|
Author
|
Topic: Critiquing the New Testament 101
|
Marlene
Advanced Member
Member # 8489
|
posted
Hi Carol! I couldn’t help but add my two cents worth on this topic ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
John, I totally agree with your post! We are of one mind. I don’t consider myself a theologian, just someone who seeks to understand the ways of God.
Yes, God alone is good.
Yes, the natural man is a depraved creature.
Yes, God offers salvation to bad people (who FREELY CHOOSE the Lord).
Yes, evil will be purged from humanity (at the Second Coming).
Your last point is what makes my God an amazing God. God is the director of all human history; he can make even the evil of people work out to the fulfilling of his will, but he does not cause them to do evil, although he foreknows what they will do. Obviously evil will do evil, and like the Great Orchestrator that he is, he will maneuver and influence events so as to achieve a desired outcome.
How can anyone say that Judas made choices of his own free will when Satan was in him?
Bloodbought, God left Judas to the power of his natural man, or the influences of the flesh, over which Satan rules. He did not cause him to sin, but He knew exactly what Judas would choose left the devices of his OWN will, not his will influenced by the Will of God.
How can a sinless God cause sin? This is a contradiction
Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it, lol.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Bloodbought
Advanced Member
Member # 4365
|
posted
God can straighten any crooked stick He chooses.
Luke 13:11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13 And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.
Judas was a crooked stick and God could have straightened him, but He didn’t. Why? Because He needed a crooked disciple to do what needed to be done to bring about His plan of salvation.
How can anyone say that Judas made choices of his own free will when Satan was in him?
Posts: 822 | From: Ireland | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Yes, like Judas. But God did not cause him to become a crooked stick.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Bloodbought
Advanced Member
Member # 4365
|
posted
God can plough a straight furrow with a crooked stick.
Posts: 822 | From: Ireland | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Hello Marlene, Welcome to the Christian BBS! ![[wave3]](graemlins/18.gif)
You raised a really interesting point.
With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the crooked You show Yourself astute.(Psalm 18:26)
quote:
I guess the question would be, Can any “good” act be a self-caused act?
I believe that the only fruit we bear that is pleasing to God is that which is empowered by His Holy Spirit.
Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. (John 15:4-5)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Um... call it what you may...
God alone is good.
Mankind is bad.
God offers salvation to bad people.
People can only try to curtail their badness and honor Christ / the Spirit within... but only in regeneration (those changed who are still alive) / resurrection will the evil be purged from humanity.
God does not need to make people evil to fulfill his purposes / prophecies. There are billions and billions and billions of evil people.
God is the great orchestrator who can make even the evil of people work out to the fulfilling of his will / purposes / prophecy.
Romans 8:28 (KJV)
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Dissect or pigeonhole it however you wish for the theolog journals... It's just this simple.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Marlene
Advanced Member
Member # 8489
|
posted
A self-caused action is a sinful action, for it is impossible for a sinless God to have caused us to sin. Just as it was not possible for God to cause Lucifier to sin, Beliar being the first sinner, it is not possible for God to cause us to sin.
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted by evil, neither does he tempt any man;
In the words of W.G.T. Shedd, “Nothing but the spontaneity of will can produce the sin; and God does no work in the will to cause evil spontaneity”
BUT, God’s sovereign domain includes not only the good angels but also the evil ones.
I Kings 22:19-22
And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord, and said, I will peruade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth, and do so.
I guess the question would be, Can any “good” act be a self-caused act?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
If we did not have free will then we would not be responsible for sinning. We have a choice. Judas had a choice whether to betray Jesus or not. We can't say God made me do it if we get drunk and drive and kill someone.
betty
Betty ![[thumbsup2]](graemlins/thumbsup2.gif)
If we did not have free will then we would not be able to truly love either because by it's very nature love must be given freely or else it isn't love.
Problems With Theistic Determinism
There are serious problems with the dogma of “theistic determination,” i.e., the notion that God orchestrates the choices we humans make.
First, there is the difficulty this theory creates for the biblical affirmation of the goodness of God (Romans 2:4). Jehovah is a being of absolute holiness (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8), thus he is too “pure” to tolerate evil (Habakkuk 1:13). Any dogma, therefore, that casts a reflection upon the goodness of the Creator is corrupt. One Calvinist argues: “If a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it” (Clark, 1961, 221). What conclusion necessarily follows from that statement? Whose fault is it when men do wrong? Can there even be any “wrong,” if there is no free will? How can God possibly condemn human beings for evil (e.g., murder, adultery, etc.) if he himself “determines the choices” they make? This ideology makes no sense.
Second, the denial of human free will is in conflict with multiple biblical texts of clearest import.
1. Christ personified Jerusalem as one who had persecuted the Lord’s prophets. He had sought to rescue them from a coming destruction, but they “would not” (Matthew 23:37). They did not will to change their lives!
2. In one of his parables, Christ pictured rebellious sinners as a “prodigal son,” yet who eventually declared: “I will arise and go to my father … I will say … I have sinned” (Luke 15:18). If man is void of free will, this illustration is woefully misleading.
3. In John’s Gospel Jesus declared that the OT Scriptures pointed the way to him; but, he cautioned, “you will not come to me that you may have life” (5:40). Does language have meaning?
4. He later announced that if anyone “wills” to obey his teaching, he can know whether his message is authentic or not (7:17).
5. The NT concludes with this gracious invitation: “He that is thirsty, let him come; he that will, let him take of the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17).
These passages, and scores of others, powerfully refute the “no free will” heresy.
Third, beyond explicit statements of human free will, numerous texts logically imply both the ability and the urgency of man to exercise his personal will power in submitting to divine authority through obedience. Note:
1. Every command from God implies both the ability and necessity for the recipient to submit to the divine injunction. It is nonsense to suggest that the Lord commands a duty to which the subject cannot possibly yield.
2. The Bible overflows with warnings for those who neglect to “give earnest heed” to divine obedience (Hebrews 2:1ff). Why caution a person against doing what he could not do even if he so wished?
3. If man cannot exercise his will in obeying (or disobeying) the Creator, why should he ever feel a sense of guilt—as did Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:7-8), Judas and Pilate (Matthew 27:4, 24), or Paul (1 Timothy 1:13)?
