Results 21 - 35 of 35
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: userdoe220 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Should this verse apply today? | Matt 15:4 | userdoe220 | 15848 | ||
Jesus was using two O.T. commands to show the religous leaders of his day how their own traditions violated the Law they held so dear. If you believe the Law no longer applies to the life of believers today, you have no problem with this particular passage. All you have to say is, "well, that was in the O.T. We are no longer under that system." If you, like I, beleive that that the Law has relevance for the believer today, you have to do a little more investigation into the passages. I do have a few quick observations to make concerning the passage in question: 1.) These commands were given to the nation of Israel whose government was not democratic/republic but was a theocracy (God-ruled). This passage applied to how a nation of Israel was to be governed (its legal code if you will)not how the current church should govern its believers. 2.) The principle of this law is still valid: We are to honor our parents. The pharisees violated even the basic principles of this scripture by letting children get away with not supporting their aging parents (They did not have welfare back then. THe only welfare system an aging parent had was his children). This is a quick response and I am sure you have something up your sleeve you are wanting to pull out. I look forward to hearing/reading it. |
||||||
22 | My question is still open, PLEASE help? | Matt 10:33 | userdoe220 | 15835 | ||
I would go to Kittel's Theological Dictionary of N.T. words. I have found on more than one occasion a Greek scholar disagree with Kittel and frankly I would defer to his referance work as the final authority on the tense of a greek word in a particular passage. I am like you...I don't speak Greek and only have 1 Greek class under my belt--which makes me almost literate :-) in this language. One general rule I do go by is this: If someone comes out with something that I have never heard before, I usually find a good reason why that is so. DTS is a great school, but like others they usually have a theological ax to grind. My neighbor is attending DTS and is almost ready to graduate and that comment comes from him more than me. |
||||||
23 | What is 'being saved' here? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15541 | ||
A little convoluted? What post did you read? I thought it was straight and to the point. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean their post is "convoluted" By the way, your post was convoluted. |
||||||
24 | The bible is a work of fiction - discuss | Gen 1:1 | userdoe220 | 15491 | ||
What do you believe in? | ||||||
25 | Eternal Security? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15457 | ||
I just read a book entitled the History of Christian Theology (I am at work on break and do not know the author). It was a very enlightening book, to say the least--although written by a person considered a liberal. I believer Calvanism interprets these scriptures in light (the author of the book would agree with this statement) of their theology and not let the Bible speak for itself. My question is why? The book makes a few points that is relevant to our discussion here. 1.) For the first two centuries of the Christian faith, Armenian type theology was the only theology. He points out that individuals usually pull qoutes from the fathers of this period out of context to prove their theology was always around, but the fahters of this period was far from calvanistic. 2.) Why the shift? Greek philosophy, period. They interpret these passages through the lense of a Greek philisophical understanding of sovereignty. If God is totally soverign, that must mean he has orchestrated every event in history. If individuals could make a choice, that would nullify God's sovereignty. Therefore, God must have pre-determined who would be saved and who would not be saved. I could add a lot more passages to your list, but I know how they would interpret them: 1.) That is an obscure passage and must be interpreted in light of a passage that seems to backup what I believe. 2.) Castaway, reprobate in the greek, doesn't really mean what it says. It just means that Paul might just get two crowns and a ruby instead of 4 crowns and three rubies. 3.) Paul was just using hyberbolic language. He really did not mean a person could walk away from the faith...sike (to us an 80's term)! 4.) Jesus was under the law, so you really can't use his passages to justify your belief. Only Paul's letters directly apply to the beleiver. I could go on and on and on. I love the way they dance around the Hebrew passages, but will not go into that on this post. And if you disagree with calvanists, they usually imply that you have not studied to their degree or you are ignoring the context of the passage etc., else you would be a calvanist too. got to get some work done. Just thought I would stir up the calvanist web board a little. |
||||||
26 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15406 | ||
Well, you could use the "Anthropormorphic" argument. Since God is perfectly holy, He cannot be the cause of Evil. Therefore, this passage must be anthropormorphic in nature. This line of reasoning is used when a passage states that God repented/changed His mind over performing some act. |
