|
Post by BS on Jun 21, 2006 19:12:51 GMT -5
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.
Pure BS. The workers wrote the book on eisegetic theology. The workers are the ones who fell off the scriptural turnip truck.
|
|
|
Post by Problem solved on Jun 21, 2006 19:15:18 GMT -5
It seems the key word here is "yet". You said: In early manuscripts, the word "yet" does not appear in John 7:8However 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. What an easy out. Look at translations until you find one with the word 'yet'. You can then say that some early translations contain the word yet. And which do you believe - the one that supports your belief, of course. Whether that is correct or not. As far as the rest of your statement - Don't you want your Savior to be human. To have sinned and experienced guilt? To have lusted? Jesus was sent to be just like people are - warts and all. There was a post about David and the blessed bread - I suppose there is a response for that inaccuracy as well.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 21, 2006 19:17:57 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. Abiathar was certainly alive at this time, so "In the days of Abiathar" is strictly correct. He was more famous, probably, than any of the others because he was the only one of Ahimelech's sons who escaped the sword of Doeg, the Edomite, who Saul had destroy all the priests of Nob. That's probably why Jesus said this name rather than the name Ahimelech. There are only apparent contradictions in the Bible. I suggest a good study Bible. It has listed and explains most of these "inconsistencies" so it's very easy to look them up for myself. They give idea, chapter verse and I can see for myself -- or they give some history lesson that is easy to research on my own, given an idea. Jesus, Son of God, the God man, the perfect, sinless, Lamb of God does not lie or His blood could not cover our sins nor buy His church (Acts 20:28). Christ's Eternally, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 21, 2006 19:33:33 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? I know that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. But . . . let's have some exegesis here. What do YOU say the verse means? That God can lie if he is in human form? Christ's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 21, 2006 19:53:31 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? Because we have not YET studied this out . . . Because we have not studied this out . . . or Our time has not yet come . . .or Our time has not fully come . . . or Our time has not come Either way we look at the text, Jesus clearly says that his time has not come. He never says when that will be, so it could be right after they left. Which "yet" are you talking about in vs 8? The first one or the second one? In the first, if you leave out YET, then there is a problem, maybe -- except in vs 6, he amply explains that his time is not come, but his brothers' time is always ready. Using different versions is not a bad thing. All my versions say the same thing (KJV, NKJV, Amplified, NIV and ESV. They have YET twice in vs 8. NAS says, " . . . I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." But leaving out the first YET does not change the fact that his time has not fully come. I see no reason here to think Jesus is lying. Christ's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by That is a stretch on Jun 21, 2006 20:01:49 GMT -5
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. Yes it is. And if you change the Bible and delete the rest of the sentence there is no issue. But the Bible says "In the days of Abiathar the high priest"" and Abiathar was not the high priest. Interesting but does not explain why Jesus said "In the days of Abiathar the high priest" And that is a fine explanation. But the fact still remains that the sentence "In the days of Abiathar the high priest" is incorrect. Inerrant means without error. Any error. Apparent? You had to delete part of a sentence to make this work.
|
|
|
Post by eisegetic on Jun 21, 2006 20:31:11 GMT -5
Please translate "eisegetic", for those of us who are not theological scholars.
|
|
|
Post by Reality on Jun 21, 2006 20:39:17 GMT -5
Either way we look at the text, Jesus clearly says that his time has not come. He never says when that will be, so it could be right after they left. If you were standing with a group of people who followed and worshipped you and said I (as you claim) that you were going to go up to the feast later, the group would wait for your time to go to pass. They left because Jesus said he was not going to go. Jesus wanted them to think that because he wanted to go by himself and not be identified because he feared for his life. In the 1700 or so years since the NT has been in existence people who believe the Bible to inerrant have had to jump through hoops to come up with the twisted reasons needed to adddress the inconsistancies. Of course there is always some explanation. My kids always had an explanation. When confronted with writing on the wall they said a mouse had taken the crayon in its mouth and has run along the wall making the mark. Could it be disproved? Nope. Was it what happened? What do you think? What makes sense? What, in the real world, would have caused the line? A crayon in the hand of an artistic child. It is the same with the turning water into wine. It was (according to the gospel) the first miracle. But then why did Jesus' mother expect him to be able to do a miracle? The loaves and the fishes - where did the extra baskets come fron that held all the remains? Why were the disciples surprised the second time when they had just wittnessed the same (almost exactly from the text) thing just a few weeks earlier? It doesn't ring true but more like a collection of tales that are presented in a way to get a point across.
|
|
|
Post by Here you go on Jun 21, 2006 20:41:46 GMT -5
Please translate "eisegetic", for those of us who are not theological scholars. The word exegesis means "to draw the meaning" out of a given text. Some contrast exegesis with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while eisegesis implies more subjectivity.
|
|
|
Post by Like I said on Jun 22, 2006 0:06:57 GMT -5
As far as the rest of your statement - Don't you want your Savior to be human. To have sinned and experienced guilt? To have lusted? Jesus was sent to be just like people are - warts and all.
