Born sinful.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I think Servant's questions are fundamentally relevant to the issue. Based on the answers, they reveal your perceptions about: the Creator of the universe (and therefore the creation of the "Knowledge of Good and Evil"), the nature of Original Sin, the nature of God's love, and the nature of God's justice in resolving the issues of Original Sin and personal sin.

And what's with the "character assassination", calling Servant's ideology a "cult"?

I challange you to answer those questions with biblically defined ideas in CONTEXT with scripture. That is something I have yet to see you do in any thread.




posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
 

And what's with the "character assassination", calling Servant's ideology a "cult"?
I said what I meant by it, that it is wherever he gets his interpretation from.
You take it as having a negative connotation that I don't give it.

I challenge you to answer those questions with biblically defined ideas in CONTEXT with scripture. That is something I have yet to see you do in any thread.
It's my interpretation of scripture, and I don't need "proof texts".
It's just based on known facts about the Bible, and of history.
edit on 9-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Your personal interpretation of scripture is not sufficient if it does not harmonize with the rest of the Bible. By that rule are cult doctines and the minds of the endoctrinated exposed.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   

BELIEVERpriest
And what's with the "character assassination", calling Servant's ideology a "cult"?


By definition, ALL religions are cults. Even religions that have just one person in them.
CULT - Noun - a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
 

In other words you are saying that if someones interpretation doesn't match with your interpretation, then they are wrong and you are right. Yeah ... okay. Dude .. there are two billion Christians on this planet - one billion Catholics and one billion various 'Protestants'. They all have very different interpretations of scripture and yet they are all Christians.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
 

Your personal interpretation of scripture is not sufficient if it does not harmonize with the rest of the Bible.
Feel free to point out any "disharmony" that you notice.
Just making general blanket statements in a negative fashion like that is not especially useful unless you have some sort of specific point to go with it.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   


Text Obviously they aren't the "same place" since there is this thing called the Resurrection, where people have actual physical bodies and don't just have spirit existence in some place.
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I don’t think you understand Christian resurrection and are confusing rabbinic theology with the doctrine of Jesus. Here is the brief outline of the doctrine of Jesus.

Our terrestrial body will die and perish back into the source from which it came. That body will never again exist. As this body perishes, its spirit will then stand before Jesus in a judgment of unrighteousness or righteousness. If found unworthy that spirit is confined in Sheol in a section called hell (Greek). If the spirit is found worthy it then is allowed into the New Jerusalem to eat of the food and water of life. We do not understand what the substance of Spirit actually is but the doctrine of Jesus teaches us that the naked spirit in Sheol is transformed (resurrected) into a celestial body with celestial covering and a new name. All of this happens immediately upon death. Do not confuse this doctrine with the rabbinic teachings of the Jews who teach of a national and restoration of the body that you now have. That is not Jesus’ doctrine.

Paul explains this resurrected body in the following manner.

1st Corinthians 15:35-50
(35) But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
(36) Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: (37) And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: (38) But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. (39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. (40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. (42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (43) It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: (44) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (45) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (46) Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. (47) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
(48) As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. (49) And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. (50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

That is part of the doctrine of Jesus and has no likeness of rabbinic doctrine. Now what a quickening (living) spirit is, is still a great mystery and none of this living creation can understand it.

When you said that - Ouote “Obviously they aren't the "same place" since there is this thing called the Resurrection, where people have actual physical bodies and don't just have spirit existence in some place.” Unquote – This showed me that you do not understand the resurrection of Christ Jesus. Once you die you never regain this terrestrial (natural) body. That body is gone forever and will perish with the universe.

It is the new spiritual body which lives forever and is sustained with the food and water of life in the paradise of God which is located in New Jerusalem. That is explained in Revelation which we have covered several times.

You cannot get the entire doctrine of Jesus in one verse or in one testament. It must be ingested with study and all scriptures which come together. It is similar to the ten commands of God to the Hebrews. Jesus expounds all of those ten commands in His sermons and teachings with examples and parables and His permissive will which is forgiveness. Basically that is called Love.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

If the spirit is found worthy it then is allowed into the New Jerusalem to eat of the food and water of life.
A "New Jerusalem" is in Revelation and while it is in Heaven, no one is living in it.
It comes to earth, which is a symbolic way of describing the church and how it is the Kingdom of God.
The water and the tree of life is also symbolic of the mission of the church, to bring eternal life.