||||||
27 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15405 | ||
I think you are confusing inspiration with Inerrancy. All evangelical beliver, and most non-evangelical belivers, would consider the Bible inspired. The question usually revolves around the Inerrancy of the scripture. Is the Bible Without error? If so, does that title apply to our translations? |
||||||
28 | Could Jesus sin? Explain. | Heb 4:15 | userdoe220 | 14534 | ||
If Jesus COULD NOT SIN, how could he be tempted like we are today? If there is NO CHOICE--the option to sin--like we have today, how could he sympathize with our weakness? If Jesus was God how could he be tempted to sin? If God is totally Good, How could he be tempted to perform Evil? Another good question the church has wrestled with for years. |
||||||
29 | How could Jesus increase in wisdom? | Luke 2:52 | userdoe220 | 14532 | ||
This is a very good question and one that the church has wrestled with for many years. The typical response is: Jesus (Phil 2 passage) voluntarily set aside some of his divine attributes when he chose to become a man. The question philosophers in the Church have wrestled with is how could God give up any of his attributes and continue to be God? After all, God by definition does not change, knows everything and is everywhere at all times etc., If Jesus lacked any of these qaulities, how could he continue to be God? The solution to this problem was that Jesus just chose not to operate in some of his divine privieleges: Omniscience/Omnipresent/. He did not give them up, but rather chose not to utilize or take advantage of certain aspects of his divinity. There is more than one way to look at this issue. I am just supplying one I know you have probably heard of a million times. A number of these problems deal with our presuppostions about God that have been passed down through the church. The early church fathers, in an attempt to make Christianity relevant to the Greek culture, interpreted scriptures about God through the lens of Plato. Some of the concepts we have about God are more Platonic than Biblical! In fact, many scriptures are explained away by the church fathers as being anthromorphic and being written that way for the "dumb" saints within the church who couldn't comprehend who God really is. I am chasing rabbits so I will sign off for now. |
||||||
30 | What is a generatonal curse? | Gal 1:9 | userdoe220 | 11516 | ||
I do see "learned patterns" of behavior passed from Grandfather, Father, and finally to son in every day life. Alcoholism is a classic example in American culture. Usually when I counsel a person who is an alcoholic I can almost guaruntee that his father had a drinking problem as well. This pattern does appear even in the lifes of the O.T. saints we read about: Look at Abram's lie contrasted with Jacob's lie (Abram told a 1/2 truth about sarah being his wife and jacob did the same thing)! The million dollar question is, "are these patterns of behavior 'generational curses' that plague families?" What do these people mean by "generational curses?" If they mean learned behavior patterns, put me in their camp...I believe in them. If they mean some satanic spirit follows a family around and makes sure they are addicted to alcohol/anger problems/lust (which by the way the Apostle Paul attributes to the flesh not to Satanic powers) and God's salvation provision is not enough to break the hold, I can't buy into it. Usually people who tout this belief say that those who do not believe in generational curses are un-sympathetic to Christians that struggle with sin. That is the furthest thing from the truth. What we do not do is give them a "devil made me do it" ticket to get out of the responsibility of their actions. In American society we love this free ticket of irresponsibility and we would love to blame our shortcomings on some external, uncontrollable force that prevents us from doing good--Hey that means, in the words of Rocket Man (funny movie), "I didn't do it!" That is all I have seen in the fruit of this type of counseling--Being a part of the charismaniac movement for well over 15 years, I speak as a somewhat authority on this subject. As far as a fad goes, I agree with glory777. This is nothing but another fad that floods the charismaniac/TBN airwaves. Give it another couple of years and another fad will come down the shoot--and if you don't fully embrace the upcoming fad, you will have another label placed on your head by those that do. Hope this post helps. |
||||||
31 | Jesus' early years? | Luke 2:52 | userdoe220 | 10564 | ||