This statement tells me all I need to know. You simply want to create Christ in your own image. Your theology is purely academic and heretic.
|
|
|
Post by To eiesgesis on Jun 22, 2006 0:11:15 GMT -5
while eisegesis implies more subjectivity.
Which means reading what you want into the Bible. Which is what the workers do. As well as this dude that's making the argument that somehow Jesus could sin and still be an acceptable sacrifice for our sins. No, wait. I guess he's really just saying Jesus sinned. Apparently he doesn't need a savior.
|
|
|
Post by Close on Jun 22, 2006 8:30:22 GMT -5
while eisegesis implies more subjectivity.Which means reading what you want into the Bible. Which is what the workers do. As well as this dude that's making the argument that somehow Jesus could sin and still be an acceptable sacrifice for our sins. No, wait. I guess he's really just saying Jesus sinned. Apparently he doesn't need a savior. Perhaps a perfect savior is not a requirement. If I am going to have someone to understand and support me it is nice to know that they have experienced the same trials and tribulations as well as the temptations, joys, and slip-ups. I do not know if Jesus sinned. Actually, given the paucity of information, neither do you. Your faith may say there was no sin but there is a period of 20+ years that are off the record. Why would God place his only son on the earth as a human and then make Him less than human. The point was to experience the human condition, sacrifice Himself for our sins, and be our champion in Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Few needs on Jun 22, 2006 8:34:22 GMT -5
As far as the rest of your statement - Don't you want your Savior to be human. To have sinned and experienced guilt? To have lusted? Jesus was sent to be just like people are - warts and all.This statement tells me all I need to know. You simply want to create Christ in your own image. Your theology is purely academic and heretic. Then your needs are few. I am not creating Christ at all. He was, do you not agree, human. Humans have faults.
|
|
|
Post by To few needs on Jun 22, 2006 9:03:08 GMT -5
Yes, Jesus was human. He was ALSO God. God cannot sin. Very simple.
|
|
|
Post by To close on Jun 22, 2006 9:16:49 GMT -5
Perhaps a perfect savior is not a requirement.
Who defines the requirements - you or God? Perhaps YOU don't don't require a perfect Savior, but scripture tells us that God does.
If I am going to have someone to understand and support me it is nice to know that they have experienced the same trials and tribulations as well as the temptations, joys, and slip-ups.
Personally, I believe that the God who created me can understand me very well. He's omniscient and omnipresent - he knows me better than I do.
I do not know if Jesus sinned. Actually, given the paucity of information, neither do you. Your faith may say there was no sin but there is a period of 20+ years that are off the record.
Yes, I do know that Jesus didn't sin - because I believe scripture that clearly shows that he was God incarnate. God cannot sin. That's all there is to it.
Why would God place his only son on the earth as a human and then make Him less than human.
He didn't make him less than human. Jesus was God incarnate. Read Hebrews 1 and notice two things. First, the Father clearly describes the Son as God. Second, after Jesus has been placed on earth, The Father instructs the angels to worship him.
|
|
|
Post by Easy Sparky on Jun 22, 2006 10:44:20 GMT -5
Perhaps a perfect savior is not a requirement.Who defines the requirements - you or God? Perhaps YOU don't don't require a perfect Savior, but scripture tells us that God does. I was not aware that God required a Savior at all. The savior is for the people. I do not require that my savior be perfect. Well, taking that approach, you are not needed in the equation at all. What could an onmipotent God need with you? Besides, he already knows what you are going to do so there is no chance that you will not do exactly as He expects. Good you have told us what you believe. That was Paul's view perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by To Easy on Jun 22, 2006 11:00:04 GMT -5
I was not aware that God required a Savior at all.
The savior is for the people. I do not require that my savior be perfect.
I take this comment to mean you are more interested in mindless argument than constructive dialogue. Of course, God doesn't require a Savior. But He DOES require OUR Savior to be perfect. He will only only accept a perfect sacrifice. I'm amazed that you would find this debateable.
