 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
thunder
Lion King
Joined: 13 Sep 2003
Posts: 1222
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
As a child I learned that an animal will learn to trust you more and more when you invite it to trust you more and more.
The animal is not trusting initially but, after mutiple pre-set challenges of their trust in you are put to the test, begnning with simple things, the more difficult challenges are accomplished and each bolster the animal's trust in you to do what they expect you to do.
So long as you provide an adequate to good measure of fulfilling their trust, their trust will increase and their fear of their trust being unfulfilled will diminish to a point when, the animal will do nearly anything to prove their trust in you and to receive a reward for having that trust in you.
Very often the Lord puts challenges of our trust in Him to the test by initiating your awareness of and superficial knowledge of apparently logical scriptural error to see what you are willing to believe simply by trusting that God will not let you ultimately fail because you trusted in His written word so strongly, in a literal sense, that you stepped out on a limb, so to speak, and risked being considered by other's to be nieve and even rediculously trusting in a God that you cannot see, much less
can prove exists.
He wants to know our heart, including how much we trust Him and His word ( trusting God is trusting His word and trusting His word is trusting God ), and He rewards us at the level of our trust in Him.
Little trust, little reward. Big trust, big reward. He will know our heart and the measure of our trust in Him.
Risking our human reputation by trusting God inherits a dynamic return from Him and a responsibility for each of us, we and God, to continue living up to that measure of trust, in Him.
Posessing the grace of God, which is one of the most, if not the most powerful thing in this world, is the energy resource where the gifts of the Spirit are completely active, like a powerplant that supplies the energy to light up a town, a city, a state and nation and world.
Trusting God is a very, very powerful behavior to enter into.
Very often, it is its own reward, once you get it.
thunder
_________________
Submit to God in Christ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Fri May 28, 2004 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | PTI, however, I am having difficulty reconciling Eddy's claim to Christianity and the fact that he does not trust that which tells him of his Christ.
How can you believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior if you cannot trust the book which tells you of Him? How can you have faith and belief in an Almighty God if you cannot believe in the Word He gave you? |
How could Paul believe that Jesus was coming back during his day and time when, in fact, Jesus has not come back as of 2004? I'd say it was faith. Faith, the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Most of us have faith, but do most of us know that although we have faith, that sometimes what it is that we believe so deeply might not actually come to be or happen or be as we view it to be? Maybe some of us, but others have a faith that does not allow them the possibility of being wrong or even considering that their faith view on any given issue is not as God sees it. Even with the possibility of their faith view being incorrect, it's difficult to let go of that view because it questions or challenges what one believes. We live and we experience things in life that either supports or disproves what we believe. There are even those things that make us love and grow while some of those very same things don't seem to assist others in growing and loving. It would seem that the issue is not belief in God, but in the humans who were inspired of God. Humans that are capable of error, regardless of their inspiration. Does beiing inspired mean that what was inspired via God through a human is without error? If so, how does one come to that answer of "Yes, it does mean it is without error?". For some, that makes sense. For others like Eddy and myself, it does not make sense. Especailly when the used instruments are fallible. Sure, God is infallible, but, again, does his infallibleness make those receiving his inspiration infallible also, when they are otherwise fallible? How does one come to that conclusion of, "Yes, it does!" and can you blame others if they do not agree with you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7003
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is what I understand you to be saying - at its essence:
I believe in God, I believe in His Word, but I want an easy out in case He tells me something that i do not like, or wants me to behave in a way I choose not to, as i want to maintain control over my life and feel good about what I do, regardless of what the truth is.
Therefore, while I believe in God and the Bible, I will also believe that there is error in the bible in spite of what it says, so that when I do come up against something that makes me uncomfortable I can claim it is error and not feel guilty about ignoring it.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | This is what I understand you to be saying - at its essence:
I believe in God, I believe in His Word, but I want an easy out in case He tells me something that i do not like, or wants me to behave in a way I choose not to, as i want to maintain control over my life and feel good about what I do, regardless of what the truth is.
Therefore, while I believe in God and the Bible, I will also believe that there is error in the bible in spite of what it says, so that when I do come up against something that makes me uncomfortable I can claim it is error and not feel guilty about ignoring it. |
Your understanding is incorrect. You see it that way and wish to make me fit this description that you have put together describing me. You want to make me look bad in comparison to yourself by stating what you think my views are vs your views. I am convinced that no matter what I say, you will find something to say in opposition to it. But, that's life. If Jesus got it, we will too!!