. . . celestial body . . .
Paul was using a rhetorical device here, comparing the brilliance between looking at things on earth and looking at the sun, or the moon at night.
Then he applies that measure of difference to the difference between what our bodies are now, and what they will be.
He wasn't saying that we will have celestial bodies.

. . . the naked spirit in Sheol . . .
This idea probably comes from a misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 5 where Paul talks about a tent, and that heaven will provide a covering.
What he was talking about was the demise of the old Jewish temple cult religion and that God will provide a suitable replacement, which we understand as being the church.
He wasn't talking about anyone going to Heaven.

Once you die you never regain this terrestrial (natural) body. That body is gone forever and will perish with the universe.
So what was Paul talking about when he says that we will be changed, and when he says that we will be taken up?
Jesus did not leave a dead body in the tomb.
The universe is not going away.
The elements that will be burnt up is the human institutions, and Peter was being hyperbolic.

It is the new spiritual body which lives forever and is sustained with the food and water of life in the paradise of God which is located in New Jerusalem. That is explained in Revelation which we have covered several times.
John in Revelation was explaining Christianity in apocalyptic terms.
None of it whatsoever is to be understood literally.
edit on 10-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   


Text We don't know if a single bit of that is true because it is based on the Book of Acts which was written as much as a hundred years later.
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


My ATS program is not working right so will have to compromise.

You wrote the following -
"We don't know if a single bit of that is true because it is based on the Book of Acts which was written as much as a hundred years later.
The "tribe of Benjamin" thing we know is true because it is in one of the letters written by Paul.
Paul obviously spoke Greek since his letters were all in Greek.
In Acts it mentions someone speaking "Hebrew" but that is not strictly accurate and just meant a dialect of Aramaic spoken in Judea.
The "Gamaliel" thing is the basis of one of the major arguments against the accuracy of Acts, since it couldn't possibly have been true, but was thrown in by the writer to give Paul credibility among the Pharisees."

Yes, Greek was the common language of Rome at this time but only in the civil life of Rome. The legal issues were always kept in Latin. The letters of the apostles are believed to have originated in Aramaic and Hebrew. We can not prove this because we do not have the original letters but there is other literature that leads to this belief. So in your opinion you believe that the book of the acts of the apostles is bogus. The book of Acts is highly controversial in that many scholars believe it was written after 70 CE while others insist that it was written no later than 62 CE but almost all agree that it was written after Luke. Most will agree the letters emerged 38 to 40 years after the death of Jesus but then this does not prove the origin of the letters. In other words the letters could have been written at various times by various copyists. It is a fact that they ended in the hands of a Greek copyist which exists today. They are dated by the historic contents that are revealed in the letters but it is far fetched to say that they originated 100 years after Jesus.

You stated that the Gamaliel thing is bogus. Could you tell me how and why the Gamaliel thing is bunk? You do realize that you are kicking against a great many biblical scholars who teach as I have given to you? I would love to hear your rant on this.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

The letters of the apostles are believed to have originated in Aramaic and Hebrew.
Maybe according to some fringe groups who choose to ignore mainstream scholarship.
Hebrew was a dead language for hundreds of years before Christ.
The only examples of biblical Hebrew is found in the Bible itself.
Aramaic is a term for the main dialect of Syria back then, and Palestine was a subdivision of Syria, with Judea an even lower division of Palestine.
The lingua franca of the eastern Empire was Greek, and Galilee was a gentile region even though Jews of course lived there, and they spoke Greek.

So in your opinion you believe that the book of the acts of the apostles is bogus.
I wouldn't say "bogus" necessarily because I don't think that it was included in the NT canon deliberately to trick people.
I see it as a way for someone to make some money writing a book that would be of interest to a lot of people, and made to look like an old letter that just recently surfaced, but far enough away from the actual events that it could not be easily proved to be false.

You do realize that you are kicking against a great many biblical scholars who teach as I have given to you?
I just have to assume that you are reading from fundamentalist writers when you say "scholars".

I would love to hear your rant on this.
A lot of people would, and I mean to do a thread on it but I still need to do more research on it and I need to buy some expensive books.
I could mention something about it, and if I find it, I will edit it into this post.
edit on 10-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Seems I missed the window to edit my last post (had to do laundry for an outing tomorrow).
History of the First Christians by Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, on page 80 he says in regards to his training by Gamaliel, that it needs to be asked if there is in Paul's letters "sufficient signs of Pharisaic learning to make to make the claim credible."
In the notes on that section, it says that given the stated position of Gamaliel in Acts towards the Christians, Paul's persecution of them doesn't fit.

What I have found elsewhere on Gamaliel is that he never had any disciples.
There is still the possibility that seems more likely, that Paul may have heard Gamaliel speak on some occasion, something Wedderburn may be relating as a reference to another book on Paul, rather than something he thinks personally was likely.

In another one of my books on Acts it says that the timeline does not work out where Paul and Gamaliel were in the same place, but I'm not sure where to find that at the moment.

My main point was that Acts is not a reliable source and should not be used to build elaborate theological systems on.
I personally avoid basing my own theology on Acts, other that to point out some odd things like Paul telling the Athenians that his God did not need a temple and sacrifices, while the Jerusalem temple still stood and was actively serving someone's idea of what God was.
edit on 10-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   


Text History of the First Christians by Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, on page 80 he says in regards to his training by Gamaliel, that it needs to be asked if there is in Paul's letters "sufficient signs of Pharisaic learning to make to make the claim credible."
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


@jmdewey
I realize that it is your prerogative to buy a book but I also do not understand why you would choose to purchase this J.M. Wedderburn’s work when the scholarly field is loaded with free accounts by the world’s best scholars. You have all of the early church scholars at your fingertips such as Josephus, Polycarp, Ignatius and dozens more. You also have renowned scholars such as Cassidy, Esler, Pervo, Munek, Freedman, Geisler, Guthrie, Townsend and many more such as these men. Yet you choose a man who sells you his book who went to school and supposedly studied these men and then formed his own opinions according to his revised opinions. Oh well.

You do realize that when you criticize the work of the author(s) of Acts that you also criticize the book of Luke. Are you aware of that? To doubt Acts is to doubt Luke simply because the world’s leading scholars insist that the two works were at one time one work. To doubt Luke is to doubt Paul and to doubt Paul is to doubt Barnabas and so on. Eventually you are going to hit yourself right between your own eyes.

Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
Act 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

I want you to note several things in the above verses and probably this is why you will reject Acts and Luke. Firstly is the fact that Hebrew is not a dead language in the time of the apostles as you have stated in your previous posts. Notice that Paul is here speaking in the Hebrew tongue. Not in Greek as you would want others to believe, but in Hebrew. Hebrew was the foremost tongue of the Jews in this day of Christ Jesus. Some examples are that Simon Peter himself is named, by Jesus, as Cephas which is the Aramaic tongue meaning Peter. Aramaic is the sister tongue of the Hebrew tongue and if you understand Hebrew you will understand Aramaic. Even while in torment Jesus uttered “Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabach –Thami” which is the Aramaic tongue. God is called “Abba” which is also Aramaic.

It is a literary fact in theology that Hebrew was not a dead language and has never been a dead language. It is true that the old Hebrew was suppressed by the Greeks but not insofar as their liturgy was concerned. Alexander the Great suppressed all languages in his conquests but did not erase their cultures. The very first Christian church was entirely Hebrew and this church was the church of the disciples and apostles of Jesus. The book of Acts as well as other books proves this beyond a shadow of doubt that the people and Paul spoke Aramaic and Hebrew.

Now about Gamaliel. The very book that your so called scholar, Wedderburn, insists that Saul was not a pupil of Gamaliel is an absolute ignorant teaching. I will go as far to say that if this man insists that what you say is true then he is either ignorant or a liar. Or perhaps both. At this time in the history of Saul (Paul) there were two major Rabbinical Pharisee schools in Jerusalem. The foremost was that of Shammai and the other was this of Gamaliel the grandson of the great teacher known as Hillel. There were six Gamaliels in the history of Rabbinic schools. This Gamaliel was known as Gamaliel The Elder.

Saul was at this time at about the age of perhaps sixteen and the way we understand this is that at the age of six the boys were taught the Pentateuch, writing and mathematics. At ten the Mishna added in oral form. At fifteen Gemara was added which is the extension of the Midrash which is part of the Gemara. If the child is brilliant enough to enter Rabbinical school then the choice would have been that of Gamaliel or Shammai. The pupil would have to have been interviewed by the teacher because only a limited amount of pupils were ever accepted.

Gamaliel The Elder was the President of the Sanhedrin at this time and was the first to have received the honor of Rabban. At the time of Saul’s conversion he was honored with the distinction of being a Rabbi of Gamaliel The Elder.

If you insist on buying a book I would suggest that you get the books of Conybeare and Hawson on the life of Paul and discard this Wedderburn if you want to study truth. Two volumes that are unsurpassed in scholarship.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

You have all of the early church scholars at your fingertips such as Josephus, Polycarp, Ignatius and dozens more.
Read them already.

You also have renowned scholars such as Cassidy, Esler, Pervo, Munek, Freedman, Geisler, Guthrie, Townsend and many more such as these men.
Pervo's books were the ones that I meant when I said that I wanted to buy more books.

You do realize that when you criticize the work of the author(s) of Acts that you also criticize the book of Luke. Are you aware of that?
Yes. And so?
The original criteria for admission of books into the NT canon was that they be Apostolic.
Luke and Acts got in anyway as there was this myth that he was the Luke who was Paul's companion.
Once you discount that, then they do not deserve the air of inerrancy.

. . . to doubt Paul is to doubt Barnabas . . .
Do you hold the books of Barnabas as equal to the NT books?

Eventually you are going to hit yourself right between your own eyes.
I'm not feeling any detrimental affects.

Firstly is the fact that Hebrew is not a dead language in the time of the apostles as you have stated in your previous posts.
Are you denying that when Acts was written, there wasn't any people who were called Hebrews?
If there was, then the way those people spoke could be called "Hebrew".

Hebrew was the foremost tongue of the Jews in this day of Christ Jesus.
There was something called Rabbinic Hebrew that was written in the schools of Babylon.

Aramaic is the sister tongue of the Hebrew tongue and if you understand Hebrew you will understand Aramaic.
English shares loan words with French but they are not "sister languages".
New Testament Greek has Hebrew loan words too, but is not a "sister language" either.

It is a literary fact in theology that Hebrew was not a dead language and has never been a dead language.
Do you understand what "dead language" means.
Latin is a dead language even though it is used in some church services.
edit on 11-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

The very first Christian church was entirely Hebrew and this church was the church of the disciples and apostles of Jesus.
They were Jews who lived in gentile Galilee and spoke Greek.

. . .Gamaliel The Elder was the President of the Sanhedrin at this time . . .
Can you demonstrate that he ever had any pupils.
Well, don't bother, because he didn't.
You are following nonsense based on a work of fiction.
edit on 11-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Are you denying that when Acts was written, there wasn't any people who were called Hebrews?
If there was, then the way those people spoke could be called "Hebrew".
That first line did not come out right and I didn't notice my grammatical mistake yesterday, of making a double negative.
What I meant was that if there was a "Hebrew" people, or a group of people identified as "Hebrew", when Acts was written, then whatever the way that group spoke, whether it is a particular dialect or even a distinguishable accent, then it could be called "Hebrew", and if you were somewhere and noticed a person talking in that way, you could say, "Hey, you must be from the old country because I noticed that you were speaking Hebrew". But saying so in that context does not mean that the person was necessarily speaking Biblical Hebrew.
Besides my earlier statement that Biblical Hebrew was a dead language and never used outside of the reading of the Torah scroll in the Synagogue services, regardless of if there were some lone words used in the common speech of the Judean region, just as Latin phrases are in common use in English speech today.
edit on 12-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
That should have been "loan" words, in the above post, and not "lone" words. Oops.

Back to my earlier post on Hebrews 9:28, that it means that Jesus bore sins for the sake of the many, I just got a copy of the Anchor Commentary on Hebrews by Koester.
On page 422 he says:

Rather than making sacrifices "many times" Christ made one sacrifice "for many".
The contrast that I was trying to make earlier was against the idea that the verse is saying that he was doing something in particular with "many sins".

Hebrews 9:28
so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
(2011 NIV)
edit on 14-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join