Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2006 13:48:09 GMT -5
To me, Hebrews 6:4-6 is very often misunderstood. As some know from my previous posts, I read/study the Bible as if I were there, in that day, society, etc.. www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act021.html#4 Acts 21: 20-24 tells of believers who, electing to claim the blood of Christ, zealous of the law (returning again to sacrifice) who were under James' leadership when he proclaimed that fact to Paul.
Paul's gospel was very different from that. James encouraged Paul to go through the rites of purification with four others (which included animal sacrifice for sin on the last day.) God did not allow that to happen, even though Paul submitted himself to James' insistence to pacify the crowd.
Paul saw our Lord as THE Sacrifice for once and all to cover everyone's sin. Now all the previous sacrifices before the Lord was crucified were naught but various types of our Lord's sacrifice and but a shadow foretelling of things to come. Imagine then someone who began returning to animal sacrifice once believing the Lord's blood was shed for them and all who trust in Him as their kinsman redeemer.
It would be impossible for such to be restored, trusting once again in the shadow, and not the Lord, for there simply WAS/IS no more sacrifice for sin. Not "no more forgiveness for sin." No more sacrifice. For me, this became increasingly clear as I learned to read the Greek text from which our KJV, etc. originated along with my English and Swedish Bibles. Supposing any of us, trusting fully in the Blood of Christ for our redemption, THEN began trusting in animal shed blood sacrifice... Would we not then also be crucifying our Lord again to open shame?
Warm regards,
Dennis J
|
|
|
Post by regreader on Aug 17, 2006 14:23:24 GMT -5
Dennis, Approx. how many years after Jesus' death would this have been? Thanks!
|
|
timber
Senior Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by timber on Aug 17, 2006 14:49:28 GMT -5
Then, a falling away from faith and salvation could be possible?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2006 9:24:26 GMT -5
Dennis, you wrote "I read/study the Bible as if I were there, in that day, society, etc.. " That's a nice point. In my faith we take the view that what we read in the bible is not so much history, but metaphor. Each and every thing said and done connects to each and ever other culture. One great church falacy is that things back then stayed back then, or were meant for that age alone.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Aug 18, 2006 9:35:09 GMT -5
This statement certainly does not apply to the many denominations I've visited. The scripture is thought to be relevent for every age. However, there is a definite advantage to our understanding, if we consider the original intent of the passage, which can be determined by asking a few questions:
Who wrote it? Who was it written to? What was the circumstance? Where was it written? What was the culture when it was written?
Understanding scripture this way does not mean that it doesn't apply today. It is just a means to get at the true intent and meaning behind the words. Often this method helps to open up a much greater understanding and a much more effective current application of the passage.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by seekingtruth on Aug 18, 2006 9:49:32 GMT -5
I think Dennis makes a valid point. What if no one considered what it was like to stand at the cross? That's why a great many of us choose not to be in "your faith".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2006 10:05:03 GMT -5
Hi Selah In our own faith there are very few exceptions where we look at the culture. I am struggling to think of just one...
Your points:
Who wrote it? We never discuss whether the Gospel authors Mathew, Mark and John were disciples of Jesus or not. Many think Paul is the author of Hebrews - it doesn't matter to us. Studies of authorship of the bible simply don't resonate because we feel that author is the will of God.
Who was it written to? This can be relevant in a few situations. Generally, we take the scripture as being written to each and every one of us.
What was the circumstance? as above
Where was it written? We don't care. I find all sorts of people making all kinds of unsupported statements about when something was written. At the end of the day what does it mean?
What was the culture when it was written? We are wary of this culture thing. It provides an escape for people who don't like some aspect of the Gospel, ie we don't need to face rejection because we are not in that difficult Jewish or Roman society; jewellry was something frowned upon by those poor societies etc.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Aug 18, 2006 10:17:17 GMT -5
Hi Bert,
God will always reveal His truth to those who are seeking. We are to search as if we're seeking for treasure. I guess we 'll discover in measure to our search.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by selah on Aug 18, 2006 10:40:53 GMT -5
Hi again Bert,
Here's an example of what I'm talking about from Joe Amaral's "First Century Foundations".
Let the Dead Bury the Dead
Matthew 8:21-22[/b]--"Another disciple said to him, 'Lord, first let me go and bury my father.' But Jesus told him, 'Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead'."
Without proper understanding of the cultural practices during the time of Jesus, the above statement of Jesus can sound very harsh, and it would seem that Jesus is telling this disciple to break the fifth commandment found in Exodus 20:12--"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." His remarks were aimed at a Jewish burial tradition that violated the Scripture.
Do you really think that Jesus, being the very form of God Himself would tell a disciple to desecrate the very commandment He gave? I don't think so. In order to fully understand the real meaning behind the seemingly harsh remark, one must understand the burial practices that were observed by those living in First Century Israel.
This tradition required that the body of the deceased be buried the same day. We can see this in Deuteronomy 21:22-23-- "If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance."
Another passage that shows us this can be found in Acts 5:6-10-- "Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, 'Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?' 'Yes,' she said, 'that is the price.' Peter said to her, 'How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.' At that momenbt she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband."
You will notice in both of these passages that the body was buried the same day. This was called the "first burial". After this, the family then was to observe a seven day period of mourning called "shivah". During this special mourning period they were not even permitted to leave the house.
The body was then placed in a burial chamber where it was left to decompose. The Jerusalem Talmud says, "When the flesh had wasted away, the bones were collected and placed in small chests called ossuaries. After the flesh had gone from the bones, and the bones were placed in the ossuaries, the son stopped mourning."
The transfer of the bones to the ossuary was known as what was called the 'second burial". What would happen is that the oldest son would take the bones of his father and either take it to the Holy City of Jerusalem or it was taken to the family burial cave where it was to be laid by the bones of their ancestors. Although it did not have a Scriptural basis, this had become a popular practice during the time of Jesus. This was a practice Jesus did not approve of because it was given by man and not by God.
The belief in First Century Israel was that during the decomposing of the flesh from the bones between the first and second burial, atonement for the person was achieved. It was only after the siful flesh was off the bones could the sins be atoned for. So, as we can see, Jesus was in no way hindering the disciple from keeping the fifth commandment. He was opposed to the second burial that was the idea that anything other than the Messiah could deliver a person from sin.
Some have used this passage to suggest that Jesus was saying that ministry comes before family. Som,e have even gone as far as to say that family must never come before ministry--that it is a sin. In light of what we know about this passage, according to First Century tradition, that type of thinking could not be further from the truth.
Will I be able to live for God and enjoy His benefits without knowing this? Of course, but knowing this does help me understand this passage a little better, and also helps me to have a better understanding of God's character.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by To Linda on Aug 18, 2006 13:34:45 GMT -5
Hi Linda:
Thanks for that post. I know a worker who wasn't allowed to go home for her father's funeral because of that same thing. Her mother was devastated at such cruelty.
|
|
|
Post by withopeneyes (Mandy) on Aug 18, 2006 13:40:23 GMT -5
That's very interesting Linda. Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 18, 2006 13:52:36 GMT -5
Hi Selah In our own faith there are very few exceptions where we look at the culture. I am struggling to think of just one... Your points: Who wrote it?We never discuss whether the Gospel authors Mathew, Mark and John were disciples of Jesus or not. Many think Paul is the author of Hebrews - it doesn't matter to us. Studies of authorship of the bible simply don't resonate because we feel that author is the will of God. Who was it written to?This can be relevant in a few situations. Generally, we take the scripture as being written to each and every one of us. What was the circumstance?as above Where was it written?We don't care. I find all sorts of people making all kinds of unsupported statements about when something was written. At the end of the day what does it mean? What was the culture when it was written?We are wary of this culture thing. It provides an escape for people who don't like some aspect of the Gospel, ie we don't need to face rejection because we are not in that difficult Jewish or Roman society; jewellry was something frowned upon by those poor societies etc. Dear Bert, It came so forcabley to me last week when reading the book of Acts why Paul cut his hair. Until I had a basic understanding of the culture of Corinth, this verse never made sense to me. Acts 18:18 Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchrea because of a vow he had taken. Then Paul later writes to this same church telling them that men should have short hair and women long hair. What prompted Paul to make an issue of something that no orther writer (or Jesus himself for that matter) ever did?? I believe it was because Corinth had many immoral practices including blatant Homosexuality (the men had long hair) and temple prositution- women had short hair. Paul worked in that city for over a year and when he left I believe he felt like he wanted the church there to look as little like those people as possible. He took a vow accordingly and then later encouraged the church to follow his example. Some Questions for you to ponder: 1. Is hair length a doctrinal, practical or simply a cultural requirement in "Your Faith"? 2. Do you feel the liberty in "Your Faith" to act according to your own conviction based on practical or cultural situations? i.e.- would you let your daughter wear jeans to play ball- rather than a skirt- if it was more practical? Would you let your son grow his hair longer if the prevailing culture dictated -as long as there were no sexual or moral implications to doing so? For me- I now see through so many legalistic requirements that once were "sacred cows" to so many. I feel more liberty in areas that I once thought were "cut and dried". Maybe I'm slipping but I certainly don't mean to. Love, HFA
|
|
BC
Senior Member
Posts: 852
|
Post by BC on Aug 18, 2006 14:39:48 GMT -5
Hi Bert, I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree with you , as I believe that in a lot of cases the situation, author, culture etc are very very relevent in understanding what is written and why it is written. Our head worker Alan R often tells us about the situation and history concerning peices of scripture to give a greater understanding as to the thinking of the authors. To understand the the culture and times then helps us as we read on through the scripture to see points that otherwise we would skip over believing them to be of no real importance.
I also believe that by not having this understanding has lead to many placing the wrong emphisis on their service to God and to forming man made/imposed rules that are not scriptural and a burden to those they impose them on.
I have been professing in this faith for nearly 30 yrs and have always seen some, including workers that are helpful in searching the scriptures for what I call the nitty gritties, these folk have always been so helpful in my development spiritually.
Thank you Dennis, I always enjoy your posts even if sometimes I don't 100% agree.
[shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 18, 2006 15:45:08 GMT -5
Hi Selah In our own faith there are very few exceptions where we look at the culture. I am struggling to think of just one...
Your points:
Who wrote it? We never discuss whether the Gospel authors Mathew, Mark and John were disciples of Jesus or not. Many think Paul is the author of Hebrews - it doesn't matter to us. Studies of authorship of the bible simply don't resonate because we feel that author is the will of God.
Who was it written to? This can be relevant in a few situations. Generally, we take the scripture as being written to each and every one of us.
What was the circumstance? as above
Where was it written? We don't care. I find all sorts of people making all kinds of unsupported statements about when something was written. At the end of the day what does it mean?
What was the culture when it was written? We are wary of this culture thing. It provides an escape for people who don't like some aspect of the Gospel, ie we don't need to face rejection because we are not in that difficult Jewish or Roman society; jewellry was something frowned upon by those poor societies etc.
Bert, What you are describing here is the root of many, many problems of your faith. This simply leads to one doctrinal error after another. Inconsistency everywhere you look. I'll give you one very simple example.....every one agrees that Jesus established the sacraments during the "last supper", agreed?....this is also frequently used as an example to establish the meeting in the home .......but how do you explain not washing feet, which is just as clearly performed in this same setting? Perhaps this is a good time to pull out that handy "culture" card and focus on the timeless teaching of service. But why now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2006 17:18:23 GMT -5
To begin, I wish to thank everyone for their civil and polite posts to this thread, and express my appreciation for them. I would like to address some of those posts in the order which they were posted. Regreader asked: Approx. how many years after Jesus' death would this have been? It should be noted that even though Julius Cesar established a modern calendar in circa 46 BC, it took many decades before anything other than local calenders were widely used. Having expressed that, from the combination of things heard and read My conclusion is that Christ's death was (from Paul's own witness: 14 years, biblical reference records: circa 3-4 years, 2 or three (maybe) four more years, or around twenty years after our Lord was crucified, but I am not being dogmatic about it because I simply don't really know. Timber asked: Then, a falling away from faith and salvation could be possible? From my perspective, if "it is possible, then it is possible." There are reasons to believe both ways. For me, I try not to involve myself in that dispute, for though I am inclined to believe one way, the other way tips the scales back again. For me it is a much more complex issue than just "yes," or "no" and becomes somewhat of an "it depends."
Could I ever cease believing that Christ's substitution of life and shed blood is my only hope for eternal life? No, I don't believe that is possible. Does any believer here think they might? Some report they have. Just as their account does not match my account, neither does my beliefs match their's, possibly never has. I certainly lost any reason to believe 2&2ism in itself, by itself had any further effect upon my salvation when people coming to talk to me about MY salvation could not first give an account of their own soul being saved. So if they can't then how can I listen to them when I know I am saved by the life and blood of THE LORD? Bert, I spent 35 years of my life striving to conform to the constantly changing 2&2 beliefs and edicts. Some of those years were as a "worker" spending time in many places both in the USA and Northern Europe.
Your statement "In my faith we take the view that what we read in the bible is not so much history, but metaphor." simply was not my own conviction from others beliefs (and mine) during those 35 years, and I believe workers in Canada, USA, and Norther Europe would disagree with it. By the way, this kind of statement, contradicting what I knew personally to be true is one of those examples of ever changing doctrine. Thank you, Seekingtruth, and also for your pm here. And I thank you too, BC. Personally I find there is much less conflict in what we believe, and feel someday you might fully understand someone like me.
Kindest regards to all,
Dennis
|
|
workers spiritualise
Guest
|
Post by workers spiritualise on Aug 18, 2006 17:36:21 GMT -5
Bert, another thing is healing which the workers and some other Christians dismiss and say was only for that time. The workers dismiss that - why? they say it was only for that time, or in fact all my years in meeting they twisted it to say that only Jesus performed natural miracles and then interpret the miracles the apostles did as spiritual. You accuse others of using culture as an excuse to not do certain things when the workers try to spiritualise things to not do them.
Dennis, why do you write Jame's - I thought maybe that was a mistake the first time but you did it a second time, like someone else wrote Jesus' the name James is also James' (only the second s is omitted off the end)
|
|
Peace
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by Peace on Aug 19, 2006 20:52:53 GMT -5
To me, Hebrews 6:4-6 is very often misunderstood. As some know from my previous posts, I read/study the Bible as if I were there, in that day, society, etc.. www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act021.html#4 Acts 21: 20-24 tells of believers who, electing to claim the blood of Christ, zealous of the law (returning again to sacrifice) who were under James' leadership when he proclaimed that fact to Paul.
Paul's gospel was very different from that. James encouraged Paul to go through the rites of purification with four others (which included animal sacrifice for sin on the last day.) God did not allow that to happen, even though Paul submitted himself to James' insistence to pacify the crowd.
Paul saw our Lord as THE Sacrifice for once and all to cover everyone's sin. Now all the previous sacrifices before the Lord was crucified were naught but various types of our Lord's sacrifice and but a shadow foretelling of things to come. Imagine then someone who began returning to animal sacrifice once believing the Lord's blood was shed for them and all who trust in Him as their kinsman redeemer.
It would be impossible for such to be restored, trusting once again in the shadow, and not the Lord, for there simply WAS/IS no more sacrifice for sin. Not "no more forgiveness for sin." No more sacrifice. For me, this became increasingly clear as I learned to read the Greek text from which our KJV, etc. originated along with my English and Swedish Bibles. Supposing any of us, trusting fully in the Blood of Christ for our redemption, THEN began trusting in animal shed blood sacrifice... Would we not then also be crucifying our Lord again to open shame?
Warm regards,
Dennis J Dennis, This is how I enjoy that portion of scripture also. I am very comfortable to try and read scripture in the light of the situations of the day within which they were written. - I would like to think that when we do so with a pure heart and honest intentions we won't be excusing ourselves from scriptures which apply to ourselves but rather we'll be less likely to error in interpreting something in a way which it was never meant to be. I appreciated the comments on the long and short hair and again have felt the same way about those verses myself. - How disappointed Jesus would be if we who profess to trust in His crucifixtion and death for our redemption begin to attach all kinds of little amendments to that sacrifice such as hair, no TV, certain styles of clothes etc, etc. In defense of those who practise many such traditions I am aware some of them feel they do so with the intentions of not being a bad influence upon weaker men and women. Of course none of us would advocate living life without restraint and morality. But that doesn't mean we now need to make a whole bunch of fast, little rules to enable salvation. To do so only shows how elementary our relationship is with the Lord. FWIW... Thanks for your thoughts Dennis... may we not simply create New Testiment Law and fail as grievously as the Jews did in their day with their scripture. --- Your brother in Christ
|
|
|
Post by prue on Aug 20, 2006 7:21:58 GMT -5
hello selah from prue i have not heard of this theory about why Jesus said - let the dead bury the dead -
do you remember when the lebanese woman came to Jesus asking him to heal her daughter and Jesus called her a dog in Mathew 15:26?
do you remember reading where Jesus offended his own townsfolk by implying they were all hypocrits in Luke 4:29?
jesus sometimes did things to offend people and he said - blessed are those who are not offended in me -
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Aug 20, 2006 7:45:18 GMT -5
hello selah from prue i have not heard of this theory about why Jesus said - let the dead bury the dead - do you remember when the lebanese woman came to Jesus asking him to heal her daughter and Jesus called her a dog in Mathew 15:26? do you remember reading where Jesus offended his own townsfolk by implying they were all hypocrits in Luke 4:29? jesus sometimes did things to offend people and he said - blessed are those who are not offended in me - Prue, I must say that you twist scripture in the worst way. And now the rest of the storyMatthew 15:25-28 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
He heals the daughter of a Syrophenician woman. The dark corners of the country, the most remote, shall share Christ's influences; afterwards the ends of the earth shall see his salvation. The distress and trouble of her family brought a woman to Christ; and though it is need that drives us to Christ, yet we shall not therefore be driven from him. She did not limit Christ to any particular instance of mercy, but mercy, mercy, is what she begged for: she pleads not merit, but depends upon mercy. It is the duty of parents to pray for their children, and to be earnest in prayer for them, especially for their souls. Have you a son, a daughter, grievously vexed with a proud devil, an unclean devil, a malicious devil, led captive by him at his will? this is a case more deplorable than that of bodily possession, and you must bring them by faith and prayer to Christ, who alone is able to heal them. Many methods of Christ's providence, especially of his grace, in dealing with his people, which are dark and perplexing, may be explained by this story, which teaches that there may be love in Christ's heart while there are frowns in his face; and it encourages us, though he seems ready to slay us, yet to trust in him. Those whom Christ intends most to honour, he humbles to feel their own unworthiness. A proud, unhumbled heart would not have borne this; but she turned it into an argument to support her request. The state of this woman is an emblem of the state of a sinner, deeply conscious of the misery of his soul. The least of Christ is precious to a believer, even the very crumbs of the Bread of life. Of all graces, faith honours Christ most; therefore of all graces Christ honours faith most. He cured her daughter. He spake, and it was done. From hence let such as seek help from the Lord, and receive no gracious answer, learn to turn even their unworthiness and discouragements into pleas for mercy. (Mt 15:29-39)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2006 7:45:41 GMT -5
Jesus didn't "do things to offend people"- He was always teaching and revealing truth- God, Himself. People often are offended by the truth and Jesus said that a sign of God's blessing on a person was their ability to NOT be offended by the truth,
Generally in the New Testament, the language and grammar indicate that the state of blessedness is bestowed by God on a person, not gained by a person from God through their actions.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by selah on Aug 20, 2006 10:15:17 GMT -5
do you remember when the lebanese woman came to Jesus asking him to heal her daughter and Jesus called her a dog in Mathew 15:26? Jesus point was that the gospel was to be given first to the Jews. The woman understood Jesus' implication and was willing to settle for "crumbs." Jesus rewarded her faith. (NIV text notes) If you read Luke 4:26-27, Jesus references God's helping two non-Israelites. (1 Kings 17:1-15; 2 Kings 5:1-14). Jesus was trying to point out that back then when Israel rejected God's messenger of redemption, God sent him to the Gentiles -- and so it will be again if they refuse to accept Jesus. The Israelites were offended because of Jesus' favorable attitude toward the Gentiles. (NIV text notes) It was arrogance in themselves that provoked them to do what they did in verse 29. Karl wrote: I agree with Karl's comment. Blessings, Linda
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2006 6:22:22 GMT -5
To Karl, Studylearning and Selah
My take on this Canaanite woman: Jesus was testing her. I think all posts here are largely correct.
Jesus' townsfolk who seized him and sought to throw him off a cliff or "brow of a hilll" - Jesus was saying that just as the miracle of God was not shown to many disbelieving Jews during the time of Elisha, so he would not show himself to these people. This is where that famous statement comes from "A prophet has no honour in his own country."
There were other points of offence, ie when the Jews were willing to go half way in accepting him and he offended them with his statements about being before Abraham. ... and, if I recall, the time when the Jews came to make him king and he offended not only them but many of his own disciples with his saying about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
Jesus offended Peter too. He called him Satan. But Peter got over that. Jesus said that "offence must come."
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Aug 21, 2006 13:13:40 GMT -5
bump
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Aug 21, 2006 16:52:08 GMT -5
Hi Bert, I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree with you , as I believe that in a lot of cases the situation, author, culture etc are very very relevent in understanding what is written and why it is written. Our head worker Alan R often tells us about the situation and history concerning peices of scripture to give a greater understanding as to the thinking of the authors. To understand the the culture and times then helps us as we read on through the scripture to see points that otherwise we would skip over believing them to be of no real importance. I also believe that by not having this understanding has lead to many placing the wrong emphisis on their service to God and to forming man made/imposed rules that are not scriptural and a burden to those they impose them on. I have been professing in this faith for nearly 30 yrs and have always seen some, including workers that are helpful in searching the scriptures for what I call the nitty gritties, these folk have always been so helpful in my development spiritually. Thank you Dennis, I always enjoy your posts even if sometimes I don't 100% agree. Yeah. What he said. Ditto. Except I have been 'fessin' longer. And spell better. It's emphasis, relevant, and pieces, BC.
|
|
|
Post by to hard clay on Aug 21, 2006 17:36:16 GMT -5
Hi Bert, I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree with you , as I believe that in a lot of cases the situation, author, culture etc are very very relevent in understanding what is written and why it is written. Our head worker Alan R often tells us about the situation and history concerning peices of scripture to give a greater understanding as to the thinking of the authors. To understand the the culture and times then helps us as we read on through the scripture to see points that otherwise we would skip over believing them to be of no real importance. I also believe that by not having this understanding has lead to many placing the wrong emphisis on their service to God and to forming man made/imposed rules that are not scriptural and a burden to those they impose them on. I have been professing in this faith for nearly 30 yrs and have always seen some, including workers that are helpful in searching the scriptures for what I call the nitty gritties, these folk have always been so helpful in my development spiritually. Thank you Dennis, I always enjoy your posts even if sometimes I don't 100% agree. Yeah. What he said. Ditto. Except I have been 'fessin' longer. And spell better. It's emphasis, relevant, and pieces, BC. hey brother brick, brother BC is using kiwi lish not yank lish ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2006 19:34:21 GMT -5
To Karl, Studylearning and Selah My take on this Canaanite woman: Jesus was testing her. I think all posts here are largely correct. Jesus' townsfolk who seized him and sought to throw him off a cliff or "brow of a hilll" - Jesus was saying that just as the miracle of God was not shown to many disbelieving Jews during the time of Elisha, so he would not show himself to these people. This is where that famous statement comes from "A prophet has no honour in his own country." There were other points of offence, ie when the Jews were willing to go half way in accepting him and he offended them with his statements about being before Abraham. ... and, if I recall, the time when the Jews came to make him king and he offended not only them but many of his own disciples with his saying about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus offended Peter too. He called him Satan. But Peter got over that. Jesus said that "offence must come." So you believe that Jesus intention was to offend- is that correct? Karl
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2006 19:52:35 GMT -5
Re "to offend." Yes Karl, but more precisely, to test through offense.
|
|
Peace
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by Peace on Aug 22, 2006 11:07:50 GMT -5
Re "to offend." Yes Karl, but more precisely, to test through offense. Bert, Bert I have at times felt that Jesus did exactly what you speak of but I have come to see Jesus incapable of something SOOOO subversive. In other words, I have a hard time seeing Jesus whipping someone JUST to see if they will cry out. For me that sounds more like something the Devil would do (as when he wanted to prove to God that Job wouldn't remain faithful) Somewhere there is that verse which says God CANNOT tempt someone. ---------- And yes I know their are verses which speak of God tempting people but I wonder if the exact definition of the word in those places is better defined by the word "to prove". For example, when a parent wants to "prove" their child they might give them a job usually done by adults (my mother once let me wash windows when I tried to convince her I was big enough, I feel she was proving me. But she didn't ever push her prize vase to the very edge of the table I was sitting at just to see if I would knock it off! That is to tempt. Nor did she ever yell at me just to see if I would cry and stomp out of the room.) Just my take on the subject... but I really DO have a hard time seeing God, the Son and the Holy Spirit stooping to the level of "tempting" someone to sin. In my view it is impossible for that which is Divine to sin and isn't tempting someone to transgress a sin in itself? ------------ Just a question. Please don't take offense to my questioning you about this, I simply wanted to rephrase the whole concept and present my own wrestlings regarding this. P...........
|
|