Results 21 - 40 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Is there a reason to debate? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 219949 | ||
Dodoy, I have one question. In your mind what are the implications of what you are saying? Is it just a minute of accuracy in a detail? Or is there some practice or doctrine of the Church that you think this weighs on? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
22 | Aren't there differences? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 220138 | ||
Makarios, Would you not include 1 Timothy 2:12-15 as one of the key texts? This also seems to be rooted in creation and not a cultural norm. Forgive me if its been discussed earlier in this thread and I missed it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
23 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221271 | ||
Meta, I wouldn't want to put words into somebody else's mouth but if I recall he mentioned this with reference to the last several chapters in Ezekiel, which deal with a new temple. I would simply guess that the logic was that a new temple implied renewed sacrifices. I disagree with this reading of Ezekiel but I suspect that might have been the logic. Personally I hold that Christ and His church is the new temple which was fortold of in Ezekiel. I'm curious, Meta, what end times view point you subscribe to. I found you challenging the use of the term Millenium very interesting. Personally I hold to an amill position, and wonder if you have a similiar outlook. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
24 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221292 | ||
Meta, Sounds like you've got a very good head on your shoulders with regards to these things. We should all have as much humility. Indeed, the word millenium isn't used. This, as you've stated, refers to the 1000 years of satan's binding which itself is only referenced in Revelations chapter 20. Now many will argue that other passages is speaking of this period of time, but it is only explicitly called out in this one passage. However, I don't begrudge people using the word millenium which after all only means 1,000 years. As I said I myself am an Amillenialist. This means that I think the 1,000 years referred to in Rev 20 to be speaking of the present age from a heavenly perspective. The 1000 years being simply a simbolic number referring to an undisclosed amount of time, however long the church age ends up. If you are interested in learning more about this view then Kim Riddlebarger is writer who has much influenced my thinking. He has a decent book out called "The Case for Amillenialism." However his sermons are just as good and require less effort. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
25 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221322 | ||
Keily, Wow, how much discussion I have missed in a single evening! Anyways, answering your question is a short one. Yes, I am saying they exist in the same time frame. The millenial reign of Christ is occuring right this moment. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
26 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221325 | ||
Keily, Revelations chapter 20 lays it out pretty well. Satan is set loose, he rallies the nations against God's people and when all hope seems lost Christ returns to bring judgment to His enemies and salvation to His people. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
27 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221336 | ||
Keily, Yes, sir. That is the one and only millenium in scripture. I'm saying that right now, Satan is bound in whatever respect is being spoken of in these very verses. At the end of which he will gather the nations for what you probably refer to as the battle of armegedon, at which point Christ will return and through the ressurection of the dead, the judgement and the restoration of all things, will then usher in the eternal state with the new heavens and the new earth. I hope this helps, I'm not trying to be elusive. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
28 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221342 | ||
Keily, You are correct that I think satan is currently bound. However, you are reading that in terms of what you think it will mean in what you picture to be a future millenia. Satan is not literally in a hole some place called the abyss. The passage defines what the binding of satan means. It says that it is such that he can not deceive the nations. I do not take this to mean that he is completely and utterly restrained from all actions. Revelations is a very symbolic book and much of it is not meant to be taken completely literally. Its simply not a genre that expects to be read in that way. So to answer, Satan is currently our foe that works against us, but he is not free to rally up the nations in a massive organized revolt against God and his people as he will in the final days. Isn't it remarkable that what is possibly the most well attested end times view point through out history (amillenialism), is now so nearly unheard of that it sounds a strange thing to us? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
29 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221354 | ||
