Results 301 - 320 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217133 | ||
John, I'd be very glad to. I'm off to work and may be delayed a couple days, but I've written on both so should be quick enough when I get back. MJH |
||||||
302 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217234 | ||
John, The following links attached to this note are my answer. I tired to keep them short and deleted a lot. I hope I didn't delete things needing to be explained, but the forum just isn't the best place to include excursions and footnotes and the like. I felt personally, that both of these questions were rather simple to answer, the hardest part being how to word the answer simply and clearly, something I don't think I accomplished all that well in this short time. Certainly these notes are not the end of the discussion, but rather an over arching answer to the question. I’d be more than happy to discuss specifics more in depth should you desire. MJH |
||||||
303 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217235 | ||
Just what does Paul mean by Peter's hypocrisy? Galatians 2:11-16 This answer will be succinct when in actuality an excurses on table fellowship in the first century would be helpful and a complete commentary on Galatians would be most helpful. Unfortunately, we are stuck with dealing with things on a piece by piece level. When Peter comes to Antioch, it is after his Acts 10 experience. He clearly knows that eating with Gentile believers is permitted and that Gentiles are included in the family of God through Faith and not through a proselyte conversion ritual. Paul and Peter have already discussed with those in Jerusalem that Paul would go to the Gentiles, not requiring them to go through the ritual of conversion, and Peter to the Jews. While in Antioch, Peter finds no problem with eating with Gentile believers as one would expect from Acts 10-11. However, when certain men come from James, Peter reverts back to his pre-Acts 10 days. While he most assuredly still held to the post Acts 10 understanding, he lived in front of the Gentiles the way he believed prior to Acts 10. He would not associate with Gentiles in the covenant act of eating together. His actions toward the Gentiles would be tantamount to saying, “You really are not FULL covenant members with us.” That is contrary to the very Gospel Paul preached. Peter treated the Gentile believers as if they were “sinners”, ie. not “in the group.” Since Peter was to go to the Jews, he probably felt that he was justified in drawing back in order to keep good company with those to whom he was sent. While it’s permissible in some areas of interpretation to say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” This clearly is not permissible when non-negotiable issues arise. When Paul states that he was a “Jew to the Jews … and to those without Law as without Law” 1 Cor 9:20-21. He is not saying that he became a hedonist, or a law-breaker to win those people. He became like them in-as-much-as he could while remaining true to the Law of Christ. Peter’s actions on the other hand violated the very essence of the Promise of God to bless the nations; the Good News. Even though Acts 10-11 convinced the Apostles that Gentiles were not to be considered as unclean but full members of the family of God through Faith, not all Jewish Believers in Jesus appreciated this or accepted it outright. Such deeply held convictions, as false as they may be, are not easily confronted; I can say this with experience ;-) When Paul tells Peter he, “Lived like a Gentile.” He is not saying that Peter abandoned any part of the Law as a Gentile pagan would, but rather that he ate with, lived among, and accepted the Gentile as an equal. Before the men from James arrived, Peter lived as though there were no distinctions between the Jew and Gentile (as far as the Gospel is concerned). They were one community. Now with the men from James, he lives as though there are two communities, and “never the twain shall meet.” MJH |
||||||
304 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217236 | ||
What does he mean by saying not to judge in regard to food or new moons or Sabbath days? Note 1 of 2 Colossians 2:16-17 When addressing this question, we should try to see the full view of Paul’s argument. Again, I am short on space, and a full commentary would be nice, but I believe the simple Text can be looked at to find the truth of what Paul is teaching. No need to bring in any historical context or first century theology to solidify. Of course, these may be helpful to buttress our case, but they are simply addendums. (Such as Gnostic teachings that emerge in the second century.) Some theological background which I bring to this Text of which I believe Paul also brings. The Law of God given at Sinai is His Law for all ages even before the creation of the world. God is not a man that He should change, nor a man that He should be unfaithful. While that Law of God is expressed differently in different situations, its Truth is indivisible and complete. Paul in Colossians is warning against falling into hollow philosophies based on traditions and teachings of men. That is his main point in this section. He most assuredly is not teaching against the true Law of God found in