Well, taking that approach, you are not needed in the equation at all. What could an onmipotent God need with you?
That's correct. God doesn't need us. That He loves us grants us entrance to Heaven is evidence of His infinite mercy and goodness.
That was Paul's view perhaps.
I do believe Paul had a better understanding than either you or I. Actually, there is debate whether Paul was the author of Hebrews or not, but that's not the point. The point is that you obviously, don't believe scripture in the first place.
|
|
ian
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by ian on Jun 22, 2006 12:14:52 GMT -5
I require a perfect savior. Imperfection might mean He isnt God.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 22, 2006 14:10:33 GMT -5
As far as the rest of your statement - Don't you want your Savior to be human. To have sinned and experienced guilt? To have lusted? Jesus was sent to be just like people are - warts and all.This statement tells me all I need to know. You simply want to create Christ in your own image. Your theology is purely academic and heretic. Then your needs are few. I am not creating Christ at all. He was, do you not agree, human. Humans have faults. Not one born of a virgin. Is 9:6 Is 6:1
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 22, 2006 14:19:14 GMT -5
Yes it is. And if you change the Bible and delete the rest of the sentence there is no issue. But the Bible says "In the days of Abiathar the high priest"" and Abiathar was not the high priest. Interesting but does not explain why Jesus said "In the days of Abiathar the high priest" And that is a fine explanation. But the fact still remains that the sentence "In the days of Abiathar the high priest" is incorrect. Inerrant means without error. Any error. Apparent? You had to delete part of a sentence to make this work. In the days of the Abiathar the high priest is still correct. He was alive. He didn't say, "In the day when Abiathar was the hight priest. The days of Abiathar was "during his lifetime." I wonder what the Hebew really said. He did not err. Christ is God, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 22, 2006 15:24:54 GMT -5
I require a perfect savior. Imperfection might mean He isnt God. This is an interesting statement -- laying down requirements for a Savior to follow. His first requirement is that I be without sin because he will not put up with sin. Yet, I am a sinner. I must get to the heart of this. What to do? Matt 5:48 says I must be perfect. How can I be perfect if I was born in sin? Jn 15:5 is the answer. Through Christ, the perfect Lamb of God. Read in succession, these give a vague picture > Lev 22:21 - Lev 21:18-24-Matt 27:51 - Rev 19:7 - But for those who he has left to himself, II Cor 3:14 pertains to them. Funny, though, I used to read THAT and almost understand . . . . I got scared. The Bible is about Jesus Christ. From the very first page. If only I could discern it. If only it wasn't just strange words and writings to me. Two years ago, that's where I was. You never know when the Lord will regenerate someone and make them new and able to understand His Word. I begged him - If Jesus is God, show me the Truth after my whole life - after SO LONG! (I Cor 2:24). He answered my prayer. I am content that the Word of God is inerrant and that MY DUTY (Deut 6:4-9) IS TO STUDY IT, NOT DEMAND THAT IT BE REVEALED. The Holy Spirit is the only one who can guide His into all truth (Jn 16:13). Of course, I will continue to defend the Word, but ultimately, those who are truly searching will understand. Those who are not His, he leaves to themselves. Because, given a choice, man would never choose God (Gen 6:5). Jesus is King over all, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by To Jessi on Jun 22, 2006 15:58:53 GMT -5
I read his post differently than you. I took it to mean because of his sinful condition that God requires the sacrifice of a perfect life, meaning our savior - and if Jesus had sinned it would mean he couldn't have been God. I don't think Ian was laying down conditions. On the other hand, this individual saying that Jesus needed to have sin in his life for his sacrifice to be personally valid for him - THAT is laying down conditions.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 22, 2006 20:04:11 GMT -5
I read his post differently than you. I took it to mean because of his sinful condition that God requires the sacrifice of a perfect life, meaning our savior - and if Jesus had sinned it would mean he couldn't have been God. I don't think Ian was laying down conditions. On the other hand, this individual saying that Jesus needed to have sin in his life for his sacrifice to be personally valid for him - THAT is laying down conditions. True, true. Just the way I read it, I suppose. Thanks for the insight. Christ the Lord's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 22, 2006 20:07:18 GMT -5
If that offended Ian, sorry. My statement wasn't meant to offend--just the way I read the post. Please forgive . . .
Christ's Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 22, 2006 20:16:38 GMT -5
Either way we look at the text, Jesus clearly says that his time has not come. He never says when that will be, so it could be right after they left. If you were standing with a group of people who followed and worshipped you and said I (as you claim) that you were going to go up to the feast later, the group would wait for your time to go to pass. They left because Jesus said he was not going to go. Jesus wanted them to think that because he wanted to go by himself and not be identified because he feared for his life. In the 1700 or so years since the NT has been in existence people who believe the Bible to inerrant have had to jump through hoops to come up with the twisted reasons needed to adddress the inconsistancies. Of course there is always some explanation. My kids always had an explanation. When confronted with writing on the wall they said a mouse had taken the crayon in its mouth and has run along the wall making the mark. Could it be disproved? Nope. Was it what happened? What do you think? What makes sense? What, in the real world, would have caused the line? A crayon in the hand of an artistic child. It is the same with the turning water into wine. It was (according to the gospel) the first miracle. But then why did Jesus' mother expect him to be able to do a miracle? The loaves and the fishes - where did the extra baskets come fron that held all the remains? Why were the disciples surprised the second time when they had just wittnessed the same (almost exactly from the text) thing just a few weeks earlier? It doesn't ring true but more like a collection of tales that are presented in a way to get a point across. Are you a Christian? Do you believe any part of the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by Bible Truths on Jun 22, 2006 21:04:05 GMT -5
Are you a Christian? Do you believe any part of the Bible? There are a lot of ways to look at the Bible. But the most realistic way is to look at it as a written document that has been handed down for 3000+ years. Look at it this way. The NT was not written for some 30 to 70 years after the events. The earliest known copy is even later than that. Now think about events that happened in our lifetime. The assassination of Kennedy. Witnessed by probably as many people if not more. Recorded on film, tape, and in photos. Scores of eye wittinesses interviewed moments after the fact. Think about the distortion of the record. The varied tales and theories of what happened. In both cases there were people on opposite sides that had points of view to present and points of view to hide. It has come to light lately that the early church, the Catholic Church, got rid of a lot of early documents because they did not all agree. They selected the writings that supported their point of view. They suppressed the writings that did not agree with their view of Jesus. I don't know which writings were based on facts and which ones were written to support a point of view. I don't believe anyone does at this point. The NT has enough borrowed from other written works to make it almost certain it is not a record of what happened. Jesus walking on water, the version in Matthew, was taken almost verbatim from a story concerning Buddha 500 years earlier. The Bible, and especially the NT, is a collection of documents with little if any external support. Alexander the Great lived long before Jesus and there are numerous references to him. The same is true of many historical figures. But not for the Son of God. Someone who did something that no one before or since has claimed to do - rise from the dead. Yet there was not one comment about it. An earthquake strikes one of the largest cities in the area on the day of his death yet no one remarks about it. From a scientific point of view there are many errors or events described that defy the laws of physics. We know that the sun does not rise, that the earth does move, and that there is no point where anyone could go to see all of the earth (unless, of course, it was flat and had 4 corners). But these can be attributed to figures of speech. But having the earth stop spinning? That is more difficult to explain. The Bible was written by men and women. They were no doubt good people and wrote what they thought were truths. But they did not have all of the facts. As humans they made errors. The people making the copies made errors. We know they made errors because the documents are different. Which is the correct copy? Words were left out and added. Subtle yet important differences. We are left with a collection of literature from the ages. Some of it is good some not so good. We have a book containing the beliefs of a people who believed in a single God. A book that contains many truths. But a book that is not error free. Sorry for the verbose post.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 23, 2006 5:46:51 GMT -5
Bible Truths: I don't know where you get your information about the things the Catholic Church threw away - but whoever told you that the Catholic Church chose to throw away the ONLY COPIES of the TRUTH . . . was misinformed. there are copies all over the world. They all say the same thing.
THe scriptures are God-breathed.
ISAIAH 45:23 - I HAVE SWORN BY MYSEL, THE WORD IS GONE OUT OF MY MOUTH IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND SHALL NOT RETURN, THAT UNTO ME, E VERY KNEE SHALL BOW, EVERY TONGUE SHALL SWEAR.
Christ is the Word His Word shall never pass away
Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 23, 2006 6:09:51 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. Who can remain objective? Who would want to? Who would want to stand around and make snide and negative comments and not delve into the Word of God? This is about salvation and Christology and Theology. These are all GODLY men, not lawyers. The reason why it's difficult to get around what they say is because they practice what they preach. The Love of Christ and the ierrancy of the Word. Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|