|
Post by selah on Jun 19, 2006 16:45:05 GMT -5
ACTS 5:12-42
vs.12 The apostles were performing many signs and wonders. vs.16 All that were brought to them, both sick and those vexed with unclean spirits were healed. vs.17 The high priest and his associates of the sect of the Sadducees were filled with indignation or envy.
* Who were the Sadducees? The Sadducees were a Jewish sect. They did not believe in the resurrection or in a personal Messiah. The members of the Sadducees were from the priestly line and controlled the temple. The high priest presided over the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was not a congregation of people who were believers in Jesus or even people who were trying to believe in Jesus. It was like a the supreme Jewish court - the council. The Sadducees were more political than spiritual. They were aristocrats. They believed only in the first 5 books of the Bible.
vs.28 The high priest, before the council, questioned the apostles about the fact that they continued to teach in the name of Jesus, though this had been forbidden.
vs.29-33 Then Peter and the other apostles proceeded to explain the gospel (how Jesus is the Saviour and forgiver of our sins).
vs.33 They were infuriated by this story and took counsel to slay them. They believed only God could be forgiver of sin. If the apostles taught that Jesus could forgive sin, who were they saying He was? Thus in the eyes of the Sadducees the apostles were blasphemous.
vs.34 A Pharisee named Gamaliel stood up in the council. Gamaliel was a teacher of the Old Testament scriptures called the law. He was highly respected by the people, in fact the apostle Paul, when he was yet Saul and a Pharisee, studied under Gamaliel. (Acts 22:3)
* Who were the Pharisees? The Pharisees were a Jewish sect who believed in the whole of the Old Testament. They tried to follow the law to the "letter". They were extremely upset by the claims that Jesus made. They felt that because He did not always follow the law to the "letter", He could not possibly be the promised Messiah. Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees were political parties as well.
Gamaliel asked for the apostles to be "put forth a little space" (sent outside or away from the council) so the council could privately discuss what to do.
vs.35-39 It was decided that if the activities of the apostles were of God, they could not be stopped. If of man they would fail anyway.
vs.40 The council agreed with Gamaliel, so called the apostles back, beat them, commanded them to not speak in Jesus' name and let them go.
vs.41-42 The apostles rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for His name, and they continued to preach and to teach Jesus.
* Who were the Apostles? The apostles were, along with the Chief corner-stone and prophets, the foundation of Christianity. They were called for a special purpose and the purpose was fulfilled. The foundation of Christianity was laid, not to be built again and again, but once and for all. The criteria for this calling was that they were eye witnesses of Jesus Christ. When Judas was to be replaced, this was part of the process to choosing his replacement. (Acts 1:20-23). Their teaching was that of the gospel of Jesus Christ (vs.29-32). They did not preach a style or place of worship, or a style of ministry. They preached Jesus Christ - the Saviour.
The issue in this passage of scripture, Acts 5:12-42, is believers in Jesus versus those who believe in God but who will not accept Jesus as the Messiah. There are many still today who will not believe that trust in Christ alone is sufficient for salvation and forgiveness of sin. Many still trust in the "letter" to save them ... their works or their style of worship or ministry.
To apply the message of this passage to our lives today, we must consider which side we are on. The side of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, or the side of the apostles who taught Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the one who sufficiently forgave and saved us by His shed blood.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 19, 2006 18:57:11 GMT -5
Jessi, qwest apparently depends on a system. I find it difficult to remember who's who in here and what they believe and their background, since they change aliases so much! I guess it's more fun this way for some folks than to have a real "face to face" straight-up discussion about the Holy Word and Holy God. Christ's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by guest q on Jun 19, 2006 20:05:50 GMT -5
Jessi, qwest apparently depends on a system. Very probably true, and why shouldn't we...... Hmmm, that depends on how you define ''a system''. I probably would decline the worldly systems that many seem to accept as a ''system'' of godliness.
|
|
|
Post by See ilylo spin on Jun 19, 2006 20:19:12 GMT -5
My comment about "protecting the system" was in response to the comment about (this is paraphrased) not holding the workers accountable for their actions. My comment somehow is seen as an attack. I think it has been viewed as an attack by those who prefer that the system be protected at all costs. See him spin the truth. Watch the tap dance. He has just as many fancy moves as Nathan! Oddly enough, I don't ever see anyone saying the workers were not responsible for their actions. js
|
|
|
Post by How to Evaluate on Jun 19, 2006 20:23:13 GMT -5
I find it difficult to remember who's who in here and what they believe and their background, since they change aliases so much! Good point but you don't have to know who is who or what their beliefs and backgrounds are. Statements should be evaluated by their content and not by whom the statement is being made.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 19, 2006 20:27:19 GMT -5
The problem with this is two people could use the same words and mean totally different things. Thus it is easier to understand when one knows who is writing and where they are coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Why continue on Jun 20, 2006 9:56:36 GMT -5
My comment about "protecting the system" was in response to the comment about (this is paraphrased) not holding the workers accountable for their actions. My comment somehow is seen as an attack. I think it has been viewed as an attack by those who prefer that the system be protected at all costs. Why would anyone continue to attempt to discuss anything with Ilylo when his responses to questions and statements have earlier been: "If you say so. You can't discuss the topic, so go ahead and attack me." "1) you have not discussed the topic - so stop patting yourself on the head 2) I attacked nobody. The comment "protect the system" is not an attack. Perhaps you need to learn the difference between what is and what is not an attack. Read up on "ad hominem" sometime... ...and the system is still being protected at all costs." "It would seem that those who have argued with me do not agree that the workers should be held accountable for their actions. My comment about "protecting the system" was valid." "So what we hear you saying is that you have come unglued?" "You're quite welcome. Now go get some more glue. Your seams are showing." Faced with this level of answer what is the point. Better to listen to Ilylo complain that Nathan will not answer his questions. Ilylo did ask a single question. "Do you believe that the workers should be held accountable for their actions?" The question was answered directly but the part of the response that questioned whether someone could control another person without their consent was surprisingly overlooked and resulted in more worthless ad hominem arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 20, 2006 19:13:52 GMT -5
Jessi, qwest apparently depends on a system. Very probably true, and why shouldn't we...... Hmmm, that depends on how you define ''a system''. I probably would decline the worldly systems that many seem to accept as a ''system'' of godliness. "System" connotes GROUP. This is contradictory to the Word of God, which says that the only Name under which I must be saved is the Name of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). Salvation does not come from anywhere else. God bought the church with His own blood (Acts 2:28). Christ's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 20, 2006 19:17:45 GMT -5
I find it difficult to remember who's who in here and what they believe and their background, since they change aliases so much! Good point but you don't have to know who is who or what their beliefs and backgrounds are. Statements should be evaluated by their content and not by whom the statement is being made. Jesus didn't hide. Jesus was not deceptive. His people were not taught to be this way, so this action is really not of Christ. To change and be deceptive is not of Christ but an attribute of satan. Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Yes but on Jun 20, 2006 20:06:21 GMT -5
Are you sure? "John 7:1-10 - Jesus says he is not going to the feast." Seems like a lie "Mark 4:10-12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." He used parables with the intent to deceive people so they would not understand and to prevent them from being converted and saved. That is not what we read in Mark 4:10-12 and Matthew 13:34-42. He explained how to do these things. Of course maybe the Bible is in error. You should also note that Jesus did not post a lot on these message boards. There is no recorded instance of Jesus riding in a car or using the phone. He refused to have a zipper installed on his suitcase and would not allow his followers to use anything with velcro fasteners on them. Fountain pens were right out but I do understand that they all were carrying Palm Pilots and beaming messages to each other until they all decided, after he trial, that using devices with the word Pilot in the Brand was not a good plan.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 20, 2006 22:47:51 GMT -5
Are you sure? "John 7:1-10 - Jesus says he is not going to the feast." Seems like a lie "Mark 4:10-12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." He used parables with the intent to deceive people so they would not understand and to prevent them from being converted and saved. That is not what we read in Mark 4:10-12 and Matthew 13:34-42. He explained how to do these things. Of course maybe the Bible is in error. You should also note that Jesus did not post a lot on these message boards. There is no recorded instance of Jesus riding in a car or using the phone. He refused to have a zipper installed on his suitcase and would not allow his followers to use anything with velcro fasteners on them. Fountain pens were right out but I do understand that they all were carrying Palm Pilots and beaming messages to each other until they all decided, after he trial, that using devices with the word Pilot in the Brand was not a good plan. I guess what I meant was that Jesus did not hide from those who were HIS. Christ's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 20, 2006 22:50:12 GMT -5
Are you sure? "John 7:1-10 - Jesus says he is not going to the feast." Seems like a lie
Are you saying the Perfect sinless lamb of God, Jesus, lied?
Christ's Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 20, 2006 22:57:09 GMT -5
John 7:1-11 - He said plainly that his time had not yet come. He did go up later, but it is clear in the text that his brothers asked him to go with them and present himself openly to the crowds. Jesus said he wasn't ready to appear in this public way.
How is this a lie?
Christ is God, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 20, 2006 23:15:31 GMT -5
Quote:His people were not taught to be this way, so this action is really not of Christ. To change and be deceptive is not of Christ but an attribute of satan. That is not what we read in Mark 4:10-12 and Matthew 13:34-42. He explained how to do these things.
Of course maybe the Bible is in error.
Vs 35 explains that these thing were a fulfillment of scriptures and forordained by God, spoken of by the prophets (Is 6:9). Jesus was not being deceptive.
The Bible is inerrant. We always find the truth there. God's word will never pass away.
Christ's Jessi
|
|
|
Post by tsk on Jun 20, 2006 23:22:52 GMT -5
Of course maybe the Bible is in error. Christ's Jessi tsk, tsk...shame on you!! The Only error is in your personal interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by That is correct on Jun 21, 2006 5:43:15 GMT -5
Are you sure? "John 7:1-10 - Jesus says he is not going to the feast." Seems like a lie Are you saying the Perfect sinless lamb of God, Jesus, lied? Christ's Jessi I think you have correctly understood my post. Jesus the human, like all humans, was able to tell untruths.
|
|
|
Post by I see now on Jun 21, 2006 5:46:07 GMT -5
I guess what I meant was that Jesus did not hide from those who were HIS. Christ's, Jessi I see. So it would be OK to lie to , for example, Muslims because they do not believe as you do? What kind of selective truth is that to follow? That would be like the 2x2 saying it is OK to lie to Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 21, 2006 6:19:24 GMT -5
Are you sure? "John 7:1-10 - Jesus says he is not going to the feast." Seems like a lie Are you saying the Perfect sinless lamb of God, Jesus, lied? Christ's Jessi I think you have correctly understood my post. Jesus the human, like all humans, was able to tell untruths. Jesus is God and God is not a man that he should lie. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 21, 2006 6:21:44 GMT -5
I guess what I meant was that Jesus did not hide from those who were HIS. Christ's, Jessi I see. So it would be OK to lie to , for example, Muslims because they do not believe as you do? What kind of selective truth is that to follow? That would be like the 2x2 saying it is OK to lie to Catholics. Whatever the Word of God says is the measure for truth. Not man's experience, not Muslim beliefs, nor Catholics (who believe in a works based salvation and that Christ is not the Head of the Church). God's Holy Word has gone out of His mouth and will not return to Him void. Christ's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by What went wrong on Jun 21, 2006 8:12:04 GMT -5
The Bible is inerrant. We always find the truth there. God's word will never pass away. Almost looks like there is an error here. Either the Bible has it wrong in the OT, or the Bible has it wrong in the NT, or Jesus had it wrong when he spoke. Mark 2:24-26 The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." But looking at the reference in the OT: I Samuel 21:1-6 David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, "Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?"... So the priest gave him the consecrated bread... Looks like Achimelech was high priest, and not his son Abiathar.
|
|
|
Post by Yes but on Jun 21, 2006 8:53:57 GMT -5
Yes but the point is, Jessi, that regardless who it was done to hide these truths from, it was a deceitful action. And it was done by Jesus. So n response to your statement that Jesus did not do deceitful things the answer is that he did. He deliberately spoke so people would not be able to understand him and have their sins forgiven. So not only did he not teach them clearly but he did it knowing that they would not have their sins forgiven and would therefore end up in hell.
|
|
|
Post by To Jessi on Jun 21, 2006 8:58:17 GMT -5
Jessi, You are obviously dealing with an academic theologian who discounts the work of the Holy Spirit, who has a well developed systematic theology with no interest in personal application - only debate. If you enjoy banging your head against the wall, by all means continue, but I'd suggest you're wasting your time
|
|
|
Post by Humans on Jun 21, 2006 9:04:56 GMT -5
Jesus is God and God is not a man that he should lie. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Jesus the man was born at Bethlehem. Are you saying he was not completely human? If not how could he have experienced exactly what all humans experience?
|
|
|
Post by Great Advic on Jun 21, 2006 15:34:16 GMT -5
Jessi, You are obviously dealing with an academic theologian who discounts the work of the Holy Spirit, who has a well developed systematic theology with no interest in personal application - only debate. If you enjoy banging your head against the wall, by all means continue, but I'd suggest you're wasting your time This is great advice if your beliefs cannot stand up to the light of day or if you are just blindly following beliefs that you do not care to defend. No one is doscounting the work of the Holy Spirit (or even mentioning it) just wondering how the Bible can have different accounts of the same event and still be considered inerrant. If Jessi has no interest in exploring that or explaining it that is fine. If the argunegts being used are in error them point them out rather than attempting to discredit the person. Why do you think it is a waste of time to explore facets of your faith? Just what would the personal application of an inerrant Bible be?
|
|
|
Post by Not yet on Jun 21, 2006 16:19:00 GMT -5
John 7:1-11 - He said plainly that his time had not yet come. He did go up later, but it is clear in the text that his brothers asked him to go with them and present himself openly to the crowds. Jesus said he wasn't ready to appear in this public way. Christ is God, Jessi I guess because Jesus said he was not going to the feast. It is obvious early church members also had problems with this. In early manuscripts, the word "yet" does not appear in John 7:8. It seems some copiest added it to remove the falsehood. That raises, of course, another issue. Just which version of the Bible is the inerrant version? I go not up unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. He clearly stated he would not go up to the feast , gave the reason why not, and then went anyway. How is it not a lie?
|
|
|
Post by Yet on Jun 21, 2006 16:57:47 GMT -5
It seems the key word here is "yet".
You said: In early manuscripts, the word "yet" does not appear in John 7:8
However Biblegateway says: John 7:8 Some early manuscripts do not have yet.
So it appears another key word here is "some".
If you want to make the case here that Jesus was a liar - knock yourself out. Personally, I consider him my Savior - the perfect, sinless sacrifice made in my stead. Obviously, you don't - good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 21, 2006 18:58:49 GMT -5
Of course maybe the Bible is in error. Christ's Jessi tsk, tsk...shame on you!! The Only error is in your personal interpretation. Actually, I got the idea from seven godly theologians who wrote the study notes for my Bible and that's what it said. These are men who also agree with much of the rest of the Christian Church on DOCTRINE and they actually write it down! Unheard of in the 2x2s.
|
|
Therein lies the problem
Guest
|
Post by Therein lies the problem on Jun 21, 2006 19:06:16 GMT -5
Actually, I got the idea from seven godly theologians who wrote the study notes for my Bible and that's what it said. These are men who also agree with much of the rest of the Christian Church on DOCTRINE and they actually write it down! You are looking to people who are doing research that is designed to confirm their own beliefs. What a surprise they always "find" what they are looking for. This is why lawyers and doctors do not have themselves as clients - they cannot remain objective.
|
|