I believe in God and I believe in his word (ie. Jesus). I believe the bible is inspired of God, but I do not believe that because it is inspired of God then that means that those who were inspired by God had their human fallibilities taken from them during their inspired moments of writing. The bible does not call itself the word of God. Mankind has attributed that to it. The bible does, however, call Christ the word of God and I believe that. To me, someone like Paul is no different than you going to church and listening to your pastor preach what I think he would consider an inspired message. Paul and your pastor are the same: human and fallible, yet inspired of God in their messages. The difference in response to these two (ie. Paul and your pastor) is that you will take the words of Paul and not question them, but you likely will not take every word of your pastor as being unquestionable. Or would you? Would you question your pastor and his views? Should you? If he believes his sermons and messages to be inspired of God, should you quetion them still? If you are a fundamentalist literalist bible reader, should I also be as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7003
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
What am I to use to question the words of my pastor? Scriptures obviously.
If I cannot take the inspired word of God and use it to base my beliefs, or to compare the words of men, what then is there that gives me the benchmark for comparison and truth? The words of Christ? Where do I find them? In scriptures? How can I trust them if i am to accept that the scriptures are not infalliable?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | What am I to use to question the words of my pastor? Scriptures obviously.
If I cannot take the inspired word of God and use it to base my beliefs, or to compare the words of men, what then is there that gives me the benchmark for comparison and truth? The words of Christ? Where do I find them? In scriptures? How can I trust them if i am to accept that the scriptures are not infalliable? |
Maybe you are missing my point or maybe you don't. Regardless of what you see on the pages of the bible, you still have to interpret what you see. Whose to say whether or not how you interpret what you see or how your pastor interprets what he sees is correct? How can you open your bible and go to, for example, Leviticus 18:22 and conclude that all forms of homosexuality are wrong and then turn to 1Corinthians 14:34 and 35 and not come to the same simplistic concusion, based on what you literally see in the texts of the bible? Why not conclude that women are to be silent in the church when the text clearly implies this if you can come to such a simplistic conclusion in regards to Leviticus 18:22? I'm not saying that you can't use the bible to base your beliefs on. That is what I am doing as well. The issue is really the interpretation of what you and I are reading, not the source itself. How we approach that source is also another thing to be considered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bridget
Rattlesnake
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Summertime, I do agree with you to a certain degree. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God from Genesis to Revelations. I believe it is the history of God and His dealings with the people He chose as His own. I believe that the Apostles gospels concerning Jesus were written at a time much closer to the actual events then we here in 2004 can understand therefore they should be more accurate then anyone perhaps writting about it today. I think that homosexuality is a choice we have to make whether right or wrong. I think we have to take into consideration the differences of people then and now. Let's face it, the people of Jesus' time didn't sleep in soft beds, wake up in the morning and shower, get in their cars and go to work. Life was much harder for them. If you ever watched Colony house on PBS, you would see how hard life was in l628. I can't even imagine life some 2000 years ago, in the desert heat of Israel. I do believe that Paul's letters should be read in light of what was happening in the particular church he was writing to. I also believe that a lot of verses in the Gospels were edited and the Newer Bibles indicate that editing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
bridget: Summertime, I do agree with you to a certain degree. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God from Genesis to Revelations. I believe it is the history of God and His dealings with the people He chose as His own. I believe that the Apostles gospels concerning Jesus were written at a time much closer to the actual events then we here in 2004 can understand therefore they should be more accurate then anyone perhaps writting about it today.
me: Respected. I agree, for the most part, as well.
bridget: I think that homosexuality is a choice we have to make whether right or wrong.
me: Do you think heterosexuality is a choice? If you are heterosexual, are you attracted/relationship oriented towards the opposite sex because you chose to be or because it is an innate, undescribeable thing that you found to be a part of your being? Are you attracted/relationship oriented towards the opposite sex because it is in the majority of the world or because that is where your heart falls in relationship? I am homosexual. I can choose to act in a heterosexual way, but that would not make me heterosexual. It is a heart/who you are thing. I do understand that some people are capable of having relationships with both genders that involve sex, but I also realize there are those that are not as capable.
bridget: I think we have to take into consideration the differences of people then and now. Let's face it, the people of Jesus' time didn't sleep in soft beds, wake up in the morning and shower, get in their cars and go to work. Life was much harder for them. If you ever watched Colony house on PBS, you would see how hard life was in l628. I can't even imagine life some 2000 years ago, in the desert heat of Israel. I do believe that Paul's letters should be read in light of what was happening in the particular church he was writing to. I also believe that a lot of verses in the Gospels were edited and the Newer Bibles indicate that editing.
