|
Post by Cohdra on Apr 2, 2004 19:45:34 GMT -5
Of course Paul's writings do not agree with the four Gospels. There is a reason for that. We find the answer, in part, in Galatians 2:7-8 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)." Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, of the Church. Paul's epistles contain the truth necessary for the institution known as the "Body of Christ." In the Gospels, Jesus was preaching the message of the old Covenant, the Epistles speak of the new. As to Paul's knowledge of Christ personally - Acts shows us that Paul's personal knowledge of Jesus was limited to the vision on the road to Damascus. The fact that Paul met Jesus in the flesh, however, made him eligible to become an Apostle. This is why there is such a clash between denominations. They are unable to rightly divide at what points the Bible is being written to the Jews - and at what point the Bible is directed toward the Church. Paul's writings are at odds with much of what precedes it because the Church is radically different than Judaism. Those that attempt to make them all one group is failing to rightly divide. Well said. And here is where I have always had my problem with Protestantism. You place more emphasis on Paul then you do on Christ. You quote Paul more than our Lord and Savior. One would get the impression that Paul was your savior, and not Christ. If you allow for the continual development of scripture after Christ, then you must also allow tradition. I see a huge contradiction here. Christ spoke the truth as it applied to all men, not just the Jews. It rather frightens me that Paul's theology has seemed to have replaced Christ's truth within Protestantism; I always suspected this, but you explained it better than I have ever heard it expalined God bless
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 2, 2004 20:18:08 GMT -5
Well said. And here is where I have always had my problem with Protestantism. You place more emphasis on Paul then you do on Christ. You quote Paul more than our Lord and Savior. One would get the impression that Paul was your savior, and not Christ. If you allow for the continual development of scripture after Christ, then you must also allow tradition. I see a huge contradiction here. Christ spoke the truth as it applied to all men, not just the Jews. It rather frightens me that Paul's theology has seemed to have replaced Christ's truth within Protestantism; I always suspected this, but you explained it better than I have ever heard it expalined God bless "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers" (Rom. 15:8) Most of what Jesus taught applies to all men - and is applicable to our faith. Understand this, when Jesus taught in parables - He was speaking of the mysteries that He would later reveal through Paul. There is no way that one can apply everything that Jesus said to the Church. The Church does not practice foot-washing. It is not a Church ordinance. With both baptism and the Lord's supper, there was the explicit command to "do this." We do not today pick up serpents We do not send our missionaries unequipped - Jesus did We do not drink poison today - they did in the Gospels We could mention other things as well. There is a distinction. Paul came to present the mysteries of the Church, of the wall of twain being broken down, the rapture, etc. Paul even presents the Gospel of grace.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 2, 2004 22:06:15 GMT -5
Well said. And here is where I have always had my problem with Protestantism. You place more emphasis on Paul then you do on Christ. You quote Paul more than our Lord and Savior. One would get the impression that Paul was your savior, and not Christ. If you allow for the continual development of scripture after Christ, then you must also allow tradition. I see a huge contradiction here. Balony! Paul stands above all others in Christian leadership and who exactly put him where he was? - Christ! Your Savoiur and mine. Who inspired him to write what he did for His Church? Your Saviour and mine. God gave the apostle Paul to Christianity in its infancy for a very specific purpose. Even though leaders and preachers such as Peter and Philip were able to preach the gospel in their nativie areas, there was the "uttermost" parts of the world that our Saviour needed Paul to go to - he was the right man for the job! He was able to be all things to all men that he might win some; a man who knew what Jews thought when Christ was presented as the Messiah; a man who knew Roman law and could face those in authority without fear; a man who could stay one step ahead of the philosophers in their desire of learning; a man who knew how to be content in whatever state he found himself in..... Paul spent his life serving the Master! Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit in writting down truths on how to do this very thing - serving The Master. We should listen to him via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! As one who had labored more abundantly than they all (1 Cor 15:10), as the one who gloried in his infirmites because God's grace was sufficient (2 Cor 12:9), he knew that when he stood b4 his Saviour to give account of his life's work (2 Cor 5:10) that he would hear Him say: "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." (Matt 25:21). The Jews of Paul's day thought they had already established or attained their own righteousness (Rom 10:2-3), but Paul, knowing that they were, like all other human beings (Gentiles), lost sinners, sought to make it known that they too, needed a sacrficie for their sins. This is another reason why they opposed Paul. In spite of their oppostion, the apostle continued to preach Christ, hoping and praying that his kinsmen would have their blinded eyes and minds opened to truth - His Truth that He revealed to Paul. If anyone ever knew the "why" of such opposition, Paul did, for he had once done the very same thing. Now that his eyes were opened,he was all the more burdened for them and determined to reach them with the Gospel (Rom 9:1-3; 10:1; 1 Cor 9:16) <><
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Apr 3, 2004 14:25:40 GMT -5
There is quite a problem with "sincere inquiry" when it is used to destroy the faith of millions. No wonder so many have no desire to read the Bible - they've been told that it really isn't a reliable instrument for our faith and practice. Sincere inquiry does not destroy faith. It challenges presumptions and entrenched undersatandings of the Bible. But how else can one grow in faith and understanding if not through the such challenge? Think of teh growth in your life. Wasn't there always an element of challenge of the way you think and believe? If not then there really was not conversion. If Sincere inquiry seems to destroy faith, it was not faith at all. Only an idol. It is not the Bible that is being challenged but your understanding of the Bible and that is the idol because it is really your own ego, your own understanding, your own approach, your own interpretation and your own view that you are defending. No one is taking away the Bible or challenging its reliability as an instrument for faith and practice. I suggest that you are interested in Bible Lite because you are afraid to look more deeply.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 3, 2004 14:36:42 GMT -5
You bet your life, Pete.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Apr 5, 2004 9:36:12 GMT -5
I notices something funny in church yesterday. A man was sitting with his young son who must have been about three years old. The son was playing with his father's face. Twisting his nose, pulling his ear, it even looked like he might have plucked an eyebrow. Through all this the father patiently sat there and lovingly endured this poking and probing and close up inspection. Yet, that is how we learn. We have to get hands on experience to really understand. I think God is that patient loving Father who takes delight in his children. But some people are afraid to explore him, probe him, really get to know him close up.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 5, 2004 9:44:54 GMT -5
I notices something funny in church yesterday. A man was sitting with his young son who must have been about three years old. The son was playing with his father's face. Twisting his nose, pulling his ear, it even looked like he might have plucked an eyebrow. Through all this the father patiently sat there and lovingly endured this poking and probing and close up inspection. Yet, that is how we learn. We have to get hands on experience to really understand. I think God is that patient loving Father who takes delight in his children. But some people are afraid to explore him, probe him, really get to know him close up. So, while you are studying and researching books about the Bible, authored by men that do not believe it and that question every thing in it to find error - and come up with J,E,P, and D theories . . . I'll be studying THE Bible, touching my Father's face, and probing Him close up for inspection. And my patient, loving, heavenly Father will show me "the path of life in thy presence" with "fullness of joy," and I will discover that at His "right hand there are pleasures for ever more." He will show my His ways, and show me his paths. "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." Or, the modern day equivalent to this would be "thy Word!"
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Apr 5, 2004 10:21:32 GMT -5
So, while you are studying and researching books about the Bible, authored by men that do not believe it and that question every thing in it to find error - and come up with J,E,P, and D theories . . . I'll be studying THE Bible, touching my Father's face, and probing Him close up for inspection. And my patient, loving, heavenly Father will show me "the path of life in thy presence" with "fullness of joy," and I will discover that at His "right hand there are pleasures for ever more." He will show my His ways, and show me his paths. "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." Or, the modern day equivalent to this would be "thy Word!" What makes your study better than theirs? You cannot condemn them all without an unfair generalization of their motives and methods.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 5, 2004 10:30:28 GMT -5
What makes your study better than theirs? You cannot condemn them all without an unfair generalization of their motives and methods. Because I personally know the Author. He walks with me and He talks with me, and He tells me that I am His own! The authors you frequent deny that Jesus Christ is God, deny that Daniel wrote Daniel and that Isaiah wrote Isaiah. The purge out anything that is in the realm of the miraculous or supernatural.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Apr 5, 2004 11:26:51 GMT -5
Because I personally know the Author. He walks with me and He talks with me, and He tells me that I am His own! The authors you frequent deny that Jesus Christ is God, deny that Daniel wrote Daniel and that Isaiah wrote Isaiah. The purge out anything that is in the realm of the miraculous or supernatural. It is indeed true that some scholars are guilty of your accusations. But most are not and to discredit them for legitimate investigation is a mistake. That is not to say that one MUST read them or consider their insights. As you state so well, the important thing is how scripture speaks to us, changes our lives, and reveals the love of God in Christ. The important thing is nourishment of faith. But, if one wants to argue about the how and when of creation or the meaning of books such as Daniel, and Revelation then it is a different matter. It is no longer an issue of personal interpretation of the face value. We must go deeper.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 5, 2004 11:42:38 GMT -5
It is indeed true that some scholars are guilty of your accusations. But most are not and to discredit them for legitimate investigation is a mistake. That is not to say that one MUST read them or consider their insights. As you state so well, the important thing is how scripture speaks to us, changes our lives, and reveals the love of God in Christ. The important thing is nourishment of faith. But, if one wants to argue about the how and when of creation or the meaning of books such as Daniel, and Revelation then it is a different matter. It is no longer an issue of personal interpretation of the face value. We must go deeper. Pietro. there are plenty of good conservative writers that have shown that we can have faith in the facts of Scripture; such as its authorship and cultural distinctions. There is no need to decide that Daniel could not predict a future event or name a future ruler (Cyrus) - or that it had to be a different Daniel or someone writing under his name contemporaneous with the events. It is not necessary to doubt the authenticity of Daniel just because the historicity of a figure such as Darius was unknown a century ago. The facts in question have now been established. German rationalism was all about naturalism and humanism. They were not interested in building up a man's faith in a supernatural, miracle working God. There works do not result in people weeping and coming to Jesus Christ for salvation - but rather in the building up of the mind and intellect at the expense of faith and trust.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Apr 5, 2004 14:30:03 GMT -5
Pietro. there are plenty of good conservative writers that have shown that we can have faith in the facts of Scripture; such as its authorship and cultural distinctions. There is no need to decide that Daniel could not predict a future event or name a future ruler (Cyrus) - or that it had to be a different Daniel or someone writing under his name contemporaneous with the events. It is not necessary to doubt the authenticity of Daniel just because the historicity of a figure such as Darius was unknown a century ago. The facts in question have now been established. German rationalism was all about naturalism and humanism. They were not interested in building up a man's faith in a supernatural, miracle working God. There works do not result in people weeping and coming to Jesus Christ for salvation - but rather in the building up of the mind and intellect at the expense of faith and trust. A good conservative writer does not a scholar make. But I can agree with you that rationalism can often be no more than mental exercise and an excuse for the ego to run amuk. But that is no reason to reject reason. Especially if we can agree that theology is faith reaching understanding. And I repeat that in depth examination of the background, authorship, and original purpose of scripture are not necessary for faith but they are necessary if one wishes to argue specific issues.
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Apr 5, 2004 14:42:20 GMT -5
Because I personally know the Author. He walks with me and He talks with me, and He tells me that I am His own! The authors you frequent deny that Jesus Christ is God, deny that Daniel wrote Daniel and that Isaiah wrote Isaiah. The purge out anything that is in the realm of the miraculous or supernatural. Purge out all that is miraculous and supernatural? I see, you mean like what Protestantism has attempted to do to all the miracles and supernatural events that have occured with RC and Orthodox saints? Is that what your saying? Something like that? God bless
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 5, 2004 15:48:41 GMT -5
Purge out all that is miraculous and supernatural? I see, you mean like what Protestantism has attempted to do to all the miracles and supernatural events that have occured with RC and Orthodox saints? Is that what your saying? Something like that? God bless Well Cohdra, I'm speaking of the miracles such as the Virgin Birth, the future predictions of the prophets, God's miraculous preservation of the Jewish people, as well as the absolute deity of Jesus Christ and the miracles attending His life and ministry; which would include His resurrection. There are most certainly others. If any of the other miracles you are alluding to have been in agreement with the biblical pattern and purpose of miracles - then who am I to question them?
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Apr 6, 2004 8:05:55 GMT -5
Just curious, Nik,
Does your relationship and faith in Christ depend upon the creation account in Genesis being literal? or Moses being the sole author of the Pentatauch?
|
|