|
Post by snow on Apr 5, 2014 10:23:14 GMT -5
Nathan here is a quite simplistic website that talks about the logistics of a worldwide flood, the ark and all that. It is not possible in so many ways yet people still continue to say it happened. To do that you have to ignore a huge number of things that would have been impossible. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html Thanks, for the site.... With men most things about the Ark and the Flood were impossible. However, With God those things were easy for (God the Father and Christ) to perform. That's why God is TWO kingdoms above the humans kingdom. Just like a carrot tries to understand the humans minds, and how we build space stations. God told Noah how to build the Ark, they obeyed and his family (8 souls) was SAVED after the flood was submerged. Jesus mentioned about Noah and the great Flood in comparing his 2nd coming as in Noah's flood days! If Noah's flood wasn't REAL then Jesus wouldn't have used for a comparison. The Great Flood happened and Noah's family was SAVED. The Ark has been found on Mt. Ararat/Turkey in 2010 to prove it. What can you say?Nathan, if you believe God did it then you need to consider whether God is all knowing then. If God was all knowing he would then have known that his creation was evil before he created them. But we hear that it comes as a surprise that he has to kill all of his creation? One would wonder how this could possibly happen to an all knowing being? Doesn't that make you wonder about the God of the Bible? How often he seems to be surprised by what his creation does? How he seems to have to come into the picture AFTER the fact and make these 'adjustments'? Also having to sacrifice his only begotten son because 'once again' his creation has let him down and he is needing to do damage control? Maybe the Gnostics are right and the Jewish God is the Demiurge being? dictionary.reference.com/browse/demiurge
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 10:53:47 GMT -5
God is surprised because of free will...
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 5, 2014 10:56:11 GMT -5
The homilies of the early church presbyters also attest to the authenticity of the gospel accounts. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist in Jesus' lifetime, and no Catholics were there to witness anything Jesus said. Everything else is really hearsay. ... Church did not exist in Jesus' lifetime ... Jesus made the promise to Peter early on - I will give to you the keys ... and the power to bind and loose ...Jesus ordained his Apostles as bishops at the Passover supper he shared with them. The Church began at Pentecost by the promises Jesus had earlier given to Peter; and with the promise and descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus had already ascended. It was called the church kath oles - the church throughout all - in Acts 9:31 - and Catholic in writing by Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch, (b.35AD) in about 110.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 5, 2014 11:04:28 GMT -5
Jesus ordained his Apostles as bishops at the Passover supper he shared with them. What entity applied the term bishop?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 5, 2014 11:27:45 GMT -5
Jesus ordained his Apostles as bishops at the Passover supper he shared with them. What entity applied the term bishop? Acts 1:20 1984 [e] episkopēn ἐπισκοπὴν (episkopēn) — 1 Occurrence Acts 1:20 N-AFS GRK: καί Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω NAS: TAKE HIS OFFICE.' KJV: and his bishoprick let another INT: and the Overseership of him let take
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 5, 2014 13:05:55 GMT -5
The Roman Catholic Church did not exist in Jesus' lifetime, and no Catholics were there to witness anything Jesus said. Everything else is really hearsay. ... Church did not exist in Jesus' lifetime ... Jesus made the promise to Peter early on - I will give to you the keys ... and the power to bind and loose ...Jesus ordained his Apostles as bishops at the Passover supper he shared with them. The Church began at Pentecost by the promises Jesus had earlier given to Peter; and with the promise and descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus had already ascended. It was called the church kath oles - the church throughout all - in Acts 9:31 - and Catholic in writing by Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch, (b.35AD) in about 110. You know perfectly well there was no such organization as the Catholic church in Jesus day. That this is true is not a world-wide conspiracy against the Catholic church -- it's an admission the Catholic church readily makes on its own. They didn't even figure out their "Creed" until the fourth century.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 5, 2014 13:09:06 GMT -5
Thanks, for the site.... With men most things about the Ark and the Flood were impossible. However, With God those things were easy for (God the Father and Christ) to perform. That's why God is TWO kingdoms above the humans kingdom. Just like a carrot tries to understand the humans minds, and how we build space stations. God told Noah how to build the Ark, they obeyed and his family (8 souls) was SAVED after the flood was submerged. Jesus mentioned about Noah and the great Flood in comparing his 2nd coming as in Noah's flood days! If Noah's flood wasn't REAL then Jesus wouldn't have used for a comparison. The Great Flood happened and Noah's family was SAVED. The Ark has been found on Mt. Ararat/Turkey in 2010 to prove it. What can you say? Nathan, if you believe God did it then you need to consider whether God is all knowing then. If God was all knowing he would then have known that his creation was evil before he created them. But we hear that it comes as a surprise that he has to kill all of his creation? One would wonder how this could possibly happen to an all knowing being? Doesn't that make you wonder about the God of the Bible? How often he seems to be surprised by what his creation does? How he seems to have to come into the picture AFTER the fact and make these 'adjustments'? Also having to sacrifice his only begotten son because 'once again' his creation has let him down and he is needing to do damage control? Maybe the Gnostics are right and the Jewish God is the Demiurge being? dictionary.reference.com/browse/demiurgeThis is the whole problem with monotheism --- the incompatibility of the god's assigned characteristics.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 5, 2014 13:11:13 GMT -5