Keily, I believe that you are correct when you say that understanding the book of Revelation is dependant on how you first understand the rest of scripture. This unfortunately is where I think we would have a great deal of problems coming to understand one another. I suspect we disagree on many things which determine how we are going to read the book. I would suggest that the millenial reign of Christ began with His ascension. However, I'm not sure we should try to be so very specific on a precise moment, but rather let us say that it was accomplished by the first coming of Christ. Not that you agree, but let's express the amill view that way for our discussion. Also I really can't respond as to what other verses you mean when you haven't told me which ones. Let me address two possible objections you've brought up. One is the objection of taking the passage in some way other than literal. I find myself making a decision when I interpret this passage. On one hand I can take passages such as Matthew 25:31-46 which present a single judgement of both the saved and unsaved, and I can say, "Sorry, this passage can not be interpreted literally because I believe they are thousands of years apart." In which case I would have to do this to other passages also. Second, I would have to ingore that the end times view of scripture consistently portrays a single judgement, it consistently shows things such as the current heavens and earth being desrtoryed at His second coming (2 Peter 3), the evil doers being judged at His second coming (2 Thess 1), death being done away with at his second coming (1 Cor 15) and other such things. Now I have a choice. I can say to all these passages in scripture from a variety of genres, "No No, none of you can be understood literally and we must add at least a 2000 year gap in you." Or I can say to one single passage in revelation, which is a book absolutely full of things meant to be taken in a symbolic way, "This one is the one passage not to take literally." To me I take scripture as a whole far far more literally by taking the amillenial position. Second, your question about Satan is a good one. It is one I had to think through a great deal before I believed what I currently do. It sounds so hard to believe doesn't it? What an amill person is saying is essentially this: In some way, satan is restrained from deceiving the world in mass, though right now he does in fact deceive individuals. Later though when he is released from whatever is holding him, he will cause a mass falling away and rally the nations. This made the position hard to believe for some time, until I realized that it was saying nothing you didn't already have to deal with in scripture. As I turn to 2 Thess 2 and I read about the coming man of sin, what picture does 2 thess 2 paint for us? In some way, satan is restrained from deceiving the world in mass, though right now he does in fact deceive individuals. Later though when he is released from whatever is holding him, he will cause a mass falling away and rally the nations. One of the reasons that I believe the amill position, is that when I claim it, I am saying absolutely nothing nor creating any problems that I don't already see elsewhere in scripture. However, when I take a premillenial position it is quite the opposite. I am claiming a doctrine of a period in between this age and the age to come which I can find nowhere in scripture at all other than revelations chapter 20. We are literally restructuring the eschatology of the entire Bible passed on the addition of one passage in a book of symbols and metaphors. That sir, should make you question your view, I know it did me when I held your view. Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
30 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221361 | ||
Keily, Forgive me, I must have been unclear. I am not at all suggesting that I read rev 20:1-3 literally. Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that a person must make a choice. Look at Matthew 25. Actually go look at it so you see what I'm referring to. The judgement here is clearly depicting one judgement of both the saved and unsaved in one event. The traditional dispensational reading of revelation 20 places the judgements 1000 years apart. Now you must make a choice. Which passage are you going to read literally and which is not literal? I could press you on matthew 25 with the same accusations you place against me regarding revelation 20. The truth be told, one of them is not intending the reader to understand it literally. My point is this, if you choose to read Rev 20 literally, you must say not only matthew 25, but MANY other passages are not literal. The question is this: which do you want to say is literal, either half a dozen passages from almost every genre in scripture, or a single passage in Rev? Do you see the choice now? You can't pass yourself off as somebody who reads scripture literally while the amill person does not. The truth is we MUST both claim something is not being understood literally. Anyways, I'm happy to let the discussion end, I just would be dissapointed if you left not understanding the view I'm trying to articulate due to my short comings in explaining it. After all, I'm attempting to express to you a view that has been around for 2,000 years, not simply my own personal take on scripture. I'd feel bad messing that up for you and other readers. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
31 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221364 | ||
Keily, Absolutely. This is without a doubt a discussion we do not have to agree on to happily recognize each other as brothers in Christ! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
32 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221365 | ||
Lightedsteps, Glad you enjoyed the discussion. If one is going to hold to a literal interpretation of Rev 20, then you'd have to read Mat 25 that way, yes? But wouldn't you say we would then be reading that into the text based on what we believe elsewhere in scripture? And that very well could be right. But is the amillenial interpretation of Rev 20 really doing anymore violence to the text than the other view is then doing to matthew 25? All I am suggesting is lets be fair. If you are amillenial, then you can't take rev 20 word for word literally. If you are not amillenial, then you also have passages you can't take word for word literally. Lets not accuse either side of being irresponsible with the text. In the end, we all interpret scripture in light of other scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
33 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221377 | ||
Lightedsteps, I'm assuming the question is for me since I think Keily would agree with you. My answer is that I think you are confusing the genres here. Revelation is not simple prophecy but apocalyptic literature. Were the four beasts that Daniel saw meant to be understood literally? Should we still be watching for them to appear? What about the scroll in Zechariah 5? Are we still waiting to see a 20 cubit long flying scroll fly through the air or should we say that he is trying to convey something with that image other than literally a flying scroll? What about the valley of bones in Ezekiel? Do we understand that as we are literally waiting to see a large pile of bones come to life or is it representing something else whether that be the new birth or the reformation of national Israel? My point is that just because messianic prophecies are fullfilled literally it does not follow that all scripture is meant to be taken literally. I'm not suggesting that we get to randomly pick and choose which is literal and which isn't. But if a text is not meant to be taken literally, then to read it as such is to read it wrongly. Hope this helps. Just as a tid bit for thought, listen to this quote by Eusebius, who if I'm not mistaken writes the earliest attempt at a history of the church. He wrote this around 310 AD "Papias supplies other stories that had reached him by word of mouth, along with some other strange parables and unknown teachings of the Savior, as well as other legendary accounts. Among them he says that after the resurrection of the dead there will be a thousand year period when the kingdom of Christ will be established on this earth in material form. I suppose that he got these notions by misunderstanding the apostolic accounts, not realizing that they used mystic and symbolic language. For he was a man of very limited intelligence as is clear from his books" Interesting that now Christians regard it as such a strange thing! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
34 | Was found in rocks | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223089 | ||
Azure, VBS stands for Vacation Bible School. In some circles in america, churches pick out one week of the summer and once an evening for that one week they put on a fun learning time for children with snacks, games, singing, and other features. Paula, the question is vague. However, if you are speaking of the rock that Moses struck, then I will narrow it down somewhat for you. Read in Exodus during the wilderness wanderings. I don't want to flat out tell you because here at the forums we believe a great deal in letting students of all types do their research for themselves. As a seminary graduate I can tell you with certainty that it is very beneficial to actually read and work and pray to find the answers that your teachers are having you look for. After all, if you were sent to look it up, and you merely want to know the answer without all the extra benefit of the search, I'm sure she will tell you soon. I pray you have a very fruitful VBS. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
35 | Did John really baptise Jesus?? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223512 | ||
Lightedsteps, You said: "Even though Jesus was without sin, when He was baptized by John, could it have been for the original sin of Adam that is upon the flesh of all men? Being 100 percent Man, and 100 percent God, Jesus had to have had the sin of Adam dwelling in his flesh, because he was born of a woman." and "Jesus had to have sin dwelling in His flesh, otherwise He could not have been tempted as we are, because the temptation would have been of a perfect deity" and "That part of Jesus that was truly flesh, had to be purged of the sin of Adam, in order for it to be said, He was without spot or blemish." Oh no no no no no no no. How you fly in the face of all of scripture! 2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Does not Romans chapter 5, and 1 Cor 15 lay out for us that the second Adam is completely unlike the first adam? And yet they were both fully human. How then did they differ if not in nature to sin? How can we say that we hope to one day be in the likeness of the second Adam if it implies no freedom from our nature of sin!? Do you not also recognize that sin and falleness is not inherent to the human nature!? Was manking created fallen and sinful? Is christ in his ascended humanity fallen and sinful? How then can we say humanity of necessity is sinful? On the contrary it is a quality that is peculiar to those whom have fallen and it is an addition which is foreign to humanity even though its application is universal to all but the son of God. Christ assumed flesh, but he did not assume our sin nature. And since a nature of sin is not inherent to created humanity and only to fallen humanity Christ is able to truely be said to be fully human and yet sinless! Did not all the scriptures point to this? If not what then is the reason for a lamb without blemish? Is the blood of Lambs truely different to God or rather was it pointing forward to the sinlessness of Christ! I beg you to see that all the scriptures that you can possibly point to about the universal plight of fallen sinners is not about what it is inherent to humanity, but rather what they have universally fallen into. Therefore when christ deemed to take upon himself the nature of humanity, he did not also need to take upon himself the stain of sin! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
36 | Did John really baptise Jesus?? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223535 | ||
Lightedsteps, Your mistake is basically at two points. 1.) You think sin nature is required to be tempted. As our brother Tim has pointed out this is not the case, as Adam and Eve should clearly show us. 2.) You missunderstand what sin nature implies and therefore don't realise what you are saying. Having a sin nature doesn't mean that we can be tempted, it means that we are so depraved that we will unfailingly yet freely embrace sin and rebellion against God. This Christ did not have in Him. As Doc so often reminds us, scripture teaches our actions flow from what we are, not the other way around. We sin because that is our nature, Christ did not sin because His nature is righteousness. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
37 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223565 | ||
Integrity, I would be very careful with trying to see beyond what scripture reveals. Our goal is to understand what scripture does say, not speculate on what it does not. 1Ti 1:4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. If there is one thing which scripture has said a great deal about, it is Jesus Christ. Try to understand what it is saying rather than to figure out things unsaid. Scripture consistently speaks of Christ's death on the cross as sacrifice for our sins. Read Isaiah 53. These things he underwent for us. And God the father did see it as a payment for our sins. These are things that scripture says clearly, and so with humility we believe the word of God without searching for an alternate answer. I do not know what you are about to suggest, or what you suggesting Christ suffered a spiritual death even means in your mind. But take caution, such reasonings of men born from not being content with the answers of scripture is fertile ground for birthing heresies. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
38 | Did John really baptise Jesus?? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223568 | ||
Lightedsteps, There is so much I want to say, but let me just this time simply try to reduce it to bare logic to show that what you are saying doesn't work. 1. Sin nature (whatever it is) Came as a result of something Adam did. 2. If it came as a result of something he did, then he, and as an extension, humanity existed prior to sin nature. 3. If Humanity existed prior to sin nature, then it must be possible to be both fully human and without a sin nature. Otherwise Adam wasn't human until he sinned, and nobody believes that. (as an aside: I do not mean that it is possible for you and I right now at this time. But I simply mean to show that at some time or place Human Nature does not equal Sin nature.) 4. If it is possible to be fully human and yet without a sin nature, then it is possible for Jesus Christ to be fully human without a sin nature. 5. If it is possible for Jesus Christ to be fully human yet without a sin nature, then all your arguements of how he MUST have had a sin nature merely because he was human are therefore invalid. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
39 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223585 | ||
Integrity, You said that there is plenty of scripture to back up what you are suggesting. I encourage you to provide that scripture. Where does it say that Christ was seperated from the Father? I do not think that "why have you forsaken me?" implies that neccesarily. Where does scripture indicate that a spiritual death is a better sacrifice? Where does Jesus say that a spiritual death was worse unless you refer to the passage that says fear not those who can take your life but Him who after taking your life can cast you into hell? If that is the case, and you are calling being thrown into hell spiritual death, then we have a much more clear definition of what you are saying. If you mean to say spiritual death is not that, then that passage doesn't support you. However, you've yet to say anything of serious error yet, but let me share what is concerning me about your thinking. If you stray into error on this, your error is going to be concerning the sufficiency of Christ's attonement. That would be a very very serious error indeed. This is why I am nervous with somebody who is reasoning that the physical suffering, death, and ressurection of Jesus alone doesn't seem to be enough. Now certainly there were spiritual implications of Christ's death. His death was an outpouring of God's wrath in a way that a typical martyr's death, for example, is not. However, it is hard for us to say anything beyond that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
40 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223588 | ||
Integrity, I didn't make any judgment regarding your salvation. I think my post was very restrained in the sense of making any statement of that kind. You are making a leap of logic that doesn't work. You are saying... 1. Jesus said going to hell is worse than dying. 2. Therefore seperation from God is worse than dying. 3. Therefore the real sacrifice was seperation from God. These things don't follow. If you are suggesting the true horror that Christ had to endure was going to hell for three days, then say that. If you are saying it was some other type of seperation from God other than going to hell, then that verse does not support your assertion. Second. Christ did say, "My God, my God, why have you foraken me?" That is a fact. To say that that phrase means that He and God the Father were somehow seperated is an inference. The text doesn't actually SAY that, you are inferring it from what was said. Now and inference may be correct, but we need to admit that it is what we are inferring from the text. Could it not however mean something else? If David were in a battle and was utterly defeated and cried out that exact same phrase, could he not be referring to the fact that God handed him over to defeat? The term "forsaking" need not be given some mystical meaning beyond our understanding. I hold that when Christ said those words that He meant to convey the concept of the entire Psalm which He was quoting. In Psalm 22 it describes the crucifiction event in great detail but ends in a proclamation of triumph. I think this is what Christ meant to convey. It makes far more sense than to say from this single phrase that somehow God the Father and God the Son became seperated in some mystical way. We can't even begin to understand such a suggestion or what the implications would be. So currently for your view you have an inference from a statement Christ made on the cross, and that Christ said that hell is worse than death. This is hardly a case which would give ground to make such a drastic statement that the physical death burial and ressurection of Jesus was not sufficient in and of itself. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [26] >> |