Scripture. I do believe that we see the seeds of Gnostic thought being confronted. Col 1:22, says, “…in His fleshly body…” Why use the double words to stress that his body was fleshly unless there were questions about this? Furthermore, Paul states in Col 2:2, “[I want you to have] the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Such a statement makes since when compared to Gnostic beliefs and teachings. Does this mean we must assume Gnosticism? No. Many historians believe it anachronistic to apply Gnostic teachings to Paul’s day, yet, it’s certainly something along those lines to which Paul is combating. It is clear, without disagreement that Paul is warning against hollow and deceptive philosophy. He is not teaching against any part of God’s Law. If he were, he could have stated such clearly, but instead we see him continually throughout this section referring to man made philosophy, hollow and deceptive wisdom, basic principles of this world destined to perish, and regulations that are against us. None of that sounds remotely close to God’s Law. Furthermore, several passages in Deut. and the rest of Scripture, make it clear that no one can remove or add to the Commandment of God. Paul couldn’t cancel anything if he desired to. Col 2:14 is speaking specifically of “dogma” which is never, not once, associated directly with God’s Law. Some nefarious translations actually put “Mosaic Law” in this verse, and I believe this to be of such great error to be deemed heretical in line with Marcion. (Do I put clear enough emphases on that?) (Extra Biblical sources have used the term “dogma” when referring to teaching related to God’s Law that opposing sectarians didn’t agree with, but not ever a direct reference to God’s Law.) The Col 2:14 is specifically teaching that the rules and teachings of this world’s kingdom are nailed to the cross. It is the teachings of this word’s kingdom; the kingdom of death and darkness that rules this world which is contrary to the Kingdom of life, and light, and God. Death is the ultimate end to which this world’s rules lead. Jesus “canceled out the certificate of debt.” When the resurrection of Jesus occurs, he makes a mockery of those very powers and authorities (vs. 15) by defeating death. It would be asinine to presume that Jesus’ death and resurrection made a mockery of God’s Law! Col. 2:16-17 is placed within this argument and deserves its own paragraph. Verse 18 should not be attached to this section. There are three options to understanding vs. 16 and 17. 1) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because you ARE NOT following these laws: food, new moons, festivals, and Sabbath. 2) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because you ARE following these laws: … 3) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because of THE WAY in which you are following these laws. If there are other options, please let me know. These are the only three I can think up. CONTINUTED |
||||||
305 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217237 | ||
Note 2 of 2 Col. 2:16-17 is placed within this argument and deserves its own paragraph. Verse 18 should not be attached to this section. There are three options to understanding vs. 16 and 17. 1) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because you ARE NOT following these laws: food, new moons, festivals, and Sabbath. 2) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because you ARE following these laws: … 3) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because of THE WAY in which you are following these laws. If there are other options, please let me know. These are the only three I can think up. The majority opinion is option 1. I can not conceive of how one arrives at this position as it is contrary to Scripture and does not fit the flow of the argument. Why would Paul spend such time demonstrating that the teachings and philosophies of this world based on human commands and false humility were defeated at the cross and then connect God’s Laws with those teachings. It’s a non sequitur. Further more, if Paul tells the church in Colosse to not let others (presumably Jewish bothers) judge them for not following the festivals because they are a “mere” shadow, then why does he in Acts 20:16 strive to arrive in Jerusalem to observe Passover, and why in 1 Corinthians 5:8 does he command the church to “keep the feast” of Passover? Option 2 may be attractive, but is unlikely as well. Of those within the community, it would be odd that some were following these commands of God and others were not. These commands listed, after all, were quite simple and non-offensive. While circumcision would be a major obstacle, even if it were not so connected with “works of the law”, these commands are rather assumed and easily implemented. Furthermore, to be judged because you WERE keeping some of God’s Laws is strange. Why would some in the church be accusative towards others for simply following God’s Laws even if they were deemed to be optional? Why would I accuse my parents for attending church twice on Sunday when clearly that is optional? I’d no more tell them they were wrong than to tell the members in Colosse that they should not follow God’s Laws. Option 3 is the most likely. After all we have