There are a number of accounts written about Jesus' early years; However, most of them were written 150 plus years after his birth and are very fairy-tellish in nature ex. one account has Jesus as a little boy making clay pigeons, touching them and turning them into real pigoens. Other than the fairy-tellish nature of these accounts, I have a few other problems with them: 1.) The accounts usually paint a dramitically different picture of Jesus than the gospels paint: Some paint him as very ascetic (legalistic)person, others make him out to be a phantom type ghost, and one account even says he went to India to learn the Budhist philosophy and bring it back to Israel. Where is the historical evidence to support that is the greatest mystery! 2.) The next problem I have with these documents is they were all (well most of them) claimed to be written by one of the original apostles. They bear names like the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Barnabas when they were written way after the deaths of the apostles. If it starts out as a lie, why would I believe the rest of the accounts? If you are a strong believer in Jesus and not easily swayed, I encourage you to get a book on Gnosticism, read it and check out the references in the back of the book. They usually qoute their sources and provide a little background information. You can also purchase a book entitled the "lost books of Eden." I would never buy this from a bookstore because I would never give my hard-earned money to support such nonsense. I picked mine up at a used bookstore, 75 percent off books, for under 5.00. The stories make for some very amusing reading, but I wouldn't put a pennies worth of stock into its historical accuracy. I hope this helps |
||||||
32 | No one or no thing? | Luke 8:13 | userdoe220 | 9736 | ||
I am not moving from someone to something. Re-read my post. You have not even dealt with my content | ||||||
33 | What is the point? | 1 Thessalonians | userdoe220 | 9348 | ||
Your comment that you are "no-rapture" does not make any sense. The rapture plain and simple is Christ coming for his church. How can you deny that without denying scripture? Well, unless you allegorize those passages which a number of theologins do. |
||||||
34 | What is your idea? | 1 Cor 14:34 | userdoe220 | 9346 | ||
I believe if in one place Paul is telling women it is all right to speak in the church (1 Cor 10-14 deal with order in the worship service: communion, role of women in the church; gifts of the spirit etc.) and in another place he is completly forbidding them he must have been addressing a specific situation. I am not exactly sure (and if somebody claims to have the answer they are really not being truthful) what it was that caused Paul to issue this statement. I tend to lend towards dis-orderly comment/questions directed towards their husbands in service. But I would not argue this point because the scripture is silent. The one thing that disturbs me about this whole process, is I ahve never, never, never seen a church practice what I have seen posted on this forum. Every church I have been into allows their women to speak in the church and their women do not even wear hats on their heads. If they really beleived what they are spouting off on this message board, there would be a gag order. Women would not be allowed to speak at all in church. And, sad to say, the children would suffer the most. |
||||||
35 | Women speak in church? | 1 Cor 14:34 | userdoe220 | 9338 | ||
I think we should interpret the passage literally. However, we have to understand what it means to "interpret the Bible Literally." Please read Gorden Fee's book, "How to read the Bible for all its worth.: Now, your question. I find this passage of scripture a tough one to deal with. It def., in my mind, should belong in one of those "Hard sayings of the Bible" books. The reason is many-fold. 1.) Just two chapters prior (1 Cor 11)to the passage you are citing, Paul encourages women to Prophecy! I will admit there are some qualifications BUT if all the qualifications are met, Paul gives women free reign to "prophecy" in church. Now the problem...Can someone prophecy (proclaim) and not speak? No. (I don't think they had sign-language back than.) So, what did Paul mean in chapter 14? Or was Paul senile and forgot what he wrote a couple of pages back? 2.)What about Galatians? Paul seems to destroy the very barriers that divide us in Christ (Gal 5 T"Here is neither Male nor female, circumcision nor uncircumcision..."). If God sees us as one in Christ, why can’t women speak in church? Are women inferior to men? Why are social barriers ripped down only to erect new ones? 3.) In the book of Acts it records that Stephen had 7 young daughters that...Prophesied. I believe to prophecy you have to be able to speak. (I have many more examples, but I will rest at just three.) Now, some would say they were allowed to "prophesy", but they couldn't do it in the sancturary. I have a couple more questions for that line of reasoning. 1.) Did the early church meet in a nice church building, or someone’s house? If they met in someone’s house and worshipped in their main-room, would the wife of the house be prevented from talking in that room even if a service was not going on? If not, what makes 11:00 am on Sunday morning so special? 2.) Why does NO church faithfully practice this teaching? Even the Southern Baptist church allows women to be missionaries. Are we in America so holy that we can't have women preachers, but people overseas can? Looking at the list Americans are number 1 at, I find that statement hard to believe. 2.) What makes the "sancturary" of 1st Christian church in Plano, Tx more holy than a Sunday School classroom located in the same facility? Are we not the real sancturary? Do I have the answer? No. But I do have an idea what Paul was talking about. Yours in Christ |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |