Results 1 - 20 of 24
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jim Dunne Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | water into wine | John 2:1 | Jim Dunne | 11965 | ||
Tim - This is really interesting - thanks for posting it. On your comment "Even in English, the word "wine" didn’t come to mean an alcoholic beverage until about the mid 20th century", that doesn't sound right to me. 19th century English literature is rife with references to wine, and it's pretty clear in context that the references are to an alcoholic beverage. Can you elaborate? I'll admit I'm no expert on either 1st century culture, or winemaking (g), but there are a couple of things I wanted to mention, and get your thoughts on here: 1. In Matthew 9:17, the reference to not putting new wine in old wineskins most likely has nothing to do with preventing fermentation. In fact, short of cooking (pasteurizing) or freezing grape juice, it's just about impossible to stop it from fermenting. If you purchase unpasteurized grape juice, and let it sit in your refrigerator, you will slow down the process somewhat, but you will ultimately end up with wine or vinegar. I visited the website for Welch's, arguably the "grape juice gurus", and found this interesting little factoid: "1869 - Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch, a physician and dentist by profession, successfully pasteurizes Concord grape juice to produce an "unfermented sacramental wine" for fellow parishioners at his church in Vineland, N.J., where he is communion steward. His achievement marks the beginning of the processed fruit juice industry." 2. The reason that ancient winemakers didn't like to put new wine into old wineskins is that the fermentation process generates gases, which increase the pressure inside the wineskin, causing it to stretch and become brittle. If you reused a wineskin, there was a good chance the pressure buildup would cause the skin to split, ruining both wine and container. (Once fermentation was completed, old skins could be used as containers for the now stable beverage.) I don't claim this as an original to me - I swiped it out of Expositors Bible Commentary. 3. It's a common misconception that grapes are harvested, pressed into juice, and then some kind of fermentation agent is added to cause the transformation from juice to wine. It doesn't usually happen that way. The fermentation process generally starts while the grapes are still on the vine, and it's completely natural and unpreventable. "Table" grapes are intentionally harvested before this can happen, although it will still happen to them even after harvesting, if they're left too long. I really want to understand your point of view better. I certainly don't encourage alcohol consumption for anyone today, but I don't discourage it except when it's taken to excess. But I can't figure out how anyone in biblical times could avoid it. If you press ANY fruit into juice, you will very quickly get alcohol. I really do want to understand this better - help me out! Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
2 | water into wine | John 2:1 | Jim Dunne | 11606 | ||
Hi Tim! I guess we're going to disagree on this one - you're probably a more conservative evangelical than I am. I really believe that it was wine that Jesus made at Cana. It may be that wine was not as strong back then as it is now, but I think it was definitely an alcoholic beverage. In my reading of the story, that's the whole point of the banquet master's comment to the bridegroom. It's also occured to me that assuming that the "wine" was in fact just grape juice raises an interesting question: Would there really be "grades" of grape juice? Good wine vs. not-so-good wine, certainly. But good or not-so-good grape juice? Unless it it would be fresh vs. old grape juice, but in that climate in the 1st century, "old" grape juice would either be vinegar or true, alcoholic wine very quickly. I guess that's where I have the biggest problem. No matter what people may have wanted to do, there is simply no way that, except for a very brief period after the harvest, anyone could drink anything other than alcoholic wine. It would either ferment, or it would spoil. For at least 10 months of the year (maybe only 8 if there were two growing seasons), people would either drink real wine, or they would drink water. It's worth mentioning here that neither I, nor the church I belong to, frown upon the moderate, responsible consumption of alcohol. I'm going to quote C.S. Lewis here - definitely a theologian for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. Like me, Lewis and his denomination did not believe in a Christian prohibition against alcohol. I'm going to point out, though, that there is a criticism explicit in his comments that is not present in mine. Please don't ANYONE take this as an attack. Or at least, if you do, take it up with the honorable Dr. Lewis, not me. (g) The following was a response that Lewis wrote to a question from some American Christians about his stance on alcohol: "I have always in my books been concerned simply to put