Results 101 - 120 of 819
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: flinkywood Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Who saved James, Hebrews and Revelation? | Bible general Archive 2 | flinkywood | 143773 | ||
Hey, Searcher, why are we here in Siberia on such short rations? Colin |
||||||
102 | Who saved James, Hebrews and Revelation? | Not Specified | flinkywood | 143770 | ||
Hi, Tim, Kalos, Doc, EdB, the thread I prepared this study for has been restricted. I don’t know why, so I’m placing it here so it won’t go to waste. My question comes at the end. I thank Kalos for his excellent link to “The OT Testament Apocrypha Controversy”, by Don Closson. Tim You make 4 strong arguments (id #143427) against including the Apocryphal books in the “Inspired” OT canon. 1-2) I don’t think a “lack of agreement” among those few early LXX manuscripts impugns their inspired status any more than it does our current “Protestant” canon which, after all, derives from myriad extant and often dissimilar manuscripts. 3) Yes, Paul’s citations of these books can’t automatically make Scripture of them. By the same token, however, Paul’s non-citation of others can’t automatically render those “mere works of man”. In other words, NT Apostolic quotation doesn’t equal inspiration, or lack thereof. 4) That the early church fathers disagreed on canonicity may not be so decisive since Jerome himself ultimately acceded to the Catholic Church’s authority in the matter and even defended them as inspired (“Against Rufinas” 11:33; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2710.htm). How do we judge the inspired status of these books? What settles the question for me is that Jesus Himself made reference to the Apocrypha in a typological (i.e. pointing to Himself) way. One reference in particular should suffice. Jesus and His Apostles observed Hanukkah (John 10:22-36), which is recorded as divinely established only in 1 and 2 Maccabees and never mentioned in any other OT book. On the day of the Feast, Jesus says: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken-- do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'”? (Joh 10:34-36 ESV). Jesus while standing near the Temple during the Feast of Hanukkah speaks of his being “consecrated” (“separated from a common to a sacred use” Websters), just as Judas Maccabeus “consecrated” the Temple 1 Macc 4:36-59 and 2 Macc 10:1-8. Jesus made a deliberate and direct connection in the minds of his Jewish hearers with the Feast and the account of it in the “apocryphal” Maccabees 1-2 as a foreshadowing or “type” of His own consecration by the Father. Just as Jesus taught His disciples to read the OT typologically (John 5:39) in the Manna (Joh 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4); the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Num 21:4-9), and in Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Gen 28:12), here He clearly accords the same status of divine inspiration of these other accounts to this Self-reference in the Books of Maccabees. Christ does not distinguish these 2 “apocryphal” books from any other inspired book of the OT nor, apparently, did His Apostles. These books appear to be canon-worthy. Some observations from my studies. 1) Protestant scholarship suffers from suspicion of anything Catholic. This is a terrible fault on our part as Protestants as I’m increasingly finding the Catholic Church, though freaky at times, to be an immense, supernatural, exegetical resource. We all could open our tidy little minds a bit in this regard. 2) Very, very few, both Catholic and Protestant, seem to know any Church history at all. For example, did you know we nearly lost James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation to Martin Luther’s redaction of the NT? I’ve heard, but haven’t found the primary source, that only an “accident of history” saved these books, which begs my closing question: How were these NT books saved from the Apocalypse of Apocrypha? Colin |
||||||
103 | Who saved James, Hebrews and Revelation? | Bible general Archive 2 | flinkywood | 143771 | ||
Hi, Tim, Kalos, Doc, EdB, the thread I prepared this study for has been restricted. I don’t know why, so I’m placing it here so it won’t go to waste. My question comes at the end. I thank Kalos for his excellent link to “The OT Testament Apocrypha Controversy”, by Don Closson. Tim You make 4 strong arguments (id #143427) against including the Apocryphal books in the “Inspired” OT canon. 1-2) I don’t think a “lack of agreement” among those few early LXX manuscripts impugns their inspired status any more than it does our current “Protestant” canon which, after all, derives from myriad extant and often dissimilar manuscripts. 3) Yes, Paul’s citations of these books can’t automatically make Scripture of them. By the same token, however, Paul’s non-citation of others can’t automatically render those “mere works of man”. In other words, NT Apostolic quotation doesn’t equal inspiration, or lack thereof. 