4. And what shall be said of the numberless texts that contain either “curses” or “blessings” in response to human activity (cf. Deuteronomy 27:12-13), if indeed a man cannot “incline himself either to good or evil,” as Calvin alleged (op. cit., 1.229).
The Motive
Why have a few denied what is so obvious to so many, namely that man possesses the ability to choose right over wrong? Likely the answer lies in the reality that a denial of “free will” somehow “justifies” an immoral lifestyle. Atheist Aldous Huxley expressed it like this: “There is no valid reason why [one] personally should not do as he wants to do” (1966, 19; emp. WJ). If a person is not responsible for his decisions, he can accelerate the reckless life at full throttle—with no pangs of conscience!
Biblical Determinism
There is a legitimate biblical “determinism,” and it stands a universe apart from the perverted ideas surveyed above. The term “determinate” translates the Greek word, horizo (8x NT), meaning “to set a boundary.” It is used in connection with Christ in the following senses.
1. In the eternal counsel of God, the death of Jesus as the atonement for sin was a divine “determinate” (Acts 2:23; cf. Luke 22:22).
2. By his resurrection from the dead, Jesus was “declared” (horizo), i.e., determined to be God’s Son in a uniquely powerful way (Romans 1:4). God’s sovereignty over the nations of the world is emphasized in that he has “determined” the duration of their supremacy and the limitation of their dominion (Acts 17:26).
3. Salvation from sin is “limited” (KJV) or “defined” (ASV; horizo – Hebrews 4:7) by a certain (symbolic) “day.” It is the “Today” when a person chooses to “hear his voice,” “hardens not” his heart, and “obeys” the conditions of salvation (as implied by “disobedience” v. 6b). The Lord has “determined” to save all who choose to do his will (Revelation 22:17).
4. God has appointed a certain day on which he will judge the world in righteousness, and he has “ordained” (horizo) that the judgment will be rendered by his Son (Acts 17:31b; cf. 10:42), the guarantee of which was the Savior’s resurrection.
Scripture never states nor implies that God has unconditionally “determined” to save some and condemn others.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1515-the-doctrine-of-determinism-what-is-it
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bloodbought:
quote:
NRSV:
7I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe;
I the LORD do all these things.
Mark 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
God will punish those who choose to do evil.
In Isaiah 45, He is saying that there is no God beside Jehovah. There is nothing done without Him. He makes peace, put here for all good; and creates evil, not the evil of sin, but the evil of punishment. He is the Author of all that is true, holy, good, or happy; and evil, error, and misery, came into the world through the wilful apostacy of His creatures, but are restrained and overruled to His righteous purpose. (Matthew Henry)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Bloodbought
Advanced Member
Member # 4365
|
posted
God allows many to get drunk and He doesn’t stop them, but through His word He convicts some and they stop willingly. They will not stop without His intervention.
Posts: 822 | From: Ireland | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Betty Louise
Advanced Member
Member # 7175
|
posted
If we did not have free will then we would not be responsible for sinning. We have a choice. Judas had a choice whether to betray Jesus or not. We can't say God made me do it if we get drunk and drive and kill someone.
betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Posts: 5051 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
Ezekiel 13:20
unregistered
|
posted
Mankind is not in charge of their destiney. They only think so.
God sets up rulers,kings,presidents,to bring about His perfect plan. Whether they be good or evil God allows them. It's all about bringing about the end.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Bloodbought
Advanced Member
Member # 4365
|
posted
quote:
NRSV:
7I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe;
I the LORD do all these things.
Mark 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
Posts: 822 | From: Ireland | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
NRSV:
I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe;
I the LORD do all these things.
NKJV:
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the Lord, do all these things.’
NCV:
I made the light and the darkness.
I bring peace, and I cause troubles.
I, the LORD, do all these things.
KJV:
I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.
ESV:
I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things.
RSV:
I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe,
I am the LORD, who do all these things.
NASB:
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.
ICB:
I made the light and the darkness.
I bring peace, and I cause troubles.
I, the Lord, do all these things.
NLT:
I create the light and make the darkness.
I send good times and bad times.
I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.
CEV:
I create light and darkness,
happiness and sorrow.
I, the Lord, do all of this.
HCSB:
I form light and create darkness,
I make success and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
TEV:
I create both light and darkness;
I bring both blessing and disaster.
I, the Lord, do all these things.
GWT:
I make light and create darkness.
I make blessings and create disasters.
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Bloodbought
Advanced Member
Member # 4365
|
posted
How do you explain this?
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the LORD do all these things.
Posts: 822 | From: Ireland | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
God does not create evil!
Yes He could have stopped Judas. He could have stopped Adam and Eve from sinning. He didn't even have to put the tree of knowledge in the Garden in the first place. He could have destroyed Satan before the world was made. Christ could have blinded or paralyzed His abusers. But He didn't do any of those things.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Bloodbought
Advanced Member
Member # 4365
|
posted
Did God not have the power to stop Judas from betraying Christ if He so desired?
Obviously it was in Gods plan to create Judas for this purpose.
Posts: 822 | From: Ireland | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Betty Louise
Advanced Member
Member # 7175
|
posted
God knows in advance what mankind will do, but He does not make man do it. God does not make anyone sin. It is a choice by man.
betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Posts: 5051 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Ezekiel 13:20
unregistered
|
posted
How then is prophecy fullfiled? Was it not prophesied many years before that Christ would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver?
What about Psalms 22?
God is in control,and everything is working to bring about the end.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
God does not predetermine the evil acts of men, nor does God cause them.
Judas was not born to betray Christ.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Ezekiel 13:20
unregistered
|
posted
Many things can be written as to why Judas betrayed Christ.
Long elequent papers to impress others as to the scholarship of the writer.
Simply put,It was prophecy fulfilled Judas was born to betray Christ.
Where would we be today if Judas had not betrayed Our Lord and Savior?
Is Judas burning in hell today? Be careful how you judge!
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Why did Judas betray Jesus?