me: I am in agreement with you there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bridget
Rattlesnake
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Posts: 443
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am a 68 year old widow, married to the same man for 42 years and have 4 children 5 grandchildren. I chose to marry a man and have no leanings otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bridget wrote: | | I am a 68 year old widow, married to the same man for 42 years and have 4 children 5 grandchildren. I chose to marry a man and have no leanings otherwise. |
You get what I was asking though, right? You can choose to marry a woman, but you would not be at peace with yourself in regards to who you are as far as 'self' was concerned. Your heart would indeed let you know. You would be like an animal out of its natural habitat. A fish kept as a pet living out of water, etc. That indescribeable feeling that we call 'attraction' is what I'm trying to focus on here! That innate attraction causes you to be interested in whomever for relationship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raoooul
Kitten
Joined: 10 Jul 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| revmattchoo.com wrote: | couldn't matthew have been writing about an earlier time at the cross than luke? here's the explanation:
at first, both criminals hurl insults at Jesus. then one of them comes to his senses and realizes who Christ is and then changes his attitude. |
The only problem i see here is the timeline of both gospels agree:
(Mat 27:44) The thieves also who were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
(Mat 27:45) Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land to the ninth hour.
(Luk 23:39) And one of the malefactors, who were hanged, railed on him, saying, If thou art Christ, save thyself and us.
(Luk 23:40) But the other answering, rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
(Luk 23:41) And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
(Luk 23:42) And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
(Luk 23:43) And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
(Luk 23:44) And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.
So i do not see how you can claim that the 3hird brigand changed his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seeking_'el_and_joshua
Tadpole
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 7:38 am Post subject: to let you know |
|
|
here is something that you may not know mark and luke were not eye wittnesses of the Christ they got there storys from others people and put it down on paper so that it was not lost. mark and luke where both gentiles and all the deciples where jewish so mark and luke wrote what they knew from what they where told.  http://westminsterrpchurch.org/sermons/Who_Was_Luke.html is where i get this quote -> | Quote: | "First and foremost, Luke was a Christian. He was obviously a believer in this Christ, about whom he wrote so much. We don’t know when he was converted and became a Christian. Since he was not an eyewitness, he did not meet Jesus personally. Tradition says that he was a Greek speaking Gentile from Antioch A Doctor - Second, Luke was a doctor. Colossians 4:14 is the one text which give us this information. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul sends them greetings from his dear friend Luke, whom he calls in that verse, “the doctor.” This is the only verse in the Bible which tells us this. Some have seen in Luke’s writings a special interest in sickness and healing and a certain descriptive language, which they say reflects the mind of a physician, but this is hard to prove. What was a doctor like in those days? He did not have all the knowledge or all the equipment that doctors have today. However, he was well versed in the various kinds of diseases known in those days and in the various remedies which could be prescribed. Luke and the other gospel writers use the analogy of the field of medicine to speak of sin. Luke wrote in chapter 5:31, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” As a doctor, Luke would have been in a great position to unveil as hoaxes any false miracles of healing. He would also be in a position to acknowledge the fact that many of the cases were far beyond the power of medical science, but were solved by the power of Christ.
C. A Companion in Paul’s Travels - Third, we find that Luke was a companion with Paul the apostle in some of his travels. There are sections in the book of Acts which are written in the first person plural. Those are known as the “we sections” of Acts. They begin in Acts 16:10-17, “After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready to leave for Macedonia.” Acts 20:5 says, “These men went on ahead and waited for us at Troas.” There is also Acts 21:18 and then Acts 27:1-28:16. These “we sections” make it clear that Luke was with Paul from the time he went to Macedonia on his second missionary journey until he arrived as a prisoner in Rome at the end of the book.
D. Paul’s Biographer - It was because Luke was such a close companion of Paul that he became his biographer. The last half of the book of Acts recounts primarily the life and ministry of Paul and how God used him to spread the gospel and build the Church in the early years. One of the great services that many people have done over the years has been to write biographies or histories of other people’s lives. Great men are often too busy to write, but lesser men can tell their stories, and sometimes these biographers become great men in their own right. One man who has done that today is named Iain Murray. He has written books about Charles Spurgeon and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. These books have been a great help to me personally. If Murray had not written, we would not have access to much of the information about these men, information that can challenge a whole new generation to sacrifice their lives for Jesus Christ. Great preachers of the word are important, but writing is also powerful. Most of us have heard the expression, “the pen is mightier than the sword.” Martin Luther, the great founder of the Reformation, was a powerful preacher, but he also used writing to disseminate his ideas. His pamphlets were distributed all over Germany and the rest of Europe. It might be said that without the invention of the printing press and its use by the friends of Luther, the reformation might never have happened. This should be a real encouragement to any of you who are choosing writing as a career.