4) That the early church fathers disagreed on canonicity may not be so decisive since Jerome himself ultimately acceded to the Catholic Church’s authority in the matter and even defended them as inspired (“Against Rufinas” 11:33; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2710.htm). How do we judge the inspired status of these books? What settles the question for me is that Jesus Himself made reference to the Apocrypha in a typological (i.e. pointing to Himself) way. One reference in particular should suffice. Jesus and His Apostles observed Hanukkah (John 10:22-36), which is recorded as divinely established only in 1 and 2 Maccabees and never mentioned in any other OT book. On the day of the Feast, Jesus says: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken-- do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'”? (Joh 10:34-36 ESV). Jesus while standing near the Temple during the Feast of Hanukkah speaks of his being “consecrated” (“separated from a common to a sacred use” Websters), just as Judas Maccabeus “consecrated” the Temple 1 Macc 4:36-59 and 2 Macc 10:1-8. Jesus made a deliberate and direct connection in the minds of his Jewish hearers with the Feast and the account of it in the “apocryphal” Maccabees 1-2 as a foreshadowing or “type” of His own consecration by the Father. Just as Jesus taught His disciples to read the OT typologically (John 5:39) in the Manna (Joh 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4); the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Num 21:4-9), and in Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Gen 28:12), here He clearly accords the same status of divine inspiration of these other accounts to this Self-reference in the Books of Maccabees. Christ does not distinguish these 2 “apocryphal” books from any other inspired book of the OT nor, apparently, did His Apostles. These books appear to be canon-worthy. Some observations from my studies. 1) Protestant scholarship suffers from suspicion of anything Catholic. This is a terrible fault on our part as Protestants as I’m increasingly finding the Catholic Church, though freaky at times, to be an immense, supernatural, exegetical resource. We all could open our tidy little minds a bit in this regard. 2) Very, very few, both Catholic and Protestant, seem to know any Church history at all. For example, did you know we nearly lost James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation to Martin Luther’s redaction of the NT? I’ve heard, but haven’t found the primary source, that only an “accident of history” saved these books, which begs my closing question: How were these NT books saved from the Apocalypse of Apocrypha? Colin |
||||||
104 | what is blasphemy against holy spirit | Mark 3:20 | flinkywood | 143700 | ||
Hi, Doc, Because NewCovnenant claims the Lord is communicating through him, I think the problem is about authority. On the subject of authority, I'm still sussing out Tim's and Kalos posts to me over the Apocrypha. I hope to be back in that particular string soon. Colin |
||||||
105 | what is blasphemy against holy spirit | Mark 3:20 | flinkywood | 143650 | ||
Catlong, New Covenant has given you a good answer. I'll add only this: blasphemy against the H.S. is attributing to Satan the works of God. This is what the Pharisees are guilty of in context of this passage (12:24). This is the kind of advanced spiritual hardness Pharoah willfully attained and from which repentance for forgiveness of sins is impossible (please see Mark 3:28-30). I've heard it said that the wrath of God is that He gives us what we want. Colin |
||||||
106 | Are John and John The Baptist the same? | John 21:24 | flinkywood | 143605 | ||
Ernie, good question. 1) In John 1:27 the prophet is self-described as the precursor of Christ, not John "the Baptist". Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels (the Synoptic Gospels) all refer to the prophet as "John the Baptist", probably to avoid confusion with the Apostle John. 2) The Gospel tells us that its author is the disciple whom Jesus loves (John 21.24), who was also one of the twelve Apostles, and who is also present at the Sea of Tiberius after the Resurrection (John 21). John the Baptist, as we know from Mark 6, was executed by Herod very early in Christ's ministry, so the author of John could not have been John the Baptist. Colin |
||||||
107 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | flinkywood | 143420 | ||
Kalos, I understand that Jesus and the apostles quoted widely from the Septuagint and that Paul also refered to aprocryphal books in his letters. This certainly legitmates these book, don't you agree? In light of this, and despite the decidedly non-Christian council of Jamnia proscribing certain books of the Septuagint as non-canonical, despite Jerome's early doubts (as Luther doubted James, Jude and Revelation), why were the apocrypha removed after so many centuries? Colin |
||||||
108 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | flinkywood | 143327 | ||