While we cannot be absolutely certain why Judas betrayed Jesus, some things are certain. First, although Judas was chosen to be one of the Twelve (John 6:64), all scriptural evidence points to the fact that he never believed Jesus to be God. He even may not have been convinced that Jesus was the Messiah (as Judas understood it). Unlike the other disciples that called Jesus “Lord,” Judas never used this title for Jesus and instead called him “Rabbi,” which acknowledged Jesus as nothing more than a teacher. While other disciples at times made great professions of faith and loyalty (John 6:68; 11:16), Judas never did so and appears to have remained silent. This lack of faith in Jesus is the foundation for all other considerations listed below. The same holds true for us. If we fail to recognize Jesus as God incarnate, and therefore the only One who can provide forgiveness for our sins—and the eternal salvation that comes with it—we will be subject to numerous other problems that stem from a wrong view of God.
Second, Judas not only lacked faith in Christ, but he also had little or no personal relationship with Jesus. When the synoptic gospels list the Twelve, they are always listed in the same general order with slight variations (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16). The general order is believed to indicate the relative closeness of their personal relationship with Jesus. Despite the variations, Peter and the brothers James and John are always listed first, which is consistent with their relationships with Jesus. Judas is always listed last, which may indicate his relative lack of a personal relationship with Christ. Additionally, the only documented dialogue between Jesus and Judas involves Judas being rebuked by Jesus after his greed-motivated remark to Mary (John 12:1-8), Judas’ denial of his betrayal (Matthew 26:25), and the betrayal itself (Luke 22:48).
Third, Judas was consumed with greed to the point of betraying the trust of not only Jesus, but also his fellow disciples, as we see in John 12:5-6. Judas may have desired to follow Jesus simply because he saw the great following and believed he could profit from collections taken for the group. The fact that Judas was in charge of the moneybag for the group would indicate his interest in money (John 13:29).
Additionally, Judas, like most people at the time, believed the Messiah was going to overthrow Roman occupation and take a position of power ruling over the nation of Israel. Judas may have followed Jesus hoping to benefit from association with Him as the new reigning political power. No doubt he expected to be among the ruling elite after the revolution. By the time of Judas’ betrayal, Jesus had made it clear that He planned to die, not start a rebellion against Rome. So Judas may have assumed—just as the Pharisees did—that since He would not overthrow the Romans, He must not be the Messiah they were expecting.
There are a few Old Testament verses that point to the betrayal, some more specifically than others. Here are two:
“Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me” (Psalm 41:9, see fulfillment in Matthew 26:14, 48-49). Also, “I told them, ‘If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.’ So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—the handsome price at which they priced me!' So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter” (Zechariah 11:12-13; see Matthew 27:3-5 for the fulfillment of the Zechariah prophecy). These Old Testament prophecies indicate that Judas’ betrayal was known to God and that it was sovereignly planned beforehand as the means by which Jesus would be killed.
But if Judas’ betrayal was known to God, did Judas have a choice, and is he held responsible for his part in the betrayal? It is difficult for many to reconcile the concept of “free will” (as most people understand it) with God’s foreknowledge of future events, and this is largely due to our limited experience of going through time in a linear fashion. If we see God as existing outside of time, since He created everything before “time” began, then we can understand that God sees every moment in time as the present. We experience time in a linear way—we see time as a straight line, and we pass from one point gradually to another, remembering the past we have already traveled through, but unable to see the future we are approaching. However, God, being the eternal Creator of the construct of time, is not “in time” or on the timeline, but outside of it. It might help to think of time (in relation to God) as a circle with God being the center and therefore equally close to all points.
In any case, Judas had the full capacity of making his choice—at least up to the point where “Satan entered into him” (John 13:27)—and God’s foreknowledge (John 13:10, 18, 21) in no way supersedes Judas’ ability to make any given choice. Rather, what Judas would choose eventually, God saw as if it was a present observation, and Jesus made it clear that Judas was responsible for his choice and would be held accountable for it. “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me” (Mark 14:18). Notice that Jesus characterizes Judas’ participation as a betrayal. And regarding accountability for this betrayal Jesus said, “Woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Mark 14:21). Satan, too, had a part in this, as we see in John 13:26-27, and he, too, will be held accountable for his deeds. God in His wisdom was able, as always, to manipulate even Satan’s rebellion for the benefit of mankind. Satan helped send Jesus to the cross, and on the cross sin and death were defeated, and now God’s provision of salvation is freely available to all who receive Jesus Christ as Savior.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-betray-Jesus.html
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
It isn't "my" way at all John. It's God's way. God does not harden the hearts of those who desire to obey Him; He does not turn good guys into bad guys. God is not the author of evil. He did not cause Judas to betray Christ, but God is omniscient and He knew that Judas would betray Christ.
Judas had been given fair warning.
Mark 14:21 (NASB)
"For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
It's interesting that an Apostle was chosen to be an enemy, and an enemy was chosen to be an Apostle -- the Apostle of Grace no less.
Because God knew their hearts.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Okay, I won't mince words.
Judas Was Chosen To Fulfill Prophecy
Psalm 41:9 says, "Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."
Ok, if what you say is true, then he was not responsible...
You can't have it both ways, Carol. And the underlying definition of being the friend of God is as much a reference to knowing his plans as being among an inner circle like the 12.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
As there are many who feign to want to be at the Lord's banquet to honor the Lord when they are more interested in what's on the Lord's table than the Lord.
Matthew 7:21-23 (NASB95)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
True, Judas loved money better. It's a lot like when Satan betrayed God in Heaven. He didn't want to love God; he wanted to BE God.
Besides, the chief priests were cowards.
Luke 22:2-6
The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people. And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them. They were glad and agreed to give him money. So he consented, and began seeking a good opportunity to betray Him to them apart from the crowd.
It was all part of God's plan. Here's my eisegesis...
For Christ to be our Passover Lamb, He had to be arrested that night. The priests were afraid to arrest Him in public, but they didn't know where He was when not in public, so it was necessary to have someone close to Him show the way. Judas solved the problem of how the Jewish leaders could arrest Jesus without causing a riot during the feast. So Satan entered Judas, and Judas betrayed Jesus, all right on schedule -- God's schedule.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
A friend without true love is the enemies best tool.
The J Loved lucar better.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
The question is, why was it necessary to God's plan of redemption for Jesus to be betrayed by a close friend?
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
I am speaking on terms of biblical evidence. What were the chosen disciples to do? If you lump Judas in among the 12 as the actually called by Jesus then he erred.
Are you actually saying that Jesus erred?
(Mark 3:16-19)
And He appointed the twelve : Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder "); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot ; and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Okay, I won't mince words.
Judas Was Chosen To Fulfill Prophecy
Psalm 41:9 says, "Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Mincing words about perceptions is not an avenue I choose to go down very far. Evolutionist propaganda is but an example of how far and how long a lie or misconception can be carried on to.
Life's too short, I'm too old and impatient.
I am speaking on terms of biblical evidence. What were the chosen disciples to do? If you lump Judas in among the 12 as the actually called by Jesus then he erred.
Or he did not call him but merely lumped him in under the umbrella term "the 12" and Judas was an uninvited tag along with a prophetic role to fill.
You can't have it both ways, Carol.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Why does the Bible tell us about the rich young ruler?
Why does the Bible tell us about the one who offered to follow Jesus but was told by Jesus he had no place to live (ignoring the offer to follow him)?
These aren't just stories about the men then and there, but they are lessons for all disciples of Christ.
The Rich Young Ruler
Jesus knew the young man's heart. He knew that he was looking for a way to earn his salvation on his own terms. He may have thought that the Master would give him a specific task or good deed to perform that would win eternal life, one that wouldn't require him to humble himself and unconditionally set his life under the authority of Christ. Instead, Jesus set up a requirement that clearly illustrated the basic issue: the rich young man's desire to retain control of his life.
Jesus wasn't implying that salvation can actually be earned by good deeds. Even if the rich young ruler would have given away his riches and followed Christ, he wouldn't have earned his salvation. However, if he had done so, he would have surrendered his desire for autonomy and acknowledged God's authority to do what He wanted with his life.
Jesus felt compassion for this young man. But because He knew that the ruler was seeking to manipulate God, He had no choice but to send him away with a clear awareness of his failure.
Challenging The Comfortable Disciple
Luke 9:57-62 (NIV)
57 As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.”
58 Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
Following Jesus is not a promise of comfort and security. We must be willing to go anywhere anytime to do the Lord’s will. It isn't a commitment to make lightly. This man was a scribe (Matt. 8:19) and most likely he was accustomed to a "desk job" and regular hours.
Mark 12:38 - 40 (NASB)
In His teaching He was saying: “Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes, and like respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation.”
Challenging The Convenient Disciple
59 He said to another man, “Follow me.” But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
60 Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
The one willing to follow Jesus does not say, “I have this to do today, but tomorrow I can help you.” If you follow, then you go where Jesus goes. This man wanted to be a convenient follower. Convenient followers are not followers at all because they will only accompany Jesus when it is convenient for their schedules. Jesus challenged him to set his priorities in place.
First comes the absolute commitment. If you mean to follow Jesus, then Jesus must be first place. The Lord wanted him and us to say an unqualified, “Yes” to Him and then follow Jesus. When we face issues in life, and they will come, we then as Christ’s disciples ask Jesus what we should do. In this case the man could have asked Jesus how he should care for his dead father.
Look what happened when Jesus called Peter and Andrew:
Matthew 4:18-20
Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Immediately they left their nets and followed Him.
And Matthew:
Matthew 9:9
As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector's booth; and He said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him.
Challenging The Distracted Disciple
61 Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”
62 Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
Stay focused. Be committed. The farmer who drives the ox to plow the field must look to an object on the other side of the field and keep looking at it. If he turns his eyes to the side, then the plow line will follow that same direction. If he looks back while plowing then his plow line will be ??? Following Jesus is a long term commitment. We must notice our tendencies to get distracted and determine in our hearts to focus on Jesus.
We don't just add Jesus to our lives, we give up our lives for Him.
Matthew 16:25
"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
And one last question... how could Jesus have gotten a chosen / called disciple so wrong?
Judas was not chosen to be saved; he was chosen to fulfill prophecy.
Psalm 41:9 says, "Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."
Zechariah 11:12-13 says, "I told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.' So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them."
Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him.
(Mark 3)
16 And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter ), 17 and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder "); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot ; 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.
(John 6)
70 Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil ?" 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
(John 17)
12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.
(John 6)
63 "It is the Spirit who gives life ; the flesh profits nothing ; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
(Mark 14)
21 "For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed ! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
No one ever took Jesus' life from Him. He layed it down of His own will.
John 10:17-18 says, "Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again...."
Earlier that evening He had said to Judas, "Go do what you have to do. It is time" (Jn. 13:27). Maybe Judas thought he was so smart, yet he was doing Jesus' own bidding, setting up a confrontation designed and planned before the ages by God Himself.
Christ is the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
But there's always more than we are counting on. Jesus found it, Saul refused to repent of it and went away sad. Then he got mad. Then he found fault. Then he blamed others. And he consoled himself with these thoughts that this Jesus is so wrong, so phony, and he'd see to it this sect that was left behind after his death and his body mysteriously vanishing that this cult would be run into the ground by him personally.
Fit the bill?
That could have happened to someone, or lots of people; it's a likely psychological pattern. But scripture doesn't say that it did happen to Paul. This is what we are told:
I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today. I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons (Acts 22:3-4).
We are never told that Paul was the rich young ruler, or even a rich young ruler.
Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading them into the text. This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
We have no idea how much wiser Jesus is. He who created all things created.
The Holy Spirit however does give us the details of the events in the lives of key people in scripture without always giving us precise indications of who they were.
Why does the Bible tell us about the rich young ruler?
Why does the Bible tell us about the one who offered to follow Jesus but was told by Jesus he had no place to live (ignoring the offer to follow him)?
You say you are familiar with Chuck Missler. At least some of his work. Have you heard him teach about the Bible being an integrated message system?
The Hebrew teaching was that every word every letter yea every space between the letters has meaning in the Torah. Jesus said not one yot or tittle will pass from Torah... those are parts of letters.
The Bible does not contain "filler." I'm sure you'd agree.
So, what are the passages above there in the word of God for?
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
With regard to whether Jesus actually chose Judas,
John 6:70 (KJV)
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Nearly all other English versions say "the twelve."
John 6:70 (NASB95)
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”
The twelve was as much a title for their group as disciples (which at one point was 70 or more but these were the twelve and Peter James and John were the inner circle... in King David's day they would have been called the three).
Question. Would God's purposes have been served had he said I chose 11 of you 12 because one is a devil?
If any of the 11 recalled that Judas was not specifically chosen / called but rather attached himself to the group would not his identity have been discovered before hand? Could that have had an effect on what Judas did or did not do?
Also recall the ease with which he went in among the higher ranking officials in the Sanhedrin. Does it not seem likely that he was a spy for them?
And one last question... how could Jesus have gotten a chosen / called disciple so wrong?
You must take care to follow the wording of such texts carefully. Like "who was thought to be the son of Joseph the husband of Mary..." was he Joseph's son? No.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
But what fueled the zeal he had in his hatred?
Classic reaction to his own (Saul's) personal failure. If a "believer" becomes an unbeliever (which 1 John 2:19 teaches that means they never really believed in the first place) they become hateful, antagonistic, volatile against what they once claimed to believe in. Saul of Tarsus all the more... here a bright young rising star in the Sanhedrin, particularly the Pharisaical sect, of well to do up bringing and educated in the finest education known to Judaism... to have even suspected this vagabond carpenter of questionable lineage (so far as the Sanhedrin saw him) as the promised Messiah?
Set aside the scandal it could have caused him. Saul would be down on himself the harshest for this when all his colleagues and mentors gave Jesus of Nazareth the thumbs down as not being the Messiah...
For all these things would soon occur to the likes of a rich young ruler who could boast as Paul later did the with regard to the Law of Moses he was blameless.
Philippians 3:5-6 (KJV)
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Isn't that what the rich young ruler did? All these have I kept from my youth.
But there's always more than we are counting on. Jesus found it, Saul refused to repent of it and went away sad. Then he got mad. Then he found fault. Then he blamed others. And he consoled himself with these thoughts that this Jesus is so wrong, so phony, and he'd see to it this sect that was left behind after his death and his body mysteriously vanishing that this cult would be run into the ground by him personally.
Fit the bill?
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
The idea of Paul as the rich young ruler is interesting, but only imaginary. All we know of Paul from scripture is that he hated Jesus and those who believed in Him before Paul’s conversion. I can’t picture that proud, zealous student of Gamaliel humbly kneeling before Jesus to ask "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Besides, if Paul had ever met Jesus during His earthly ministry, I think Paul would have said so.
It’s only fair to point out, though, that Paul did not always go along with Gamaliel:
A Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." (Acts 5:34-39)
[Gamaliel] is the only leader of the first century to be greatly honored in both the Jewish and the Christian traditions. (New World Encyclopedia)
quote:
Conversely, Judas was said by the Apostle John to have been a thief and a liar (feigning concern over the "waste" of perfume that was used to anoint the Lord's feet)... appears to not to have been called yet attached himself to the disciples and may well have been this person:
Judas was chosen:
Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?"
Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him. ( John 6:70-71)
quote:
What affect does Peter's description of what qualifies as a disciple / apostle (Acts 1:21-22) has on Paul if he was not the rich young ruler (and was not with Jesus during his earthly ministry)?
None. He was a Pharisee at that time. When he did become an apostle, it was the Lord who appointed him and taught him the gospel, not Peter.
That's not what I said. I said the qualifications of the apostles which Peter laid out before they rigged the choices with only two men... isn't it true that if Paul was not the rich young ruler or someone who followed Jesus in his earthly ministry to some degree, Paul would not qualify?
You said “What affect does Peter's description…has on Paul.” It had no affect on Paul. None, nada, zero, zilch.
If you’re asking did Paul qualify according to Peter’s pre-Pentecost agenda, then the answer is no, Paul did not qualify.
Praise God! Jesus is about a million times wiser than pre-Pentecost Peter was!
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Do you think he wrote the book of Hebrews?
Scripture doesn’t say.
There are subtle indications, for example the scriptures that say Paul was extremely concerned that his own people were saved (got witnessed to / convinced) that he could even wish his own salvation undone to pay for theirs if it were possible.
His biblical return to Jerusalem in the latter chapters of Acts even though he was the Apostle to the Gentiles...
The writings to the Church and the Gentiles and the glaring omission of any attempt to write to his own people in Israel in Judaism if he did not write the book of Hebrews.
The concealed manner in which the well versed scholar wrote Hebrews would suggest Paul incognito since his name was already synonymous with "mud" among them.
More later...
Who wrote the Book of Hebrews? Who was the author of Hebrews?
Theologically speaking, scholars generally regard the book of Hebrews to be second in importance only to Paul's letter to the Romans in the New Testament. No other book so eloquently defines Christ as high priest of Christianity, superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. This book presents Christ as the Author and Perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). However, both the authorship and audience are in question.
The title, "To the Hebrews," which appears in the earliest known copy of the epistle is not a part of the original manuscript. There is no salutation, the letter simply begins with the assertion that Jesus, the Son of God, has appeared, atoned for our sins, and is now seated at the right hand of God in heaven (Hebrews 1:1-4).
The letter closes with the words "Grace be with you all" (Hebrews 13:25), which is the same closing found in each of Paul's known letters (see Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 16:23; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Galatians 6:18; Ephesians 6:24; Philippians 4:23; Colossians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18; 1 Timothy 6:21; 2 Timothy 4:22; Titus 3:15; and Philemon 25). However, it should be noted that Peter (1 Peter 5:14; 2 Peter 3:18) used similar—though not identical—closings. Possibly that it was simply customary to close letters like this with the words "Grace be with you all" during this time period.
Church tradition teaches that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, and until the 1800s, that issue was closed. However, though a vast majority of Christians—both and scholars and the laity—still believe Paul wrote the book, there are some tempting reasons to think otherwise.
First and foremost is the lack of a salutation. Some sort of personal salutation from Paul appears in all of his letters. So it would seem that writing anonymously is not his usual method; therefore, the reasoning goes, Hebrews cannot be one of his letters. Second, the overall composition and style is of a person who is a very sophisticated writer. Even though he was certainly a sophisticated communicator, Paul stated that he purposely did not speak with a commanding vocabulary (1 Corinthians 1:17; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 11:6).
The book of Hebrews quotes extensively from the Old Testament. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been familiar with the Scripture in its original Hebrew language. In other letters, Paul either quotes the Masoretic Text (the original Hebrew) or paraphrases it. However, all of the quotes in this epistle are taken out of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which is inconsistent with Paul's usage. Finally, Paul was an apostle who claimed to receive his revelations directly from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23; Galatians 1:12). The writer of Hebrews specifically says that he was taught by an apostle (Hebrews 2:3).
If Paul didn't write the letter, who did? The most plausible suggestion is that this was actually a sermon Paul gave and it was transcribed later by Luke, a person who would have had the command of the Greek language which the writer shows. Barnabas is another likely prospect, since he was a Levite and would have been speaking on a subject that he knew much about. Martin Luther suggested Apollos, since he would have had the education the writer of this letter must have had. Priscilla and Clemet of Rome have been suggested by other scholars.
However, there is still much evidence that Paul wrote the letter. The most compelling comes from Scripture itself. Remember that Peter wrote to the Hebrews (that is, the Jews; see Galatians 2:7, 9 and 1 Peter 1:1). Peter wrote: "...just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him [emphasis added]" (2 Peter 3:15). In that last verse, Peter is confirming that Paul had also written a letter to the Hebrews!
The theology presented in Hebrews is consistent with Paul's. Paul was a proponent of salvation by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, 9), and that message is strongly communicated in this epistle (Hebrews 4:2, 6:12, 10:19-22, 10:37-39, and 11:1-40). Either Paul wrote the epistle, or the writer was trained by Paul. Although it is a small detail, this epistle makes mention of Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), and Paul is the only apostle known to have ever done that in any letter.
So, who actually wrote Hebrews? The letter fills a needed space in Scripture and both outlines our faith and defines faith itself in the same way that Romans defines the tenets of Christian living. It closes the chapters of faith alone and serves as a prelude to the chapters on good works built on a foundation of faith in God. In short, this book belongs in the Bible. Therefore, its human author is unimportant. What is important is to treat the book as inspired Scripture as defined in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Hebrews, and of all Scripture, even though we don't know who put the physical pen to the physical paper and traced the words.
http://www.gotquestions.org/author-Hebrews.html
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t know if he had been taken bodily or not. If he had disappeared bodily in public after being stoned and left for dead, it would have been obvious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, I think what he was driving at is there is such a small difference between the nature of the body and the nature of the spirit one would scarce be able to tell the difference. Remember the account of Luke 16:19-31 and all the physical traits the disembodied spirits of Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man).
Your question was:
quote:
Was Paul in fact the man who in the body or out of the body who went to the third heaven and that about the time he was left for dead after being stoned?
My answer was yes it was Paul, but no not at that time and place.
I know in our sleeping dreams we can sometimes think we are physically involved in the dream, when really our body is in bed. Paul's experience may have felt something like that where he couldn't really tell the difference. (I'm not saying that it was only a dream). He didn't know if he was in the body or not. Maybe he was.
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:2)
But, if he physically disappeared from a public place, someone would have noticed.
At Lystra Paul was in public, surrounded by people, and someone would have told him if his body had vanished for awhile.
But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having won over the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead.
But while the disciples stood around him, he got up and entered the city. The next day he went away with Barnabas to Derbe. (Acts 14:19-20)
That's one reason why I believe he had his experience at some other time and place when there were no witnesses to tell him whether or not his body vanished.
In the spiritual realm we may have bodies as evidenced by Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man, 1 Samuel 28:12, and during the Transfiguration of Matthew 17, but in this world if a body disappears in front of people, they will know it.
Paul would have known "whether in the body" because they would have told him.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
And the thing with Matthias was not a realistic method used to determine the will of God... the disciples made two choices and threw the urim thumim, rolled the dice to see which of the two (disallowing God any other alternatives).
They did not use the Urim and Thummim.
The Urim "lights" and Thummim "perfections" were gemstones that were carried by the High Priest of Israel on the ephod / priestly garments. They were used by the High Priest to determine God's will in some situations.
And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:24-26)
In Leviticus 16:1-22, on the Day of Atonement, it appears that casting a lot was commanded by God for choosing the scapegoat that was to be sent into the wilderness.
In Joshua 18:1-10, the casting of lots was used by Joshua to divide up some of the land in Canaan that still had not yet been possessed by some of the tribes. This was as God had commanded it in Numbers 26:52-56.
God directed the casting of lots in several places in Numbers, including Numbers 26:55; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2.
Various offices and functions in the temple were divided up by lot in 1 Chronicles 24:5,31; 25:8-9; 26:13-14.
Proverbs 16:33 indicates the presence of casting lots among the people of Israel. It says, "The lot is cast into the lap,
But its every decision is from the Lord."
Again, Proverbs 18:18 says, "The lot puts an end to contentions,
And decides between the mighty."
The Gentile sailors on Jonah’s ship bound for Tarshish cast lots to determine who had brought God’s wrath upon them and their vessel. You’ll find that in Jonah 1:7.
The lot was used in Nehemiah’s day (10:34) to divide up the fire wood, some of which was to be used in the burn offerings of the Temple and to decide who would move their homes to inside the city of Jerusalem (11:1).
Of course it was prophesied in Psalm 22:18 that the soldiers would cast lots for Jesus’ garments while He was on the cross. This was fulfilled in Matthew 27:35.
In Joel 3, the captors of Israel during the 70 years of captivity are said to have "cast lots for my people, and traded a boy for a harlot and sold a girl for wine they may drink."
There is only one example of casting lots among God’s people in the books of the New Testament. (The casting of lots by the soldiers who crucified Jesus was not done by God’s people.) That is the case of the choosing of Matthias in Acts 1:26.
There is no mention of the practice after Pentecost. Today we make decisions based on the Word, prayer, and the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Mark the amanuenses of Paul or Peter?
Scripture doesn’t say. Mark was close to both of them so he could have scribed for both. Silas could have scribed for both also. I guess a lot of people think that Silas wrote 1 Peter and that it has a Pauline theology to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing I would add is that the Greek grammar is not so good in 1 Peter, and it seems unlikely Paul would have John Mark write that it was Peter who dictated the letter to him.
Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it! (1 Peter 5:12)
It was Silas who transcribed the letter. What I meant before was: there is a big debate about 1 Peter, and some people say that Silas made it more Pauline than the way that Peter would; that Silas wrote it. I don't agree with that view. I think it is exactly what it says it is, a letter from Peter with Silas as the transcriptionist.
Here are some examples of the debate:
Eric Eve writes: "Despite 1 Pet 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT."
W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet presupposes the Pauline theology. This is true not only in the general sense that the Jewish-Christian readers, the 'people of God' (2:10), are no longer concerned about the problem of the fulfillment of the Law, but also in the special sense that, as in Paul, the death of Jesus has atoned for the sins of Christians and has accomplished justification (1:18 f; 2:24)."
W. G. Kümmel writes: "Many scholars have sought to weaken both these arguments on the ground that 5:12 dia eigouanou umin. . . egraqa assumes that Silvanus is the real author to whom Peter gave the responsibility for the actual writing. Some think that they can prove that clearly common elements in language exist between I and II Thess, I Pet, and Acts 15:29, which indicates a common authorship by Silvanus."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
_________________________________________________
Saint Silas or Saint Silvanus (Greek: Σίλας / Σιλουανός; fl. 1st century AD) was a leading member of the Early Christian community, who later accompanied Paul in some of his missionary journeys.
There is some disagreement over the proper form of his name: he is consistently called "Silas" in Acts, but the Latin Silvanus, which means "of the forest", is always used by Paul and in the First Epistle of Peter; it may be that "Silvanus" is the Romanized version of the original "Silas", or that "Silas" is the Greek nickname for "Silvanus". --Wikipedia
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
But when it IS biblical, then anyone is being the mouthpiece of God.
Like the man who wrote this:
quote:
Moses declares in Deut 6:5, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength." It appears Moses is also teaching a trichotomy of sorts. But notice that Moses' three parts are different from Paul's. Moses seems to be teaching we are composed of heart, soul, and strength.
Two of these "parts" Paul doesn't mention [in 1 Thessalonians 5:23]. So maybe heart and strength should be added to Paul's three making humans five-part beings (pentachotomy?).
2Kings 23:25 says about king Josiah, "Now before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses; nor after him did any arise like him."
Here the writer also appears to be teaching a kind of trichotomy. But he uses one new term - "might." So maybe this term needs to be added to the above five making humans six-part beings (hexachotomy?)
In Matt 22:37, Jesus appears to be referring to Deut 6:5. But He words it a little differently, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." So in addition to the above, "mind" now needs to be added making us seven-part beings (septachotomy?).
Interestingly, the next two times Jesus is recorded as repeating this command, He again words it differently, "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30; see also Luke 10:27).
All four of these terms have been mentioned previously; but why did Jesus go from a three to a four part description? Could it be that such descriptions are not meant to teach some kind of human anthropology. But instead, all Moses and Jesus are saying is we are to love God completely and the writer of 2Kings that Josiah turned to God completely.
In the same way, Paul could simply be praying for God to sanctify and preserve the Thessalonians completely.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
But when it IS biblical, then anyone is being the mouthpiece of God.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Agreed, insomuch that my argument is not biblical.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
Doesn't matter what arguments man comes up with. The scripture says there is a soul and a spirit and a body.
Contrasts don't matter either. Me myself and I trichotomies... only what Bible say matter
Then, since you are a man, it doesn't matter what arguments you come up with.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Do you believe he is the actual 12th disciple / apostle (rather than Matthias or even Judas for that matter)?
No
Mark 10:
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
The treasure in heaven was a point the Apostle Paul made (1 Corinthians 3:11-15, 2 Timothy 4:8)
And the rich young ruler was given the same call Jesus gave the other disciples...
Romans 11:29 (NIV)
29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
Paul also wrote he knew how to be abased and how to abound. Much is taught about his being in prison and persecuted and it is not necessary that we go into this here, but his abounding may need to be covered...
Philippians 3:4-11 (NIV)
4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:
5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;
6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Sounds like the testimony of the rich young ruler who went away sad because he used to believe and feel just he opposite of what he since found to be rubbish etc.
Paul was also born a citizen of Tarshish meaning his family was prominent in the Roman registry. And he was educated by Gamaliel grandson of Hillel which was the upper crust in Judaism... in 30 CE Saul would have been about 20... and the rising star in Judaism of his day and with all that Jesus said and did and the commotion it stirred in the holy city to think Saul would not have looked into this even if initially to see if this was the promised Messiah or not... not a realistic point of view...
Conversely, Judas was said by the Apostle John to have been a thief and a liar (feigning concern over the "waste" of perfume that was used to anoint the Lord's feet)... appears to not to have been called yet attached himself to the disciples and may well have been this person:
Luke 9:57-62 (NIV)
57 As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.”
58 Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
59 He said to another man, “Follow me.” But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
60 Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
61 Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”
62 Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
Three men are mentioned here.
One is called but gives an excuse. His calling is reaffirmed and I have no doubts this unnamed man was one of the disciples / apostles.
The two others are not called but rather offer to follow Jesus. The latter one offers an excuse and Jesus still does not call him but pivots off of his excuse with an analogy. The former, this is the one I believe (but I cannot prove) was Judas. He offered to follow Jesus and Jesus responds with the conditions of his ministry. It was a non-response, a back handed reply pointing to the hardship a thief and a liar bristle at the thought of enduring / doing without.
And the thing with Matthias was not a realistic method used to determine the will of God... the disciples made two choices and threw the urim thumim, rolled the dice to see which of the two (disallowing God any other alternatives).
I tried this with two favored sports cars once (and that didn't work)... {smile}
Mark 10:
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,
30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.
quote:
Do you believe he was the rich young man who went away sad because he had great wealth and Jesus told him to give it to the poor and follow him?
No
ibid
quote:
What affect does Peter's description of what qualifies as a disciple / apostle (Acts 1:21-22) has on Paul if he was not the rich young ruler (and was not with Jesus during his earthly ministry)?
None. He was a Pharisee at that time. When he did become an apostle, it was the Lord who appointed him and taught him the gospel, not Peter.
That's not what I said. I said the qualifications of the apostles which Peter laid out before they rigged the choices with only two men... isn't it true that if Paul was not the rich young ruler or someone who followed Jesus in his earthly ministry to some degree, Paul would not qualify?
quote:
Was Paul in fact the man who in the body or out of the body who went to the third heaven and that about the time he was left for dead after being stoned?
Yes, or else he would have named the man.
Bravo! On something we agree at long last! {Smile}
quote:
He didn’t know if he had been taken bodily or not. If he had disappeared bodily in public after being stoned and left for dead, it would have been obvious.