ample evidence within Scripture that how one lives out these commands is a large inter-community debate. Imagine in your city all the different denominations. The chance of them agreeing enough to meet in one church is self-evident. They don’t now because of their differences. Now imagine members of these churches all being in one hostile location where there were so few that only one church could be formed. All of them in one body may agree to certain basics, but HOW to do it would be unique. When forced into a community like Colosse you don’t have a choice to divide into separate groups. Add to this that there are attacks both from outside and from within. You have people trying to spread obvious destructive false teachings. When we are fighting against these empty philosophies of men, are we going to waist our time judging one another on exactly how to observe good commands? “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by … how you observe.” If Paul meant to say, “Stop following the identity laws.” he could have said that clearly. Also, vs. 17 makes clear that these very things: food, festivals, new moon, and Sabbath, are shadows of Messiah. Earlier we see Paul stressing that Jesus had and has a genuine fleshly body. That body casts a shadow, and metaphorically these specific commands are a reflection of Him. They point to Him and help reveal Him. They certainly do not detract from him as if that would be possible. Therefore since we died with Christ, we have also died to those basic principles of THIS world. We ought not to have anything to do with those empty teachings which in reality are sin which lead to death. We died with Christ when we identified with him, and we therefore are no longer subject to the rules that lead to death. We are free to follow the Law of Righteousness as the Spirit, who writes the Torah on our heart, enables us. Since then (Col 3:1) you not only died with Christ by also have been raised to life with Christ, set your hearts on things above, not on earthly things. Death has been defeated and the sin that leads to death no longer has dominion over you. Finally, “He has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son.” Col. 1:13. Which Kingdom’s rules will we follow? MJH PS – Col 2 honestly doesn’t seem like an issue for me as much as it would be for you. I think it’s a strong argument for continuity just the way Paul wrote it. In truth, it should be you who tries to explain your views on this passage, something I’d like to read. |
||||||
306 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217238 | ||
You said, “he is referring to ‘those of the circumcision’” Actually this phrase is not in Colossians. The only mention of circumcision is in regards to being "cut off from your sinful nature." He continues his argument that we are cut off from the empty philosophy and basic principles of "this world." MJH |
||||||
307 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217245 | ||
Thanks for placing that in context. MJH |
||||||
308 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217246 | ||
I think the Text exlpains this as clear as needs be said without ambiguity. The only way to find confusion is when one needs to find things where none exist. MJH |
||||||
309 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217247 | ||
Holding to the view that God's Law, or any part of it, is in mind when Paul speaks of "nailing IT to the cross" is the most gross error in hermanutics imaginable. MJH |
||||||
310 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217257 | ||
John, You asked for an explanation of Peter's hypocrisy and so I delivered. Of course I know you won’t agree so if by your question you meant, "Tell me something that will convince." Then that I can not do. I can only explain what the Text meant to the original readers and therefore to us today. I did spend a good deal of time explaining Col. 2, and was a bit disappointed with the dismissive response. I say this because it truly does perplex me how the correct understanding can not be obvious to everyone who reads it. Even should you feel the way you do about “ceremonial” laws, there is no reason to force that into this Text and make it say God’s Law is nailed to the cross. I have in the past hesitated to say this, but I personally believe it is heretical to make Col. 2:14 claim to nail the Mosaic Law to the cross and to put any part of God’s Law in the same camp as hollow worldly wisdom. Some of my understandings of the specifics of Col. 2 may need adjustments, but this error in interpretation simply can not be over looked by the mainstream church. MJH -intended with all due respect. |
||||||
311 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217264 | ||
Thanks John, I do understand that you stand by the "moral law" which is found within the Mosaic Law. But you do say you believe the "ceremonial law" is "nailed to the cross" and that is also a part of the Mosaic Law. In that view, you are placing a "part" (though not all) of the Mosaic Law on the same grounds as philosophy "according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." This is my main problem with your view of Col 2:14. No part, not even one small command from God can be placed in the flow of Paul’s argument in-as-much-as nailing it to the cross. Let me try to explain more clearly. Let us assume that God said through Paul, “You are no longer bound by nor required to participate in the ceremonial laws such as food, festivals, Sabbath, new moons.” Now, I think such a statement would violate the very law spoken of (Deut. 12:32), but I realize you don’t share that understanding. So lets assume he does this…cuts out and removes certain commands found in the covenant. Okay, fine. We stop following those commands. But, (and this is my point), would God ever have His Spirit speak through Paul and say, “That part of the law is based on human tradition and empty philosophies of this world?” Would he ever declare that these parts of the law are “against you?” Or, the same as “the elemental spirits of this world?” May it never be! If I were you, and I once was in thought, I’d say Paul was speaking against empty teachings (whether from Jews or Greeks it makes not difference) which are opposed to God’s Law which is the Law of Christ. Stop looking to this world for “special knowledge and spiritual esoteric encounters.” Jesus lived in a fleshly body and died and rose again in a fleshly body. He put to death these empty principles and triumphed over them by the cross. Therefore, since you were called to live a special king of life within God’s Kingdom, stop judging one another on disputable matters. One follows the Sabbath and one does not. Live in unity and remain in Jesus, but by all means stay away from those empty teachings based on human dogma. Does that make since? That at least holds God’s teaching found in Deuteronomy with respect, while still providing an option that God’s Law can be divided up into parts, some we follow, and some we do not. Eagerly looking forward to your response. This is helping me think these passages out again in some more depth. MJH |
||||||
312 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217299 | ||
Tim, (quick note for now.) In regards to "a" I will return to answer. I've been meditating on this some more and have an idea that needs to be tested. Pluss I'm short on time. In regards to "b", Vs. 16-17 are not the same as vs. 14. Maybe an outline of Paul's flow in argument, as I understand it, would help. I'll put one together later when I have time. And "c". Eph 2:15 is a whole different connected discussion, but in short, I believe the "wall" spoken of is traditional laws taught that separated Gentiles and Jews from communion together (which is why Paul uses “dogma” again). These are not found in the actual Law of God. One can not find Gentiles removed from God's people because they are not physical Israel (Ruth is a perfect example.) The “ger [stranger] who sojourns with you” was not an Israelite but considered a full member and equally responsible towards the Law and had equal access to the Temple. Some have said the "wall" was the wall that Gentiles could not pass in the Temple, but the Greek word is different from that found in the Temple notice. I thought you did some research on "dogma" in the past and found one reference in a Jewish writing not included in the cannon, but maybe it was someone else or a different word? MJH I look forward to seeing what you come up with. |
||||||
313 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 213960 | ||
John, I have to admit that I am a bit stupefied as to why you would ask this question. I'm struggling to understand it. "our mobility for Earth to Heaven..."? "gates of Heaven will be closed..."? I am not sure what you’re really even asking. I'll still try to sum up, but forgive me if I am not answering what you are asking. Rev. 21 is a good place to start, although the teaching in Rev. 21 runs through the Bible. God's dwelling will be with mankind. If by Heaven you mean some place "up" in the sky, then no, people will not be there in the End Times (or the World to Come.) We were created to live on Earth (or if you will, a New Earth.) God comes down to dwell with us here. If by Heaven you mean the "holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God" (Rev 21:10) where "its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb." (Rev 21:22) Then yes, the gates of that city will be open to all who are "written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rev 21:27) But again, I am not sure if I am interpreting your question correctly. I know that many of the other religions and particularly the Greek religions of the 1st-3rd century believed that after death, peoples’ spirits would travel to the heavens with the gods, but they also didn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead. They did believed the body to be the jail house of the soul. Once the soul was released, it would never wish to be confined to the flesh again. That is contrary to everything in Scriptures which teaches a physical resurrection of the body and a reuniting of the body and soul. I know that many Christians adopt this sort of “pagan” view of living in heaven as an Angel or spirit for eternity, but that’s because they lack any good teaching. Plus pastors are always using phrases such as “living with God in heaven for eternity” which given the general publics understanding of what heaven is, a place out in space somewhere, it propagates a misunderstanding and even a false idea. We will not live in that idea of heaven for eternity. We will live in a physical body on a physical Earth. Gravity still holds us in place…no floating around with harps on clouds. I’m not trying to be condescending. I must be reading you wrong because based on your posts here; I would not expect a question like this from you. MJH |
||||||
314 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 213972 | ||
John, Well now this sounds much better. I didn't think we were as far apart on this as it seemed. Thanks for clarifying. I will stipulate that you may be correct. I do agree with you on the "many rooms" analogy although I'd put the "rooms" on Earth, if not in Jerusalem itself. Any differences we have would be rather minor in the end. The main reason I'm not going to pursue those right now is because I am time pressed. I just got a new book I need to devour. God bless and again, thanks for clarifying. MJH ps. I have a real love for astronomy, and I'd LOVE to visit many of God's marvelous creations out there some day...I'm hoping eternal life will give me that opportunity:-) |
||||||
315 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 214047 | ||
bill, I've read a good number of your posts, though not all, and I have to say that you are, I believe, following the rules of the forum. While I'm not going to agree with all of your conclusions, you've made your argument from scripture and tried to do that well. Your approach is one of sincerity, I believe, and you've attempted to be gracious most the time. This is probably why you have, unlike others, not been deleted. I have found that the forum is open to different views and even sometimes those that are a bit far outside of the main stream as long as the person is gracious and attempts as best as they can to back up what they believe with good hermeneutics. I hope that you stick around awhile. I've been here for a number of years now, on and off, and I can assure you that I have not always held to the normative theology of our day, yet I have almost always felt welcome and even appreciated. I'm guessing you would be too. God bless in your studies. MJH |
||||||
316 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 214048 | ||
Okay.... Some of your posts would qualify as outside the rules. But I'd still love to have you stick around. It might be nice to discuss somethings. Like, how could Jesus disagree with Moses......That's quite an impossibility unless he isn't the Messiah. Look forward to where this could go? MJH |
||||||
317 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 214071 | ||
This is rather unfortunate. I am sorry that you should leave so soon, before you even get a chance to get to know anyone. Should it be your desire, you can email me for a more civil discussion. After all, trying to debate 10 different people at one time is like trying to hit a target with a shot gun. It's a bit messy. MJH |
||||||
318 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 214095 | ||
John, Fair question. I do have an email that I occasionally use for such occasions. It's an email that is seperate from my personal use email of course. If Bill was intersted he could simple ask. I doubt anything would come of it. As far as knowing him. No. And no, I've only been MJH here too. MJH |
||||||
319 | Hereing from God | 1 John 3:22 | MJH | 213267 | ||
I've read most of this thread and here is what impression I am getting. Does God speak to people like he spoke to those who penned Scripture still, or not? I'd put my "vote" into the not category. (It’s not really up for vote though.) I believe Scripture to be a closed canon, at least until the return of Jesus. However; does God speak through His Spirit to individuals? I'd say a strong YES to this. The reason why is because of experience. While I have, and would never accept any "new" teaching from some voice, I would accept aide in knowing how to help others. The problem is that these are all anecdotal. There is no empirical evidence, usually, to say if someone heard from God or not. I am skeptical by nature, and even when I hear, I remain a skeptic when maybe I shouldn't. But, when I have listened, I have been truly shocked at how precise the event ended up being. In my own mind, this couldn't have been manufactured by my own psyche. Plus, the positive outcome, when I have been blessed to see it, was truly good. I have also been on the receiving end of this sort of listening. When someone comes to you who knows nothing of your private pain, and tells you what they heard you needed, you first almost fall over; and when you realize what just happened, you find out that God must truly love you! He took the effort to lead one of His children to go to you with encouragement that could have come from no one but Him. So maybe some are approaching this topic from the idea of adding to Scripture or getting new revelation, and others like you are approaching this topic from the idea of God stepping into our lives through the voice of His Spirit. MJH |
||||||
320 | Hereing from God | 1 John 3:22 | MJH | 213282 | ||
None taken. I thought maybe some might be speaking of one, while the other another. As I said, I am a skeptic first.... MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [17] >> |