Doc, If the apocrypha had always been considered canonical by everyone, as you say, then who decided to excise these books from the holy word of God? By whose authority were they cut out? And if these books weren’t considered “bad, per se” or “any more inspired than other books written by mere men”, then they were equally as inspired as the others and removing them was a sin. Could this apparent crime really have boiled down to 87 books being “heftier” than 66? What an incredible rationale! Imagine the Supreme Court lopping off an amendment to the Constitution for this reason. Orwell himself could never have imagined it! This particular history is sounds impossible to me. Where did you read this? Colin |
||||||
109 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | flinkywood | 143311 | ||
Doc, you wrote: "Roman Catholics added the apocryphal books to their canon thirty years after -- and in reaction to -- the rise of Protestantism." 1) What books constituted the Pre-Protestant Catholic bible? 2) Why were the Apocrypha added in reaction to Protestanism? 3) What was the lay-Catholic reaction to these additions? Colin |
||||||
110 | What is the sin unto death? | 1 John 5:16 | flinkywood | 143187 | ||
Jamesthomas, "Sin unto death" (1 John 5:16) is "mortal" sin. http://www.catholic.com/library/mortal_sin.asp Colin |
||||||
111 | ... | Acts 11:26 | flinkywood | 142895 | ||
Frank, Russel is a only a contemporary exponent of a heresy that began with Arius in the early fourth century. The positive thing about this particular heresy is that it helped to strenghten what it sought to destroy. Here's some fun reading on the subject: Ariushttp://www.catholic.com/library/History_of_the_Jehovah_Witnesesses.asp |
||||||
112 | Luther and Aquinas | Bible general Archive 2 | flinkywood | 142637 | ||
Thanks, Doc. Colin |
||||||
113 | Where does the Bible say only increase? | Prov 3:9 | flinkywood | 142631 | ||
T'oma, Again, his name was Abram, not yet Abraham. God gave Abram the victory; therefore, these were not "spoil" (a term found in no translation of Genesis 14) but "goods", goods that came from God as all good gifts do. You are incorrect to assert otherwise. I've answered your post as best I can. Colin |
||||||
114 | Where does the Bible say only increase? | Prov 3:9 | flinkywood | 142622 | ||
T'oma, Your characterization of Abram (not Abraham) as having "stolen" what he tithed from is incorrect. Abram rescued Lot, his nephew, from his kidnappers, Cherdorlaomer and the “kings that were with him.” (Gen 14:5, 13-15); so the “goods” that Abram brought back from this God-delivered victory (v.20), were certainly not “stolen”. In fact, Abram even offers the king of Sodom the lion’s share of his goods, “for fear you would say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’” (v.23), which is the proper attitude we must have towards our earthly goods and God’s Kingdom. Thus Abram did tithe to Melchizedek from his God-given increase and not from something he had “stolen”. Notice also that Melchizedek brought out bread and wine (v.18), which prefigure the precious body and blood of Jesus Christ which our High Priest offers us in the New Covenant. Colin |
||||||
115 | Luther and Aquinas | Bible general Archive 2 | flinkywood | 142614 | ||
Doc, It was Augustine's, not Aquinas' quotation, so the question should read LUTHER AND AUGUSTINE. My confusion. Where did find Luther's quotation? Also, do you think Luther's doctrine of "election" softened in his later life, that is, did it shift Catholic-ward? Colin |
||||||
116 | Luther and Aquinas | Not Specified | flinkywood | 142591 | ||
I'm reading Martin Luther. How might Luther have responded to Thomas Aquinas’ statement, “God who created you without your cooperation will not save you without your cooperation”? (from Sermon 169,11) Colin |
||||||
117 | Luther and Aquinas | Bible general Archive 2 | flinkywood | 142610 | ||
I'm reading Martin Luther. How might Luther have responded to Thomas Aquinas’ statement, “God who created you without your cooperation will not save you without your cooperation”? (from Sermon 169,11) Colin |
||||||
118 | why did martin luther dislike james | James 2:20 | flinkywood | 141013 | ||
Good link, Steve. Colin |
||||||
119 | why did martin luther dislike james | James 2:20 | flinkywood | 140908 | ||
HufFineArts, try here for starters: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/Canon.htm#resources. Colin |
||||||
120 | Who is God Talking to in verse 26? | Genesis | flinkywood | 140905 | ||
Tess, the Entire NT is a procalmation of the eternal, uncreated deity of Jesus Christ. That they had known God in the flesh, that He had died and risen again, is what transformed ordinary cowards into extraordinary heroes. The gospels' sole purpose, their reason for being, is to proclaim these incredible facts. The founder of JW, Taze Russell, who never finished high school, who promoted "miracle wheat", the "millenial bean" and a cancer "cure", has been dead since 1916. Christ, on the other hand, is alive. Colin |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [41] >> |