E. A Humble, Careful and Disciplined Writer - Luke was a writer. We have already mentioned his humility. The introduction to his book announced his carefulness in gathering information and arranging it in an orderly fashion. He was a good historian, carefully gathering the facts. He was also disciplined in his writing. Of all the gospel writers, scholars agree that Luke’s use of the Greek language is the most artful.
F. A True Friend - Finally, in answering the question, who was Luke, we must mention that he was a true friend. We have already said that he was Paul’s companion for much of his life of travel. However, the extent of the friendship is conveyed in one particular verse of Scripture, II Timothy 4:11. Paul is speaking of all the people who had forsaken him while he is in prison. Then he says, “Only Luke is with me.” Luke was a friend to the very end of Paul’s life, and although we don’t know for sure, tradition tells us that after Paul was martyred, Luke continued to serve the Lord until his death in Boeotia, Greece at the ripe old age of 84 years." |
http://ministryblue.com/questions/BibleBits.html#42. the web page i got this from ->. | Quote: | "Mark the writer of the gospel was also called John Mark. Below are some New
Testament references in which he occurs.
"Then Peter went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was
Mark. Many of the Lord's followers had come together there and were praying."
Acts 12:12. When Peter escaped from jail.
"And after Barnabas and Saul had done the work they were sent to do, they went back to Jerusalem with John, whose other name was Mark." Acts 12:25
"They arrived at Salamis and began to preach God's message in the Jewish meeting places. They also had John as a helper." Acts 13:5
"Paul and the others left Paphos and sailed to Perga in Pamphylia. But John left them and went back to Jerusalem." Acts 13:13
"Sometime later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let's go back and visit the Lord's followers in all the cities where we preached his message. Then we will know how they are doing. Barnabas wanted to take along John, whose other name was Mark. 38But Paul did not want to, because Mark had left them in Pamphylia and had stopped working with them. Paul and Barnabas argued, then each of them went his own way. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus," Acts 15:36-39
"Epaphras is also here in jail for being a follower of Christ Jesus. He sends his greetings, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, who work together with me."
Philemon 23-24
"Only Luke has stayed with me. Mark can be very helpful to me, so please find him and bring him with you." 2 Timothy 4:11
"Greetings from the Lord's followers in Babylon. They are God's chosen ones. Mark, who is like a son to me, sends his greetings too." 1 Peter 5:13
"Aristarchus is in jail with me. He sends greetings to you, and so does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. You have already been told to welcome Mark, if he visits you."
Colossians 4:10
Mark has been associated with Peter the Apostle and many believe that the gospel of Mark is an outline of the message of Peter. |
so the gospels or good news of mark and luke are both second hand accounts and should be taken as such there could be mistakes in there account but this is unknown if there are any but rember what is written abou the holy spirit it shall bring to back all things to your memory. so mark and luke may have wrote word for word what was told to them with out missing one thing. but it goes to show you they dont teach you eveything in church.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7003
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is what you failed to establish on your posts regarding Luke and Mark.
Mark wrote his Gospel on behalf of Peter - who dictated it to him. Consequently, while the Gospel of Mark is technically a second-hand account, it is in actuality a transcribed dictation of events. Much like a court reporters record of court preceedings is a second-hand account of what happened in the courtroom. Does this speak to or against its dependability? I'd say that scribing the dictated accounts of an eyewitness proves to establish it as a dependable account.
As for Luke, the physician and excellent historian. His Gospel is the result of interviews of those who were in attendance, and the transcription of their dictated accounts. Luke's gospel is the most reliable account historically and archeologically, which in my opinion speaks well for its dependability.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silver Surfer
Emperor of the World
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 3255
Location: Hayden, Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| revmattchoo.com wrote: | couldn't matthew have been writing about an earlier time at the cross than luke? here's the explanation:
at first, both criminals hurl insults at Jesus. then one of them comes to his senses and realizes who Christ is and then changes his attitude. |
You are correct, that is exactlly what happened.
_________________
Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raoooul
Kitten
Joined: 10 Jul 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2004 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: to let you know |
|
|
| seeking_'el_and_joshua wrote: | | here is something that you may not know mark and luke were not eye wittnesses of the Christ they got there storys from others people and put it down on paper so that it was not lost. mark and luke where both gentiles and all the deciples where jewish so mark and luke wrote what they knew from what they where told. |
Of which they did not do a great job of. So, do you then dismiss these two gospels as worthless ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