Consistent in my beliefs and able to provide either logical or material support. You're both boring. And so am I!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 5, 2014 13:12:50 GMT -5
I think the most interesting thing people do when trying to prove the bible is true, is refer people to the bible for proof that it's true. Like Governor Christie hiring a team of people to pronounce him innocent of all charges.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 5, 2014 13:19:42 GMT -5
... Church did not exist in Jesus' lifetime ... Jesus made the promise to Peter early on - I will give to you the keys ... and the power to bind and loose ...Jesus ordained his Apostles as bishops at the Passover supper he shared with them. The Church began at Pentecost by the promises Jesus had earlier given to Peter; and with the promise and descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus had already ascended. It was called the church kath oles - the church throughout all - in Acts 9:31 - and Catholic in writing by Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch, (b.35AD) in about 110. You know perfectly well there was no such organization as the Catholic church in Jesus day. That this is true is not a world-wide conspiracy against the Catholic church -- it's an admission the Catholic church readily makes on its own. They didn't even figure out their "Creed" until the fourth century. It was the mustard seed that was then and is now (still) the Church. Given-to and passed-down by the Apostles and their successors. As is Jesus' promise that he would build a church that would be here always, that he would be with always to the end of the age, under the authority given to Peter and the church Mt 16 & Mt 18; and the requirement of Acts 1:21-22. 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” You know perfectly well there was no such organization as the Catholic church in Jesus day.As I have already responded - the Church officially began AFTER Jesus ascended - according to his instruction to the Apostles prior to ascending and after - and his sending of the Holy Spirit upon them at Pentecost. 1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. Acts 1: 1-2
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 5, 2014 15:29:34 GMT -5
What entity applied the term bishop? Acts 1:20 1984 [e] episkopēn ἐπισκοπὴν (episkopēn) — 1 Occurrence Acts 1:20 N-AFS GRK: καί Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω NAS: TAKE HIS OFFICE.' KJV: and his bishoprick let another INT: and the Overseership of him let take The reference was to Psalms 109:8 The word translated as office there has the following meanings: oversight, care, custody, mustering, visitation, store visitation, punishment oversight, charge, office, overseer, class of officers mustering store The writer of Acts is misquoting what is written in Psalms. And it is referring to what will happen to the wicked and has nothing to do with a bishop nor with Jesus making someone a bishop. It is looking for validation in the OT and twisting anything required to make it fit.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 5, 2014 15:34:04 GMT -5
Acts 1:20 1984 [e] episkopēn ἐπισκοπὴν (episkopēn) — 1 Occurrence Acts 1:20 N-AFS GRK: καί Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω NAS: TAKE HIS OFFICE.' KJV: and his bishoprick let another INT: and the Overseership of him let take The reference was to Psalms 109:8 The word translated as office there has the following meanings: oversight, care, custody, mustering, visitation, store visitation, punishment oversight, charge, office, overseer, class of officers mustering store The writer of Acts is misquoting what is written in Psalms. And it is referring to what will happen to the wicked and has nothing to do with a bishop nor with Jesus making someone a bishop. It is looking for validation in the OT and twisting anything required to make it fit. The writer of Acts is misquoting what is written in Psalms. Well of course! He was an appointed Apostle of Christ - with Jesus the entire time and including a witness of the Resurrection. But he was misquoting ... and some 2000+ years later you know better than he what was meant .... (you are correct that it meant an OFFICE as it says in your definition - meaning that it was not to be vacant but to be filled) Yep. You just know we should believe you over the Acts 1 usage ... NOT!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 5, 2014 15:53:17 GMT -5
The reference was to Psalms 109:8 The word translated as office there has the following meanings: oversight, care, custody, mustering, visitation, store visitation, punishment oversight, charge, office, overseer, class of officers mustering store The writer of Acts is misquoting what is written in Psalms. And it is referring to what will happen to the wicked and has nothing to do with a bishop nor with Jesus making someone a bishop. It is looking for validation in the OT and twisting anything required to make it fit. The writer of Acts is misquoting what is written in Psalms. Well of course! He was an appointed Apostle of Christ - with Jesus the entire time and including a witness of the Resurrection. But he was misquoting ... and some 2000+ years later you know better than he what was meant .... (you are correct that it meant an OFFICE as it says in your definition - meaning that it was not to be vacant but to be filled) Yep. You just know we should believe you over the Acts 1 usage ... NOT! I was not talking about belief but about the meanings of the words as used in the OT compared to the meanings given to the words by the writer of Acts. And who was the writer of Luke and Acts that you believe was with Jesus the whole time? And, yes, 2000+ years later there is more understanding about the words in the OT than was available to the writers of the NT. Oral tradition did not transfer a wealth of knowledge. Writers of the NT mistranslating the OT is not something that didn't happen. Mathew managed to make a number of errors. He even created a quote regarding a city called Nazareth which is not found anywhere in the OT. And my understanding of it can be explained without resorting to sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 5, 2014 16:10:04 GMT -5
The writer of Acts is misquoting what is written in Psalms. Well of course! He was an appointed Apostle of Christ - with Jesus the entire time and including a witness of the Resurrection. But he was misquoting ... and some 2000+ years later you know better than he what was meant .... (you are correct that it meant an OFFICE as it says in your definition - meaning that it was not to be vacant but to be filled) Yep. You just know we should believe you over the Acts 1 usage ... NOT! I was not talking about belief but about the meanings of the words as used in the OT compared to the meanings given to the words by the writer of Acts. And who was the writer of Luke and Acts that you believe was with Jesus the whole time? And, yes, 2000+ years later there is more understanding about the words in the OT than was available to the writers of the NT. Oral tradition did not transfer a wealth of knowledge. Writers of the NT mistranslating the OT is not something that didn't happen. Mathew managed to make a number of errors. He even created a quote regarding a city called Nazareth which is not found anywhere in the OT. And my understanding of it can be explained without resorting to sarcasm. Sarcasm is warranted when one states that they know better what was taught than Peter, Chief of the Apostles - that the vacant office of Apostle (Judas) should not remain empty - but filled (even according to your definition) - which means thru Apostolic succession. 15In those days Peter stood up among the believers ...' stood up' means he was recognized as the one who had authority to speak. 20“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 5, 2014 16:23:20 GMT -5
Sarcasm is warranted when one states that they know better what was taught than Peter, Chief of the Apostles - that the office of Apostle (Bishop) should not be empty - but filled (even according to your definition) - which means thru Apostolic succession. 20“ For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of PsalmsYou showed the definitions of the words that the person quoting Peter used used and they do not line up well with the meaning of the words that the writer of Psalm 109 used. That plus the fact that psalm 109 had nothing to do with the events of Acts but was pulled in out of context and twisted into place to meet Peter's needs of the time. Misquotes of the OT are rampant in the NT and have been known about for years. The reference you gave to the early elders of the church had them questioning Matthew's lineage of Jesus. Maybe it was thought if it was ignored it would go away. Or god would retrofit a correction.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 5, 2014 16:39:00 GMT -5
Sarcasm is warranted when one states that they know better what was taught than Peter, Chief of the Apostles - that the office of Apostle (Bishop) should not be empty - but filled (even according to your definition) - which means thru Apostolic succession. 20“ For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of PsalmsYou showed the definitions of the words that the person quoting Peter used used and they do not line up well with the meaning of the words that the writer of Psalm 109 used. That plus the fact that psalm 109 had nothing to do with the events of Acts but was pulled in out of context and twisted into place to meet Peter's needs of the time. Misquotes of the OT are rampant in the NT and have been known about for years. The reference you gave to the early elders of the church had them questioning Matthew's lineage of Jesus. Maybe it was thought if it was ignored it would go away. Or god would retrofit a correction. The reference you gave to the early elders of the church had them questioning Matthew's lineage of Jesus. They questioned and studied - repeat endlessly - that's what they did (and that's a very broad statement - it's difficult to know exactly which ones you looked at) Regardless, enough was established that we know that the correct lineage is there for Jesus to be who he needed to be to fulfill his role. You showed the definitions of the words that the person quoting Peter used used and they do not line up well with the meaning of the words that the writer of Psalm 109 used.OT = translation from Hebrew NT = translation from Greek Both definitions mean an ' office' which means that it was not to be left vacant' Which was the intent of Peter using the Psalm as context for what they were doing in filling the vacant office of Judas. The 'office' of episkopen - episkopon - bishop - means overseer - which is the other way it is often written in the NT - overseer instead of bishop. The definition in Ps 109 also refers to ' oversight'. Recall that Jesus also quoted from the Psalms - even from the Cross.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 5, 2014 17:18:41 GMT -5
They questioned and studied - repeat endlessly - that's what they did (and that's a very broad statement - it's difficult to know exactly which ones you looked at) Those questions were in the first one under Matthew. Not for the writer in 386! There were kings missing and the women that were trhown in seemed to be out of place/context. t is still questioned today. In is only established by fiat. And my original question was who called them bishops. The reference to Psalm did not answer the question since it did not refer to the title bishop which Jesus did not give the apostles. What entity first called them bishops? Recall that the writers could not even agree on the final words of Jesus on the cross so the credibility of the rest of their record is also in question.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 5, 2014 17:39:06 GMT -5
And my original question was who called them bishops. What entity first called them bishops? 1. Jesus, the Christ, who appointed them and ordained them so that they could ordain others as we read of them so doing. 2. Peter, First of the Apostles, protos, Mt 10:2 - as we read in the the first chapter of the book of Acts of the Apostles, authored by Luke.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 5, 2014 17:42:47 GMT -5
Recall that Jesus also quoted from the Psalms - even from the Cross. Recall that the writers could not even agree on the final words of Jesus on the cross so the credibility of the rest of their record is also in question. Perhaps for some. There were seven last things that we know that Jesus said from the cross. Did each author record each one? I don't know. That isn't what determines redemption or salvation. Jesus' sacrifice for our sins and his Resurrection are what really matter.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 5, 2014 20:12:30 GMT -5
And my original question was who called them bishops. What entity first called them bishops? 1. Jesus, the Christ, who appointed them and ordained them so that they could ordain others as we read of them so doing. Did he call them bishops? Is there biblical scholar that believes Luke actually was the author of Luke and Acts? In either case Luke was not an eyewitness.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 5, 2014 20:34:48 GMT -5
1. Jesus, the Christ, who appointed them and ordained them so that they could ordain others as we read of them so doing. Did he call them bishops? Whether he did or not is not written. The fact that it is the language of the NT is indicitive that it was to be so done. From biblos.com ... Titus 1:7 Since an overseer manages God's household, he must be ... ... Because a bishop is a supervisor appointed by God, he must have a good reputation.
1 Timothy 3:1 ... This is a statement that can be trusted: If anyone sets his heart on being a bishop, he desires something excellent. ...
1 Timothy 3:2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful ... ... A bishop must have a good reputation. He must have ...
Acts 1:20 "For," said Peter, "it is written in the Book of Psalms ... ... For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his position as bishop let another take. ...
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 5, 2014 21:11:31 GMT -5
2. Peter, First of the Apostles, protos, Mt 10:2 - as we read in the the first chapter of the book of Acts of the Apostles, authored by Luke. Is there biblical scholar that believes Luke actually was the author of Luke and Acts? You know - you can always go to newadvent.com and type in the search box ... Internal evidence
The internal evidence may be briefly summarized as follows:
The author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke; and
the author of Acts was the author of the Gospel.
The arguments are given at length by Plummer, "St. Luke" in "Int. Crit. Com." (4th ed., Edinburgh, 1901); Harnack, "Luke the Physician" (London, 1907); "The Acts of the Apostles" (London, 1909); etc.
(1) The Author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke
There is nothing more certain in Biblical criticism than this proposition. The writer of the "we" sections claims to be a companion of St. Paul. The "we" begins at Acts 16:10, and continues to 16:17 (the action is at Philippi). It reappears at 20:5 (Philippi), and continues to 21:18 (Jerusalem). It reappears again at the departure for Rome, 27:1 (Greek text), and continues to the end of the book.
That the companion of St. Paul who wrote the Acts was St. Luke is the unanimous voice of antiquity. His choice of medical language proves that the author was a physician. Westein, in his preface to the Gospel ("Novum Test. Græcum", Amsterdam, 1741, 643), states that there are clear indications of his medical profession throughout St. Luke's writings; and in the course of his commentary he points out several technical expressions common to the Evangelist and the medical writings of Galen.
External evidence
The proof in favour of the unity of authorship, derived from the internal character of the two books, is strengthened when taken in connection with the external evidence. Every ancient testimony for the authenticity of Acts tells equally in favour of the Gospel; and every passage for the Lucan authorship of the Gospel gives a like support to the authenticity of Acts. Besides, in many places of the early Fathers both books are ascribed to St. Luke. The external evidence can be touched upon here only in the briefest manner. For external evidence in favour of Acts, see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
The many passages in St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen, ascribing the books to St. Luke, are important not only as testifying to the belief of their own, but also of earlier times. St. Jerome and Origen were great travellers, and all three were omnivorous readers. They had access to practically the whole Christian literature of preceding centuries; but they nowhere hint that the authorship of the Gospel (and Acts) was ever called in question. This, taken by itself, would be a stronger argument than can be adduced for the majority of classical works. But we have much earlier testimony. Clement of Alexandria was probably born at Athens about A.D. 150.
much more at the link ... www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm From the Orthodox ... very interesting. www.goarch.org/special/luke/index_html
|
|