verses (If your ELECTED, I will answer the door???)... then your saying: there is only a narrow elect.... all others are doomed to hell for eternity WHATEVER their desire to know God is ??? If that's the case, then for heavens sake, why are they are called the Gospels?. That's Terrible News! Hell, Atheism is more uplifting than that! Curt, nothing personal, just my opinion based on the very clear,often-repeated, simple, overall message of the NT... God is there for ALL who ask. WAK |
||||||
5 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 33681 | ||
Hey Ben and Curt, Rather than verses, I like the overall simple often-repeated basic messages of the NT, you know grace, faith, love. I'm simple and my faith is simple. Many times I think we use verses (the tail) to wag the Bible (the dog). I don't think salvation is in the "details" or in the much- debated mysteries of the Bible (Romans:9?). Millions have been chained, generation after generation, by verses out of sync with the rest of the Bible(the South until this generation?). How very very sad. We need to be careful with verses or sections that don't align well with the overall sprit of the NT. I call a duck, a duck. And if what you say is true... then the Good News is Terrible News. Tell a 100 plain people( who know ducks) they have no choice regarding eternal HELL... let me know what they think about your version of the GoodNews. What is the Greek for BadNews? Wow, Christ didn't die for our sins, only the sins of the elect. (I have a joke here but I won't say it ). Again, nothing personal and my apologies for not being academic (a blessing?) and my earlier use of the word Hell. PS: I'm not even sure Paul is talking about salvation per-se (vs.other promises) in Romans 9, especially in the context. The context is goofy because he's talking about the Jews being made hard hearted (like Pharaoh) but the Jews are saved in the end! Weird. |
||||||
6 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 33754 | ||
Curt just a final thought: If you believe in election I don't you can say that Christ died to pay for our sins. At best, it's imprecise. I guess much of the bible is imprecise, we need to add "if elected" to all those promises. Enjoyed the banter, God Bless WAK |
||||||
7 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 33837 | ||
ED I'd have to disagree with your interpretation Of "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me". Christ must have went went thru terrible emotional(so to speak) suffering... and I think his words reflects that. The actual physical suffering of a cross has been replicated by man. There had to be much more to his suffering. I think his Words indicate ultimate suffering. We have to be very careful not to dilute their raw power. God does not forsake us, but we have to deal with his distance... and that IS suffering. WAK |
||||||
8 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 33879 | ||
Brian and Ed Do you think Christ was at peace on the cross??? I alsays viewed his last words as suffering greatly until ultimate victory, like Psalms22 |
||||||
9 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 34088 | ||
Brian: Your (God's?) timing was perfect. I needed that right now, Thanks. WAK |
||||||
10 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 38258 | ||
No! I don't agree. If God were objective truth we wouldn't need faith, because we would "know". I "know' water is H2O, I have faith in God and his truths. I think your diluting the word "objective" and making it limp. People disagree on the existence of God because God is not an objective truth. Thus, faith. If God was an objective truth why would we need faith? |
||||||
11 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 38273 | ||
Is was a good faith question not a point. It was a question from a bible class I took yesterday where we only had a short time to discuss it. Why is my question faithless? Why is it not legitimate for this board ? |
||||||
12 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 38277 | ||
Makarios What in your own mind even BEGINS to give you the right to comment about me to someone else? Who are you to do that? Makarios, are you a legend? |
||||||
13 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 38310 | ||
Well, Makarios, if you define your opinions of a person as the truth... then that explains it. We simply have a difference of opinion on the definition and standard for the word "truth". | ||||||
14 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 38325 | ||
Makarios Objective truth was a phrase my bible instuctor used. Reformer Joe gave a good definition Reread my post. I said I believe the Bible is truth but I wasn't sure if it was objective truth because of the subjectivity in the interpretation of even some basics. My second post said I have "faith" in God but I do not "know" there is a God. If you believe those are "faithless"statements or they challenge the authority of the bible or they do not make me a Christian... well, I don't know what to tell ya Makarios.... keep smiling? Do the JW's always smile? |
||||||
15 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 38341 | ||
Joe: Actually, there's three definitions for objective. The way you essentially defined objective: Having actual existence or reality (unaffected by opinion) does work. With that definition, you can then say the Bible is objective truth. I agree. Thanks for the insight and volcabulary lesson |
||||||
16 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | wak | 38343 | ||
If I read the Psalms, which i love, and David is going on about his many human enemies. Can I in my own mind,for me , interpret that as Satan or even my " self" (my worst enemy). Is that flippant or taking the scripture out of its pure context? Am I breaking a rule? | ||||||
17 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | wak | 37621 | ||
Seems to me any kind of of cookbook formula goes against the sprit of what Paul's and Jesus's overall message was.... it's the heart, not the law. Simple stuff. | ||||||
18 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | wak | 35571 | ||
Why can't God in his sovereignty select any literary method he wants to convey his profound truths . Gee, even humans have that choice. Shakespere says more about the human character, heart, motives than any author of historical facts!!! Why can't God do the same to explain his heart, character and motives ??? I think God, his Word and his Truths (doctrine???) are bigger than science, and bigger than literal history. Maybe the literal explanation of creation is "bigger" than the human mind, beyond our comprehension... so God gave us the essence... what we need to know. Why not? |
||||||
19 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | wak | 35631 | ||
My point is that Feinberg's and your postulate below can be questioned; " The book of Genesis is not authoritative if it is not true. For if it is not history, it is not reliable" Essentially, I'm saying that God can select what is reliable. He does not have to limit himself to literal history to express his profound truths, just like humans don't limit themselves to history to explain profound truths. Didn't God create literature and art? Who are we to say he can't use them? It's almost like you're forcing God to be bound by a recitation of literal history in genesis in order for his Word to express truth. Otherwise, his truths are not true and the Bible is not "reliable". Sounds dangerous to me. |
||||||
20 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | wak | 35678 | ||
Sorry I didn't answer your questions from your first post. But I didn't say a SINGLE word about " wishing what I could know about God that is not in the Bible". Your questions in your second post are EVEN more confusing, examples:: Q)"What part of truth is dangerous"? A)I didn't say the truth was dangerous. I said YOUR postulate " strikes me has dangerous". Big big difference. Did you intend to be that presumptuous to say that YOUR postulate was truth ? (rhetorical) Q "Please give specifics as to what limiting factor Genesis binds on God". A)Please, please tell me where I said Genesis limits or binds God??? I said virtually the opposite. Why are you putting words in my mouth and then creating questions from them. Is that a not-so subtle debate technique??? Sorry I don't have time to debate for debate sake. PS: Actually , now, I do see a single question (0f six) that honestly reflects something I said. Wow Q:"In fact wouldn't it be fair to say He has chosen to select truth as reliable? He surely doesn't select untruth" A: I'm saying he MAY have selected literal historical truth or he may have used other means to express his Truths.... because it's not verbatim history does not mean it's "untruth". Historical truth is only a tiny fraction of Truth( and it's expression!). If Genesis is verbatim dictated history, great. If not, that great too (He's God!). Just as long as we understand his message. I go back to your postulate that; the Bible is not reliable, if Genesisis 1-4 is not literally, historically true. I challenge that. Let me know if I summarized your postulate incorrectly or if your other 5 questions pertain to what I actually said. Please use quotation marks. Thanks |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |