Results 21 - 40 of 84
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Suede67 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115239 | ||
Colin, ""Suede, have you read the bible?"" A fair question. I have. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
22 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115238 | ||
Kalos, """What did Jesus and the NT writers quote -- the NT or the OT? I am more concerned with what Jesus and the NT writers quoted than with what is quoted more.""" Strawman arguement/holier than thou attitude. Are we really to believe that you are more concerned with what King Soloman said than Jesus? Come on. Why didn't Jesus quote the NT? Because it was about him and events after he ascended? """'The law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability. "All Scripture is … useful" (2 Tim 3:16-17), including Old Testament laws. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20).""" The second statement refutes the first. Besides, Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Also, Paul quoting and/or referring to the Law is of no surprise, nor does it place any precident or authority in it. Paul after conversion pushed salvation by grace and justification by faith, not by the law. Paul was a Jew. He was a Jewish thinker. Not only that, Paul was a Pharisee and many believe he was a Shammaite Phariesee, which means he was a Phariesee's Pharisee. He is drawing on information that he grew up with and studied, he's incorporating that information in his teachings. Look at what you wrote, "Paul derives a principle" "originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference"; "derived from a law"; "Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction." We can see that we aren't exactly under the law here. This to me doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We can see that we aren't under the law as in the day of the OT. I understand the broad picture being painted here, don't get me wrong, but I also see the details. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
23 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115234 | ||
Ischus, """I do not deny that the bible contains history, but when it does, the point that the authors make is the way in which God works in history- the bible is not objective history (nor is any history, for that matter)- it is a theological interpretation of events that show God's divine work.""" You and I agree on this. But, let's say that the NT is more objective. """Each section of the OT demonstrates God's desire for a relationship with his people in spite of their failures; each book shows God's love, mercy, faithfulness, justice, holiness, grace, and his universal love for all people, including gentiles and pagans.""" Right. And the NT is the objective proof of that, John 3:16. Do you see what I mean? """These are not historical- they are Gospel! I am sorry to hear that you do not see the OT in this way.""" Well, historical none the less. I don't doubt the broad themes of the OT, of course the NT has those too. But I my point is that the NT IS the fruition of the OT. Things that were valid in the OT, the Law, aren't any longer. We as Christians don't go through laborious classes on the written law, why not? Because Christ was the fulfillment and freedom of the law. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
24 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115233 | ||
Kalos, ""Suede, I am not against you. What I write is not intended as a personal attack.""" Understood, you and I disagree, but we can still act civil about it all. """Anyone who says that they "don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT" is in need of eye salve, "that you may see" (Revelation 3:18).""" How so? Did not Christ fulfill the things of the OT? """To say that the OT, the Word of God, is legalistic is absurd. To say that the Law is legalistic is to display a lack of knowledge and understanding of both the Law and legalism (two different things). Legalism is not obeying the written Law of God; it is the attempt to keep man-made rules and regulations, man-made interpretations of the Law. Jesus illustrated the difference in the Sermon on the Mount.""" Well, that's certianly one man's take on it all, I of course disagree with your take of Legalism and the Law and see it as a bit of semantics. The OT is legalistic in that it does in fact have written laws. And where there are written laws, there will be interpretations of them. Jesus and the Apostles did this; Christians still do this. """According to Paul, "All Scripture...is profitable for doctrine." To claim that the OT is NOT profitable for doctrine is to claim that it is not inspired Scripture."" Let me correct the above. The NT supercedes the OT. Also, saying that the OT is no longer valid in no way indicates that it is not inspired. That's a bad conclusion on your part. We can still draw things from the OT, but I don't put it on par with the NT. The bulk of the prophecies in the OT which make up the later half point to Jesus who fulfilled them. The first half of the OT is mainly historical and has little to do with doctrine aside from more generalized things like, God is faithful. All in all, Christians do need to know both the OT and the NT. That's my two cents, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
25 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115168 | ||
Hi Ischus, ""If you mean that the OT is more historical than theological I would disagree. None of the Old Testament is primarily meant to be history."" Well, this is where you and I differ then. I don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT. The overall message is that God is faithful, but a lot of the doctrine in the OT is the Law, legalistic in nature. But, we aren't under that, so I fail to see where the doctrine of the OT has much bearing on the present. The OT is in fact a lot of history, starting with Genesis and easily going to Psalms. Even then, books such as Daniel contain bits of history. One only need ask, what is quoted more or turned to more for guidance, the NT or the OT? Well, the NT of course, especially if we remove Psalms and Proverbs from the picture. I personally think statements such as "who God is, who his people are, how they are saved" are way too generalized. But, I agree that we shouldn't ignore the OT. That's my thoughts, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
26 | Is it sin to smoke a cigarette? | Is 44:1 | Suede67 | 114296 | ||
Rowdy, Thanks for your generosity, but I guess you and I know there will never be a last word on this or many other issues. However, for our topic the last word is that no smoking is not a sin. Thanks, take care, may God bless, SUEDE |
||||||
27 | Is it sin to smoke a cigarette? | Is 44:1 | Suede67 | 114261 | ||
Hey Rowdy, Sorry about all the confusion, Greatfullydead seemed to be the start of the post, I didn't mean to link to you, but no harm no foul. I still maintain that smoking is not a sin, fornication is the only clearly defined sin against the body. I'm very, very strongly against the use and abuse of legalism. I think it is incorrect to list smoking as a sin, but agree that we should not smoke purely for our own health reasons. Listing undefined things as sins too often leads to madness and a breakdown of Christendom. That's my take anyways, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
28 | Is it sin to smoke a cigarette? | Is 44:1 | Suede67 | 114112 | ||
GreatfullyDead I see Paul’s statement to the Corinthians as more specific, noting that he says “All OTHER sins man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” We should note that adulterery is one of the 10 Commandments. I therefore think it is incorrect to use the “body as a temple defense”. Really, we have to ask ourselves, where does it end? Ok smoking is bad, what else? Well, alcohol is bad, so that too must be a sin. Caffeine alters your ‘temple’; therefore it is a sin too. In fact, all drugs alter your body, so we should let our child die instead of taking medication. Do you see the snowballing that legalism gets into? “”If you'll check with any reformed ex-smoker or ex-drug user, they'll all tell you the same thing. That "stuff" in the human body becomes a monster, controlling your every waking moment.”” Yes, I know. Not only am I an ex smoker, I’m also an ex drug user. But, I didn’t use the body as a temple statement. That carries way too many legalistic aspects as noted above. “”Please, I would beg you, DON'T give encouragement to anyone who is hooked on this junk and let him think God won't hold them accountable. We need to help educate people like this and love their souls enough to tell them the truth. I do hope you'll reconsider. There are far more damaging, long term effects than just the image you mentioned. God bless you in your study.”” Don’t get me wrong now. I certainly don’t give encouragement to anyone. In fact, I know that I can use my own testimony to help out others. I’ve been there with the smoking, I’ve been there with the drugs; I know. You should not do this, make no mistake. However we need to be careful what we condemn as a sin, we must avoid the Holier than thou mode of thinking. Cults do that, not Christians. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
29 | The law cannot be altogether invalid... | Matt 5:19 | Suede67 | 114107 | ||
Kalos, Excellent quotes!!! Take care, ADD |
||||||
30 | The law cannot be altogether invalid... | Matt 5:19 | Suede67 | 114077 | ||
Hey Kalos, This is an interesting topic, one that’s quite valid, and actually one that’s not that difficult to answer in my opinion. Allow me to throw out another way of looking at this. As far as “End Times” go, I’m a Preterist; that is I believe all “End Times” events including the Second Coming have already happened. Though this might sound odd, hear me out as you yourself weren’t that far off from it with this statement. “Obviously civil laws applied to the people of Israel when they were in the land of Israel, from the time of Moses until 70 A.D.” You’re right in noting that in 70 AD, civil laws ended. But why? Well, because that was the consummation of the Ages, that was when the fulfillment of prophecy happened. You are also very correct to divide up civil and moral laws as you did in this manner, “Does the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments still apply? All but one of them are repeated in the New Testament. Jesus places much emphasis on them. Paul in his writings speaks of them, as does James in his. If they did not apply today, then we would be "free" to commit adultery, lie, steal, murder, etc. Without the Law people would be either in idolatry or doing things that harm others.” Well said. Moral laws exist, but the written laws do not. God ALWAYS intended for mankind to be quite free, and in Christ, we are. Legalism nowadays is quite man made, and VERY man motivated. It’s the number one red flag of a wrong faith. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
31 | What would this sound like? | Daniel | Suede67 | 114074 | ||
Hey CDBJ, Well, sounding like is certainly up for 'artistic' interpretation. However, I believe that this is just a poetic way of speaking, metaphorically that is, and is not literal in meaning. Look at the surrounding verses. You have eyes like flames of fire, or feet as bright as bronze. Look at Daniel's account of the Son of Man as well. So personally I think it's just a metaphor. The Greek here is often meant as rivers or fountains, however it can literally just mean water and is used in such a manner. If you are looking for more of what a literal sound might be like, check out Revelation 14:2 "And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps." Here we have a heavenly voice that's like the sound of many waters, and thunder and harps. So, that might help to get a literal audio idea. Now, an interesting "alternate" way of looking at this is that 'waters' sometimes refers to groups of people. Check out Revelation 17:15 "And he said to me, "The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues." This might be a bit of a stretch as 17:15 is focusing on a specific body of 'water', but it is a possibility. Hope this helps, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
32 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107404 | ||
8788, This is true, no man knew the day or hour. Preterism is consistent in this fact; it doesn’t claim to know the exact day or hour. At best we know it was around 70 AD, but as far as specifics, Jesus was right, we don’t know, for it was like a thief in the night. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
33 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107403 | ||
Part II cont’d ””””””””3) And -- if what you say is true -- what do we have to look forward to? Actually think about that in terms of Futurism. What is that Futurism has us looking forward to? Pretty awful stuff. We live in the Age that the OT saints truly desired. "For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” Matt. 13:17 The OT saints knew that the Messiah would come and redeem them, free them. We now days have forgotten that. The Messiah was set to do all things, Jesus stated this many times, that he was to fulfill ALL things, not just some. The OT saints, and the NT saints did not separate ALL things by thousands of years. They knew that once the Messiah showed up that all things would be fulfilled. “Not for (Abraham's) sake only was it written, that (faith) was reckoned to him as (righteousness), but for our sake also, to whom it is about to be reckoned.” (Rom. 4:23-24) See people think that Jesus was born at the beginning of an Age, he wasn’t; he was born at the END of the Age. ” Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” (I Cor. 10:11) We are truly free and we are to spread that message, the Good News. We are to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth, we are God’s children, there’s still plenty to do! Well, that’s just the tip of the iceberg, but I’m glad you asked about them. I hope I answered your questions, even if just on a very basic level. If you are interested in this I do hope you will study more, here’s some websites I recommend you look into Preteristplanet - includes forums where you can ask questions until you’re blue! Preteristarchive - perhaps the most comprehensive Preterist site on the web. Preterist.org - simple and thought provoking. And lastly I also recommend you study the Bible with a Literal translation such as Young’s or Green’s. Sadly, NASB and even NKJV touted as great literal translations still fall short. Too often Preterism is misunderstood because of passages that are ‘theologically’ translated instead of literally translated. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
34 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107402 | ||
Hi Just Read Mark, Thanks for asking, I’ll answer you in parts. This is going to be a bit long. “”””“Hi. It has always been clear to me that the NT writers EXPECTED Jesus to return very soon.” Yes you are correct. Not only that, but they expected him to return within their lifetimes. “””””I have just thought that they were mistaken (seeing through the glass darkly)” Looking through the mirror darkly indeed. As it’s already been noted, no one knew the exact day or hour of his return, but Christ did give them a 40 year time frame. If we notice in the Gospels Christ states that “THIS generation shall not pass”, meaning that one, that specific generation in the 1st century was the so called terminal generation, and that two a generation as the Hebrews knew it was 40 years. ‘’’’’’’’I have never heard of your interpretation before. You are saying that Christ already did return? This makes my mind reel with questions:’’’’’’ It’s been around since Christendom, but Futurism is obviously far more popular. However, people are finally focusing on Eschatology or “End Times” issues now and noticing a LOT of problems with Futurism. Preterism is fortunately rapidly spreading through Christendom. ’’’’’’’’1) Why wouldn't the NT writers have mentioned something about that? The canon wasn't set til later anyway.’’’’’’ Actually the NT is chock full of passages that mention it. Too often we get our mind locked into a certain way of thinking, we have ‘set our minds’ and therefore when we do things we do things with that sort of mind set. You most likely read the NT with Futurism as your mind set, so when you come across a passage, you interpret it with that Futurist thinking. Too often we expect things to happen in a certain way, and when they don’t happen that way we are either consciously or unconsciously ignorant of the event taking place. Such as, you probably think a European super leader will rise, perhaps Catholicism is the Great Harlot (it was actually Jerusalem), China will come across a dried up Euphrates river, and there will be some sort of an implant or tattoo where you can’t buy or sell goods. Sound familiar? I too had that same “mode” of thinking. But the more you sit down and let the Bible explain the Bible, instead of the 5 o’clock news, you realize that Futurism doesn’t make Biblical sense. I would highly recommend you, at least just once, read the NT with a ‘past fulfilled’ frame of mind, it will help. Check out some of these verses and you’ll understand what I mean. "But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." Luke 9:27 "THIS generation will not pass away until ALL these things take place." (Matt. 24:34) “THESE are days of vengeance, in order that ALL things which are written may be fulfilled.” (Lk. 21:22) “This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 'And it shall be in the last days…'” (Acts 2:16-17) “Not for [Abraham's] sake only was it written, that [faith] was reckoned to him [as righteousness], but for our sake also, to whom it is about to be reckoned.” (Rom. 4:23-24) “We shall not all fall sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.” (I Cor. 15:51-52) “The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.” (I Peter 4:7) ””””””””2) And why didn't anything change upon his return (for Revelation and Thessalonians would certainly cause us to expect radical change)? Things DID in fact change, however this is what I was referring to with “mindsets”. We get our mind stuck on something, and when it doesn’t happen that way, we often dismiss the actual happening because it wasn’t a ‘custom fit’. Going off what my mind frame used to be, I remember thinking that the ‘end’ would involve no more wicked people and basically a physical restoration of the earth. BUT, is this what the Bible says? No it isn’t. Sadly Futurism has taught this, but it doesn’t match up with the Bible. Things were very much changing in the 1st century, but they were on the Spiritual level, not the fleshy one. People put too much value in flesh, forgetting that God the Father is spirit. cont'd SUEDE |
||||||
35 | The second coming of Jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 96884 | ||
Not ignored, understood. But if you would like to share your understanding of it, I'll listen. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
36 | The second coming of Jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 96859 | ||
Hi Darcy, ….Why does it matter if a generation is 40 years?… Because that is the time frame that Christ said he would be back. Though we don’t know the day or the hour, we can ball park to around 70 AD. ….The olivet discourse does not say anything about a generation being 40 years it states that it WILL NOT PASS AWAY!…. It wouldn’t pass away UNTIL all these things have happened. All those things happened in the first century, and remember Christ was telling this to his disciples, these were things that THEY were to look for. ….My Generation hasn't passed away yet…. True, but Christ was speaking about the generation of the 1 st century. “I tell you the truth, THIS generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” Either they did, or Christ lied or erred. It’s quite simple. I know it’s different then the traditions you’ve been taught, but we must turn authority over to the Bible. The Bible states Christ will be back in 40 years. Tradition says “Whenever!” I personally go with the Bible. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
37 | The second coming of Jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 96675 | ||
Hi Darcy, ….For what you believe the 69 and 70th week has to be seperated. (32AD and 70AD lets see there are 38 years seperateing not 7) And yes the Bible does seperate the two. Read Danial 9 again…. Actually it doesn’t. Daniel was told things in a linear timeline, without gaps. He was told that they would be coming out of exile, the temple would be rebuilt, the Messiah would come, die, tribulation, and his return. This alone makes modern Talmudist Judaism invalid. Many Christians today are under Dispensationalism, which to work must fit a now 2,000 year gap between the Messiah and his second coming. The problem is, this isn’t Biblical. ... Most people on here are Christians waiting on that blessed hope... I know they are, and it’s unforunate that Premillennialism and Dispensationalism are still popular now. …Jews will be saved when they see Christ come back and see his pierced hands…. No. Jews will be saved when they believe. ….Zech 12:10 I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. Before you look at that verse and say hay look its another poem. Don't bother because I know that is what your going to say….. Actually that’s not what I was going to say. That event DID happen. This is one of quite a few prophecies about God pouring out his spirit on the people. This was fulfilled at the Day of Pentecost, read the beginning of Acts. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
38 | The second coming of Jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 96674 | ||
Hey Taleb, Thanks for writing me, and I appreciate your kind words and encouragement. Yes, you are correct, to the Jews, because of the OT, a generation DOES equal forty years. Dairy Leader was stating that what is a generation to God. Well, on that we don’t know. However, this isn’t a good angle if you’ll notice. Again, to paraphrase myself, you have the immortal talking to the mortal. Christ is telling his mortal disciples a timeline. Same in Revelation of course. Note, Christ tells John He is coming soon. Now remember, this again is an immortal telling a mortal, not the other way around! Thanks again, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
39 | The second coming of Jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 96347 | ||
Hey Dairy Leader, …Jesus and the Bible in general tells us in the end days that there will be false christ and false doctrine,… Yes absolutely! Preterism doesn’t deny these things. All those things happened in the first century. …what is a generation to God , its not stated in the scriptures… Doesn’t have to be. Jesus is talking to his mortal disciples at the Olivet Discourse. It is HE that is telling THEM that a generation wouldn’t pass til He came back. ….we cant pretend that revelations isnt for us,… It is, BUT not in the way you are thinking. You want it to be written specifically for you living now, as if John wrote it and put Don’t open til xyz number of years passes. This isn’t the case though. Revelation was written to people that were alive in the first century, actually, all the NT was! Imagine as if you are reading someone else’s mail. Yes it may speak to you, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t speak to the original audience. AND, it was probably more apt to the original audience. …if you gave all authority to the Bible, then you wouldnt try to alter it by false doctrine that you are telling these people…. I DO give full authority to the Bible, that’s why I’m a Preterist. …Revelation is for us, daniel,Isa, ezk, and all other books that prophecy of the rapture and the battle of Armageddon... For us to look back on and see how God did exactly what he said he would do. With the dating in Daniel, we KNOW Daniel wasn’t written for us. Daniel’s 70 “weeks” are one after the other, they are NOT separated at the 69th and 70th. That is an a false doctrine to say they are. It isn’t Biblical. ….We are supposed to use scripture from the Bible here to prove our positions, as far as Im concerned you haven’t… Well, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I do use the Bible. ...And I feel sorry for those who believe it are going to be disappointed when Jesus raptures the Church… I feel sorry for those who are going to be disappointed in an event that won’t ever happen again. …. I pray always for Israel, we are the wild branch,, grafted into the vine, not Isreal, they are Gods chosen people, we are adopted into the family of God Israel are Gods Children…. I pray for Jews too, but the modern nation of Israel is little more then a humanist state, that will continue to have problems till they recognize Jesus. Israel becoming a state means nothing. Saying Jews are saved by their flesh is a heresy. One is saved by Grace and only justified via faith, not flesh. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
40 | The second coming of Jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 96058 | ||
Radioman, Well, thanks for inquiring about them. Literally every time I talk with a nonPreterist, their attacks are based on misinformation. Sadly though, most will not inquire or discuss at any length with us. This is very, very, unfortunate. Allow me to add a touch of personal info to this. I was not raised a Preterist. Who is!?! I was a typical dispensational premillennialist. After studying for a few years, I realized, though popular, this theology was riddled with errors. I moved on to Amillennialism and Calvinism. I am still a Calvinist. Much better. However, in studying Amillennialism I came across a view I had never heard before, Preterism. At first glance I thought it was utterly absurd. This is actually why I tend to be extremely calm and patient with others, I still remember my first encounter with the “crazy” view! But, I knew that only Truth ultimately stands up. Soooo, I decided to run it through the wringer and be done with it once and for all and bad mouth it as complete lunacy. So I sat down and studied it. Then I panicked. I was having a hard time disproving it Biblically. Then I asked my scholarly friends about it. They couldn’t Biblically disprove it either. Then I started noticing “time indicators” in the Bible. And, it clicked! At that instant, the Bible made sense to me, ALL OF IT. There were no difficulties, no hard verses, no bending and twisting to explain. And so, I am a Preterist. However, I will say this. I am always, always, willing to hear people’s sides and opinions about it. And the exact moment it is Biblically disproven, is the exact same moment I stop being a Preterist! But, until then, I suggest people do the same. If you can not disprove it, perhaps you can’t because it’s CORRECT! I mean this jist is that Christ said he would be back in one generation. He said this around 30 AD. Within a generation, 40 years to the Jews, ALL the things he had listed at the Olivet discourse had come to pass. That’s really something. Oh well, take care, thanks for listening, please feel free to ask questions too, I will do my best to answer them! SUEDE Revelation 1:1 “The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show his servants what must SOON TAKE PLACE…” |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |