Christian Message Boards: Critiquing the New Testament 101

This is topic Critiquing the New Testament 101 in forum Bible Topics & Study at Christian Message Boards.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://thechristianbbs.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007636

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

The New Testament is said by some here to be a thing yours truly is too ignorant of to critique it.

I would like to begin with the statement that the Old Testament contains the New Testament concealed. And the New Testament contains the Old Testament revealed.

I dare say that more than starts the ball rolling here. Any comments?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

I am being a bit impatient here, but in another thread I was told by a moderator here that I am too ignorant of the New Testament to critique it properly... and I was wondering why she hesitates to jump in here to prove her claim.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

You prove me wrong

Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on :

[roll on floor]

Check & Mate.

It is clear to all that Johnny needs to take his ball back home or find a "Spiritual Israel" BBS to play on.

Grace BBS + The"Spiritual Israel"logic = confusion.
.............AND WE KNOW
God is not the author of confusion only the enemy is.

[cool_shades]

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
You prove me wrong

How then shall I prove you wrong?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
You prove me wrong
How then shall I prove you wrong?

Shall I drill you by what I know? Will you drill me by what you know? Shall we discuss how the NT was canonized? The various Greek families of texts?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

Did you know that it is most likely that the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were Doctor Luke's investigation into the background of Paul's appeal to Cesar as his trial documents?

That the book of Matthew is the testimony of the Jewishness of the Messiah and of his Kingship.

The Book of Mark is the testimony of the servanthood of Jesus (which is why there is no genealogy).

Luke is the testimony of his humanity. Non royal genealogy.

John is the testimony of his divinity. His genealogy is John 1:1 and John 1:14 here.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

The alleged contradicting genealogies in Matthew 1 ad Luke three are of his mother (Luke) and of his foster father Joseph (Matthew). The genealogy in Matthew is "telescoped" which is why it is shorter than the other. There appears to be a cross over (kinsman redeemer adoption in the two in the time of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel...

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

2 Corinthians is believed to be the third letter to the Corinthians another letter is alluded to in on of the two letters that no longer exists or has yet to be found. And there is no certainty it would be in the canon if found.

Uh, let's see...

We can discuss why the Gospel of Thomas and similar writings were not canonized.

It's really hard to prove to one who sits in judgment of me just how very much I know about the New Testament and unlike you I do not have a data base of cut and paste articles to quote from but rather the Bible itself and my studies and readings and listening (audio cassettes and CD's) over the last 30 years.

Been a believer for 45 years but did not get into the Word until 1980.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
Check & Mate.

It is clear to all that Johnny needs to take his ball back home or find a "Spiritual Israel" BBS to play on.

Grace BBS + The"Spiritual Israel"logic = confusion.
.............AND WE KNOW
God is not the author of confusion only the enemy is.

If only the ignore feature worked. Then you'd just go away.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

John, IMHO the only way a person could prove he knows the New Testament is by living it - by living a life filled with the Holy Spirit of Christ.

But I do like the direction you're taking here, and I would enjoy talking about the New Testament with you. This is not meant to be a contest about who knows more than who; this is just sharing with everyone who reads it.

quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
Did you know that it is most likely that the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were Doctor Luke's investigation into the background of Paul's appeal to Cesar as his trial documents?

That the book of Matthew is the testimony of the Jewishness of the Messiah and of his Kingship.

The Book of Mark is the testimony of the servanthood of Jesus (which is why there is no genealogy).

Luke is the testimony of his humanity. Non royal genealogy.

John is the testimony of his divinity. His genealogy is John 1:1 and John 1:14 here.

I have heard that before about Luke. I heard that he was trying to help Paul's defense by documenting the historical facts. But the Gospel record that Luke wrote was written to Greeks, not Romans.

We know Luke was with Paul during Paul's second imprisonment in Rome, and it is believed that 2 Timothy was Paul's last letter before he was killed.

2 Timothy 4:11 (NASB)
Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.

Here is a little info from Tyndale's iLumina Bible:

The Gospel According to Luke was written for a certain prominent individual named Theophilus (Luke 1:1). The Greek meaning of the name “Theophilus” is “lover of God.” Some interpreters theorize that the name may be symbolic for all Christians rather than referring to an actual person. But without clear proof for symbolism, “Theophilus” should probably be understood to be a real person to whom Luke addressed his two-volume work of the Gospel and Acts. The reference to this individual, however, was really a dedication characteristic of Greek and Roman literature. The work was clearly written for the benefit of Gentiles in general and Greeks in particular. As a result of Paul’s missionary journeys the gospel spread through the Greek world, and there developed a need for a gospel record that would speak to the Greek mind.

The Greek nature of the book can be seen in the fact that the genealogy was traced to Adam, the father of the human race, rather than Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation. Luke avoided the use of Jewish terminology like “rabbi” and instead used “master” or “teacher.” Luke placed less emphasis on the fulfillment of prophecy, and he substituted Greek names for Hebrew names (cf. Luke 6:16; 23:33 with Mark 3:18). Abundant evidence indicates that Luke addressed his Gospel to Greek Gentiles. The Gospel of Luke was written before Acts (Acts 1:1) and after the development of Christianity to the point where it would attract the attention of a Gentile inquirer like Theophilus. The abrupt ending of Acts indicates that Luke concluded his writing at the end of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome in A.D. 62. The Gospel was composed prior to that, probably about A.D. 60. Paul’s two year imprisonment at Caesarea would have afforded Luke an opportunity to research and write the Gospel.

The book of Acts was probably written in Rome during or following Paul’s first imprisonment there (A.D. 60–62). That the work was published around A.D. 63 is indicated by the lack of reference to the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) or the persecution of the Christians by Nero following the fire of Rome in A.D. 64. There is no hint in Acts that Nero’s anti-Christian policy had yet manifested itself. The fact that Paul’s imprisonment and death (A.D. 67 or 68) were not recorded is also evidence that Acts was written around A.D. 63.

There is an interesting chart at this address showing the differences between the four Gospels.

http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/glance.asp

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

I do not understand why you believe the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written to Greeks and not Romans (and specifically a Roman barrister named Theophilus). Bearing in mind that "Greek" at the time of the writing was a common word for all non-Jews since the Greek universal language from the Alexandrian conquer age was still in place in the Roman Empire as the language of commerce.

Recall:

Acts 21:37 (KJV)
37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?

This was a ROMAN centurian.

And I am not out to one up you. I was simply charged by you with ignorance of the NT (which I took offense by your presumption) but in living the example of the New Testament (as you accurately said is "a" manner of proving one knows the NT) I chose to open this thread in philadelphia style rather than sniping back.

And I believe we can all benefit from the discussion that ensues.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

I have also heard, but have been able to confirm that John Mark at some point was a disciple of Simon Peter and that the Gospel of Mark was essentially the input of Peter.

Such things interest me only so far.

The Gospels are a good place to camp for studying especially when using them as a deciphering key to unlock OT prophecies. In the NT we have the unconcealed truth almost in rapid fire fashion. But without the OT background and foretelling it is as seeing a program on a black and white television which gets the point across without the nuances of a color television by including the OT.

In more modern terms it would be like seeing all in low def NT and high def NT AND OT. Greater detail, depth of field sense of being in the scene etc.

I discovered this (for myself anyway) when I set out to be able to witness to Jewish people from just the OT since they reject the NT as just another religion book (like the NWT or the BofM).

And I was fascinated to discover how much NT is in the OT (all of it in fact). And that passages like 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 and 2 Timothy 2:15 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:11 all apply to the NT but the NT was not in existence at the time these passages were written so they refer to the OT only. When they were written the NT did not exist yet.

So I had a greater appreciation of the OT other than the precursory groundbreaking or merely establishing a background that I had previously taken it for. That in it were many things (not all things obviously) for all generations of believers to keep.

I'll give a NT example:

Galatians 3:24-25 (KJV)
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

This would seem to suggest a freedom from the law and is where antinomianism was perceived... giving rise to Paul's response:

Romans 3:8 (KJV)
8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Rather... there is a second law (another Torah) in scripture though it is rarely mentioned in those terms (at least overtly)...

1 Corinthians 9:19-21 (NIV)
19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (THOUGH I AM NOT FREE FROM GOD'S LAW BUT AM UNDER CHRIST'S LAW), so as to win those not having the law.

Here it is overt the contrast of Torah Moshe (Law of Moses) and Torah Moshiakh (Christ's Law / God's Law). Elsewhere it is mentioned but covertly (or rather in such a way it is often mistaken to mean the Law of Moses).

Example:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 (NIV)
31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put MY LAW in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

The law of Moses? Or the Law of Christ? God's Law... which God would call "MY LAW."

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
The alleged contradicting genealogies in Matthew 1 ad Luke three are of his mother (Luke) and of his foster father Joseph (Matthew). The genealogy in Matthew is "telescoped" which is why it is shorter than the other. There appears to be a cross over (kinsman redeemer adoption in the two in the time of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel...

Genealogies were very important to the Jews, for without them they could not prove their tribal memberships or their rights to inheritances. Anyone claiming to be “the Son of David” had to be able to prove it. It is generally concluded that Matthew gave our Lord’s family tree through His foster father, Joseph, while Luke gave Mary’s lineage.

This list of names is a vital part of the Gospel record. It shows that Jesus Christ is a part of history; that all of Jewish history prepared the way for His birth. God in His providence ruled and overruled to accomplish His great purpose in bringing His Son into the world.

This genealogy also illustrates God’s wonderful grace. It is most unusual to find the names of women in Jewish genealogies, since names and inheritances came through the fathers. But in this list we find references to four women from Old Testament history: Tamar (Matt. 1:3), Rahab and Ruth (Matt. 1:5), and Bathsheba “the wife of Uriah” (Matt. 1:6).

Matthew clearly omitted some names from this genealogy. Probably, he did this to give a systematic summary of three periods in Israel’s history, each with fourteen generations. The numerical value of the Hebrew letters for “David” equals fourteen. Matthew probably used this approach as a memory aid to help his readers remember this difficult list.

But there were many Jewish men who could trace their family back to King David. It would take more than human pedigree to make Jesus Christ “the Son of David” and heir to David’s throne. This is why the divine heredity was so important.

Matthew 1:16 and 18 make it clear that Jesus Christ’s birth was different from that of any other Jewish boy named in the genealogy. Matthew pointed out that Joseph did not “beget” Jesus Christ. Rather, Joseph was the “husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Jesus was born of an earthly mother without the need of an earthly father.

Every child born into the world is a totally new creature. But Jesus Christ, being eternal God (John 1:1, 14), existed before Mary and Joseph or any of His earthly ancestors. If Jesus Christ were conceived and born just as any other baby, then He could not be God. It was necessary for Him to enter this world through an earthly mother, but not to be begotten by an earthly father. By a miracle of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, a virgin (Luke 1:26-38).

(Wiersbe)

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
I do not understand why you believe the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written to Greeks and not Romans (and specifically a Roman barrister named Theophilus). Bearing in mind that "Greek" at the time of the writing was a common word for all non-Jews since the Greek universal language from the Alexandrian conquer age was still in place in the Roman Empire as the language of commerce.

Well, I can't say I've read everything ever written, but so far every introduction I've read about Luke said he wrote to Greeks, although Theophilus could have been a Roman, or any individual, or all people who love God. We don't really know. Comparison charts always say that Luke wrote to Greeks and Mark wrote to Romans.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

Huh.

I was under the impression it was the other way around.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

Going by what the Bible says, Luke wrote to a specific Theophilus. Mark wrote to a general audience. Doing a word search does not reveal Rome Romans Greek or Greeks in either authors' writings except to express who a people were in their writings like the Greek woman Mark 7:26 etc.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Genealogies were very important to the Jews, for without them they could not prove their tribal memberships or their rights to inheritances.

Every child born into the world is a totally new creature. But Jesus Christ, being eternal God (John 1:1, 14), existed before Mary and Joseph or any of His earthly ancestors. If Jesus Christ were conceived and born just as any other baby, then He could not be God. It was necessary for Him to enter this world through an earthly mother, but not to be begotten by an earthly father. By a miracle of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, a virgin (Luke 1:26-38).

Interesting you said "through an earthy mother" because I am of the opinion (not dogma just opinion) that Miryam (Mary) was a surrogate of the embryo created by the Father and implanted by the Holy Spirit (like a Doctor would implant one... to ward off all Mormon-esque interpretations which are blasphemy in my opinion) but that the man Christ Jesus was literally the last Adam as 1 Corinthians 15:45 suggests. That he was literally created as sinless as Adam was before he fell into sin.

And in fact Adam and Eve for that matter were created in the image of the form Jesus would take (i.e. human form) and that is how they were created in the image of God...

Colossians 1:15 (NIV)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

So man was created in the image of the image of the invisible God incarnate (shortened to created in the image of God). Make sense?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Genealogies were very important to the Jews, for without them they could not prove their tribal memberships or their rights to inheritances.

Every child born into the world is a totally new creature. But Jesus Christ, being eternal God (John 1:1, 14), existed before Mary and Joseph or any of His earthly ancestors. If Jesus Christ were conceived and born just as any other baby, then He could not be God. It was necessary for Him to enter this world through an earthly mother, but not to be begotten by an earthly father. By a miracle of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, a virgin (Luke 1:26-38).
Interesting you said "through an earthy mother" because I am of the opinion (not dogma just opinion) that Miryam (Mary) was a surrogate of the embryo created by the Father and implanted by the Holy Spirit (like a Doctor would implant one... to ward off all Mormon-esque interpretations which are blasphemy in my opinion) but that the man Christ Jesus was literally the last Adam as 1 Corinthians 15:45 suggests. That he was literally created as sinless as Adam was before he fell into sin.

And in fact Adam and Eve for that matter were created in the image of the form Jesus would take (i.e. human form) and that is how they were created in the image of God...

Colossians 1:15 (NIV)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn {{position of ultimate supremacy rather than linear counting}} over all creation.

So man was created in the image of the image of the invisible God incarnate (shortened to created in the image of God). Make sense?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Genealogies were very important to the Jews, for without them they could not prove their tribal memberships or their rights to inheritances.

Every child born into the world is a totally new creature. But Jesus Christ, being eternal God (John 1:1, 14), existed before Mary and Joseph or any of His earthly ancestors. If Jesus Christ were conceived and born just as any other baby, then He could not be God. It was necessary for Him to enter this world through an earthly mother, but not to be begotten by an earthly father. By a miracle of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, a virgin (Luke 1:26-38).

Interesting you said "through an earthy mother" because I am of the opinion (not dogma just opinion) that Miryam (Mary) was a surrogate of the embryo created by the Father and implanted by the Holy Spirit (like a Doctor would implant one... to ward off all Mormon-esque interpretations which are blasphemy in my opinion) but that the man Christ Jesus was literally the last Adam as 1 Corinthians 15:45 suggests. That he was literally created as sinless as Adam was before he fell into sin.

And in fact Adam and Eve for that matter were created in the image of the form Jesus would take (i.e. human form) and that is how they were created in the image of God...

Colossians 1:15 (NIV)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn {{position of ultimate prominence rather than linear counting}} over all creation.

So man was created in the image of the image of the invisible God incarnate (shortened to created in the image of God). Make sense?

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

Here's another link to a comprehensive comparison chart. This is nice - when you put your pointer on a verse reference the verse pops up to read.

http://so4j.com/harmony-of-the-gospels-of-jesus-in-the-bible.php

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:

Interesting you said "through an earthy mother" because I am of the opinion (not dogma just opinion) that Miryam (Mary) was a surrogate of the embryo created by the Father and implanted by the Holy Spirit (like a Doctor would implant one... to ward off all Mormon-esque interpretations which are blasphemy in my opinion) but that the man Christ Jesus was literally the last Adam as 1 Corinthians 15:45 suggests. That he was literally created as sinless as Adam was before he fell into sin.

And in fact Adam and Eve for that matter were created in the image of the form Jesus would take (i.e. human form) and that is how they were created in the image of God...

Colossians 1:15 (NIV)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

So man was created in the image of the image of the invisible God incarnate (shortened to created in the image of God). Make sense?

God is omniscient so He knew exactly how He wanted to create human beings long before He ever did create Adam. To say Adam was created in the image of Jesus, well, I don't know. It isn't the physical appearance that matters, but the spiritual character. Adam was innocent, but Christ was omniscient. Adam was tempted to eat the forbidden fruit so he could be "like God" and decide good and evil for himself. We all know that didn't turn out very well...

First Adam and last Adam refers to the fact that they were prototypes of the human race. Adam sinned so we have all been born into sin and the penalty for sin - death. Jesus was perfect so all who give their lives to Him are imputed with His righteousness and the reward for righteousness - eternal life.

That's how I see it anyway.

One thing for sure - Jesus was not created, He was begotten.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
God is omniscient so He knew exactly how He wanted to create human beings long before He ever did create Adam. To say Adam was created in the image of Jesus, well, I don't know.

{Chuckle}

Well I was not speaking of him being the spitting image of Jesus. How could I be? Eve was included in that. The image is apparently our human image. Function of our minds bodies souls psyches encapsulating a spirit which is above animals but lower than angels... some animal rights activists would disagree citing the various animal faced angels... but that's neither here nor there.

But my premise makes sense in that as being created in his image we are his kinsmen and able to be redeemed by a kinsman redeemer. Angels have no kinsman redeemer even if they could be saved from sin in their eternal state (which they cannot because they cannot die).

Oh yes, I forgot to mention another aspect of our humanity: the ability to die and to be resurrected.

quote:
It isn't the physical appearance that matters, but the spiritual character. Adam was innocent, but Christ was omniscient.

Granted. But, was he (Jesus) omniscient in his flesh or in his Spirit? Many debate and get into very deep discussion about the aspects of Christology / the Incarnation. And I am willing to do so. But for the sake of brevity I am only saying here that though he were as the pre-fall Adam, Jesus was as human as the rest of us with the exception that his Spirit is divine and is in fact God the Word (John 1:1, 14) which Philippians 2:6-8 gives us a more detailed picture of his taking upon himself the form (nature) of humanity while retaining his deity. The suggestion is that he was not divine in his flesh but rather in his Spirit alone.

quote:
Adam was tempted to eat the forbidden fruit so he could be "like God" and decide good and evil for himself. We all know that didn't turn out very well...

Yes. But this brings up an interesting point about the Incarnation. The three temptations of Jesus. What do you believe they were about?

I believe they were about the restraint of the man Jesus not to use his divine power (as God the Word) which would have blown the Messianic office and his ability to be our kinsman redeemer. He dealt with each temptation as everyone of us can. Had he done any different, our opportunity to be saved would be forever kaput.

If you think of it, the absurdity of the actual last temptation of Christ only makes sense that Satan was trying to enrage the man Jesus.

1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

quote:
First Adam and last Adam refers to the fact that they were prototypes of the human race.

Agreed. But there is no reason top believe that's all that could be understood from the verse. I also believe it can be understood to indicate that in the resurrection an infusion of spirit and body takes place wherein we are no longer bodies that contain our spirits in resurrection or the perfection in the twinkling of the eye... but we will have spirit-bodies (our spirit infused with our body).

Romans 8:23 (KJV)
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV)
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

See what I mean?

And in that regard...

1 John 3:2 (KJV)
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

quote:
Adam sinned so we have all been born into sin and the penalty for sin - death.

That's right. John 3:16-18.

quote:
Jesus was perfect so all who give their lives to Him are imputed with His righteousness and the reward for righteousness - eternal life.

Remember also when God created all things he declared it all to be very good. So it can be easily understood that Jesus (the last Adam) was in his flesh as the innocence of the newly created first Adam.

quote:
One thing for sure - Jesus was not created, He was begotten.

He preexisted in his Spirit (God the Word).

John 1:1 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:14 (NIV)
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

(I am with you, he was begotten).

Here's how it was put elsewhere:

Hebrews 10:5-7 (NIV)
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, O God.’”

Hebrews 10:5-7 (KJV)
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

a body YOU have prepared ME

Hebrews 1 (KJV)
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

In the beginning the only one doing all the creating was God the Word (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:13-16, Isaiah 44:24). Later when he brought the firstborn into the world, the First Person of the Godhead became the Father of God the Word incarnate "this day..." when he (the Father) created / begot the only thing he created / begot which is why John 1:14 says ONLY begotten of the Father.

In his Spirit, Jesus is as eternal and divine as the Father or the Holy Spirit. In his flesh, he was begotten / created at a monumental point in time when he became the Son and when the Father became the Father.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

quote:
The suggestion is that he was not divine in his flesh but rather in his Spirit alone.

That depends on what you mean by flesh and Spirit. Flesh can mean body, or the sin nature, or human nature. The body is neither good nor evil; the body is a vessel. Jesus did not have a sin nature because He was not Adamic. So I’ll guess you mean the human nature.

Jesus was both fully human and fully God. Then you are saying that His fully human nature was not divine, but His fully God nature is. That raises the question of why did God create human beings in the first place? To live in a loving and obedient relationship with Him, and to care for the Earth.

For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. (2 Peter 1:4)

And how do you define spirit John? Mind, emotion, will, and personality? Something else?

quote:
Yes. But this brings up an interesting point about the Incarnation. The three temptations of Jesus. What do you believe they were about?

TEMPTATIONS

Lust of the flesh
The desire to fulfill pleasures, physical desires

Lust of the eyes
The constant craving for more

The pride of life
The desire for power or possessions

Temptation of Eve
(Genesis 3:4-6)

The fruit looked delicious and would be good to eat.

The fruit was a pleasure to look at.

The fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom; Eve wanted to “be like God.”

Temptation of Christ
(Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13)

Turn the stones into bread.

Gain all the kingdoms of the world, as far as the eye can see.

Throw yourself down and the angels will come and rescue you for God will not allow you to be hurt.

Temptation of the Church Today

Take what is easier or more pleasurable rather than God’s best.

Respond impulsively, without restraint or self-control.

Build a power base rather than seek to serve others.

I guess Satan still tempts each of us using the same old three "biggies".

quote:

quote:
First Adam and last Adam refers to the fact that they were prototypes of the human race.

Agreed. But there is no reason top believe that's all that could be understood from the verse. I also believe it can be understood to indicate that in the resurrection an infusion of spirit and body takes place wherein we are no longer bodies that contain our spirits in resurrection or the perfection in the twinkling of the eye... but we will have spirit-bodies (our spirit infused with our body).

"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39)

We will have real bodies, glorified bodies that don’t age or become ill or have any handicaps.

John 3:2
Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

Spirit infused with our body? That raises a ton of questions about the structure and intelligence of DNA and so on. When Paul speaks of a spiritual body, he means a material yet incorruptible and immortal body adapted to the heavenly clime, and this is in contrast to the natural body, which refers to the corruptible and mortal body that is adapted to the earthly clime.

quote:
1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV)
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Adam was given life; Christ is life giving. I believe we will be like Him, able to heal and care for the Earth as Adam was supposed to care for the garden.

Genesis 2:15 (NASB)
Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

I imagine eternity will involve more than gardening, but the idea is that we will be caring, helping, and healing instead of using, abusing, corrupting and polluting.

quote:
In the beginning the only one doing all the creating was God the Word (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:13-16, Isaiah 44:24). Later when he brought the firstborn into the world, the First Person of the Godhead became the Father of God the Word incarnate "this day..." when he (the Father) created / begot the only thing he created / begot which is why John 1:14 says ONLY begotten of the Father.

In his Spirit, Jesus is as eternal and divine as the Father or the Holy Spirit. In his flesh, he was begotten / created at a monumental point in time when he became the Son and when the Father became the Father.

An interesting bit of trivia about the word “Godhead.”

The King James Version uses the term in Acts 17:29, (theios), and Romans 1:20, (theiotēs). But it is a mistranslation.

G2304. θεῖος theios; fem. theia, neut. theion, adj. from Theos (G2316), God. Divine, what is uniquely God’s and proceeds from Him. Distinguished from Theos (G2316), God, as indeed theiotēs (G2305), divinity, is distinguished from Theotēs (G2320), Godhead. Theios denotes an attribute of God such as His power and not His character in its essence and totality. See Acts 17:29; 2 Pet. 1:3, 4; Sept.: Ex. 31:3; 35:31. In Class. Gr. the adj. denoted the power of God, as the noun theiotēs does explicitly in Rom. 1:20.

(THE COMPLETE WORD STUDY DICTIONARY: NEW TESTAMENT)

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:

quote:
The suggestion is that he was not divine in his flesh but rather in his Spirit alone.

That depends by what you mean by flesh and Spirit. Flesh can mean body, or the sin nature, or human nature. The body is neither good nor evil; the body is a vessel. Jesus did not have a sin nature because He was not Adamic. So I’ll guess you mean the human nature.

Jesus was both fully human and fully God. Then you are saying that His fully human nature was not divine, but His fully God nature is. That raises the question of why did God create human beings in the first place? To live in a loving and obedient relationship with Him, and to care for the Earth.

Actually to deal with sin in the spirit realm. God created the lake of fire for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:41 (NASB95)
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

Question. Why if God is God and more than capable of judging fallen angels... just throw 'em in?

1. God the Word had to take responsibility somehow for creating spirit realm and those in it that fell.

Exodus 21:33-34 (NASB95)
33 “If a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it,
34 the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his.

Proverbs 26:27 (NASB95)
27 He who digs a pit will fall into it, And he who rolls a stone, it will come back on him.

Ecclesiastes 10:8 (NASB95)
8 He who digs a pit may fall into it, and a serpent may bite him who breaks through a wall.

Note the principle and the interesting common denominator in each. With a couple of other familiars.

This is why it was God the Word who became the Incarnate Son and who laid down his life for the sins of the (human) world.

2. It was to gain the glory of his proving through the salvation / redemption of an inferior race / species (as compared to angels) that he is just and more than fair in his judgment hence...

Philippians 2:10-11 (NASB95)
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

That is why God created the human race and the universe it takes to support this life sustaining planet (which is the crossroad between heaven and hell and between the spirit realm and the physical realm).

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:

For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. (2 Peter 1:4)

Peter's reference to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which as I understand the Bible is only until we are resurrected / transformed as his Spirit indwells us as a deposit / earnest for what is to come...

Philippians 2:10-11 (NASB95)
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

2 Timothy 1:14 (NIV)
14 Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

Who IS the good deposit.

2 Corinthians 5:5 (NIV)
5 Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

2 Corinthians 5:5 (NASB95)
5 Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.

2 Corinthians 5:5 (KJV)
5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

Till the new creature is realized through the transformation of those believers living at Christ's return or the resurrection of those who are dead in Christ.

When we will be with the Lord in Person forever.

quote:
And how do you define spirit John? Mind, emotion, will, and personality? Something else?

God is Spirit (John 4:24). How would you define spirit in lieu of the fact that God is Spirit?

Mind, emotion, will, personhood / personality? Something else?

How about the angels?

Before there was ever a universe there was the spirit realm. Was any of that lacking in completeness?

I would say it was a bit too complete in that any spirit who sinned against God was condemned for all eternity because they sinned in their eternal state and could not be redeemed.

We were created with the inferior nature enveloping our spirit a symbiosis of flesh and spirit and a soul buffering the two (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

Romans 8:27 (KJV)
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

He that searches the hearts knows the mind of the Spirit. The Spirit has a mind.

Ephesians 4:23 (KJV)
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

The brain function is where the bridge between the spirit and the flesh take place. But where is the consciousness? Spirit or brain? When the spirit is gone can the brain be stimulated to think? feel?

The body can be artificially kept functioning but when the spirit departs the mind is gone the brain does not function the person / personhood / that which makes the body more than a flesh container is gone...

1 Corinthians 14:14 (KJV)
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

People fearful of the definition trap of schizophrenia (invented and maintained by those who disbelieve in spirit anything) are not willing to admit there is another side to ourselves in symbiotic existence with our bodies. Oh they'll hint at it calling it life / alive / a hunch / gut feeling / intuition... but never a tongue prayed by the spirit within ourselves which is ourselves in the truest sense since it will never die even when the body and it are separated...

...that our mind may not even have a clue what occurs to our spirit...

I also do not believe there is all that much difference in the spirit of a man and the body of a man. There is this notion that spirits are clouds or wills of the wisp... yet in Luke 16:19-31 there are very physical like things going on with spirits who are not consumed in flame or who reside in the bosom of Abraham.

Anthropomorphism? Possibly. But who is to say an amputee's phantom pain is not coming from their spirit appendage that remains without a flesh covering?

Who is to say our spirit resides only in our brain or our heart and not in every part of our bodies?

There's a lot more going on in the spirit realm and in our spirit and physical make up. And it's all in the Bible.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

I am going to have to turn in as I have an early wake up call tomorrow.

If you can find the Old Walter Martin under fire series particularly where a female JW tries to ply him with questions about the Lord Jesus being raised as a spirit and Martin's definition (via the Bible) of a spiritual body consisting of spirit and flesh and bone I highly recommend it.

Googling it I cannot locate any free versions of the series of 6 cassette tapes (mine are gone from a garage sale some years ago). Maybe Jill (Martin's daughter who heads the site) can get you some MP3s.

Great stuff. But he also goes into how the Bible defines a spiritual body.

Nite.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

quote:
Question. Why if God is God and more than capable of judging fallen angels... just throw 'em in?

1. God the Word had to take responsibility somehow for creating spirit realm and those in it that fell.

That would make God the Author of evil.

With both the angels and humanity, God chose to present a choice. While the Bible does not give many details regarding the rebellion of Satan and the fallen angels, it seems that Satan—probably the greatest of all the angels (Ezekiel 28:12-18)—in pride chose to rebel against God in order to seek to become his own god. Satan (Lucifer) did not want to worship or obey God; he wanted to be God (Isaiah 14:12-14).

quote:
Exodus 21:33-34 (NASB95)
33 “If a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it,
34 the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his.

The Lake of Fire was created AFTER Lucifer’s rebellion, and BECAUSE of Lucifer’s rebellion.

quote:
This is why it was God the Word who became the Incarnate Son and who laid down his life for the sins of the (human) world.

He laid down His life for us because He loves us. He lived a perfect, sinless life. He died for our sins, paying our debt. He was resurrected for our justification, imputing His righteousness to us.

Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends John 15:13

He saw us as desperately in need. He saw our lives as not working properly. Not living in fullness or living out the goodness he created us for. And, he saw us at risk of dying eternally separated from him. Never to experience eternal life. He saw us as cut off from him by our sin. And he chose to meet our need.

Hours before his crucifixion, fully aware of his imminent crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus stated his intent as he talked to his Father: "that the world [may] know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." John 17:23

Instead of deserting us, leaving us to the consequences of our sin-- instead, he came toward us. He entered into our world. He took the penalty of our sin and bore our death, himself.

"...because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved." Ephesians 2:4,5

"We have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment." 1John 4:16,17

Jesus' prayer right before his death: "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they [Jesus' followers] know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." John 17:25,26

quote:
2. It was to gain the glory of his proving through the salvation / redemption of an inferior race / species (as compared to angels) that he is just and more than fair in his judgment hence...

Do you not know that we will judge angels? 1 Corinthians 6:3

Salvation is to demonstrate His grace, but creation was to share a relationship with us.

quote:
Peter's reference to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which as I understand the Bible is only until we are resurrected / transformed as his Spirit indwells us as a deposit / earnest for what is to come...

"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever John 14:16

quote:
God is Spirit (John 4:24). How would you define spirit in lieu of the fact that God is Spirit?

The word “spirit” refers only to the immaterial facet of humanity. However, in Scripture, only believers are said to be spiritually alive (1 Corinthians 2:11; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26), while unbelievers are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13). In Paul's writing, the spiritual was pivotal to the life of the believer (1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:1; Ephesians 1:3; 5:19; Colossians 1:9; 3:16). The spirit is the element in humanity which gives us the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Whenever the word “spirit” is used, it refers to the immaterial part of humanity that “connects” with God, who Himself is spirit (John 4:24).

To understand our spirits we need to have a better understanding of God and the Holy Spirit because we are made in the image of God. We are the children of God.

"By those who come near Me, I MUST be regarded as holy, and before all the people I MUST be glorified." (Leviticus 10:3) NKJV

Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." (1 Peter 1:13-16)

'But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.' (John 4:23-24)

....'I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth.' (Psalm 34:1)

There are many divine attributes (aspects of God's character, or descriptions of what God is). For example:

• eternal (in and beyond time, without beginning or end) - Psalm 90:2
• gracious (giving beyond measure, from love) - 1 John 4:8
• holy (sinless, and opposed to sin) - Leviticus 19:2
• immutable (unchanging) - Malachi 3:6
• just (fair, and intent on making justice) - Deuteronomy 32:4
• merciful (overflowing with active compassion) - Psalm 145:9
• omnipotent (unlimited power) - Genesis 17:1
• omnipresent (everywhere at the same time) - Jeremiah 23:24
• omniscient (knowing all) - John 21:17

Christian tradition starts speaking of the Spirit by saying that the Holy Spirit is God, based on the Bible.

The Spirit has the attributes of God:

• eternal, having neither beginning nor end (Hebrews 9:14),
• omni-potent, having all power (Luke 1:35);
• omni-present, being everywhere at the same time (Psalm 139:7); and
• omni-scient, understanding all matters (1 Corinthians 2:10,11).

Not only is the Holy Spirit God, the Spirit is a full person of the Trinity. The Spirit can be addressed as 'you' by other 'I's (such as you and me), and can respond as an 'I'. The Spirit is an 'I', able to take action and cause action. The Spirit is able to be a 'we' with other 'I's.

Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is a person and is God :

1. the Spirit's work in the Old Testament is closely identified with the Word of YHWH spoken by the prophets (this was affirmed by the early church in 2 Peter 1:21)
2. The close ties between Jesus' mission and the work of the Spirit
3. The close ties between the mission of the apostles and the work of the Spirit; esp. see 1 Peter 1:12.
4. The episode with Hananiah (Ananias) in Acts 5, where first, Peter says that Hananiah lied to the Holy Spirit, then later says that he lied not to men but to God.
5. The trinitarian baptismal formula found in Scripture ( Matt 28:19): "in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". It dates to the church's earliest days.
6. Jesus made a habit of confronting traditions with "box-breaking" actions. He ate with tax collectors and other scorned people, He turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple, He talked to the woman at the well, He healed the occupier-centurion's daughter. The Holy Spirit does the same kind of thing in Acts, and ever since.

The Holy Spirit As A Person

The Holy Spirit is not a mere symbol of anything. No mere symbol is able to:

• communicate ('speak') (Acts 13:2),
• intercede (step in on behalf of someone) (Romans 8:26),
• testify (John 15:26)
• guide (John 16:13),
• command (Acts 16:6,7),
• appoint (Acts 20:28),
• lead (Romans 8:14),
• reveal to someone how wrong, foolish, or sinful he/she was (John 16:8).
• seal God's promise in believers' hearts (Ephesians 1:13-14)
• shape the life of each person and community to Christ's (Romans 8:1-17)

In the Bible, the Holy Spirit has intellect, passions, and will, and can be grieved. In short, the Spirit has a personality.

The key way of giving the Holy Spirit grief is malice, which is shown as bitterness, rage, anger, clamor (making lots of noise and disruption), and slander. Paul follows this description by what makes for a happy Holy Spirit: forgiving others as, in Christ, God forgave you.

The Holy Spirit can act in whatever manner the Spirit wants to act. The Spirit generally acts through the church, but doesn't have to; the Wind blows where it will. The Spirit is free not to always be seriously focused on those purposes; the Spirit can have fun while at work.

This is all stuff that can't be true of a mere (or even 'The') Force. That is how we often experience the Spirit and know of the Spirit's presence, but that is not what the Spirit is. As God, the Holy Spirit is cause, and that cause has effect. Yet, there are those in the Christian churches who reduce the Holy Spirit to a force, or to a collective will or a living memory of the gathered believers, or the force of emotion or conscience within a person. Those people, fine as they may be, are describing a different spirit than the Holy Spirit as viewed by the Christian faith. The Spirit works in all of these ways and more, yet against all of them at times. The Spirit works in whatever ways are needed to do what needs to be done, except in choosing not to take forceable control of people's actions.

The Holy Spirit Indwells Us

1. The Holy Spirit is our teacher guiding us into truth (See also John 16;13, I Cor. 2:10-11)

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14:26

2. The Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf

26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Romans 8:26-27

3. The Holy Spirit gives us joy and peace

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23

4. The spirit gives us gifts for ministry (Ephesians 2;8)

4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: I Corinthians 12:4-7

5. The Spirit gives us boldness to witness (I Tim. 3:13)

And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. Acts 4;31

6. The Spirit gives us power (Zechariah 4:6)

that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, Ephesians 3:16

19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, Ephesians 1;19-20

7. The Spirit gives us the power to live godly lives

"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Ezekiel 36:27

8. The Spirit helps us to pray

praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints Ephesians 6:18

9. The Spirit gives us wisdom and revelation

17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints
Ephesians 1:17-18

10. God the Father speaks through us by the Spirit

"for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. Matthew 10:20

Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:

quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
Check & Mate.

It is clear to all that Johnny needs to take his ball back home or find a "Spiritual Israel" BBS to play on.

Grace BBS + The"Spiritual Israel"logic = confusion.
.............AND WE KNOW
God is not the author of confusion only the enemy is.

If only the ignore feature worked. Then you'd just go away.

The Lord has done one better. He has given me a timeout.
........AND
A few days of ESI. (Extra Spiritual Instruction)

Its a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living Lord.

Sign, Viper Bill.

[spiny]

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

God is not the author of evil. Evil is the result of not doing things God's way (according to the will of God). So, by throwing the fallen angels into hell judging them which he is entitled to do as Creator and they were guilty of then how could this be considered the result of going against his own will?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

Ah, keep reading...

John 14:16-17 (KJV)
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide WITH you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth WITH you, and shall be IN you.

"IN you" with no specification of time. And as I showed in the scriptures I quoted he is indwelling us as a deposit / earnest for the resurrection and eternal life beyond.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

The Holy Spirit is a person, I never said he wasn't.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Interesting, where or what is the Temple in the New Jerusalem?

Revelation 21:22 (KJV)
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

So the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is only until we are resurrected / perfected. And we will no longer be the temple of God. Only Jesus and in him already is the Lord God Almighty specifically God the Word for that is who he is.

The Father and the Holy Spirit are just as much persons / individuals as the Word is. The triune God. I never said or hinted otherwise.

The Holy Spirit's indwelling us now is the earnest (the good deposit) of our resurrection to come and the completeness / fullness of humanity in the eternal plan.

Only God will be God, only God is God, only God ever was God. There will be angels in heaven who did not sin. Angels in the lake of fire who did. There will be the spirits of mankind who did not believe in Jesus in the lake of fire. Their bodies will be consumed and be the ash under the feet of saints...

Malachi 4:3 (KJV)
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

Isaiah 66:24 (KJV)
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

General resurrection all mankind raised bodily to bow to the Lord Jesus. Then the condemned will be thrown into the lake of fire where their body will be consumed but their spirit remains alive in torment and agony forever.

And we who are resurrected unto life eternal will have our human bodies perfected (consisting of spirit flesh and bone like Jesus):

1 John 3:2 (KJV)
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

We will not be God or Gods (Isaiah 43:10-11) because our spirits are not God as Jesus' Spirit is (John 1:1, 14). But we will be like he is in resurrection as a man.

This is why one must take care not to read more into the body of Jesus than is there. How else could we be like him and not be God if his flesh is divine?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

Acts 5:3-4 (KJV)
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Acts 13:2 (KJV)
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

I believe in the Trinity. God is three coexisting coequal persons / individuals who are the one God.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

quote:
God is not the author of evil. Evil is the result of not doing things God's way (according to the will of God). So, by throwing the fallen angels into hell judging them which he is entitled to do as Creator and they were guilty of then how could this be considered the result of going against his own will?

God always makes His will known and gives a warning of the consequences of disobedience. I don’t believe that it’s a matter of tyranny or pride on His part, but He knows what is good and what isn’t. For example, if God told the Earth, “You must stay in the orbit I have given you,” but Earth decided it knew better and strayed closer to the sun, or further away, then every living thing on the Earth would die. God knows what works and why it works, and He tells us what is good.

"... Of every tree of the garden surely you may eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not you shall eat from it; in the day of your eating from it surely you shall die". (Genesis 2:16-17)

See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse— the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. (Deuteronomy 11:26-28)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. (I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11)

All that to say this. I assume that God told the angels what He wanted them to do, and what would happen if they disobeyed. I assume they were given fair warning. It’s only an assumption.

I think this is one of the saddest passages in the Bible:

“You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God ; Every precious stone was your covering : The ruby, the topaz and the diamond ; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper ; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald ; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14 You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God ; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you. 16 By the abundance of your trade You were internally filled with violence, And you sinned ; Therefore I have cast you as profane From the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty ; You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor. I cast you to the ground ; I put you before kings, That they may see you. 18 By the multitude of your iniquities, In the unrighteousness of your trade You profaned your sanctuaries. Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you; It has consumed you, And I have turned you to ashes on the earth In the eyes of all who see you. 19 All who know you among the peoples Are appalled at you; You have become terrified And you will cease to be forever .” (Ezekiel 28)

quote:
Ah, keep reading...

John 14:16-17 (KJV)
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide WITH you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth WITH you, and shall be IN you.

"IN you" with no specification of time. And as I showed in the scriptures I quoted he is indwelling us as a deposit / earnest for the resurrection and eternal life beyond.

I think He dwells in us forever. I think there is a lot more involved than we understand; we are looking at this from a simple human point of view. We will never be God, of course. We are only creatures; created beings. But in our glorified state I think we will be much more than we can even imagine being now.

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.” ( John 17:20-26)

Anciently, it is said, when a purchase was made the purchaser was presented with a part of the thing purchased as an earnest, or pledge, that he should have the whole. Thus if a man bought a piece of real estate he was presented with a cupful of earth from his piece of land as an earnest that the whole should be his. Sometimes money was used as the pledge; and various other articles. God has, so to speak, given us a cupful of our eternal inheritance, which we are to have and to hold until the heaven of heavens is really ours and in our actual possession. Thank God for the pledge of His grace.

In Ephesians Paul connects the earnest of the Spirit with the seal of the Spirit. And in Corinthians he has it connected with the anointing of the Holy Spirit as well as with the sealing: "Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." 2 Cor. 1:21, 22.

quote:
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Interesting, where or what is the Temple in the New Jerusalem?

Revelation 21:22 (KJV)
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

So the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is only until we are resurrected / perfected. And we will no longer be the temple of God. Only Jesus and in him already is the Lord God Almighty specifically God the Word for that is who he is.

The Holy Spirit's indwelling us now is the earnest (the good deposit) of our resurrection to come and the completeness / fullness of humanity in the eternal plan.

Interesting point. The Holy Spirit indwells all believers now, all over the world. Does that mean there are a few million temples?

The tabernacle and Temple in the Old Testament, specifically the Holy of Holies, was described as the dwelling place of God. God’s glory would appear to Israel, inside the Temple between the cherubs on the mercy seat. This picture in the Old Testament finds fulfillment in Revelation 21, where the actual tabernacle of God descends from Heaven, and will be where the saints will dwell.

The Tabernacle in the Old Testament was a foreshadowing of this coming tabernacle. The New Jerusalem has no Temple, because God Himself is dwelling inside the city. God will have a personal relationship with those who live in the city. God’s restored relationship is demonstrated by God personally wiping away the tears of those who live in New Jerusalem. The city is called the bride because those who dwell in it are the saints, the Bride of Christ.

Posted by thywillbedone (Member # 8469) on :

Jesus is the Christ.

Luke 22:20 and 1 cor 11:25

This cup is the New Testament in My blood...

He never held up a copy of some book and said,

"This book is the New Testament."

Q: Why do you all point to a "book" and not the "cup"?

Praise the Lord!

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

Because this is BIBLE study

quote:
Luke 22:20 and 1 cor 11:25

Why do you refer to scripture?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

You bring up some interesting points as well. But with regard to "many temples..."

1 Corinthians 10:17 (NASB95)
17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

And while the Holy Spirit indwells each of us who believes no one of us is the temple of the Lord alone but are rather like Peter put it...

1 Peter 2:4-10 (NASB95)
4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,
5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For this is contained in Scripture: “Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, “The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone,”
8 and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

And I must point out your opinion that we will forever be indwelled by the Holy Spirit was not backed with scriptural evidence. On the other hand, the passages I showed which state the Holy Spirit is an earnest for the transformation to come and a deposit on eternity (basically) do at least suggest a temporary indwelling.

Some have suggested that in the fall Adam lost his spirit and under the old covenant(s) the Holy Spirit (ruach / breath) was given to man in sustaining doses. Then the new covenant granted the Holy Spirit access to BE man's spirit...

BUT...

I have several problems with that view. First of all this doctrine of "spiritual death" is man made and has not scriptural backing that I could find. Secondly a human body with a divine Spirit is what the Messiah is. And he is God's Son, God incarnate. A thing we most certainly are not and scripture militates against the idea.

Isaiah 43:10-11 (NASB95)
10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.
11 “I, even I, am the Lord, And there is no savior besides Me.

etc.

The biblical understanding / doctrine is that we are a hybrid race of spirit and flesh (with a soul as a buffer between the two). We fell and cursed the creation and brought physical death into the realm (the physical creation as well is dying Romans 8:22-23) precipitating the condemnation of the body soul and spirit being thrown into the lake of fire where the body will burn in the flames and the soul buffer will cease to exist and the spirit will live forever in agony and torment along with the spirits of angels who fells.

Enter the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ.

Believers are forgiven all sins. AND are granted eternal life in heaven with God. His sacrifice paved the way and gave us forgiveness of sins. His resurrection grants us access to heaven / eternal life. For in the end there will only be the two opposite extremes and no middle ground as the earth (supported by the physical universe) presently is.

This is when and why there is the imputed righteousness of Christ. The indwelling of his Spirit. We are like divers in an alien under water environment. Our bodies are like the diving suit, our spirit is us inside, and his Spirit is our air to breathe as all is made possible by the imputed righteousness of Christ (the underwater breathing apparatus).

In eternity, the new heaven-earth will not be an alien environment. We will be perfected and won't be on eternal life support (as now). And our bodies and spirits will merge as the new heaven-earth will.

Note the distinctions we can see in the prototype resurrected man. Before death he had blood to shed. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Flesh and bone can. And there is only one condition that flesh and bone can even exist in... the perfected state of a human being being infused with his or her own spirit as Jesus was.

1 Corinthians 15:45 (NASB95)
45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

But he gave evidence in Luke 24 that he was not a spirit (not in the sense of just a spirit) he had then tough him and see for themselves that he has flesh and bone and that he can eat fish...

Unless you can come up with some passage I've overlooked, Carol, I'll have to say the Bible supports the temporary indwelling of the Holy Spirit and even afterward we will be WITH him directly but apparently not indwelled by him.

I may be wrong, but I do not appear to be so far.

Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on :

What weights more. The soul or the spirit? [cool_shades]

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

John 14:16
I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you Forever

Forever

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

John 14:16 (NASB95)
16 “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be WITH you forever;

John 14:17 (NASB95)
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides WITH you and will be IN you.

with you forever

in you (for how long)?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NASB95)
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I would ask you one question, WildB, since the ignore feature doesn't work here, we can define the effects of gravity but what causes gravity?

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
John 14:16 (NASB95)
16 “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be WITH you forever;

John 14:17 (NASB95)
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides WITH you and will be IN you.

with you forever

in you (for how long)?

What is the difference? How close is "with" when we're talking about the Spirit? He isn't some cloudy mist that floats around; He isn't a ghost that sits at the other end of the couch. He doesn't have limitations. He is omnipresent.

God can be in us and in New Jerusalem and in the whole universe all at the same time.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

quote:
And while the Holy Spirit indwells each of us who believes no one of us is the temple of the Lord alone but are rather like Peter put it…

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19)

Our body is a temple. Not part of a temple. The Holy Spirit is not indwelling part of a temple, but because He indwells us, our body is a temple.

quote:
And I must point out your opinion that we will forever be indwelled by the Holy Spirit was not backed with scriptural evidence. On the other hand, the passages I showed which state the Holy Spirit is an earnest for the transformation to come and a deposit on eternity (basically) do at least suggest a temporary indwelling.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.

The Spirit of Christ is given to his church and people everlastingly, to influence and dwell in them. — The Holy Spirit is the great purchase, or purchased gift, of Christ. The chief and sum of all the good things in this life and in the life to come, that are purchased for the church, is the Holy Spirit. And as he is the great purchase, so he is the great promise, or the great thing promised by God and Christ to the church; as said the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:32, 33) — “This Jesus,… being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” And this great purchase and promise of Christ is forever to be given to his church. He has promised that his church shall continue, and expressly declared that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And that it may be preserved, he has given his Holy Spirit to every true member of it, and promised the continuance of that Spirit forever. His own language is (John 14:16, 17), “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”

quote:

Some have suggested that in the fall Adam lost his spirit and under the old covenant(s) the Holy Spirit (ruach / breath) was given to man in sustaining doses. Then the new covenant granted the Holy Spirit access to BE man's spirit...

I have several problems with that view. First of all this doctrine of "spiritual death" is man made and has not scriptural backing that I could find.

It has a lot of scriptural backing. These verses can only be understood as referring to spiritual death, not physical death, and there are more verses like these.

24for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate. (Luke 15:24)

22But Jesus said to him, "Follow Me, and allow the dead to bury their own dead." (Matthew 8:22)

25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11)

9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. (Romans 7:9-11)

quote:
Secondly a human body with a divine Spirit is what the Messiah is. And he is God's Son, God incarnate. A thing we most certainly are not and scripture militates against the idea.

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. (Romans 8:14-17)

We don’t BECOME the Holy Spirit! We don’t BECOME God. The Holy Spirit does not take the place of our own spirit. But there is a loving relationship between us.

quote:
This is when and why there is the imputed righteousness of Christ. The indwelling of his Spirit. We are like divers in an alien under water environment. Our bodies are like the diving suit, our spirit is us inside, and his Spirit is our air to breathe as all is made possible by the imputed righteousness of Christ (the underwater breathing apparatus).

The imputed righteousness of Christ is because we could never be righteous enough on our own to be allowed into the presence of God. He took our sins onto Himself, and imputed His righteousness to us. He took our report cards with their D's and F's, and gave us His report card with its straight A's. He took our filthy rags and gave us His clean, elegant clothing.

quote:
In eternity, the new heaven-earth will not be an alien environment. We will be perfected and won't be on eternal life support (as now). And our bodies and spirits will merge as the new heaven-earth will.

He isn’t “eternal life support”. God is love.

quote:
Note the distinctions we can see in the prototype resurrected man. Before death he had blood to shed. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Flesh and bone can. And there is only one condition that flesh and bone can even exist in... the perfected state of a human being being infused with his or her own spirit as Jesus was.

What do we make of the statement in 1 Cor. 15:50-56 that “flesh and blood" cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Does this mean that we will be spirits? That only certain people will go to heaven? The expression “flesh and blood” occurs only five times in the New Testament. We need to define our definition of its meaning from the overall teachings. If we examine the following references we see the writers are often speaking of "flesh and blood” as being synonymous with “fallen man”, just as it is of the physical body. If you substitute the words “fallen man” (unregenerate) in the place of “flesh and blood” we can understand better what Paul is conveying.

Sometimes the word for flesh (sarx) is used literally (as in Heb.10:20) Sometimes it is used in a figurative manner as in Rom.8:9 (you are not in the flesh but the Spirit). Meaning the new nature rules over the old.

Matthew 16:13-17: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father who is in heaven.” Is this speaking of the physical flesh, or the corrupt nature of man not revealing Christ's identity to Peter? It came from God who is Spirit.

Galatians 1:16: “Straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood.... “ Obviously Paul was not referring to the physical flesh but rather to corrupt and sinful man.

Ephesians 6:12: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood." A case can be made either way in the interpretation of this text. For instance, Christians do not physically wrestle with their opposition. Paul is not be referring to the physical body, we don't wrestle against the sinful corrupt nature of other men but the spiritual forces of evil influencing him.

Hebrews 2:14:, “For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. . . “ Here the text does refer to the physical flesh but Jesus did not take on Himself a sinful nature. It means he became a human having the same physical flesh and blood minus the sin nature. As Rom.8:3 says Jesus came in the “likeness of sinful flesh”, in other words he was fully man, he looked like any other but without the sin. The word for flesh used here refers to mankind in their fallen state (the body of flesh).

When speaking of sinful man, who consists of flesh and blood, he cannot enter the kingdom of God without a new birth. Jn.3:3-5 Jesus explains that a fallen man cannot enter God's kingdom. Without being spiritually regenerated, he will not even see the kingdom of God.

I Corinthians 15:50 “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." The Apostle Paul turns to the subject of transformation of the body, not the soul. The body that we now possess is not suitable for the heavenly kingdom. It is corrupted, subject to disease, and decays. Only that which is pure, incorruptible and immortal can enter heaven. This is why there must be a change. Paul is answering the question of what kind of “body” believers will receive in the resurrection (vs. 35). It will be a “spiritual body” (vs. 44). A “spiritual body” must be defined by the ONLY example we have of one, the first fruits from the dead, the body of Jesus.

quote:
1 Corinthians 15:45 (NASB95)
45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Soul and spirit are the same. Throughout Scripture we see the two terms "spirit" and "soul" used interchangeably:

"We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain..." [Hebrews 6:19]

"Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul." [1 Peter 2:11]

"....that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard." - [2 Peter 2:8]

In these three verses we find the word translated "soul" is the Greek word "psuche" = breath (by implication spirit). So God is referring to that part of us which is our spirit, the eternal part He put into us when we were conceived (made alive)

"....the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." [Genesis 2:7]

Soul and spirit share the same definitions:

Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon.

First, the Hebrew words for soul (nephesh) and spirit (ruach):

SOUL (nephesh):
1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
1a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
1b) living being
1c) living being (with life in the blood)
1d) the man himself, self, person or individual
1e) seat of the appetites
1f) seat of emotions and passions

SPIRIT (ruach)
1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
1a) breath
1b) wind
1c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation)
1c1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour
1c2) courage
1c3) temper, anger
1c4) impatience, patience
1c5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented)
1c6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse
1d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)
1d1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being
1e) spirit (as seat of emotion)
1e1) desire
1e2) sorrow, trouble
1f) spirit
1f1) as seat or organ of mental acts
1f2) rarely of the will
1f3) as seat especially of moral character(13)

So in Hebrew "soul" refers to "that which breathes" and to the mind, desire, and emotions. And "spirit" refers to "that which breathes" and the part of us which experiences emotions and is responsible for "mental acts."

Now the Greek words for soul (psuche) and spirit (pneuma):

SOUL (psuche):
1) breath
1a) the breath of life
1a1) the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing
1a1a) of animals
1a12) of men
1b) life
1c) that in which there is life
1c1) a living being, a living soul
2) the soul
2a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)
2b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life
2c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death....

SPIRIT (pneuma)
2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated
2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides
2b) the soul
3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting
3a) a life giving spirit
3b) a human soul that has left the body
4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one
4a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.(14)

Thus in Greek "soul" refers to the animating principle which feels, desires, and can attain everlasting life with God. And "spirit" is also the animating principle which feels, thinks, and decides. And notice once again, the use of the word soul to define spirit (twice in fact: 2b,3b). Only #4 for spirit gives so much as a hint the two might be distinct.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Quantum physics proposed a theoretical particle called the graviton that controls gravity.

That brings us to our current understanding. Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear.

There has always been an element in science of fiction when such things like dark matter in the universe (that cannot be detected) is presupposed to be real and volumes if not libraries of conjecture are written and fellowshiped, entire schools of thought dedicated to this, and awards given to "scholars" over something that has not even been proven to be true or exist.

Macro-evolution for example which by the admission of many who champion it isn't even a good theory... yet it is taught as fact in schools and in science documentaries and in the media at every half chance...

Graviton huh? Well we'll see.

Space is curved (which the scriptures supported all along with the description of its being unfurled like a tent canvass). And any body in space beyond X density and mass is curved (spherical) which the Bible also mentions in several places. Which the Bible describes as being suspended in nothingness... interesting for ancient writings eh?

What we call gravity is the push of war (opposite to tug of war) between space and that body of mass (beyond the size and weight of X).

Simply put, space pushes / compacts planets into spheres and the mass / density of the planet pushes against space the smaller less dense the planet the less tension (gravity) between the two. The greater the mass and density of the planet the greater the tension (gravity).

Should the Lord tarry and there be a space exploration future for mankind the problem of payload versus thrust will be solved by tipping the balance between the two bodies into a field of far less dense mass / density.

I have no idea how that will be accomplished. But some foresaw nuclear power by the evidence of the sun, and we have as much evidence of even greater power (singularities super massive singularities etc.). And IF man is ever capable of harnessing matter / antimatter power it will prove to be as significant as harnessing electricity or splitting the atom.

Bending gravity into zero gravity would then be no problem and would produce more results here on earth than we could imagine. Think of zero gravity elevators for example. Zero gravity transports (trucks, cars, trains, planes, forklifts, pallet jacks). Zero gravity surgery and diaper changing stations. You name it.

Think of the sports that would be invented in zero g.

All based on the same principles laid out in scripture thousands of years ago. There is a Christ and an antichrist... etc.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

It's a bit more complex than that. And is far more evident now that we are able to detect a greater amount of the cosmos than in Albert's day.

Galileo supposed gravity to be the effect of motion.

Arthur C. Clarke "ran" with this in his novel / movie...

Not much more incredible that imagining some phantom goolies called gravitons... LOL

Some argue space is a vacuum others say otherwise. We agree it is curved and some say the math doesn't work on a smaller scale... which is what I did say that masses / bodies had to be greater than X to have the area to have this effect called gravity from the push of war (you say cannot exist).

It's the glass half full / half empty argument... what makes celestial bodies spherical? Gravity? or the push of curved space on a mass of X area or greater?

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

I'm moving this science topic to General Discussion

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

Matthew

The writer of the Gospel of Matthew did not identify himself by name.

The ancient church unanimously credited this gospel to the apostle Matthew. No other writer has ever been suggested as its author. Beginning with the most ancient evidence Matthew was regarded as the author of the first gospel, which was accepted as inspired Scripture. The Epistle of Barnabas, dated A.D. 130, regarded this gospel as Scripture and Matthew as its author. The letters of Ignatius and Polycarp from the first half of the second century indicate that the congregations were familiar with the Gospel of Matthew at that early date. Clement of Alexandria in the second century was also knowledgeable of this gospel. The work entitled The Didache, dated during the first half of the second century, used Matthew 6:9 to encourage Christians not to pray like the hypocrites but to pray the Lord's Prayer. The Didache also quoted Matthew 7:6, was familiar with Matthew 28:19, and shows it was knowledgeable of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's gospel.

Some have alleged that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek by an unknown translator. This hypothesis stems from a statement made by Papias around A.D. 125 that Matthew had written sayings of the Lord, logia, in the Hebrew language. Perhaps Matthew did write a Hebrew document with a collection of Jesus' sayings. This, however, does not mean that document was necessarily what we now know as the Gospel of Matthew. If the apostle Matthew did indeed write a Hebrew Gospel as alleged, being an apostle his Hebrew Gospel would have certainly been used and circulated within the ancient church. Yet no one in ancient antiquity ever saw such a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. The effort to prove on the basis of linguistic evidence that Matthew's gospel was translated from a Hebrew original into the present Greek text has proven to be unsuccessful. Linguistic scholars have indicated the Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew reads like a Greek original.

The hypothesis that asserts the Gospel of Matthew was originally only Matthew's collection of the Lord's sayings, which the church then embellished into its present form, and which was later translated by an unknown translator, rejects the gospel as a unified composition in its entirety and written by a single inspired author, namely Matthew. This hypothesis turns the gospel into a collection of sayings and embellishments written by a number of writers, of which we have a translation rather than an inspired Greek text. This hypothesis will be afforded no credibility by anyone who believes in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, which have been preserved and handed down to us in their present forms.

As for the person of Matthew, before his becoming a disciple and apostle of Jesus, he was a tax collector in Capernaum. He was also known by the name of Levi (cf. Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27). Being a tax collector, Matthew must have had to bear the scorn of the Jews, who despised the tax collectors for collecting taxes for the Romans and for over taxing them so that the tax collectors could enrich themselves at their expense. The Jews branded the tax collectors as “sinners” and treated them as outcasts who were to be avoided at all costs (cf. Matthew 9:10,11; Mark 2:15,16; Luke 5:30) Perhaps Matthew deserved the treatment he received as an outcast from the Jews. To have become a tax collector, he may have had to abandon the Lord and the faith of the Old Testament Israel with its promises of the Messiah, in order to commit himself to a materialistic life of enriching himself at the expense of others. Matthew is therefore likely to have experienced Jesus' call to be his disciple and apostle as an act of sheer, divine grace. He by grace was afforded the opportunity to repent of a self-serving life to turn to God to receive his saving grace in Jesus Christ.

When Jesus called Matthew to follow him, Matthew left everything behind (cf. Luke 5:28) to follow Jesus, whom he thought may be the long-promised and awaited Messiah. Having experienced Jesus' grace in calling him, despite his being an outcast “sinner”, Matthew was eager to introduce other “sinners” to the grace of Jesus. Matthew quickly gave a dinner in Jesus' honor for his friends and fellow tax collectors (cf. Luke 5:27-29). There Jesus told the self-righteous Pharisees and teachers of the law that he had come to call, not the righteous, but the “sinners” to repentance (cf. Luke 5:30-32; Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17).

Little else is known about the life and work of the apostle Matthew from the Scriptures. From Mark 2:14 we learn that he was the son of Alphaeus. Matthew referred to himself only once in his gospel after his account of Jesus' calling him. Matthew included himself in the list of the apostles as “Matthew the tax collector” (cf. Matthew 10:3). Aside from Matthew's being called by Jesus and the dinner he gave in Jesus' honor, the other gospels and the Book of Acts only mention him by name in the lists of the apostles (cf. Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).

For Whom The Gospel Of Matthew Was Written

Matthew wrote his gospel for Jewish Christians and Jews who were familiar with the Old Testament, that they may know Jesus was the Messianic King foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures. It is evident this was the case, because Matthew's gospel contains more quotations of and allusions to the Old Testament than any other book of the New Testament.

Date The Gospel Of Matthew Was Written

The tradition handed down from the ancient church is that Matthew's gospel was the first of the gospels to have been written. The actual date of its writing is unknown. A date of A.D. 50 to 60 has been suggested as a probable date. The gospel itself contains no internal evidence that would make it possible to determine the date when it was written.

An early date of A.D. 50 to 60 is a good probability in light of what is known about the Gospel of John. The manner in which the apostle John wrote his gospel makes him indirectly a credible witness to such a possible early date. John wrote his gospel in Ephesus around A.D. 85. It is apparent that by that time he was quite familiar with the contents of the three synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and that he accepted them as Scripture. For he wrote his gospel in a manner which supposed and required his readers' previous knowledge with those synoptic gospels. John skipped much of the material covered in the three synoptic gospels and filled in the blanks and the gaps that the other three gospels did not cover. Based on this manner in which John wrote his gospel in A.D. 85, the Gospel of Matthew, as well as those of Mark and Luke, must have been written prior to that date.

Place Where The Gospel Of Matthew Was Written

The place where Matthew wrote his gospel is unknown. The suggestion, that since he wrote his gospel for Jewish Christians and Jews, he must have written it in Palestine, is at best a guess.

Purpose Of The Gospel Of Matthew

Matthew's gospel is a powerful book attesting to God's call to repentance and grace in Jesus Christ. Having experienced firsthand the amazing grace of God in Christ's calling him to repentance and faith for salvation, Matthew presented in his gospel the Lord's call as a call to complete commitment. As a disciple of Jesus one must totally embrace Jesus as the Messianic King and his gospel of forgiveness, as well as be committed to separating himself from all evil so his righteousness may exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law.

Matthew's purpose was to present Jesus Christ of Nazareth to Jewish Christians and Jews as the Messianic King whose coming was foretold in the Old Testament. In Matthew 1:1 Matthew declared that Jesus is the Son of David, meaning the King whose kingship and throne would have no end, and who would build en everlasting house for the Lord, which is the Holy Christian Church (cf. 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Isaiah 9:6,7). In the same opening verse of his gospel Matthew further declared that Jesus is the son of Abraham, meaning the promised Messiah and heir in whom all the families of the earth would be blessed (cf. Genesis 12:3).

Having declared Jesus is the Messianic King promised in the Old Testament, Matthew's purpose was to declare that Jesus established his everlasting kingdom: First, through his preaching and teaching (cf. Matthew 4:17-16:20); Second, by means of his suffering and death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead (cf. Matthew 16:21-28:20).

Placement Of The Gospel Of Matthew In The New Testament Canon

The placement of Matthew's gospel first in the New Testament canon is fitting. Matthew's gospel links the New Testament to the Old Testament. It bridges the 400 year gap of the intertestamental period between the close of the Old Testament and the dawning of the New Testament era of Christ the Messiah. It includes Jesus' declaration that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, a designation for the Old Testament (cf. Matthew 5:17). It shows that Christianity did not replace the religion of the Old Testament Israel but fulfilled it and carried it forward. Christ is presented as the consummation of the Old Israel's history and the fulfillment of the Old Testament's prophecies. Matthew made this evident by quoting from or alluding to more Old Testament prophecies than any other book of the New Testament. It has been said Matthew's gospel contains 50 or 60 or more such quotations and allusions.

Matthew's gospel appearing before the other three gospels also harmonizes with the tradition that his gospel was the first gospel to be written.

Theme Of The Gospel Of Matthew

Jesus Is The Messianic King

http://www.christianinconnect.com/matthew.htm

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

Mark

Mark was not one of the original twelve disciples. Nor was he an apostle. He is first introduced to us in Acts 12. Historically the time was A.D. 44. His home was in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 12:12,25). He came from a well-to-do family. His mother, Mary, owned a large house in Jerusalem and had a servant girl named Rhoda. The followers of Jesus gathered there. It has been suggested that this house may have been the site of “the upper room”, as well as the place where the disciples gathered after Jesus' ascension (cf. Mark 14:15; Acts 1:13). There is no concrete evidence, however, to verify this speculation. Peter did go to this house, where Jesus' followers gathered, immediately after the Lord's angel saved him from martyrdom at the hands of King Herod Agrippa I by releasing him from prison.

Mark's Hebrew name was John (cf. Acts 12:12). It appears that he may have come to know and believe the gospel of Jesus through Peter, for Peter called him “my son” (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). In A.D. 44 Barnabas, a cousin of Mark's (cf. Colossians 4:10), and Paul took Mark with them from Jerusalem to be their assistant in the church of Antioch, Syria (cf. Acts 11:27-30; 12:25; 13:1). This led to Mark's future work as a missionary. In A.D. 46 he accompanied Paul and Barnabas on Paul's first missionary journey (cf. Acts 13:4,5). Shortly afterwards, however, he left them in Pamphylia to return to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 13:13). For whatever reason he left, Paul did not think it was appropriate and considered it a forsaking of the work before them. When Paul and Barnabas later prepared to make their second missionary journey around A.D. 50, Barnabas desired to take Mark along. Paul strongly protested. They then parted company over this disagreement. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. Paul took Silas and traveled over land through Syria and Cilicia enroute to Galatia (cf. Acts 15:36-16:11).

Nothing more is definitely known from Scripture about Mark's missionary work. It appears from Scripture that his work took him to the regions of what is now called Turkey, namely the Roman provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia (Minor), and Bithynia. This would seem to be the case because, when Peter wrote his first letter to the Christians in these areas, he included a greeting to them from his son Mark (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). This would suggest the Christians in these areas knew Mark personally. His work in these regions is further suggested by Paul's including a greeting from Mark to the Christians in Colosse, with the added note that they had received instructions regarding Mark and that they should welcome him if he came to them (cf. Colossians 4:10). Paul also included a personal greeting from Mark to Philemon, who was a member of the church in Colosse (cf. Philemon 24).

In addition to having been a co-worker of Barnabas, and working in the regions mentioned above, Mark became a close associate of Paul's and Peter's in Rome as well. Mark was with Paul in Rome around A.D. 60 to 61, the time of Paul's first Roman imprisonment, at which time Paul wrote his prison epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon (cf. Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24). This is made obvious by the greeting Paul included from Mark to the Colossians and to Philemon. During Paul's second Roman imprisonment, and not long before his martyrdom in A.D. 67 to 68, Paul requested that Timothy, who was in Ephesus, bring Mark with him to Rome. Paul wanted Mark in Rome with him, because Mark was of useful service to him (cf. 2 Timothy 4:11). It is possible, but not certain, therefore, that Mark was in Rome with Paul at the time of Paul's martyrdom. The greetings from Mark in Paul's letters and Paul's request for Timothy to bring Mark with him to Rome clarify that whatever grievance Paul had had with Mark was by A.D. 60 cleared up and forgiven.

Mark was also with Peter in Rome around A.D. 62 to 64, after Paul's release from his first Roman imprisonment. This is evident, because Mark was with Peter when Peter wrote his first letter in Rome between A.D. 62 and the spring of A.D. 64, which included a greeting from Mark (cf. 1 Peter 5:13).

The ancient church historian Eusebius stated that Mark went to Egypt, where he founded the congregations of Alexandria and became their first bishop. It has been said that he died a martyr's death there.

Mark, like the other three gospel writers, did not mention himself by name in his gospel as its author. Early church tradition is unanimous in crediting the gospel's authorship to Mark. Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, wrote around A.D. 130 that John had said Mark had written, not in its proper chronological order, the things he had learned from Peter regarding what Jesus had said and done. This being true, the apostle John credited Mark with the authorship of the gospel that bears his name and indicated that the gospel is really the gospel of Peter.

Papias asserted that the content of Mark's gospel contained the content of the gospel that Peter taught and preached. Mark's gospel bears the stamp of Peter's presence and first hand experiences as an eyewitness to what Jesus said and did. Jesus' calling of Peter to be a disciple and apostle appears early in the first chapter (cf. Mark 1:16-18). Jesus' activities and teaching in Capernaum are shortly thereafter reported to have taken place in close association with Peter's house. Jesus left the synagogue and went to Peter's house where he healed Peter's mother-in-law of a fever (cf. Mark 1:29-31). There the people were bringing to Jesus their sick and demoniacs. The whole city of Capernaum gathered at Peter's door (cf. Mark 1:32-34). When Jesus went to a solitary place, it was Peter and his companions, meaning the other disciples, who hunted for Jesus (cf. Mark 1:35-37). It was most likely Peter's house that is called Jesus' home in Mark 2:1. There so many people gathered to hear Jesus and packed the house that no one could enter through the door. Thus the paralytic had to be lowered down to Jesus on a stretcher through Peter's dismantled roof for Jesus to heal the man (cf. Mark 2:1-12). It is again likely that it was Peter's house that is called Jesus' house in Mark 2:15, where the tax collectors and “sinners” gathered to eat with Jesus amid the complaints of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. It appears that it was to Peter's house that Jesus' family and brothers came to take Jesus into custody, because they thought he was out of his mind. Mark's gospel alone recorded this personal incident with the family of Jesus and how they thought he was crazy. This appears to be an observation that was preserved by Peter, to whose house they came looking for Jesus (cf. Mark 3:20,21). With regard to Peter's house being Jesus' house and home in Capernaum, see also Mark 7:17 and 9:28. Mark's gospel reaches a high point in the eighth chapter. First it is Peter, as spokesman for the group of disciples, who confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Then shortly thereafter it is Peter who rebukes Jesus for announcing his forthcoming suffering, death, and resurrection (cf. Mark 8:27-33). All these first hand experiences indicate Mark's gospel was an eyewitness account of Peter's, which reflections he included in the gospel of Jesus that he preached.

Occasion Of The Gospel Of Mark

Eusebius in his Church History mentions a statement made by Clement of Alexandria toward the end of the second century. Clement reported that those who heard Peter were so impressed with his oral discourses on the gospel of Jesus that they pleaded for Peter's companion to put his discourses into writing, so they could always recall them. This may have prompted Mark to write his gospel.

Mark began his gospel with the words, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” This is the title of the gospel. Mark's gospel is, then, about how the good news of Jesus' words and works, which were being proclaimed by the apostles, particularly with regard to Peter, began. Bearing in mind what Clement is said to have reported above, it seems that the hearers of Peter and the Christian converts wanted to know more about the gospel of Jesus that they were hearing. They wanted to know how this good news began and came into being. They wanted the words and the works of Jesus put down in writing for them. This Mark did for them in his gospel.

Characteristics Of The Gospel Of Mark

Mark emphasized for his readers the deeds of Jesus and presented Jesus as a man and servant of action. Jesus spoke and it was done. Forty-two times Mark used the Greek adverb euthus to indicate that Jesus was given to action. This adverb means immediately, at once, and straightway. This indicates Mark wrote his gospel for readers who were impressed with a simple, straightforward account, and with power and action.

Mark quoted from the Old Testament only once, at the outset of his gospel. This indicates Mark did not write his gospel for Jewish Christians who were familiar with the Old Testament, as Matthew did. Rather, he wrote his gospel for Gentile readers who were not familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures.

Mark explained Jewish customs for his readers, which they otherwise would not have understood, such as the Jews' ceremonial washings (cf. Mark 7:3,4) and that the preparation day was the day before the Jews' Sabbath (cf. Mark 15:42). This, too, indicates Mark wrote his gospel for Gentile readers.

Mark translated Jewish Aramaic terms for his readers (cf. Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11 & 34; 14:36; 15:22). This is more evidence that Mark wrote for Gentile readers.

Mark employed Latinisms in his gospel, that is, he used Latin words his readers readily understood rather than their Greek equivalents. This indicates Mark wrote his gospel for Christians in Rome and Italy.

Mark's gospel is the simplest and shortest account of all the gospels. It is a straightforward account that would have suited the Roman's practical, straightforward approach to things.

For Whom The Gospel Of Mark Was Written

The preceding characteristics indicate that Mark wrote his gospel for Christians in Rome and Italy. This conclusion is supported by the evidence of Mark's presence in Rome in the A.D. 60's.

Place Where The Gospel Of Mark Was Written

It seems clear that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome for the Gentile Christians there. Ancient Christian tradition supports Rome as the place where Mark's gospel was written.

Date When The Gospel Of Mark Was Written

Historical accounts indicate that Peter died a martyr's death under Emperor Nero in Rome about A.D. 64. If Clement of Alexandria was correct that Mark wrote his gospel while Peter was still living, because Peter's hearers wanted his gospel discourses preserved in writing for them, then the date for Mark's writing his gospel would have been around A.D. 63 to 64. But Papias' statement that according to the apostle John, Mark wrote what he heard from Peter, has been understood to imply that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's death. Irenaeus wrote in the latter half of the second century, perhaps on the basis of Papias' statement, that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of both Peter and Paul. Paul died a martyr's death after Peter around A.D. 67 to 68. Since there is a lack of unanimity among these ancient Christian writers, it is perhaps best to say Mark wrote his gospel around the mid 60's A.D.

Purpose Of The Gospel Of Mark

To record for the Gentile Christians in Rome and Italy a written account of the gospel of Jesus Christ as it had been preached by Peter.

Theme Of The Gospel Of Mark

Jesus proved he is Christ, the Son of God, through his ministry of service (his active obedience) and through his suffering and death (his passive obedience) and resurrection.

Christ, the Son of God, is the Messianic Servant.

http://www.christianinconnect.com/mark.htm

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

Luke

The writer of the Gospel of Luke was also the writer of the Book of Acts. Both were written for a certain man named Theophilus. There are “we” sections in the Book of Acts, which indicate the writer was a close associate of the apostle Paul's and an eyewitness to what he recorded in those sections.

Luke was this close associate of Paul, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. Paul mentioned Luke by name three times in his letters. In Colossians 4:14 Paul spoke of him as “Luke, the beloved physician.” In Philemon 24 Paul stated Luke was his fellow worker. In 2 Timothy 4:11 Paul wrote that only Luke was with him during his second Roman imprisonment.

Luke was a Gentile, probably a Greek. This appears to have been the case, because Paul distinguished him from his Jewish co-workers who were “from the circumcision” (cf. Colossians 4:10-14). Luke had taken up residence in Antioch, Syria. Acts 11:28 in the Greek manuscript known as the Codex Bezae has an insertion that makes Luke present at the meeting of the church in Antioch when the prophet Agabus foretold there would be a great famine. Paul and Barnabas were there as well. While there is some question that this version of Acts 11:28 was original, it indicates that by the fourth century the opinion was held that Luke lived in Antioch and by the late A.D. 30's had become a Christian and member of the church in Antioch. Acts 6:5 also gives some incidental evidence to Luke's having lived in Antioch and to his being a member of the church there. When Luke named in Acts 6:5 who were the first deacons chosen by the church in Jerusalem, he stated that Nicolas was formerly a convert to Judaism and from Antioch. Luke apparently knew this from his personal knowledge of the members of the church in Antioch, where he had also been a member.

Ancient tradition supports that Luke was an Antiochian. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue, dated between A.D. 160 and 180, states, “Luke was an Antiochian of Syria, a physician by profession.” This statement also appears in Eusebius' Church History (about A.D. 323) and in Jerome's De Viris Illustribus (A.D. 392). Origen is also quoted in Eusebius' Church History as saying that Luke was an Antiochian by descent and a physician by profession.

Luke was a physician (cf. Colossians 4:14). Thus Antioch is a credible place for Luke to have lived. For Antioch was the location of a famous ancient medical school. There Luke was likely to have studied medicine.

Accepting as true that by the late A.D. 30's Luke was a member of the church in Antioch who attended the meeting at which Agabus spoke of a great famine, Acts 11:19-21 gives us an insight into how Luke may have become a Christian. In connection with the stoning of Stephen a terrible persecution of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem began (cf. Acts 7:59-8:2). The Christians scattered to Antioch as well as to Phoenicia and Cyprus. They preached the Word where they went. In Antioch they shared the gospel of Jesus only with Jews. Then some Christian men of Cyprus and Cyrene came to Antioch and preached the gospel of Jesus to the Greeks who were there. The Lord blessed their preaching and a large number believed and turned to the Lord. This is a good possibility of how Luke came to hear the gospel and was converted from paganism to Christianity. It is interesting to note that Luke, formerly a Greek pagan and Gentile, became an instrument of the Holy Spirit to write about 25% of the New Testament. He is the only Gentile to have written a book of the New Testament.

The “we” sections of the Book of Acts provide enlightening information about Luke's travels and work as Paul's assistant. In these “we” sections the writer Luke suddenly shifts from writing in the third person “he” or “they” to the first person plural “we” to include himself as a participant in, and an eyewitness to, Paul's travels and missionary work. Acts 16:10-17 reveals that Luke joined Paul, Silas, and Timothy in Troas, a city of what is now Turkey, on Paul's second missionary journey. After Paul had his vision of a man in Macedonia beckoning him to come and help them, they left Troas by ship and crossed the Aegean Sea into Macedonia, to begin preaching the gospel for the first time in Europe. They proceeded to the city of Philippi, where they established a congregation. This “we” section of Acts 16:10-17 ends with Luke remaining in Philippi when Paul and Silas moved on to Thessalonica. It appears that Luke remained there throughout the remainder of Paul's second missionary journey, which Paul spent in Corinth, and throughout Paul's third missionary journey in Ephesus. For this period of about seven years Luke appears to have overseen the work in the church in Philippi.

The next “we” section begins at Acts 20:6. Luke rejoins Paul at the end of Paul's third missionary journey. Together with Paul and the other brothers from the Gentile churches, Luke goes to Jerusalem to take the collection of the churches to the poor Christians there. Luke spent some time in Jerusalem. He had the opportunity to meet James the head of the church in Jerusalem and the brother of the Lord Jesus (cf. Acts 21:18; Matthew 13:55), the elders of the Jerusalem church, not to mention the apostles who were there and the many Christians who had seen and heard Jesus during his public ministry and passion.

In Jerusalem Paul was arrested around A.D. 57 and held in Roman custody for two years (cf. Acts 21:31-33; 24:27). It appears on the basis of the written details of this period that Luke remained with Paul in Caesarea throughout this time as one of Paul's friends who could minister to him (cf. Acts 24:23). The presence of Luke with Paul in Caesarea is given added support by the fact that when Paul was transferred from there to Rome around A.D. 59, Luke was there to accompany Paul on the sea journey to Rome. For the next “we” section of Acts 27:1-28:16 reveals Luke boarding the ship with Paul and arriving in Rome with him in A.D. 59 to 60.

Luke then remained with Paul in Rome for the two years of Paul's first Roman imprisonment. This is clear from the greetings Paul included from Luke in his imprisonment epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, which letters were written around A.D. 61 to 62. An interesting side light which shines through these greetings is this: the Christians of Colosse, and Philemon who was a member of the church in Colosse, must have known Luke personally, which was why Paul included the greeting to them from Luke. This would suggest that at some time Luke spent some time working with the Christians in that area of Asia Minor and what is now Turkey.

Luke was also with Paul during Paul's second Roman imprisonment. This is evident from 2 Timothy 4:11, where Paul wrote, “Only Luke is with me.” Luke is likely to have remained with Paul right up to the time of Paul's martyrdom in A.D. 67 to 68. This is supported by the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke, which said Luke accompanied Paul until Paul's martyrdom.

The Anti-Marcionite Prologue also stated that Luke served the Lord without distraction, having neither wife nor children. It says that he wrote his gospel after the gospels of Matthew and Mark were written, and that he wrote it in Achaia, the Roman province in Greece in which Corinth was located. It also says he died in Boeotia in Greece at the age of eighty-four. The city of Thebes, the capital of Boeotia, has also been mentioned as the place of Luke's death. Another Greek legend says he died in Bithynia, the northern most Roman province in what is now Turkey, when he was seventy-four to eighty-four years old. Jerome stated in the fourth century that Luke was buried in Constantinople, where his bodily remains and those of Andrew were taken in the twentieth year of Constantius (A.D. 337-361).

These non-biblical notices about the person of Luke and his death show a lack of consensus. This leads one to conclude that the church of the second and later centuries did not possess a certain knowledge about the life and the work of Luke. What can be known with certainty about Luke's life and work comes from the scanty information included in the New Testament Scriptures.

Ancient Traditions Support Luke As The Writer Of His Gospel And The Book Of Acts

Irenaeus (A.D. 115-190) wrote in his book against heresy that Luke was a follower of Paul, who had preserved in a book the gospel which Paul preached. Irenaeus was referring to the book we know as the Gospel of Luke.

Justin Martyr, about A.D. 150, quoted frequently from the Gospel of Luke.

Tatian, sometime after A.D. 150, included the Gospel of Luke in his Diatessaron, which was a harmony of the four gospels.

The Anti-Marcionite Prologue, written between A.D. 160 and 180, which was an introduction to Luke's gospel, stated Luke accompanied Paul until Paul's martyrdom, and that while the gospels of Matthew and Mark had already been written, Luke was moved by the Spirit to compose his gospel in Achaia.

The pagan Celsus attacked the Gospel of Luke around A.D. 178.

The Muratorian Canon, dated around A.D. 175, attested to Luke's having written the gospel bearing his name.

Eusebius (A.D. 270-340) in his Church History spoke of both the Gospel and the Book of Acts as having been written by Luke.

The caption “According to Luke” is an ancient attestation to Luke's having written his gospel. Each of the four gospel rolls was marked on the outside of its roll with the phrase “according to” and the writer's name to distinguish one gospel account from another in the holder or drawer in which they were stored. These captions date back to a very early date in the history of the church.

Occasion And Purpose For The Writing Of The Gospel Of Luke

Both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written for a certain man named Theophilus. Nothing is known about this man. He may have been a Christian convert, or he was considering becoming one, for Luke stated that Theophilus had already been taught the gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 1:4). Luke addresses him as “most excellent Theophilus,” or as “Your excellency.” This title indicates Theophilus was a man of either wealth, prominence, official stature, or a combination of all three. Tertullus used this title to address Governor Felix (cf. Acts 24:3). Paul used this title to address Governor Porcius Festus (cf. Acts 26:25).

There are conflicting opinions among the scholars whether Luke dedicated his gospel to Theophilus. Such a dedication was a literary custom of antiquity. The man to whom the book was dedicated then accepted the cost of the book's publication and distribution. Whether Luke intended to dedicate his gospel to Theophilus, or to do no more than address the man by name for whose sake he wrote his gospel, cannot be determined with any high degree of certainty.

Luke 1:1-4 is the prologue of the gospel. It states that Luke wrote his gospel to give Theophilus an understanding of how certain were the things of Jesus' teachings and activities which Theophilus had been taught previously. Luke set out to write down for him a historical account of the gospel of Jesus Christ to show he is the Savior of the world.

Sources Luke May Have Used In The Course Of Writing His Gospel

Luke was not an eyewitness who had seen and heard for himself the things that Jesus had said and done. Luke stated in the prologue of his gospel (cf. Luke 1:1-4) that many before him had undertaken to compile an account of the things regarding Jesus that had been accomplished among them. Those compilations were just as the eyewitnesses to Jesus and his ministry, and who were his servants, had handed down those things Jesus had said and done. Luke wrote that having investigated everything most carefully himself from the beginning, he, too, had set out to compile those things of Jesus in consecutive order for Theophilus. It is evident, therefore, that Luke relied on eyewitnesses and written sources for the information he included in his gospel. He consulted the documents previously compiled. He interviewed the eyewitnesses who could tell him first hand about Jesus' teachings and activities.

Above all, we must recognize that the ultimate, true source behind Luke's gospel was the Holy Spirit--the Spirit of truth who taught his inspired penmen all things and brought to remembrance all that Jesus had said (John 14:16,17,26). The Spirit's inspiration of his penman does not rule out the writer's use of material at his disposal to document under the Spirit's guidance what he was writing. In using those materials the Spirit's guidance would have led the writer to leave out any chaff of error and to preserve only the wheat of what was the truth.

Paul was a source for Luke's gospel. As stated in the section about Luke the writer, Luke was a companion and assistant of the apostle Paul, who had seen Jesus and had been instructed by Jesus. Luke thus learned from Paul the gospel of Jesus Christ that Paul preached in his missionary endeavors.

Mark was another potential source of information for Luke. Luke associated with the gospel writer Mark. Luke first met Mark in the church of Antioch, where Luke was a member and where Barnabas and Paul had brought Mark in A.D. 44 to assist them (cf. Acts 12:25). It is clear that Luke was also with Mark, as well as with Paul, in Rome during Paul's first imprisonment there and when Paul wrote his prison epistles, (cf. Colossians 4:10,14; Philemon 24). Luke and Mark were again together with Paul in Rome during Paul's second Roman imprisonment before his martyrdom (cf. 2 Timothy 4:10,11). Mark had heard and learned the gospel that Peter had preached (cf. An Overview Of The Gospel Of Mark). It is thought that since Luke was in Rome with Mark during both of Paul's Roman imprisonments, and since Mark wrote his gospel in Rome in the mid A.D. 60's, Luke is likely to have obtained a copy of Mark's gospel very soon after it was written and followed it in the course of writing his own gospel.

Peter himself, whose preaching was the basis of Mark's gospel, may have been a source of information for Luke in preparing his gospel. Luke's whereabouts between Paul's first and second Roman imprisonments in A.D. 61 to 62 and in A.D. 67 is unknown. If Luke remained in Rome for those five years or so, he is likely to have had contact with Peter. Peter was in Rome and there wrote his first letter around A.D. 62 to 64 and his second letter around A.D. 66 to 67. Assuming Luke remained in Rome during those years, he had the opportunity to hear from Peter the gospel of Jesus that Peter preached.

Luke traveled with Paul to carry the collection of the Gentile churches to the poor Christians in Jerusalem. While there Luke met James the brother of the Lord Jesus and the elders of the church, (cf. Acts 21:18). He would also have had the opportunity to interview the apostles who were in Jerusalem, plus the many other Christians who had witnessed Jesus' teachings, miracles, suffering, death, and resurrection. There were many such Christians, for Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that Jesus had appeared after his resurrection to more than five hundred such disciples at one time, many of whom were still living. Luke also spent the two years of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea near Galilee and Judea. It would have been a simple matter for him to travel those areas where Jesus had conducted his ministry and talk with the eyewitnesses.

Matthew's gospel, which is thought to have been written between A.D. 50 to 60, was also a possible source of information for Luke's gospel. Luke may even have interviewed the apostle Matthew while in Jerusalem or elsewhere.

Luke had many other potential sources of information as well. He was with Silas, as well as with Paul, on the second missionary journey. Silas was a prophet of the church in Jerusalem before assisting Paul (cf. Acts 15:22,27,32,40; 16:8-10). Luke met and stayed with Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven deacons chosen by the church in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 21:8; 6:5). He came into contact with the prophet Agabus from Judea (cf. Acts 21:10). He stayed in the home of Mnason, a disciple of long standing (cf. Acts 21:16). No doubt Mary, the mother of Jesus, was his source for the nativity accounts of Jesus in Luke 1 and 2.

Date And Place The Gospel Of Luke Was Written

A definite date for the writing of Luke's gospel cannot be ascertained. It is thought that Luke's gospel was written after the gospel of Matthew, which has been dated between A.D. 50 to 60, and shortly after Mark wrote his gospel around the mid A.D. 60's. It is also thought Luke wrote his gospel shortly after Paul's martyrdom in A.D. 67 to 68. Irenaeus stated that after the death of Peter and Paul, Mark wrote the gospel that Peter had preached and Luke wrote the gospel that Paul had preached. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue implied Luke wrote his gospel and the Book of Acts after Paul's death. Taking this into account, a date in the late A.D. 60's is likely.

The Gospel of John is a credible witness to this early dating of Luke's gospel, as well as to the early dating of Matthew and Mark. John wrote his gospel around A.D. 85. It is apparent that by that time he was quite familiar with the contents of the three synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that he accepted them as Scripture. For he wrote his gospel in a manner which supposed and required his readers' previous knowledge with those synoptic gospels. John skipped much of the material covered in the three synoptic gospels and filled in the blanks and gaps that the other three gospels did not cover. Thus Luke's gospel, as well as Matthew's and Mark's, must have been written prior to A.D. 85.

The Canon of Muratori (about A.D. 175) stated the third book of the Gospels was compiled by Luke. This makes Luke's gospel the third to have been written after that of Matthew's and Mark's. There is nothing that proves wrong the old tradition that the Gospels were written in the order in which they are arranged in our New Testament, and that Luke's was the third to be written. According to Eusebius' Church History Irenaeus indicated Luke's was the third gospel, as did Origen.

Like the exact date, the exact place of writing is indefinite. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue stated Luke wrote his gospel in Achaia, Greece. This could possibly be correct. Yet scholars have been skeptical about this location. In addition to Achaia in Greece, the cities of Antioch in Syria, Rome in Italy, and even Caesarea Philippi, have been suggested as possible places where Luke wrote his gospel.

Characteristics Of The Gospel Of Luke

It has been said that the Gospel of Luke is a Greek literary work. This is evident from its prologue. The prologue is formally structured, conforms to Greek literary custom, refers to the works of other writers, and claims that a most careful examination of the facts was done. The gospel's Greek language and style are elegant, and it avoids Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin words. This suggests it was written for a Greek readership, Theophilus in particular.

Luke's gospel emphasizes the gracious forgiveness of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The first declaration in Luke's gospel about Jesus' words is that they were “gracious words that were coming out of his mouth” (cf. Luke 4:22), for he spoke good news to the poor, of freedom for the imprisoned, and of recovery of sight for the blind. Jesus' forgiveness inspires loving service (cf. Luke 7:36-50). Jesus' Parables of the Prodigal or Lost Son (cf. Luke 15:9-31) and of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (cf. Luke 18:9-14) hold out the assurance of the Lord's forgiveness as a loving Father and merciful God. Jesus' words at the house of Zacchaeus epitomize and encompass his mission: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). And while on the cross Jesus opens the gates of paradise to the criminal on the cross next to his own (cf. Luke 23:43).

In Luke's gospel Jesus is the Savior of the lowly and the lost. The good news that Christ the Savior was born was first proclaimed to lowly shepherds (cf. Luke 2:10,11). Jesus received sinners and ate with them (cf. Luke 15:2). Jesus' Parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin relate Jesus' joy in finding and saving the lost (cf. Luke 15:3-10).

Luke's gospel portrays Jesus as the universal Savior of all. Luke's genealogy traces Jesus' ancestry back to Adam, the father of mankind (cf. Luke 3:23-38). Gentile soldiers came to be baptized and instructed by John the Baptist, Jesus' forerunner (cf. Luke 3:14). Jesus reached out to the Samaritans, (cf. Luke 9:51,52; 17:11-19).

In the Gospel of Luke Jesus repeatedly spoke out against greed and the love of money and the worldly pleasures it would buy. He pronounced woe upon the rich, for they were receiving their comfort in full, in contrast to his saying the poor were blessed (cf. Luke 6:24). In his Parable of the Sower and the Seed, Jesus spoke of the seed of his Word that is choked out by life's worries, riches, and pleasures (cf. Luke 8:14). Jesus refused to arbitrate the division of an inheritance between two brothers, and used the occasion to warn the crowd against greed and to tell his Parable of the Rich Fool, who lost his soul because he was not rich toward God (cf. Luke 12:13-21). Jesus instructed his disciples not to worry about having the necessities of life, because God would provide for them. Rather, they should seek first the kingdom of God and those necessities would be given to them as well (cf. Luke 12:22-31). His said his disciples should sell their possessions and store up treasure in heaven (cf. Luke 12:32-34). Jesus' Parable of the Prodigal or Lost Son revealed the sinfulness of dedicating one's life to enjoying the pleasures of the world (cf. Luke 15:11-24). Jesus' Parable of the Shrewd Manager taught to use worldly wealth to gain friends for eternity (cf. Luke 16:1-9). Jesus also taught his disciples that trustworthiness was expected of them even in handling worldly wealth, which was much less than the true riches, and that they cannot serve God and Money (cf. Luke 16:10-13). Jesus revealed that money and worldly wealth are nothing to God (cf. Luke 16:14,15). Jesus taught the story of the rich man, who for all his wealth perished in hell, while poor Lazarus received eternal life (cf. Luke 16:19-26). Jesus said that as in the days of Noah, the people of the world who live for the here and the now would suddenly be destroyed in the judgment that they were unprepared for (cf. Luke 17:26-29). When the rich ruler would not part with his great wealth to follow Jesus, Jesus declared that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (cf. Luke 18:18-25). Jesus' Parable of the Ten Minas taught that all would be held accountable for their stewardship in using what he gave them to use for him and for the building of his kingdom, especially his gospel (cf. Luke 19:11-27).

Luke in his gospel also emphasized the Holy Spirit and his work. The Holy Spirit was active in the life and ministry of John the Baptist (cf. Luke 1:15-117; in the life and ministry of Jesus (cf. Luke 1:35; 3:16,22; 4:1,14,18; 10:21); in the life of Elizabeth (cf. Luke 1:41,42); in the faith and praise of Zechariah (cf. Luke 1:67-69); in the life and praise of Simeon (cf. Luke 2:25-35); in the ministry and trials of his disciples (cf. Luke 12:10-12; 24:49).

Luke's gospel is characterized with a warmth and tenderness. From Luke the church is now filled with the music of Mary's Magnificat (cf. Luke 1:46-55) and the Song of Simeon (cf. Luke 2:29-32). From Luke the church is set aglow with the nativity account of Christ each Christmas (cf. Luke 2).

Luke presented Jesus as a man of prayer more so than the other gospels (cf. Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18; 9:28,29; 22:31,32; 22:41-46; 23:34; 23:46). Luke also presented Jesus' teachings on prayer (cf. Luke 11:1-13; 18:1-8; 18:9-14; 22:39,40).

Luke in his gospel gave women a special place and significance in the life and ministry of Jesus, such as Elizabeth (cf. Luke 1:24,25; 1:41-45; 1:57-60) and Mary (cf. Luke 1:26-56). The nativity of Christ is Mary's firsthand story (cf. Luke 2:1-38), as is no doubt the account of Jesus in the temple at the age of twelve (cf. Luke 2:41-51). In Luke's gospel appear Anna (cf. Luke 2:36-38), Peter's mother-in-law (cf. Luke 4:38,39), the widow of Nain on whom Jesus had compassion and raised her son from the dead (cf. Luke 7:11-17), the sinful woman who anointed Jesus as an expression of her love for his forgiving her sins (cf. Luke 7:36-50), the women who followed Jesus and helped to support his ministry (cf. Luke 8:1-3), Jairus' daughter whom Jesus raised from the dead and the woman he healed who had been bleeding for twelve years (cf. Luke 8:40-56), Mary and Martha (cf. Luke 10:38-42), the woman who had been crippled by a demon for eighteen years whom Jesus healed on the Sabbath (cf. Luke 13:10-17), Jesus' Parable about the woman who lost her coin (cf. Luke 15:8-10), Jesus' Parable of the Persistent Widow which taught his disciples to pray persistently (cf. Luke 18:1-18), the widow's offering of two mites which was an outstanding example of faith and love for God and of stewardship (cf. Luke 21:1-4), the women who wept for Jesus as he was being led out to be crucified and to whom he reached out to bring them to repentance and faith (cf. Luke 23:27-31), the women who stood below the cross and at Jesus' burial (cf. Luke 23:49, 55, 56), the women who went to the tomb on Easter morning to anoint Jesus' body properly for burial and who were the first to hear the good news of Jesus' resurrection (cf. Luke 24:1-11).

Luke alone fit the life and ministry of Jesus Christ into the historical framework of the contemporary world. Herod was king of Judea when John the Baptist's coming birth was announced (cf. Luke 1:5). The birth of Jesus Christ occurred in connection with the census ordered by Caesar Augustus and when Quirinius was governor of Syria (cf. Luke 2:1,2). John the Baptist began his public ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene (cf. Luke 3:1), which was also during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (cf. Luke 3:2).

Theme Of The Gospel Of Luke

Jesus, The Universal Savior, Came To Seek And To Save The Lost

http://www.christianinconnect.com/luke.htm

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

John

The apostle John was a son of Zebedee and the brother of the apostle James (cf. Matthew 10:2). His mother was Salome, a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (cf. Mark 16:1; John 19:25). John, then, was a first cousin of Jesus.

John and Andrew had been disciples of John the Baptist. When John the Baptist pointed them to Jesus and told them Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John and Andrew followed Jesus to become his first disciples (cf. John 1:29, 35-40).

John and his brother James were fishermen with their father Zebedee (cf. Matthew 4:21). They were also fishing partners with Simon Peter and his brother Andrew (cf. Luke 5:10,11; Matthew 4:18,19). Near the beginning of the second year of Jesus' public ministry, when Jesus was conducting his greater Galilean ministry, Jesus called John and James, Peter and Andrew, to follow him full time as his disciples. They then left their fishing business (cf. Matthew 4:18-22; Luke 5:10,11) and became Jesus' apostles (cf. Matthew 10:2).

John, as well as his brother James, showed that he was a high spirited man with a quick temper. Jesus called the two of them the “Sons of Thunder” (cf. Mark 3:17; Luke 9:51-56). In spite of this, John was the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” John, together with James and Peter, became a member of the innermost circle of three around Jesus. John, with the other two, was present when Jesus raised Jairus' daughter from the dead (cf. Mark 5:35-42), and when Jesus was glorified on the Mount of Transfiguration (cf. Matthew 17:1,2; Mark 9:1,2; Luke 9:28,29). After Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, John entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, Caiaphas, because John was known to the high priest. John was the one who arranged for Peter to be allowed inside the courtyard during the time Jesus was being tried by the Sanhedrin (cf. John 18:12-16). John stood at the foot of the cross when Jesus was crucified. Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to John (cf. John 19:25-27). On Easter morning John ran out to the empty tomb and entered it after Peter (cf. John 20:3-10). John was present with the other disciples when Jesus appeared to them on Easter evening, eight days later when Thomas was present with them, and again when Jesus came to them at the Sea of Galilee.

After Jesus ascended into heaven, John was an active witness in Jerusalem to the crucified and risen Christ. John was with Peter when at the gate of the temple they healed the beggar who was lame from birth and Peter preached to the crowd that then gathered in the temple (cf. Acts 3:1-26). John, too, was arrested with Peter for preaching the gospel of Jesus in the temple, imprisoned, and brought before the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews. When commanded not to preach in the name of Jesus, John, as well as Peter, testified that he could not stop speaking what he had seen and heard (cf. Acts 4:1-22). No doubt John was with the other apostles when the Sanhedrin arrested them, jailed them, tried them for preaching the gospel of Jesus in Jerusalem, and flogged them (cf. Acts 5:17-42). John remained in Jerusalem with the other apostles when the Sanhedrin initiated in connection with the stoning of Stephen the persecution of Jewish Christians in the city (cf. Acts 7:57-8:2). John became one of the recognized leaders in the church of Jerusalem. Paul stated that John was one of the reputed pillars of the church. John, as well as James the brother of the Lord Jesus and Peter, also extended the right hand of fellowship to Paul at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (cf. Galatians 2:9; Acts 15:1-29).

It is believed that John left Jerusalem around A.D. 66 before the Jews' war with the Romans, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. John then settled in Ephesus and ministered there as an apostle until his death around A.D. 100. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who lived until around A.D. 180, attested to John's ministry in Ephesus. Irenaeus had a direct link to John via Polycarp, who had been a pupil of John's. Irenaeus also knew others who had been with John in Ephesus. John died and was buried in Ephesus. Polycrates, a second century bishop of Ephesus, said John was a martyr and teacher and that he slept at Ephesus. In spite of Polycrates' statement that John was a martyr, on the basis of what others in ancient times stated, John is thought to be the only apostle who died a natural death. Because of the contents of his gospel and letters, John has become known as the apostle of love.

John was the acknowledged author of the gospel bearing his name from early on. Irenaeus testified to John's writing of this gospel. In his book Heresies he reported that John, the disciple of the Lord who laid on his breast, published the fourth gospel while he was in Ephesus of Asia Minor. According to the ancient church historian Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, a contemporary of Irenaeus, also reported that John as the last wrote a spiritual gospel as compared to the other three gospels which had recounted the externals of the story of Christ.

John's gospel was soon used in the writings of the early church fathers. Papias wrote around A.D. 130 about the aloes that John's gospel alone mentions in John 19:39. He explained that the aloes mixed with the myrrh for Jesus' burial was a substance which was burned as incense. Tertullian, who was born around A.D. 150, quoted a Latin translation of John's gospel from Carthage, Africa. He also knew of an earlier translation which was no longer in use. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, quoted John's gospel around A.D. 180, as did Apollinaris around A.D. 170, and Athenagoras around A.D. 176. Tatian composed his Diatesseron, a harmony of the four gospels, which he began with the prologue from John's gospel. This testified to how well the Gospel of John was accepted in the church by his day.

The Recipients Of The Gospel Of John

John wrote his gospel for Christian believers in Jesus Christ, who were familiar with the three synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which they already had in their possession.

The Place Where The Gospel Of John Was Written

During the last years of his life John served the church in Ephesus. There he wrote his gospel. Irenaeus, as noted above, stated John wrote his gospel while in Ephesus of Asia Minor.

The Date Of The Gospel Of John

John wrote his gospel after the other three gospels had been written and circulated in the first century church. It is apparent that John was familiar with the other gospels when he wrote his own gospel. A comparison of John's gospel to the three synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke shows that John supplemented those three and filled in the gaps, including information about Jesus and his ministry which was not included in the three synoptic gospels.

Except for the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, and Jesus' temptations in the wilderness, the three synoptic gospels reported nothing about the first year of Jesus' public ministry. What we know of the first year of Jesus' ministry comes from the Gospel of John. John filled in the gap of that first year. From John we know about: Jesus' gathering of his first disciples; his first miracle at the wedding in Cana; his first cleansing of the temple when he cast out the sellers and moneychangers, at which time he made his first promise of his resurrection from the dead; his conversation with Nicodemus when he said that God so loved the world...; his early Judean ministry; his brief ministry in Samaria where Jesus spoke with the woman at the well; his return to Cana and his healing of the official's son; and his return to Jerusalem to attend the unknown feast, at which time he healed the man at the pool of Bethesda on a Sabbath day and stirred up the ire of the Jewish leaders, who then began to seek to kill him (cf. John 1:19-5:47).

While John filled in the gap of Jesus' first year of ministry left by the three synoptic gospels, he wrote nothing about the second year of Jesus' ministry, which the three synoptics covered in detail. John jumped from the first year of Jesus' ministry to the third and final year, starting with the Passover and Jesus' feeding of the five thousand.

John further showed his familiarity with the three synoptics in selecting what he reported of the close of the third year of Jesus' ministry. He again chose to include material that suited the purpose of his gospel which the other three did not include. He again filled in the gaps and the blanks. From John's gospel alone we know about: Jesus' raising of Lazarus and his conversation with Martha when he said he was the resurrection and the life; the concern of the Jewish leaders that all of the Jews as a result of Jesus' raising Lazarus would believe in him and that they would lose their positions of recognition and authority, which is when Caiaphas said it was better for Jesus to die than that the whole Jewish nation should perish (cf. John 11:1-57); the Greeks who wished to see Jesus and the unbelief of the Jews (cf. John 12:20-50); Jesus' farewell discourses in the upper room Maundy Thursday evening (cf. John 14:1-17:26); Jesus' commending his mother to John's care (cf. John 19:25-27); the Roman soldier's piercing Jesus' side to verify that Jesus was dead (cf. John 19:31-37); Jesus' second appearance to his disciples after his resurrection when doubting Thomas was present (cf. John 20:26-29); and Jesus coming again to the disciples by the sea when he reinstated Peter as an apostle (cf. John 21:1-23).

What John included and excluded from his gospel clearly indicates that he had a thorough knowledge of the contents of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This indicates also that John must have written his gospel after Matthew, Mark, and Luke had written theirs. Having filled in the gaps and supplemented the other three gospels, and having written his gospel in a manner which required familiarity with the other three, John made the four gospels a single, grand unit.

It has been thought that John wrote his gospel before he wrote the Letters of First, Second, and Third John, and before the Book Of Revelation which he wrote last of all. The year of A.D. 85 has been suggested as an approximate date for the Gospel of John.

The Occasion And Purpose Of John’s Gospel

The chief, controlling purpose of John’s gospel, as explained previously, is stated in the concluding epilogue which begins with John 20:30,31.

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The purpose of John’s gospel was not a missionary appeal. Rather it sought to strengthen and deepen the faith of those who were already Christian believers. The gospel does this by recounting the words and deeds of Jesus Christ.

John’s gospel was also written for a church in conflict in the world and subject to temptation. Emphases in the gospel indicate what some of the conflicts and temptations were. The gospel of Christ crucified was a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to the Gentiles, as Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 1:23. The Jews to whom Paul preached hated the gospel and persecuted those who proclaimed it and believed it, (cf. Acts 20:19; 21:27). In the Book of Revelation, which was written by John within a couple years of the writing of his gospel, he wrote of the Jews who opposed the church and stated they were the synagogue of Satan (cf. Rev.2:8-11; 3:7-10). Knowing the Jews’ hatred of Jesus and the gospel of Jesus, which the church had to contend with, John’s gospel presented the Jews’ hatred of Jesus where it began at the time of Jesus’ ministry. John’s gospel presents the Jewish hatred even more strongly than Matthew’s gospel does. John’s gospel presents the Jews in their blind, stubborn refusal to recognize that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and in their mounting hatred of Jesus. John presents the Jews denying Jesus is the Son of God (John 5:18; 8:40-59), and plotting to kill him (John 5:18; 8:40, 59; 10:31,39; 11:8,50). John presents the Jews, not as the children of Abraham, but as children of the devil (John 8:39-44). John’s gospel informs us that Jesus foretold the Jews’ hatred would persist. They would think that they were doing God a favor if they killed Jesus’ disciples (John 16:2). But the Spirit, whom Jesus would send to his disciples, would enable his disciples to continue in their struggle with the Jews as Jesus himself had done (John 16:2-4,7-11).

John was aware that among the Jews there were those who remained disciples of John the Baptist and did not accept his testimony to Jesus being the Christ. Those disciples of the Baptist ascribed the titles and functions of the Christ to John the Baptist himself. Paul encountered such disciples of the Baptist, (cf. Acts 19:1-7). Thus the Gospel of John gives special emphasis to the person and testimony of John the Baptist and subordinates him to Jesus Christ, who is the true light who had come into the world. John the Baptist came to bear witness to Jesus Christ (John 1:8). John the Baptist testified that he must decrease but that Jesus must increase (John 3:28-30). John the Baptist pointed out that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29-36). At the same time the Gospel of John upheld the divine significance of the Baptist’s ministry (John 1:6,14-15; 5:33,35).

John’s gospel also served the purpose of upholding the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Word who became flesh, against the gnostic heresy of Cerinthus. The Greek word gnosis means knowledge. Following the teaching of Cerinthus, the gnostics believed that Jesus was only a man. They believed that the heavenly Christ entered the man Jesus at his baptism and occupied him for the three years of his public ministry to impart true knowledge to the world. Before the man Jesus died on the cross, however, the heavenly Christ departed from him. Thus the gnostics did not believe that Christ, the Son of God, became true man in the flesh. Nor did they believe that in the person of Jesus the Son of God died for our sins to reconcile us to God for our eternal salvation. They believed that for a fulfilling life they only needed the heavenly Christ to enlighten them with his true knowledge. Against this heresy John’s gospel testifies the Word, the eternal Creator God, became flesh and dwelt among us. Bearing the scars left by the nails and the spear in his body, John’s gospel testifies that Jesus is to be worshipped in the words of Thomas as

“My Lord, and my God!”

http://www.christianinconnect.com/john.htm

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

James

Date Of The Letter Of James

It appears that the letter was written during the early period of the Jewish Christian Church. The letter was written to Jewish Christians who had been scattered among the nations. They were most likely scattered by the persecution of Jewish Christians that erupted in Jerusalem in connection with the stoning of Stephen in the early A.D. 30's (cf. Acts 7:58-8:2). Since the letter was written to Jewish Christians, and it does not include statements directed to Gentile Christians, it was probably written before the influx of Gentiles began, such as began to occur during Paul's first missionary journey, which has been dated as A.D. 46-48. With the influx of Gentile Christians into the church the Judaistic Controversy arose, which was settled by the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in A.D. 49-50. The letter makes no reference to the troubles and strife that arose with the influx of the Gentiles. Nor does it state that the Jewish Christians should not trouble the Gentile Christians over observing the laws of Moses and especially the rite of circumcision. These factors suggest that the date of writing could have been possibly around A.D. 45. Such a date makes the Letter of James the first book and letter of the New Testament to have been written.

The Writer Of The Letter Of James

James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, James 1:1

There are four men by the name of James in the New Testament. There is the apostle James, who was the brother of the apostle John and a son of Zebedee (cf. Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:17; Luke 6:14). There is a second apostle named James, who was identified as “James the son of Alphaeus” (cf. Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). There is also a James who was the father of the apostle Judas--not Iscariot (cf. Luke 6:16). Then there is the James who is the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).

Which of these four James wrote the letter? The James who wrote it was a man of recognized dignity and authority. His name was known to all in the early apostolic church. He was so well known and widely recognized that he did not need to identify himself further than to write “James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” All would have known who he was without confusing him with the other James who are mentioned in the New Testament.

Certainly the apostle James, who was the brother of John and the son of Zebedee, was well known within the early church in Jerusalem, Judea, and Galilee. He was one of Jesus' inner circle of three together with Peter and his brother John. He could not have written the letter, however, because King Herod Agrippa put him to death in A.D. 44, before it appears the letter was written.

The James who was the father of the apostle Judas (not Iscariot) could not have written the letter either. He was not an apostle and he lacked the recognized authority in the church to have written a letter as authoritative as the Letter of James. Similarly, lacking such a recognized authority within the church, James the son of Alphaeus is a poor candidate to have been the letter's author.

This leaves James the half brother of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the most likely candidate to have written the letter. During the three years of Jesus' public ministry James, as well as his brothers Joseph, Simon, and Judas, did not believe Jesus was Christ the Son of God (cf. John 7:3-5). Along with his brothers and sisters James probably thought Jesus was out of his mind and had lost his senses (cf. Mark 3:21). James' opinion of Jesus seems to have changed when Jesus appeared to him as the risen Lord (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:7) After seeing Jesus risen from the dead, James came to believe in him, for by the time of Jesus' ascension into heaven forty days later he and his brothers were united in the same faith with the disciples (cf. Acts 1:12-14).

Already in A.D. 44 James the brother of the Lord was the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem. Shortly after the apostle John's brother James was put to death by King Herod Agrippa, and immediately after an angel released Peter from prison to save him from the same martyrdom, Peter instructed those in the house of Mary to report his release to “James and the brothers”, meaning the members of the church of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 12:17). In A.D. 49-50 James was clearly the leader of the church of Jerusalem and a recognized authority within the Apostolic Council. He voiced the final decision of the council that the Gentiles should not be troubled about having to follow the laws of Moses, especially with regard to circumcision, in order to be saved (cf. Acts 15:3-21). As a result of James' decree the apostles, elders, and church of Jerusalem then sent a letter to the churches to uphold that they were saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus (cf. Acts 15:11,22-29). In his Letter to the Galatians, written about A.D. 52, Paul put James on a level of importance equal with that of the apostles (cf. Galatians 1:19), and stated that James together with Peter and John were the “reputed pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (cf. Galatians 2:9). James was such an influential person within the church of Jerusalem that Paul referred to Jewish Christians from Jerusalem as “certain men (who) came from James” (cf. Galatians 2:12). At the end of his third missionary journey when Paul brought the collection from the churches for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, he reported to James with the collection (cf. Acts 21:17,18). James was so widely recognized in the early apostolic church that Jesus' brother Judas (cf. Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3) introduced himself in his Letter of Jude as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (Jude 1).

James had a reputation for his piety and righteousness. For this he was given the title of “James the Just”, even by Jews who did not embrace Christianity. From early writings the tradition is that James died a martyrs' death between A,D. 63 and 68.

The Recipients Of The Letter Of James

“Greetings to the twelve tribes scattered abroad,” James 1:1

The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem scattered when the ruling council of the Jews, the Sanhedrin, started persecuting them after the stoning of Stephen. They scattered throughout Judea and Samaria (cf. Acts 8:2) and perhaps to areas beyond. Wherever they had scattered to, James wrote this general letter to them from Jerusalem as their pastor to instruct and encourage them in their Christian faith and life.

The Occasion Of The Letter Of James

No particular event or situation can be cited as the cause for the letter's being written. The occasion for the writing of the letter is inferred from the contents of the letter. At its outset James encourages the Jewish Christians to rejoice in the many kinds of trials they were undergoing. He encouraged them to persevere under such trials and withstand the test of faith and the temptation that came with it. He also wrote of their being exploited by the rich who slandered the name of Christ (cf. James 2:6,7). This suggests that the Jewish Christians were being hard pressed by persecution and poverty and were subject to the temptation to abandon their faith in Christ.

Throughout the letter James also addressed their numerous sins and the failure of their faith to be active in good deeds. This further suggests that they had begun to backslide in their faith and were slipping back into their old worldly ways from which they had emerged when they first came to believe in Christ.

The Purpose Of The Letter Of James

The content of the letter suggests that James wrote his letter to instruct, correct, rebuke, and encourage them with the Word of God, so they might not fall away altogether. He wrote to urge them to repent and to live their lives by faith.

The Theme Of The Letter Of James

Live By Faith, For Faith Without Deeds Is Dead, James 2:26

http://www.christianinconnect.com/james.htm

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

Peter

Writer Of The First Letter Of Peter

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 1:1

who was a witness to the sufferings of Christ, 1 Peter 5:1

Peter stated that he wrote his first letter by means of, or through, Silvanus, whose name was also Silas (cf. 1 Peter 5:12). Silas accompanied Paul on the second missionary journey to Macedonia. He was a close co-worker and assistant of Paul's. He was with Peter when the First Letter of Peter was written, as was John Mark, who wrote the Gospel of Mark and who also was an assistant of Paul's (cf. Acts 12:12; 12:25; 13:13; Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11).

Just what part Silas played in the writing of the First Letter of Peter cannot be stated with any certainty. It has been suggested that Silas served as Peter's secretary. Perhaps. Some have thought that because Peter was a Jew from Galilee, he was more proficient in Aramaic than in Greek. Silas therefore served as Peter's translator. This seems less than likely, for the people within the Roman Empire were bilingual and even trilingual. They spoke the native language of their country, conversed in Greek which was the international language of commerce, and knew Latin which was the official, legal language of the Roman Empire. Whether Silas served as a consultant to Peter or wrote the letter following Peter's general instructions is also conjecture. If Silas in some way played a supportive, contributing role in the letter, it would seem proper for Peter to have included Silas' name in the greeting, which Peter did not do. Peter is the author of the letter as the existent greeting indicates.

Peter was an apostle of Jesus Christ. He was brought to Jesus by his brother Andrew and became one of Jesus' first disciples (cf. John 1:40-42). He became a prominent member of the twelve disciples, being with James and John a member of the innermost circle around Jesus. He at times served as the spokesman for the group (cf. Matthew 16:15,16). He was with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (cf. Matthew 17:1,2).

Peter showed that he was an impulsive man, however, as he did when he rebuked Jesus for intending to go to Jerusalem where Jesus would be rejected and killed (Matthew 16:21,22), and as he also did on the Mount of Transfiguration where he suggested building three tabernacles, one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah (cf. Matthew 17:1-4; Mark 9:5,6; Luke 9:32,33). He also showed he was overly self-confident, asserting he would never deny Jesus, even if all the rest did. This proved to be an empty boast, for he denied knowing Jesus three times (cf. Matthew 26:33,34). Peter immediately repented of his sinful denial (cf. Matthew 26:74,75). After Jesus had risen from the dead, he reinstated Peter as his disciple and apostle (cf. John 21:15-19).

Peter again arose as a prominent member and spokesman of the apostles. Peter was the one who declared another apostle must be named to replace Judas Iscariot (cf. Acts 1:15-26). Peter was also the one who on Pentecost preached to the multitude, which resulted in 3,000 being added to the church of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 2:14-41). After healing the man who was lame from birth, Peter again preached powerfully to the crowd in the temple (cf. Acts 3:1-26), and stood boldly before the ruling council of the Jews when he was arrested with John and the other apostles (cf. Acts 4 & 5). Peter later actively spread the gospel of Jesus in Judea and Samaria (cf. Acts 9:32-12:24).

Toward the end of his life it appears that Peter went to Rome. Historical accounts indicate he died a martyr's death in Rome under Emperor Nero about the same time Paul was imprisoned in Rome for the second time before his martyrdom.

Recipients Of The First Letter Of Peter

To God’s elect sojourners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1 Peter 1:1

Peter addressed the recipients as strangers, sojourners, exiles in the diaspora, or dispersion. The term diaspora came into use during the Old Testament era after the Jews were taken as captives to Babylon, a time known as the Babylonian Captivity. Diaspora denoted those Jews who were dispersed and scattered among the nations away from their Jewish homeland of Israel.

Peter's use of the term diaspora has led some to think that he wrote to Jewish Christians, not to Gentile Christians. In support of their opinion they point to the fact that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles while Peter was the apostle to the Jews, as stated in Galatians 2:7-9. The internal evidence within the letter itself, however, indicates the recipients came from a Gentile background. Peter wrote of their evil desires and lusts of which they were formerly guilty in their spiritual ignorance (cf. 1 Peter 1:14). He stated that formerly they were not a people, but that then they had become the people of God who had received mercy (cf. 1 Peter 2:10). He noted that his recipients had already had enough time in the past to do what the pagan Gentiles did, and that the pagan Gentiles thought it strange that the recipients did not indulge with them in their sins (cf. 1 Peter 4:3,4). These facts indicate the recipients were Gentile Christians.

Peter's addressing them as strangers and exiles in the diaspora is to be understood figuratively, not literally for the Jews who were scattered among the nations. The Gentile Christians were strangers, aliens, and exiles in this world away from their true homeland, which was with the Lord in heaven. They were foreigners in a land and world to which they did not belong. They were in the world but not a part of the world, for their true citizenship was in heaven, as Paul also told the Philippians (cf. Philippians 3:20).

The Gentile recipients lived in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia (Minor), and Bithynia. These were provinces of the Roman Empire in what is now the country of Turkey. On his first missionary journey Paul brought the gospel of Christ to the province of Galatia, establishing congregations in Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, as well as in nearby Pisidian Antioch (cf. Acts 13:13-14:23). On his second missionary journey Paul wanted to go into Bithynia, which was to the north of Galatia, as well as into Asia Minor, which was to the west of Galatia. But the Holy Spirit forbid Paul to do mission work in those places, because he wanted Paul to cross over the Aegean Sea into Macedonia and Europe (cf. Acts 16:6-10). Paul never did go to Bithynia or neighboring Pontus, but on his third missionary journey he worked in Ephesus for more than two years, which was the leading city of Asia Minor.

During the 15 years or so that elapsed from the time of Paul's first missionary work in Galatia to the time Peter wrote his first letter, Christianity spread from Galatia to the northern provinces of Pontus and Bithynia. Whether from Galatia, or Cilicia, or both, Christianity had also spread into the eastern province of Cappadocia. It is apparent that Christianity and the gospel spread quite rapidly due to an intense missionary zeal within the early Christians.

Place Where The First Letter Of Peter Was Written

Peter wrote in 1 Peter 5:13, “She in Babylon, chosen together with you, and my son Mark, greet you.” “She” designates the church where Peter was at when he wrote his first letter. That church was located in Babylon. Babylon is not to be understood literally. The great city of ancient Babylon was destroyed by the Medes and the Persians centuries earlier. Among the Jews “Babylon” stood for a great seat of political power that was an enemy hostile to God's people. It seems relatively certain that Peter used the name of Babylon for Rome, which was the great seat of political power that was hostile to God's people, the Christians who confessed Christ. This being the case, Peter wrote his first letter in Rome.

Date Of The First Letter Of Peter

There is no reason not to believe that later in life Peter did go to Rome and died a martyr's death there. The persecution to which the recipients of Peter's letter were being subjected does not appear to have been a part of the persecution initiated by Roman Emperor Nero in A.D. 64. This suggests Peter's first letter was written before A.D. 64. It is thought Peter may have written it around A.D. 62 and after Paul was released from his first imprisonment in Rome. It seems probable that Peter wrote his first letter sometime between A.D. 62 and the spring of A.D. 64.

Occasion For The Writing Of The First Letter Of Peter

The circumstances that led Peter to write his first letter cannot be cited definitively. No particular situation or event that prompted his writing is known.

The internal evidence within the letter indicates the recipients were suffering persecution for their faith. Peter referred to it as a fiery ordeal and painful trial (cf. 1 Peter 4:12). Since Peter wrote that his readers should not be surprised at the ordeal they were suffering, which they thought was strange, the persecution may have begun not long before Peter wrote his letter. They were being maliciously slandered for living their faith in Christ (cf. 1 Peter 3:16) and insulted because of the name of Christ (cf. 1 Peter 4:14). They had already suffered grief in all kinds of trials (cf. 1 Peter 1:6). “Suffering” is a key word that is often repeated in the letter. Thus it seems that Peter wrote to encourage them in their faith, holding before them the hope that was theirs in Christ so they might persevere and endure the trials they suffered.

It has been suggested that Paul may have urged Peter to write the letter just before Paul left from Rome to do missionary work in Spain in the spring of A.D. 64, which has been suggested as the probable date. If Paul did urge Peter to write the letter before leaving for Spain, this would date the letter around the spring of A.D. 64. It has been thought that Paul learned of the persecution and suffering of the Christians in the areas in which he had worked extensively on his first and third missionary journeys. Before leaving for Spain he therefore asked Peter to write a general letter that could be circulated among the Christians in the areas of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia. This suggestion has some support in the fact that Silas, Paul's co-worker, played some part in the writing of the letter, and John Mark, another co-worker of Paul's, was present when the letter was written (cf. 1 Peter 5:12,13). Perhaps Silas was present with Paul and Peter when they discussed and planned what the content of the letter should be.

Purpose Of The First Letter Of Peter

To encourage the suffering Christians within Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia to stand firm in the true grace of God, 1 Peter 5:12

Theme Of The First Letter Of Peter

Born To A Living Hope

http://www.christianinconnect.com/1peter.htm

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

Paul

Paul The Apostle - A Chosen Vessel Unto God

Of the twenty seven books comprising the New Testament, Paul wrote fourteen of them - Romans through Hebrews. Not all bible scholars however agree that he wrote Hebrews as well, but it will be included in this study. Paul is first introduced in scripture as the young man Saul who was consenting to the stoning death of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, in the book of Acts (CP Ac 7:58- 8:1 with 13:9). Paul was born a Jew, but he also held Roman citizenship (CP Ro 11:1; Php 3:5 with Ac 16:37; 22:25). Paul's birthplace was Tarsus, in Cilicia, a Roman province in Asia Minor - modern day Turkey - but he was raised in Jerusalem, where he studied Old Testament law and Jewish orthodoxy under Gamaliel, a renowned teacher and high ranking member of the Sanhedrin - the Jewish leaders' council (CP Ac 22:3 with 5:34). Paul was himself a zealous Pharisee (CP Ac 23:6; 26:4-5; Php 3:3-6). As a zealous Pharisee Paul was given official authority by the chief priests to apprehend and persecute Christians - "this way" (CP Ac 22:4; 1Cor 15:9; Ga 1:13). When Christians were put on trial Paul voted for them to be put to death (CP Ac 26:10).

Paul was on the road to Damascus, where he was going to seek out and arrest Christians and bring them back bound to Jerusalem where they would be imprisoned and tried for being Christians, when he had an encounter with Jesus, and was himself converted to Christianity (CP Ac 9:1-19; 22:4-21; 26:9-23). Christ had chosen Paul to take the gospel to the Gentiles and to suffer many things for His name's sake. Paul was a chosen vessel unto Christ (CP Ac 9:15-16; 22:21; 26:19-23). After his conversion Paul spent some days with the Christians in Damascus. He preached in the synagogue there that Christ was the Son of God, and the Jews determined to kill him. He had to flee Damascus by night in a basket the local Christians lowered over the wall of the city (CP Ac 9:19-25; 26:19-21; 2Cor 11:32-33). After fleeing Damascus Paul went to Arabia (CP Ga 1:15-17). Scriptures do not say how long Paul was in Arabia, but it was undoubtedly while he was there at that time, that he was taken up to Heaven and taught the gospel by Jesus Himself (CP Ga 1:11-12 with 2Cor 12:1-10).

Paul's "thorn in the flesh" is clearly identified in 2Cor 12:7 as a demon - "the messenger of Satan sent to buffet me" - which God Himself instigated so that Paul would not be lifted up with pride because of what he had seen and heard in Heaven. Buffet means maltreat, treat with violence. It conveys the notion of punishment for the correction and betterment of Paul; to keep him in touch with his limitations. The outworking of the demon's buffeting of Paul is recorded in 2Cor 11:23-33 (CP 2Cor 11:23-33). Paul's thorn in the flesh was not sickness as so many believe. As 2Cor 12:7-10 clearly teaches, Paul never prayed for God to heal him of sickness, only to remove the demon. But of course God would not, because He had instigated its presence in the first place (CP 2Cor 12:7-10).

Paul returned to Damascus after he left Arabia and stayed there three years. He then went to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Peter. At that time the only other apostle he saw in Jerusalem was James, Jesus' half brother (CP Ga1:17-19). The Christians in Jerusalem were wary of Paul because of how he had treated them in the past, and it was not until Barnabas, who knew of Paul's conversion, and of his preaching in the name of Jesus in Damascus, introduced him to Peter and James, that they really accepted him. Paul boldly preached Jesus in Jerusalem also, which brought him into dispute with the Greek speaking Jews - the Grecians - who set about to kill him, so he had to flee Jerusalem. The brethren took him to Caesarea from where he went to Tarsus, his birthplace, where he stayed for the next ten years (CP Ac 9:26-30). Paul next went to Syria (CP Ga 1:20-24).

Paul went to Syria with Barnabas - to Antioch, where there was a flourishing Christian community. There were so many new converts that Barnabas needed Paul's help in discipling them. It was at Antioch that believers were first called Christians. Paul stayed for a year and then he and Barnabas together took the relief money to Jerusalem for the Christians there suffering a great famine which had been predicted by the prophet Agabus (CP Ac 11:19-30). Upon returning to Antioch from Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas brought John Mark back with them (CP Ac 12:25). John Mark, who also wrote the gospel of Mark was Barnabas' cousin (CP Col 4:10). Sister's son here means cousin. Shortly after returning to Antioch Paul and Barnabas both were commissioned apostles by God (CP Ac 13:1-2). Being ordained an apostle was the prelude to Paul's first missionary journey (CP Ac 13:3-5).

Accompanied by Barnabas and John Mark, Paul went to Cyprus, stopping first at Salamis where he preached the word of God in the synagogue of the Jews. Their next stop was Paphos, the capital of Cyprus. Here they encountered a sorcerer and false prophet - a Jew called Bar-Jesus or Elymas, who was with the Roman Governor of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus. The Governor, seeking to hear the gospel, sent for Paul and Barnabas, but Elymas opposed them, trying to turn the Governor away from the faith. Paul caused blindness to come upon Elymas for a time. What Paul did was a sign that the gospel he preached was true (CP Ac 13:6-12). Paul's purpose was to punish Elymas for a time for resisting the gospel, and what happened demonstrated the power of the gospel and that God confirms what is preached with signs following. The Governor got saved as a result of what happened. It should be noted here that prior to Ac 13:9 Paul was called Saul, but throughout the rest of the New Testament he is called Paul.

After Paphos Paul and Barnabas and John Mark went to Perga, a city in Pamphylia, another province of Asia Minor - modern Turkey. Here John Mark defected from the mission and returned to Jerusalem (CP Ac 13:13). Paul and Barnabas then went to Antioch in Pisidia - not to be confused with Antioch, their home base in Syria - a province adjoining Pamphylia (CP Ac 13:14-15). Paul went to the synagogue and addressed the congregation, composed of both Jews and God-fearing Gentiles, which is recorded at length in V 16-41 (CP V 16-41). Many Jews and Gentiles were receptive to Paul's message and were saved. Most of the Jews though rejected it. However, the Gentiles wanted to hear more and arranged for Paul to preach it again on the next Sabbath. Almost the whole of Antioch turned up to hear the message that day which filled the Jews with envy. They contradicted and blasphemed the things spoken by Paul, but the Gentiles were glad and glorified God's word. A huge number were saved and the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region (CP V 42-49).

After so many Gentiles received Christ, the unbelieving Jews expelled Paul and Barnabas from Antioch, and they then went to Iconium in nearby Galatia (CP V 50-52). At Iconium, Paul and Barnabas went to the synagogue and preached the gospel of Christ. A great multitude, both Jews and Gentiles, got saved. Paul and Barnabas stayed at Iconium for a considerable time and God did many signs and wonders through them. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the people and split the city. Part of the city sided with the Jews and part with Paul and Barnabas. Compelled to flee a threatened stoning, they crossed over into the neighbouring province, Lycaonia and went first to Lystra, and later, to Derbe. They preached the gospel of Jesus (CP Ac 14:1-7).

A congenital cripple got healed at Lystra when Paul prayed over him, causing the townspeople to proclaim him and Barnabas gods in the flesh. They tried to offer up sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas which greatly distressed them because it was idolatry. They tried to stop the people but they would not listen, and soon the Jews from Antioch in Pisidia and Iconium won them over, and they turned against Paul and stoned him to the point of death, then dragged him out of the city (CP V 8-19). Many in the contemporary church believe that Paul was dead here and was restored to life by the prayers of the local Christians gathered around him. Paul rose up and went back into Lystra and next day he and Barnabas went to Derbe (CP V 20). They preached the gospel of Jesus in Derbe, leading many of the people to Christ and teaching them the way of the Lord. After that they returned again to Lystra and Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia to strengthen and encourage the new converts in their faith, and to appoint elders in each of the local assemblies (CP Ac 14:21-23). From Antioch in Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas returned again to Perga, where John Mark defected. They preached the gospel there and also in nearby Attalia, after which they returned to their home church in Antioch Syria. This completed their first apostolic mission (CP V 24-28). This first missionary journey by Paul and Barnabas, which began in Ac 13:1, took approximately three years to complete.

Sometime after his return to Antioch, Paul faced his first great theological crisis. There was much dissention in the church because Jewish Christians were trying to impose their view on Gentile converts that they had to be circumcised like them and keep the law of Moses, as well as believe in Jesus, to be saved. After it was revealed to Paul by God that he should go, the church at Antioch decided to send him and Barnabas to Jerusalem and let the apostles and the council of elders in the church there adjudicate upon the matter. Paul also took Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile Christian with him (CP Ga 2:1-10). All that took place at Jerusalem is recorded in Ac 15:1-29 which we will examine in more detail shortly.

Now let us look at Ac 15:1-29 (CP Ac 15:1-29). One of the most vital doctrines of the Christian faith was resolved here; that is, that salvation is by grace through faith alone (CP Eph 2:8-9). In trying to impose circumcision and obedience to the law of Moses as a prerequisite for salvation upon the Gentiles, the Jewish Christians - Paul called them false brethren in Ga 2:4 - where teaching salvation by works, which Peter showed was wrong in Ac 15:7-9 (CP V 7-9). James summed up in the light of Old Testament prophecy now being fulfilled in the salvation of the Gentiles, that they should not be burdened with any requirements of the Old Testament law, but abstain from those things that are forbidden under the New Testament. James recommendations were unanimously agreed to and acted upon, and Judas Barsabas and Silas were authorised to return to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas and report the findings (CP V 13-31). Any misgivings Paul may have had regarding his apostolic authority in his gospel to the Gentiles being recognised by the apostles in Jerusalem, were soon dispelled when James, Peter and John, perceiving the grace God had given him, extended to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (CP Ga 2:7-9).

Sometime after Paul returned to Antioch from Jerusalem, Peter visited and openly fellowshipped with the Gentile Christians, but when some legalistic Jews - Judaisers - from the Jerusalem Church arrived, he ceased fellowshipping for fear of how they might react. The Jewish Christians also stopped fellowshipping, and it threatened to split the church, turning Jewish and Gentile Christians against each other. Barnabas even got involved (CP Ga 2:11-17). What Peter did was clearly wrong. It was such a contradiction of the gospel of grace and so hypocritical, that Paul had to publicly rebuke him, because it was Peter God used to settle the issue of Jews and Gentiles fellowshipping in the first place (CP Ac 10:28-35 and 11:1-8).

Soon after confronting Peter, Paul decided on a return journey with Barnabas to the places where they had previously been to see how the churches they founded were going. Barnabas wanted John Mark to go with them but Paul would not agree because of his defection on the first journey. There was sharp contention between them over the matter and so they split up. Paul chose Silas to go with him and Barnabas took John Mark. They went to Cyprus while Paul and Silas journeyed through Syria and Cilicia. This is the commencement of Paul's second missionary journey (CP Ac 15:36-41). It is important to note here that while Paul and Barnabas' parting may not have been amicable, all the parties were reconciled again later on (CP 1Cor 9:6; Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 23-24). We learn from this that while Christians may fall out with each other, they must never harbour grudges against each other, but be reconciled (CP Eph 4:26, 31-32).

When Paul returned to Lystra - where he had been left for dead after being stoned on his first missionary journey - he was joined by Timothy, a young convert from his first mission (CP Ac 16:1-3). Timothy was an uncircumcised Jew from a mixed marriage between a Gentile father and a Jewish mother, and so that the Jews would not reject the gospel being proclaimed by Timothy as an uncircumcised Gentile, he circumcised him. As an uncircumcised son of a mixed marriage, Timothy would be a stumbling block to winning Jews to Christ (CP 1Cor 9:19-23). As they called on the various churches in the region, Paul and his two helpers also delivered the decrees ordained by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem; that the Gentile converts would not be burdened with any requirements of the Old Covenant law - they only had to abstain from those things that were forbidden under the New Testament already. It helped the churches to become more established in the faith, and their numbers increased daily (CP Ac 16:4-5). Paul and his companions journeyed throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia where churches were already established, but when they tried to take the gospel further into Asia Minor, the Holy Spirit checked them at that time (CP V 6-8). The reason why the Holy Spirit checked Paul and the others from going further into Asia at that time was because they were desperately required to take the gospel into Greece (CP V 9-10).

Macedonia was the northern part of Greece and it was here that Paul and his companions founded the church at Philippi (CP Ac 16:12-15). The change from the third person pronoun they in Ac 16:8 to the second person we in V 10 indicates that Luke, the author of the book of Acts, was now a participant with Paul and Silas and Timothy on this missionary journey and was giving a first-hand report on the events taking place. It appears that he joined them at Troas (CP V 8-11). Later on, as Paul and the others went to prayer, a young demon-possessed girl followed them, calling out for all to hear that Paul and the others were servants of God come to save them all. This continued for some days until, grieved in the Spirit, Paul cast the demon out of her. This angered her masters because now they would no longer be able to earn any money out of her as a soothsayer - one able to foretell the future. They took hold of Paul and Silas and brought them before the magistrates who had them whipped and thrown into prison, where they were cast into the deepest dungeon and had their feet fastened in the stocks (CP V 16-24).

Although they were in the deepest dungeon and could not move, Paul and Silas rejoiced. They prayed and sang praises unto God. Their spirits rose superior to the difficulty and limitations of their situation and God delivered them from it. He was then glorified in the jailer and his family's salvation (CP V 25-34). The lesson to be learned from this is that while it may seem impossible for Christians to rejoice under the circumstances, if they will rejoice notwithstanding, God will nullify the circumstances (CP Psa 146-150). If Christians allow themselves to be overwhelmed by their circumstances, they are not able to be used of God for His glory (CP Ac 5:40-42; 2Cor 7:4; 8:1-4; Jas 1:2-4; 1Pe 4:13). The next morning Paul and Silas refused to leave the prison like they were common criminals. Paul demanded that the magistrates come themselves and release them, which they did after Paul and Silas claimed their Roman citizens' rights. After much pleading by the magistrates, Paul and Silas eventually left and went to Lydia's house, and after encouraging the brethren there they left Philippi (CP Ac 16:35-40). Paul and Silas and Timothy then went to Thessalonica - Luke stayed at Philippi - where there was a synagogue of the Jews, and as was his custom, Paul went there and preached Jesus as the Son of God. A great many Gentiles believed, as did a few Jews and some of the women from the leading families, but the majority of Jews did not. Some of them got a mob together and went looking for Paul and the others but could not find them, so they attacked the house of Jason, Paul's host, and brought him and some local Christians before the rulers of the city charging them with harbouring seditious agitators, but they were let go after paying a good behaviour bond (CP Ac 17:1-9).

That same night the Thessalonian Christians sent Paul and Silas and Timothy to Berea, where they went to the synagogue and Paul preached the gospel of Jesus. The Berean Jews were more courteous and of a better disposition than those in Thessalonica. They searched the scriptures and proved Paul's gospel to be true. As a result many of them believed, as also did many prominent Greek women and men. But when the unbelieving Jews in Thessalonica found out, they came and created so much trouble for Paul among the people that he had to flee to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy in Berea. When he got to Athens he sent for them (CP Ac 17: 10-15). While waiting for Silas and Timothy, Paul became grieved in the Spirit at the extent of idolatry in Athens - the city was wholly given over to the worship of idols. Paul reasoned and argued about it every day to all who would listen. One day some philosophers engaged him in discussion concerning his preaching about Jesus and the resurrection. They thought Jesus was a strange God and wanted to hear Paul's doctrine. They took Paul to Areopagus and Mars Hill to hear him (CP V 16-22).

Areopagus and Mars Hill both refer to the same place - an elevated open space in Athens where the great council of the Athenians sat. In Bible times it was the supreme tribunal of justice. In the midst of Mars Hill in V 22 simply means that Paul stood in the midst of the judges in court there. He was not on trial, only being asked to explain his doctrine, and he made full use of this opportunity to proclaim the living God, in contrast to all the lifeless pagan deities the Athenians worshipped, and how God purposed His plan of salvation for mankind through His Son, Jesus. A few believed in what Paul said and were saved. Even one of the judges, Dionysius, became a Christian (CP Ac 17:23-34). Paul then left Athens and went to Corinth where he met Aquila and Priscilla, a Jewish couple who had been forced to leave Rome. Aquila was a tentmaker by occupation, the same as Paul, so they stayed together and worked at their trade.

Paul preached in the synagogue every Sabbath and won both Jews and Greeks to Christ. But after Silas and Timothy joined him, the Jews vehemently opposed his preaching that Jesus was Christ, so Paul wiped his hands of them (CP Ac 18:1-6). Paul no longer held himself responsible for the Corinthian Jews getting saved. It was their own responsibility from then. He had done everything in his power that they might inherit eternal life, but they completely rejected Christ. He then preached to the Gentiles in Corinth (CP V 7). Paul had been preaching to the Gentiles for a year and a half when the Jews brought him before the Governor and charged him with trying to make them worship God against Roman law, but the Governor would have nothing to do with it and let Paul go. Paul stayed in Corinth for some time after this before deciding to return to his home church at Antioch, Syria (CP V 8-22). This completes Paul's second missionary journey which lasted about four years. Churches were founded at Troas, Philippi, Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth and Cenchrea, where Paul shaved his head and made a vow to God. It is not known what the vow was.

After an extended stay back at Antioch, Paul set out with Timothy and others on his third missionary journey, first visiting the regions of Galatia and Phrygia, calling on the churches there and strengthening the Christians (CP Ac 18:23). Paul then went to Ephesus where he encountered about twelve men who had received John's baptism but knew nothing about the baptism Jesus instituted or the baptism in the Holy Spirit. After baptising them in the name of Jesus and laying hands on them they received the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the evidence of which was that they spoke in tongues (CP Ac 19:1-7). Paul preached the Kingdom of God for three months in the synagogue in Ephesus until the Jews hardened their hearts and began to agitate the people against the Christians. Paul then moved them from the synagogue to a Gentile school run by Tyrannus, where he taught them for two years. From there God's word went out into the whole of Asia, to both Jews and Gentiles (CP V 8-10).

After the seven sons of Sceva, the chief priest at Ephesus, were badly beaten, wounded, and stripped naked by a demon-possessed man they tried to exorcise, the church in Ephesus experienced a great revival (CP V 13-20). What happened in V 17-20 should be carefully noted because sadly, many Christians in the contemporary church are still involved in black magic, sorcery and idolatry in some form or another. They are simply called by other names: astrology, signs of the zodiac, horoscopes, fortune telling, etc. But they are strictly forbidden in scripture (CP Lev 19:26; De 18:10; 2Ki 21:1-2, 6; Isa 47:1, 13; Jer 10:1-2). Those involved in these practices need to be warned. This warning also applies to those Christians who have not yet destroyed the idols they worshipped before becoming Christians. They must be destroyed for linked with the command in scripture not to worship idols, is also the command to destroy them (CP Ex 23:24; 34:12-13; De 7:4-6, 25-26; 12:1-3). Idols in the contemporary church can also take the form of wealth and material possessions, fashion trends, celebrities, sports, occupations, even one's spouse or ministry in the church, etc. When the revival at Ephesus ended, Paul purposed in the Spirit that after he had been to Macedonia and Achaia, he would go back to Jerusalem, and then on to Rome. He sent Timothy and Erastus before him into Macedonia, while he stayed on a bit longer in Asia (CP Ac 19:21-22). Paul's ministry in Ephesus was so powerful it caused a recession among the idol-makers. They no longer had a ready market for their wares. Paul had led so many idol worshippers to Jesus, that the silversmiths in their anger would have undoubtedly killed him had they been able to lay hold of him. Paul made his way to Macedonia, where he visited the churches they had founded at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea and other places, greatly encouraging them, before going to Macedonia and then to Greece (CP Ac 19:23-20:2).

Paul stayed in Achaia for three months ministering at Athens, Corinth and Cenchrea. During his time in Macedonia and Achaia, Paul arranged for every church in the region to take up a collection for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem, which would be taken to them when he returned to Jerusalem. This is not recorded in the book of Acts, but it is recorded in Paul's epistle to the Romans, and both of his epistles to the Corinthians (CP Ro 15:25-31; 1Cor 16:1-4; 2Cor 8:1-9; 15). Paul was so aware of what could happen to him at Jerusalem that he asked the church in Rome to pray for his safety, and also that the Jewish Christians accept the Gentile offerings. As Paul was about to sail from Corinth to Syria, the Jews laid in wait for him, so he went back to Philippi and sailed from there to Troas where Timothy and others were waiting for him. He stayed seven days in Troas. On the day before he left, the local Christians were gathered together in an upper room to have communion, and Paul preached to them. It went on for hours - until daybreak the next day. At midnight, a young man, Eutychus, who was sitting in the alcove of a window, dozed off and fell three floors to the ground. He was pronounced dead but Paul went down and embraced him and his life was restored (CP Ac 20:3-12). Paul then journeyed to Miletus. He was hastening to get to Jerusalem for the Day of Pentecost, although he knew through the Holy Spirit that bonds and afflictions awaited him there (CP V 13-16 with 22-24).

From Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church to come to him (CP V 17). Paul's farewell speech to the elders and his final parting from them is recorded in V 18-38 (CP V 18-38). After leaving Miletus, Paul and his companions set sail for Syria, landing at Tyre, where they met some Christians and stayed there for seven days. Knowing through the Spirit what Paul would suffer in Jerusalem, they urged him not to go, but when the seven days were up Paul proceeded to leave. All the brethren at Tyre, together with their wives and children, accompanied Paul and his companions to the beach outside the city, where they held a prayer meeting before Paul and the others boarded ship and went first to Ptolemais, and then to Caesarea, where they stayed with Philip the evangelist, and his four daughters (CP Ac 21:1-9). While there, Agabus the prophet came from Judaea, and taking Paul's belt, he bound his own hands and feet with it, the while saying that the Holy Spirit was showing how Paul would be bound like that by the Jews at Jerusalem, who would then deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. Paul's companions together with the local Christians begged him not to go, but Paul responded that he was ready to die for Jesus' name. Obviously he interpreted the warnings not as prohibitions, but as tests of his willingness to suffer for Jesus' name. They then continued on to Jerusalem, where they were warmly greeted by the brethren (CP V 10-17). This signifies the completion of Paul's third missionary journey which began in Ac 18:23 and lasted about five years.

The next day Paul reported his ministry to the Gentiles to James and the elders of the church at Jerusalem (CP V 18-19). They informed him of the tension his presence created among the Jews because of reports that he was teaching his Jewish converts to forsake the law of Moses, not to have their children circumcised, nor follow Jewish customs (CP V 20-22). In the hope of placating the Jews, and without compromising Paul, they proposed that he should join with four others, take a Jewish vow, purify himself with them, and pay their expenses in having their heads shaved (CP V 23-24). Paul did so, but his attempt to pacify the Jews proved futile. When the unbelieving Jews from Asia saw him in the temple, they incited a riot, accusing him among other things of polluting the temple by taking a Gentile into it. The mob dragged Paul out of the temple and were about to kill him when he was rescued by Roman soldiers (CP V 26-36). Paul was bound hands and feet with chains, fulfilling Agabus' prophecy in V 10-11 (CP V 10-11). As he was being led away Paul got permission to talk to the mob (CP V 37-40). Paul then gave his testimony of how he first persecuted Christians, and was then converted to Christ after encountering Him on the road to Damascus. The Jews listened in silence until he spoke of his commission to the Gentiles, then they rioted again (CP Ac 22:1-23).

The captain of the Roman guard ordered that Paul be interrogated by scourging to find out why the Jews were so hostile toward him but he was afraid to proceed when Paul declared his Roman citizenship (CP V 24-29). The next day Paul was set before the Sanhedrin (CP V 30). Great dissension arose among the Jews after Paul proclaimed his belief in the resurrection, and fearing that the mob would tear him apart, the Roman captain sent the soldiers in to rescue him and take him to their quarters (CP Ac 23:1-10). The following night Jesus appeared to Paul and praised him for his faithful witness in Jerusalem and told him that he would also be his witness in Rome (CP V 11). The Jews were so intent on killing Paul that more than forty bound themselves under a curse and conspired with the chief priests and elders to have him brought before the council, where they would attack and kill him. When the captain of the guard was informed of the plan, he sent Paul to Felix, the Roman Governor, in Caesarea (CP V 12-35). It was clear to Felix that the charges against Paul were spurious, but not wanting to antagonise the Jews he postponed a decision, and because Paul made no offer of a bribe for his release, kept him in custody for two years, until the new Governor, Festus, took office (CP Ac 24:1-27).

After talking to the Jewish leaders, Festus indicated that he might send Paul to Jerusalem to be tried by the Jews. But Paul, knowing the outcome of such a trial, exercised his Roman citizenship rights and appealed to Caesar. After a moving interview before King Agrippa and his wife Bernice, Paul was sent under guard to Rome (CP Ac 25:1 - 26:32). Paul was put on a ship bound for Rome with other prisoners. He was accompanied by Luke and Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica (CP Ac 27:1-2). After changing ships on the way, they were caught in cyclonic weather which they battled for fourteen days before the boat was wrecked on the island of Melita - present day Malta. Although the boat was totally wrecked, not one life was lost (CP Ac 27:3-44). The centurion in charge of Paul overruled the soldiers who wanted to kill the prisoners lest any should swim away and escape. This fulfilled God's purpose for Paul to be his witness in Rome.

Paul and the other victims of the shipwreck had to stay on Melita for three months until winter ended before they were able to resume their journey to Rome. During this time Paul was bitten by a highly venomous viper without being affected in any way, confirming Christ's promise in scripture to every believer (CP Ac 28:1-10 with Mk 16:17-18; Lu 10:19). Paul healed many who were sick and diseased, including the father of the chief of the island, Publius. At the end of the three months they resumed their journey to Rome. On the way Paul and Luke and Aristarchus fellowshipped with some Christian brethren for seven days, and then were met in Rome by other brethren (CP Ac 28:11-15). Paul lived in his own rented house in Rome with only one soldier to keep guard over him (CP V 16). After three days Paul called the leaders of the Jews together and outlined his reason for being there. They had heard nothing detrimental against Paul and listened to his preaching. Some believed, others did not (CP V 17-29). Paul spent the next two years openly preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ. No one forbade him (CP V 30-31).

This now brings the book of Acts, or Acts of the apostles, to a close. It leaves the question of Paul's trial and release unanswered. The abrupt ending points to Luke completing his work on Acts while Paul was still under house-arrest awaiting his trial. There is no record of the trial or its outcome anywhere in scripture. Nothing certain is known of what happened to Paul after this. It is generally thought that he was released after his two years of house-arrest was completed, and then spent the next few years preaching in various places. It was during that time he wrote his first epistle to Timothy and his epistle to Titus (CP 1Ti 1:1-3; Tit 1:4-5). Some time after this Paul was re-arrested and taken back to Rome from where he wrote his second epistle to Timothy (CP 2Ti 1:16-17; 2:9). Tradition says that after he wrote this epistle Paul was martyred by beheading, under the emperor Nero. During the two years he was under house-arrest Paul wrote his epistles to the Ephesians (CP Eph 3:1; 4:1; 6:20-21), Philippians (CP Php 1:7, 12-16; 4:22), Colossians (CP Col 4:3, 10, 18), and his epistle to Philemon regarding Onesimus, his runaway slave (CP Phm 1:1, 9-10, 23-25). Paul's epistles together with the gospel, became the foundation of the Christian movement. They are a study of the Christian faith.

Paul's epistles, formulating, interpreting, and applying the essence of Christianity, are vital to Christian theology and practice. Paul was the most influential teacher of Christianity, and his achievements proclaim him as an unexcelled missionary statesman. He was truly a chosen vessel unto God.

http://www.bible-truths-revealed.com/adv45.html

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

You know, I get the cut-n-paste time saver routine. I even believe some folks actually read all that is blasted onto a main frame. But the intent of this was to critique the NT and hopefully dispel the myth you have regarding my familiarity with the NT.

I never doubted yours.

I also am of the school of no one but God is expert on the Bible and every one who applies themselves to the study of what the scripture says (rather than what so-called experts or denominational party platforms say) the each one of us has something to contribute to the overall pool of scriptural knowledge / understanding.

All of it is of course under the scrutiny of the bible itself (Acts 17:11 / 1 John 4:1).

I don't know... to just cut and paste articles from Bible dictionaries etc. It just misses the mark for me and sours the purpose somehow... sorry.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

For example...

Rav Shaul b' Tarshish / Apostle Paul...

Do you think he wrote the book of Hebrews?

Do you believe he is the actual 12th disciple / apostle (rather than Matthias or even Judas for that matter)?

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?

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)?

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?

Was Paul acting on his own by going back to Jerusalem despite the prophetic warnings of believers?

Did he have a fourth missionary journey?

Was there a third and fourth epistle to the Corinthians?

What was Paul's thorn in the flesh?

Was Mark the amanuenses of Paul or Peter?

Did we settle the disagreement about the purpose for the writing of Luke and ACts and to whom it was written?

Things like these.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
You know, I get the cut-n-paste time saver routine. I even believe some folks actually read all that is blasted onto a main frame. But the intent of this was to critique the NT and hopefully dispel the myth you have regarding my familiarity with the NT.

I never doubted yours.

I also am of the school of no one but God is expert on the Bible and every one who applies themselves to the study of what the scripture says (rather than what so-called experts or denominational party platforms say) the each one of us has something to contribute to the overall pool of scriptural knowledge / understanding.

All of it is of course under the scrutiny of the bible itself (Acts 17:11 / 1 John 4:1).

I don't know... to just cut and paste articles from Bible dictionaries etc. It just misses the mark for me and sours the purpose somehow... sorry.

Too bad you think that way. These are good articles about the writers of the New Testament. I enjoyed reading them and wanted to share. Hopefully there are others who will also enjoy them. Obviously, you do not.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

Care to answer the questions?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

I do not disparage the material you posted. I believe inferior material has its place in educating novices. Not that I am saying you are one. Really. I am not playing the game that others do, like those who accuse others they do not know of being ignorant of the New Testament.

I am simply saying these kinds of sources are used effectively in classroom settings or as reference materials to those who are on their way to learning how to discern the Holy Spirit's tutelage of the scriptures from man's traditions, presuppositions, and just plain guesses at times.

Is it not the highest goal of the biblical scholar to rightly divide the word of truth?

If your goal is otherwise (to quickly lay hold of what man has to say) then that is your business and our discussion will end there. I had hoped to probe more deeply into the word of God than that.

Who better to learn from than the Author of the New Testament (yea the entire Bible) Himself?

2 Peter 1:20-21 (NKJV)
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

It is not inferior material John. And it isn't only for new Christians. It's background information about the writers of the New Testament.

I guess you're going to try to show us how much you know by asking questions instead of answering them.

Do you think he wrote the book of Hebrews?
Scripture doesn’t say.

Do you believe he is the actual 12th disciple / apostle (rather than Matthias or even Judas for that matter)?
No

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.”

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.

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.

What was Paul's thorn in the flesh?
Scripture doesn’t say except it was a messenger from Satan.

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.

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.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

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.

???

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
It is not inferior material John. And it isn't only for new Christians. It's background information about the writers of the New Testament.

Then it IS on par with scripture. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

[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...

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:

quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
It is not inferior material John. And it isn't only for new Christians. It's background information about the writers of the New Testament.
Then it IS on par with scripture. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

You said that, not me.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

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

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

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...

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

Agreed, insomuch that my argument is not biblical.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

But when it IS biblical, then anyone is being the mouthpiece of God.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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!

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

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?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

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.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

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?

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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)

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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."

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

The question is, why was it necessary to God's plan of redemption for Jesus to be betrayed by a close friend?

Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on :

A friend without true love is the enemies best tool.

The J Loved lucar better.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

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.’

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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

Posted by Ezekiel 13:20 (Member # 8124) on :

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!

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

God does not predetermine the evil acts of men, nor does God cause them.

Judas was not born to betray Christ.

Posted by Ezekiel 13:20 (Member # 8124) on :

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.

Posted by Betty Louise (Member # 7175) on :

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

Posted by Bloodbought (Member # 4365) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by Bloodbought (Member # 4365) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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.

Posted by Bloodbought (Member # 4365) on :

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.

Posted by Ezekiel 13:20 (Member # 8124) on :

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.

Posted by Bloodbought (Member # 4365) on :

Exactly.

Posted by Betty Louise (Member # 7175) on :

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

Posted by Bloodbought (Member # 4365) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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)

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

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

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

Posted by Marlene (Member # 8489) on :

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?

Posted by John Hale (Member # 8034) on :

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.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

Hello Marlene, Welcome to the Christian BBS! [wave3]

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)

Posted by Bloodbought (Member # 4365) on :

God can plough a straight furrow with a crooked stick.

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :

Yes, like Judas. But God did not cause him to become a crooked stick.

Posted by Bloodbought (Member # 4365) on :

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?

Posted by Marlene (Member # 8489) on :

Hi Carol! I couldn’t help but add my two cents worth on this topic [Smile]

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.