Uh, I think what he was driving at is there is such a small difference between the nature of the body and the nature of the spirit one would scarce be able to tell the difference. Remember the account of Luke 16:19-31 and all the physical traits the disembodied spirits of Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man).
quote:
Also the timing doesn’t work. 14 years before the writing of 2 Corinthians was 43AD at the very latest and probably a year or so earlier.
This is difficult to reconcile with Acts which at face value dates the first missionary journey after the death of Herod Agrippa in 44AD.
...provided the dating of 2 Corinthians by (scholars) is accurate...
quote:
Was Paul acting on his own by going back to Jerusalem despite the prophetic warnings of believers?
Paul obeyed the Holy Spirit.
Acts 20:22-24
"And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.”
Huh. From deo (bound) I gather that this was the will of the Spirit rather than going against his will. The NIV goes as far as saying compelled by the Spirit... in either case it doesn't seem as though he is disobeying the Spirit.
quote:
Did he have a fourth missionary journey?
Scripture doesn’t say. There was a possible fourth journey between his first and second imprisonments in Rome.
Interesting. This is exactly how Luke and Acts would end if they were in fact Paul's trial documents. It stops abruptly before his appeal to Cesar was heard.
quote:
Was there a third and fourth epistle to the Corinthians?
Scripture doesn’t say. The mood of 2 Corinthians would make more sense if there had been a letter between 1 & 2 Corinthians, and if 2 Corinthians was itself actually two different letters instead of one.
Agreed.
quote:
What was Paul's thorn in the flesh?
Scripture doesn’t say except it was a messenger from Satan.
Agreed, with the possibility that it was an eye problem since his references to writing with large letters when he wrote (gama rather than epistole).
quote:
Was Mark the amanuenses of Paul or Peter?
Scripture doesn’t say. Mark was close to both of them so he could have scribed for both. Silas could have scribed for both also. I guess a lot of people think that Silas wrote 1 Peter and that it has a Pauline theology to it.
The only thing I would add is that the Greek grammar is not so good in 1 Peter, and it seems unlikely Paul would have John Mark write that it was Peter who dictated the letter to him.
Did we settle the disagreement about the purpose for the writing of Luke and Acts and to whom it was written?
You said “huh”. Theophilus is a Greek name meaning "Friend of God". But it was a popular name among both Romans and Jews at the time Luke wrote, and was commonly used as an honorary title. [/QUOTE]
As when addressing an officer of the court...
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Doesn't matter what arguments man comes up with. The scripture says there is a soul and a spirit and a body.
Contrasts don't matter either. Me myself and I trichotomies... only what Bible say matter
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
And the Greek for...
1 Thessalonians 5:23 (KJV)
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
???
1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NASB)
23NowG1161 may the GodG2316 of peaceG1515 HimselfG846 sanctifyG37 you entirelyG3651; and may your spiritG4151 and soulG5590 and bodyG4983 be preservedG5083 completeG3648, withoutG274 blameG274 at the comingG3952 of our LordG2962 JesusG2424 ChristG5547.
G4983 soma
(A) Of a human body different from sarx (G4561), flesh, which word denotes the material body. (1) A living body (Matt. 5:29, 30; 6:25; 26:12; Mark 5:29; 14:8; Luke 12:22, 23; John 2:21; Rom. 1:24; 4:19; 1 Cor. 6:13; 15:44; 2 Cor. 4:10; 10:10; Col. 2:23; Heb. 10:5; 1 Pet. 2:24). In Col. 1:22 the expression “in the body of his flesh [sarx]” means in his body incarnate, flesh that forms an organized whole. This is the antithesis of hē psuchē (G5590), the soul (Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:4), and to pneuma (G4151), the spirit (Rom. 8:10; 1 Cor. 5:3; 7:34); or where sōma, psuchē and pneuma make a periphrasis for the whole man (1 Thess. 5:23).
(The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament)
Watchman Nee comments on this verse:
From this we can easily understand that the whole person comprises three parts. This verse also makes a distinction between spirit and soul; otherwise Paul would have said simply "your soul." Since God has distinguished the human spirit from the human soul, we conclude that man is composed of not two, but three parts: spirit, soul and body.(13)
But is Nee's conclusion a valid inference from this verse? A comparison will be made with other verses in the Bible which mention "parts" of human beings.
Moses declares in Deut 6:5, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength." It appears Moses is also teaching a trichotomy of sorts. But notice that Moses' three parts are different from Paul's. Moses seems to be teaching we are composed of heart, soul, and strength.
Two of these "parts" Paul doesn't mention [in 1 Thessalonians 5:23]. So maybe heart and strength should be added to Paul's three making humans five-part beings (pentachotomy?).
2Kings 23:25 says about king Josiah, "Now before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses; nor after him did any arise like him."
Here the writer also appears to be teaching a kind of trichotomy. But he uses one new term - "might." So maybe this term needs to be added to the above five making humans six-part beings (hexachotomy?)
In Matt 22:37, Jesus appears to be referring to Deut 6:5. But He words it a little differently, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." So in addition to the above, "mind" now needs to be added making us seven-part beings (septachotomy?).
Interestingly, the next two times Jesus is recorded as repeating this command, He again words it differently, "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30; see also Luke 10:27).
All four of these terms have been mentioned previously; but why did Jesus go from a three to a four part description? Could it be that such descriptions are not meant to teach some kind of human anthropology. But instead, all Moses and Jesus are saying is we are to love God completely and the writer of 2Kings that Josiah turned to God completely.
In the same way, Paul could simply be praying for God to sanctify and preserve the Thessalonians completely.
The NGSB agrees with this interpretation:
your whole spirit, soul, and body. Three words are used to emphasize the wholeness of the perfection. "Spirit" and "soul" are used as virtual synonyms in the Bible for the spiritual component of a person. When the terms occur together (as here and in Heb 4:12) it is difficult to find any significant difference in meaning. Compare the fourfold representation of "heart," "soul," "mind," and "strength" in Mark 12:30. (14)
Lastly on 1Thes 5:23, several other terms are also used in Scripture to refer to our immaterial nature: Mind - literally kidneys (Ps 7:9); Inward parts (Ps 51:6); Inmost body - literally rooms of the belly (Prov 18:8); Bile - literally liver (Lam 2:11); Inner being (Isa 16:11); and Inward man (Eph 3:16). Should we be divided into all of these parts also?
http://thechristianbbs.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007009#000000
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