forward "mere" Christianity, and am no guide on these (most regrettable) "inter-denominational" questions. I do however strongly object to the tyrannic and unscriptural insolence of anything that calls itself a Church and makes teetotalism a condition of membership. Apart from the more serious objection (that Our Lord Himself turned water into wine and made wine the medium of the only rite He imposed on all His followers), it is so provincial (what I believe you people call "small town"). Don't they realize that Christianity arose in the Mediterranean world where, then as now, wine was as much a part of the normal diet as bread?" I have to say that I am much more willing to trust Lewis's scholorship on matters like this than I am my own. And since my church's beliefs coincide with my own, it's not an issue of conscience for me. Anyway, my two cents worth, together with a least a dollars' worth of Lewis. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
3 | Is fear or doubt unforgivable? | Mark 3:28 | Jim Dunne | 11499 | ||
With all due respect, you're completely missing the point. Severe depression isn't about hatred or unforgiveness or the lack of repentance, it's about mental illness. These people are sick. The level of despair and misery that can occur is an agony beyond comprehension. These poor people are no more capable of rational thought than those who suffer from other debilitating mental illnesses. That's one of the reasons psychiatrists strongly advise severely depressed people against making life-changing decisions - they can't make a reasoned, balanced choice. Even the Catholic Church is rethinking its' position on suicides for this reason. Many priests feel that the very fact that someone has taken their own life is evidence that they were not in a normal, rational, morally accountable state. I cannot and will not believe that God will condemn someone like that. And as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if you're a Christian, you have salvation as the gift of God through Jesus. Even were I to grant that suicide is a sin, it is no worse (or better) than any other sin. It is forgivable - indeed it is already forgiven. If being sinless is a requirement to avoid damnation, than Hell is going to be a very busy place. Being a Protestant, I do not believe in the Catholic sacrament of Extreme Unction, or the "Last Rites" to wipe away all sin in the instant before death. It's not necessary. God loves me, Christ died for me, and I am saved by grace through faith. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
4 | Created for heaven or hell? | John 3:16 | Jim Dunne | 11405 | ||
Very well said. You've prompted me to go back through and read the previous discussions, as I don't have a clear understand of Calvinism, Arminianism, or the doctrine of Election. But certainly, rehashing the same debates over and over again would be tedious and counter-productive. At least that's my opinion. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
5 | Is fear or doubt unforgivable? | Mark 3:28 | Jim Dunne | 11385 | ||
One comment I would like to make, based on both my own personal struggles, and being involved in the struggles of others. People who commit suicide are for the most part, suffering from a mental illness, such as Clinical Depression. They may not in many cases be capable of making reasoned, objective decisions. The person who is suicidally depressed cannot see any other solution. Suicide for people like this is not "a choice" or a "cop out" - it is a foregone conclusion. If you have never experienced this for yourself (and I pray you have not and never will), you may have difficulty comprehending that, but it is true nonetheless. Do you truly believe that God in His mercy would look on such a one as this, and condemn them to Hell? Rather, I believe, He would take this wounded spirit and restore to the glory and spiritual health it is capable of. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
6 | muslims - 144,000? | Revelation | Jim Dunne | 10829 | ||
Isa - Don't be put off by the more "zealous" folks here. They're just as likely to growl at us as they are at you. :) While I don't think the Lockman Foundation would be particularly pleased if you started trying to convince all of us to switch to Islam :), I for one believe you're most welcome here as a seeker after knowledge. There are certainly many serious, significant issues that divide Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and they're not any of them easily reconcilable. But as many scholars have pointed out, we are all "people of the Book". We should make every effort to deal with each other in charity and courtesy. My opinion is just that - my opinion. But I hope you'll stay and ask the questions you have. God's blessings upon you, Jim D. |
||||||
7 | Choosing a Bible translation | Bible general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10611 | ||
There's been some excellent advice here, all of which I agree with. The only thing I'd add is, if you come across a review or opinion of a generally-accepted "mainstream" translation which holds it forth as "the only Bible God honors", or "a sinful, destructive translation", you can (in my opinion) ignore these opinions all together. I followed some of these discussions for awhile, and came to two conclusions: 1). Anyone who says there is a an error-free modern translation of the Scriptures in existence today is wrong (I'm not talking about Biblical inerrancy here, but translational flaw.) 2). Anyone who says that generally-accepted translation X is the work of Satan is most likely wrong, too. I suspect all of us have particular preferences for various translations, based on scholarly as well as aesthetic reasons. But as long as you stay away from the "fringe" translations that virtually all scholars disdain (the New World Translation, for example), you can't really make a bad choice. If you pick a more interpretive translation, like the Living Bible, you may find yourself drawn to a more literal translation like NASB as your studies deepen in complexity. Or not. Either way is fine, I think, depending on your background, your goals, and your comfort level. From personal experience, I can only say that, to paraphrase an (in)famous secular author, "One is not enough!" (BG) Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
8 | Multiple authors for Paul's epistles? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10088 | ||
Nolan - You are most welcome, but I must confess - I have Expositors on CD, so it was just a quick cut and paste. I can't imagine trying to deal with the paper version - it takes up more than 3 feet of shelf space! Glad I could help. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
9 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10087 | ||
Tim - Based on the definition of inerrancy you posted, I can agree with you (and it) completely. The definition is excellent - it's going in my database for future reference. Funny about that Ripley's snippet on 1Pet.3:20 - a friend reminded me of it a few days ago, and I remembered it right away. Heck, when I was a kid, I believed it! Yours in Christ, Jim Dunne |
||||||
10 | Multiple authors for Paul's epistles? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10076 | ||
Hi, Nolan - ANYTHING Expositor's says is explained in endless detail (it's a huge, multi-volume commentary.) In general, they say, "From the post-apostolic church to the present, with almost no exception, this letter has been credited to Paul. If the claim of the apostle to have written the Galatian and Corinthian letters is accepted, there is no reasonable basis for denying that he wrote Romans, since it echoes much of what is in the earlier writings, yet not slavishly." Specific to 16:22, they say, "At this point (v. 22) Tertius, Paul's amanuensis (the one who wrote down the letter at Paul's dictation; cf. 2Th 3:17), asks for the privilege of adding his personal greeting. We may be sure Paul carefully chose believers to write down his letters rather than public secretaries. We also may be sure that people like Tertius would undertake that task as work for the Lord." Matthew Henry agrees, although he only briefly discusses Tertius, describing him as a scribe who was honored to help Paul, because he (Paul) had "a bad hand" at writing. I hope this helps. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
11 | Multiple authors for Paul's epistles? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10064 | ||
Don't know if this helps, but I did some digging into Expositers Bible Commentary. They come down pretty firmly for Romans, I and I Corinthians, I and II Thes., Colossians, Galations, Phillipians, and Philemon being authored by Paul exclusively. They refer to some debate over Ephesians, They seem much less certain about I and II Timothy, or Titus. For Hebrews, they discount Paul pretty heavily, but admit that no one has proposed any author who has a convincing case. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
12 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10038 | ||
Tim - This is good stuff. I think I understand what you're saying pretty well. I believe we're pretty much on common ground. My only "objection", and it's a pretty mild one, is that, for example, 2 Peter 1:3 says, "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness," NOT, "His divine power has given us everything we need for astronomy, geology, business, economics, etc." So why not throw in categories like grammar. We know, even in the autographs, that some of the biblical writers, even the very intelligent ones like Paul, butchered the grammar at times. But that's fine! And as you related regarding confluence, "inspiration can be confluent, so the writers' personality, style, etc. can shine through." I remember when I was very young I read a "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" column that said the word "few" is equal to 8 since 1 Peter 3:20 says that a "few people, that is, eight. I think that the idea of inerrancy can be pushed beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
13 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10016 | ||
Tim - Thanks for the follow-up. Going back to the beginning of my initial question, as you did, was a good idea. What I was trying to ask, albeit very badly I guess, was really a very pedestrian question. How did the writers find out? The one response I got that suggested direct revelation made me uncomfortable, not because I doubt that it's possible or anything like that. It's just that I try to put things like this into their appropriate context. In this situation, I was thinking through the actual process the writer would go through, and how his original writings would be received. The only reason that direct revelation made me uncomfortable was that I could see the people who read the gospels for the first time, some of whom had in fact been a part of Jesus' life, reacting with surprise and perhaps skepicism if they read details that they knew couldn't possibly have been witnessed. Sort of a "Wait a minute. I was there. That didn't happen!" kind of thing. I'm not saying it happened that way, and in fact it may be that revelation is exactly what happened. If so, great. I was just looking for insight on the practical side of things. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
14 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10009 | ||
Tim - Agreed. 100 percent. Although I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with saying that someone with the manners of a dragon really was a dragon! (g) Take care, Jim D. |
||||||
15 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10004 | ||
This sounds like a really good book. Unfortunately, I checked around, and none of the local Christian bookstores carry it. I'll have to resort to amazon.com, and fidget for the 7-10 days it will take to get here. (g) Thanks for the resposne, Jim Dunne |
||||||
16 | What are our options? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9925 | ||
Prov. 8:13 or, if you prefer, Matt. 7:5. Jim DUNNE |
||||||
17 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9923 | ||
Kind words, kindly meant. Who could ask for more? And to keep reading the Bible is always good advice. Thank-you, gentle lady. Your heart is in the right place. Jim D. |
||||||
18 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9922 | ||
Schwartzkm - Thank you very much for an eloquent, thoughtful, charitable response. You seem to be exactly on the track I am, and I agree with everything you said. My point in my previous posting was to get everyone to realize that the Bible is literature (and beautiful literature), and at the same time is inspired, and theologically true. The fact that it's not all literally true simply doesn't matter, in my opinion. And when I say "not literally true", I don't mean it's a lie or a deception or anything like that. I mean that it's not a man-on-the-scene, blow-by-blow accounting of what happened. And as I've tried to point out elsewhere, the Bible is rich with literary device, like poetry, and parable, which aren't supposed to be taken as "true" - they're tools used to present Scriptural truth. The examples I used were deliberately extreme to get folks to see that it's not reasonable to say "the Bible is all true because it's inspired" - the one is not dependent on the other. Just to clarify, it wasn't my intent to suggest that Matthew made up Jesus' lineage to prove His Messiahship - if that was the perception, I apologize. I was trying to say pretty much what you did - it wasn't a completely accurate geneology, and it wasn't supposed to be. That doesn't make it wrong, or a deliberate attempt to obsure on Matthew's part. It's just "the way they did things." Pax, Jim D. |
||||||
19 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9921 | ||
Tim - Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. You are correct - it was not my intention in any way to suggest that there is is any error in Scripture - I don't believe there is. In fact, what I was trying to say was just the opposite! Scripture is full of literary device - parable, allegory, poetry, hymn, and story - and it is both inspired and inerrant! And yes, what I was trying to get people to see (and what I believe Dr. Boyd was trying to say) is exactly what you said - no one I know of who believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures believes that "literal" rules out the use of literary genres. As it happens, I think we disagree about the creation account. I don't believe that it's a literal account of what happened. I think it is a literary form used to present an essential truth - God created the heavens and the earth. But people of faith can disagree on such things, I believe, without the sky falling in. God bless you for your insight and perception. In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
20 | Jim,D R-U- saved | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9920 | ||
Thank you very much, LionStrong. I am quite certain of my salvation, literally, truthfully, and factually! Fortunately for all of us, it seems, perfection in theological matters is not a requirement for entrance to Heaven. Yours in Christ, Jim Dunne |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |