Results 21 - 40 of 402
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reighnskye Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | scriptural veracity? | John 1:14 | Reighnskye | 135747 | ||
Doc, Thank you. :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
22 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135746 | ||
Hank, This may seem like an overly simple request here, but please define "exegesis". Often when I hear this word, it seems like some default method of interpreting scripture after the method of "sola scriptura", that may not necessarily involve the slightest interaction with the Holy Spirit. There are perhaps some who, in their belief that the Holy Spirit no longer writes scripture today, also feel that the Holy Spirit no longer interprets scripture for us either. Miracles and direct revelation have passed, as they say. One could possibly say, for example, that this particular pastor in your story needed a bit more of the Holy Spirit than exegesis, when interpreting the scripture. It seems that any unsaved individual can use man-made methods of exegesis, and therefore arrive at very naturalistic results. The scriptures may be merely intellectually interpreted, without any spiritual inspiration from above. What we then often lack as a result is a spiritual understanding and application. 1 Corinthians 2 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (NAS95) - One may even infer that the Pharisees themselves were the best exegeticists. The problem, however, is that even the finest exegeticism becomes well nigh worthless, without the direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. And the result of these darkened and naturalistic exegetical interpretations is evidenced in the lack of spirituality conveyed. 1 John 2 26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. 27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. (NAS95) - We can pay any unsaved seminary scholar to teach us exegesis, and to give us exegetical interpretations. In fact, we can even perform exegesis on any secularly-derived text, with no reference to the bible. But what does that prove? I suggest that naturalistic methods of exegesis are not nearly enough, when it comes to spiritual discernment of the scriptures. Indeed, it falls far short. - Luke 24 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, (NAS95) Luke 24 32 They said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?" (NAS95) Acts 8 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot." 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31 And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: "HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER; AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT, SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH. 33 "IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY; WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION? FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH." 34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, "Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?" 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
23 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135740 | ||
Colin, Thanks for your response. Actually, I'd like to hear him answer your question too, insofar as he was attempting to respond to my original question at the beginning of this thread. I appreciate your question, due to it's brevity and conciseness. It's a simple yet practical question. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
24 | scriptural veracity? | John 1:14 | Reighnskye | 135739 | ||
Doc, You stated: "Look back at more than the last fifty of my posts. This is well trodden ground." - Except for the fact that you're speaking with others now. I have no desire to read through your last 800 posts to ascertain the basis of your stance. Also, newer persons may enter into the forum at times (as I have), who have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, without your scriptural basis. A key word is accomodation. And it would fulfill the policy guidelines for the forum as well to include scripture, as opposed to witty comments of debate. I am not here to discuss the veracity of your doctrines, but I am rather here to discuss the scriptures themselves. We have a big difference in our focus, it would seem. I recall that when I had first entered into this forum, you had used a fair amount of scripture, true. You have since declined from this, it seems. Not a good direction. If you are going to make a case for law, perhaps it's a good idea to adhere to basic forum guidelines to start. Use scripture when you present something, and don't just rely on your posts from last month. Again, if you do not wish to discuss the scriptures with me in this forum, then please do not address me here. I had noticed your disclaimer in your profile that you like to pontificate. I have no desire to do this with you. Please adhere to the forum guidelines and use a bit more scripture with your posts. Thank you. - Heb 13:22 But I urge you, brethren, bear with this word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
25 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135719 | ||
Colin, You stated: "how is God's greatest attribute not love, but holiness?" Exactly. Sounds quite a bit like personal conjecture. - 1 John 4 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. 19 We love, because He first loved us. 20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
26 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135718 | ||
Doc, You stated: "I've advised you before, and will continue to do so: You need to familiarize yourself with antinomianism. That is the theological position you are taking, although you haven't yet articulated its strongest arguments." Are you suggesting that I am a heretic? That is what the term antinomian asserts. I'm sorry if your religious schooling maybe taught you to categorize people, who believe differently from yourself, into small concise boxes. I don't believe that such befits such an intelligent person as yourself, however. Here is the definition of antinomianism. This belief system is not consistent with my own. Please don't project. - "Antinomianism in Christian theology is a pejorative term for a heresy that teaches that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation. It comes from the Greek word nomos, which means law. No Christian or pseudo-Christian group calls itself "antinomian," though some Christian groups level this charge against others. Often those accused of being antinomian level the counter-charge of legalism against their accusers. The controversy arises out of the Christian doctrine of grace, the forgiveness of sins and atonement by faith in Jesus Christ. If God forgives sins, what exactly is the disadvantage in sinning, or the reward of obedience? St. Paul of Tarsus, in his Epistles, mentions several times that we are saved by the unearned grace of God, not by our own good works, "lest anyone should boast." Paul also said that Christ set us free from the Law of Moses, the Torah. He invariably goes on to say that sins remain sins, and condemns by several examples the kind of behaviour that the church should not tolerate. St. James, by contrast, states that our good works are in fact necessary for salvation. There are several issues that are addressed by the charge of antinomianism. The charge may represent the fear that a given theological position does not lead to the edification of the believer or assist him in leading a regenerate life. Doctrines that tend to erode the authority of the church and its right to prescribe religious practices for the faithful are often condemned as antinomian. The charge is also brought against those whose teachings are perceived as hostile to government and established authority. The first people accused of antinomianism were found, apparently, in Gnosticism; various aberrant and licentious acts were ascribed to these by their orthodox enemies; we have few independent records of their actual teachings. In the Book of Revelation 2:6-15, the New Testament speaks of Nicolaitans, who are traditionally identified with a Gnostic sect, in terms that suggest the charge of antinomianism might be appropriate. Roman Catholicism tends to charge Protestantism with antinomianism, based in part on the distinctively Protestant doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone, and the typical Protestant rejection of the elaborate sacramental liturgy of the Roman church, and its body of canon law. Within Roman Catholicism itself, Blaise Pascal accused the Jesuits of antinomianism in his Lettres provinciales, charging that Jesuit casuistry undermined moral principles. Charges of antinomianism have also been bandied about within the Protestant camp as well; Martin Luther accused Johannes Agricola of antinomianism and rejecting the notion of a moral law; other Protestant groups that have been so accused include the Anabaptists and Mennonites. Calvinistss have also drawn charges of antinomianism. In the history of American Puritanism, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of New England. Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. The conspicuous austerity of life among surviving groups of Anabaptists or Calvinists suggests that these accusations are mostly for rhetorical effect. - Fact-index.com financially supports the Wikimedia Foundation. Displaying this page does not burden Wikipedia hardware resources. This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." |
||||||
27 | Over-spiritualized interpretations? | Proverbs | Reighnskye | 135716 | ||
Searcher, Thanks. No more questions for me. I don't wish to further offend. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
28 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135714 | ||
Searcher, Agreed. :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
29 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135712 | ||
Doc, Well, thank you for expounding this time at least. I hope you're not just attempting to amass a large quantity of posts with your overly brief answers. Some people here are focused on actual discussion. And I'm not aware that you've ever mentioned antinomianism to me before. Are you suggesting that I am secretly an antinomianist? Why don't you enlighten me? But please do so with a bit of scripture this time, if you would. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
30 | supernatural realities within symbolism | Luke 16:23 | Reighnskye | 135710 | ||
Tim, Fully agreed. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
31 | scriptural veracity? | John 1:14 | Reighnskye | 135709 | ||
Kalos, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" Matthew 11:15 (NKJV) Thank you. You are very clear. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
32 | scriptural veracity? | John 1:14 | Reighnskye | 135708 | ||
Doc, I don't mean to be entirely rude here, but I did a recent quickscan through about fifty of your most recent posts, and I think ten percent even attempt to utilize any scriptures. I'd prefer that you would not be so quick to reply to my posts, if you do not intend to discuss scripture. I feel that we are no more than philosophizing. And I have absolutely no desire to do that. if we're just going to exchange witty comebacks, I have absolutely no desire to discuss these issues with you. Again, not to be rude. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
33 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135707 | ||
Hank, I will cease posting questions if they are an annoyance to yourself or others here. Fair enough? I hope you will not be offended if I reserve myself to posting notes only. If my notes also prove to be an annoyance, please let me know. Please be aware that the forum guidelines are very generalized, and therefore I am not certain how to interpret them. I only seem to find out after the fact that someone was offended. Again, I will cease entirely from posting any and all questions from this time forward. Thanks. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
34 | How literal is the Bible? | Not Specified | Reighnskye | 135690 | ||
Intrinsic perhaps with the belief of a literal millennial reign of Christ would also be the idea of a literal physical and bodily return of Christ to this earth. Similar also to Christ's literal resurrection of the dead. (As opposed to symbolical). Indeed, the first three chapters of the book of Genesis are very similar in writing style to the book of revelation. This similarity stands out with the depictions in each book (Genesis and Revelation) of a Tree of Life that was once in the Garden of Eden and then resurfaces in the New Jerusalem, which descends from heaven to earth. I might ask what exactly in the bible should we take literally versus symbolically? The millennial reign of Christ? The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden or the heavenly New Jerusalem? The miracle healings of Christ and the bodily resurrections that He performed on others? The physical bodily resurrection of Christ Himself? The ascension into heaven and therefore bodily return of Christ? I suggest that each of these things are intricately interrelated. But are they physically literal or merely symbolic? I suppose if we had the power to make our dreams into physical realities with mere thought, like immortals probably do, we could manifest many of these things ourselves. But alas, we are mortals and will likely remain so, as the majority of our fallen species ever has. What do we know of such wonders, but what we read? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
35 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135691 | ||
Intrinsic perhaps with the belief of a literal millennial reign of Christ would also be the idea of a literal physical and bodily return of Christ to this earth. Similar also to Christ's literal resurrection of the dead. (As opposed to symbolical). Indeed, the first three chapters of the book of Genesis are very similar in writing style to the book of revelation. This similarity stands out with the depictions in each book (Genesis and Revelation) of a Tree of Life that was once in the Garden of Eden and then resurfaces in the New Jerusalem, which descends from heaven to earth. I might ask what exactly in the bible should we take literally versus symbolically? The millennial reign of Christ? The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden or the heavenly New Jerusalem? The miracle healings of Christ and the bodily resurrections that He performed on others? The physical bodily resurrection of Christ Himself? The ascension into heaven and therefore bodily return of Christ? I suggest that each of these things are intricately interrelated. But are they physically literal or merely symbolic? I suppose if we had the power to make our dreams into physical realities with mere thought, like immortals probably do, we could manifest many of these things ourselves. But alas, we are mortals and will likely remain so, as the majority of our fallen species ever has. What do we know of such wonders, but what we read? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
36 | supernatural realities within symbolism | Luke 16:23 | Reighnskye | 135689 | ||
I find that often when the text does not lend itself to clear identification on what is literal and what is symbolic, that often both may be somewhat true for any particular verse. Much of the symbolism in the bible (such as the parable of the rich man and the poor man) I will actually tend to view moreso as supernatural realites versus mere symbolism, whether they be physical or not. Hence, I do not personally think so much in terms of literal versus symbolic when I might read any particular verse. Rather, I may think in terms of physical realities and/or supernatural realities. This basically means that most everything, in the book of Revelation, I would consider to be supernatural realities. In other words, that these are literal events that have occurred and/or will yet occur in the supernatural realm of spirits. And many of them being current supernatural realites, they also have a potential to manifest themselves physically to some degree or another in our literal future. Although we do not necessarily see dragons, beasts, angels and frog-like demons in our literal physical reality, this does not mean that they do not exist in a more supernatural dimension of spirits. ---- "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.' (Luke 16:23-26 NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
37 | supernatural realities within symbolism | Luke 16:23 | Reighnskye | 135688 | ||
I would greatly reinforce the idea that much of the symbolism presented in the scripture may actually be merely a veil for greater supernatural realities. Various of these supernatural realities may also have physical manifestations and some not. Further, the physical manifestations (of these supernatural realities) may have occured in the past or may yet occur in the future. Hence, the supernatural manifestations of miracle workers documented in the scripture likely occurred in the past, whilst the eschatological manifestations may likely yet occur in the future. I've never myself seen a person resurrected from the dead (as Lazarus was), nor have I ascended directly into the heavens before the throne of God (as Isaiah did). But who am I to say that these things don't exist? And I am much more prone to accept the testimonies of miracle workers that have walked the earth as opposed to a score of common-day theologians. ---- "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.' (Luke 16:23-26 NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
38 | Over-spiritualized interpretations? | Not Specified | Reighnskye | 135687 | ||
How might one assess what is over-spiritualization of the scriptures? My proposal is that we as mortals are not spiritual enough in our biblical interpretations. I would be greatly hesitant to reduce the greater spirituality of scripture down to a basis of mere speculation. Indeed, the Bible offers us a plethora of earthly applications for our personal lives. But the moment that we may potentially separate these earthly applications from an enlightened spiritual vision, such applications therefore tend to revert to empty and vain religiosity. Even as any supposed spirituality, in the absence of earthly application, will only be revealed to be a psuedo-spirituality in the end. I would be very careful here to differentiate between spirituality and speculation, as the two are commonly mistaken for each the other. Speculation has it's place, but ideally under the greater context of direct spiritual revelation. As far as authority goes when rendering biblical interpretations, I am aware of no other source than the Holy Spirit. Even many of the later church fathers and theologians (after the apostles died out) were not fully adequate in my view to interpret the scriptures for us. Their own doctrinal schisms against one another seems to confirm this to me. Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
39 | Over-spiritualized interpretations? | Proverbs | Reighnskye | 135699 | ||
How might one assess what is over-spiritualization of the scriptures? My proposal is that we as mortals are not spiritual enough in our biblical interpretations. I would be greatly hesitant to reduce the greater spirituality of scripture down to a basis of mere speculation. Indeed, the Bible offers us a plethora of earthly applications for our personal lives. But the moment that we may potentially separate these earthly applications from an enlightened spiritual vision, such applications therefore tend to revert to empty and vain religiosity. Even as any supposed spirituality, in the absence of earthly application, will only be revealed to be a psuedo-spirituality in the end. I would be very careful here to differentiate between spirituality and speculation, as the two are commonly mistaken for each the other. Speculation has it's place, but ideally under the greater context of direct spiritual revelation. As far as authority goes when rendering biblical interpretations, I am aware of no other source than the Holy Spirit. Even many of the later church fathers and theologians (after the apostles died out) were not fully adequate in my view to interpret the scriptures for us. Their own doctrinal schisms against one another seems to confirm this to me. Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
40 | scriptural veracity? | John 1:14 | Reighnskye | 135686 | ||
Here are some excerpts from THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY with my own inquisitive interjections regarding these portions. In other words, I would like to learn more on the subject. - "Article I We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source." I personally surmise that the authority of the ancient Church plays a vital authoritative role here, as slightly similar to the Catholic doctrines, although I do not place that same faith in the authority of our modern day church. I surmise that God is higher than the original authors of scripture and that the original authors of scripture are higher than the scriptures themselves. - "Article IV We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration." I surmise that human languages such as hebrew/greek, english/spanish are imperfect in their conveyance of divine revelation, and therefore fail to innerantly express the totality of divine truth. However, in contrast, I also surmise that the original revelations imparted to the authors of scripture originate from the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit witnesses the truth through the written scriptures, notwithstanding the imperfections of the languages which compose the written texts. The Holy Spirit conveys spiritual witness of the gospel directly to our human spirit, and not through the vehicle of the psyche via written texts. However, the written texts are vital to quicken our mortal psyches to a conscious awareness of doctrines. - "Article V We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings." I surmise that, although this article denies the current existence of inerrant scripture outside of the bible, that it does not however deny the potential for new divine scriptures to be written in the future at some point, in accord with the view of progressive revelation. - Would my personal surmising on these particular matters be accurate or inaccurate? ---- And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 NAS95) - Reighnskye |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [21] >> |