Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church?
Source:
creation.com
URL Source: http://creation.com/my-pastor-doesnt-believe-in-genesis
Published: Nov 15, 2014
Author: creation.com
Post Date: 2014-11-15 19:23:45 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 86061
Comments: 223
My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church? Published: 15 November 2014 (GMT+10) We received the following question from a supporter in Australia who was surprised to discover the pastors of his church did not believe Genesis. Tas Walker talks about some of the issues that need to be considered. "Hi guys, I love your work, and have subscribed to the magazine and am continually encouraged by what you guys publish". "I have a question. I’m at a church which I’ve attended for the last 12 years (I’m now 30). I’ve since realized that none of the 3 pastors take a straightforward reading of Genesis, and at least 2 of the 3 (haven’t yet checked the 3rd) don’t even believe the Flood was global. I was wondering if you had some advice on what I should do about this. I have 2 kids and 1 on the way and I want them growing up in a biblically sound church. Apart from Genesis our church is excellent. Do you think leaving the church is too drastic? Love to get your feedback, thanks heaps"! Tas Walker replies: Thank you for your question about being part of a church where the pastors do not accept Genesis as written. Unfortunately that is more common these days than it should be. The decision as to which church you and your family should belong to depends on many different factors. Here are some issues for you to think and pray about. There is no such thing as a perfect church. In some areas the church may be really good for you but in others it may be totally unhelpful. So you have to balance a lot of factors in your life. There are usually good reasons in your life why you belong to the church you do, but churches change with time. E.g. sometimes the youth ministry is strong and other times it struggles. Your pastoral team will change and that will bring a different dynamic. So, perhaps by waiting you may see things improve. Church is not just about what you can get out of it, but it is a place where you can minister to others with your gifts. Your passion and experience with creation may be one area where you can be a blessing to others. In every church you will have to stand for and speak out the truth, and this can apply to many different issues. In this particular church the issue that you need to bring to others is the truth and foundation of Genesis. But speak the truth in love, with tact and in a winsome way. Look at this as an opportunity to share some wonderful truth that otherwise would not be shared. Rather than pushing creation in six days on people as if it is your hobby horse, use it to meet their needs as you become aware of them. Thus, you can present the truth to people along the following lines: “You may find this will help resolve some of your doubts and give you a firm foundation as you follow Christ.” I always take back issues of Creation magazine to church, as well as brochures and DVDs, which I freely give to people as the need arises. Speak the truth in love, with tact and in a winsome way. You may be influential in the thinking and life of your pastors. It’s important to love them and support them. Don’t be divisive or argumentative. Don’t be a one-issue person but show that you are interested in the wider ministry of the church and that your passion is to serve Jesus Christ and to help others come to Him and grow in Him. Here are two examples of how a person in the pews was pivotal in helping their minister come to the truth of Genesis: A young man in a church lent a book to his minister who was big enough to read the book and research the issue and who changed his mind (see Esa Hukkinen interview). This pastor, Owen Butt, believed Genesis was myth but changed his mind after attending a creation meeting, and that changed his whole approach to ministry. What this article does not say is that it was one of his congregation who fed him information and invited him to the creation meeting, where his whole way of thinking was changed (See Catching the vision). Make sure that your family is properly instructed in the truth of Genesis and creation by providing books, DVDs and other resources for them. Talk about the question and issues as they arise. However, note that it is really important to always speak in a positive way about your pastors and your church, especially with your children. If there is a critical spirit and an undermining of your pastors and your church in your home, that will poison things for your children. If the situation becomes very difficult for you, with say the pastors instructing you not to talk about the issue you may need to think about moving. In the same way, you could not accept a ministry offer from the pastors if they included a condition that you could not talk about creation in that ministry or in the church. So if there is a hardening and aggressiveness develops toward your position, say from the pulpit, you may need to think about moving. In our life’s entire journey it is important to seek the Lord and His will for our lives. “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” James 1:5 God bless, Tas Walker
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-39) not displayed.
.
.
.
#40. To: SOSO (#36)
Tangible proof that God exists and who he is exists. That is a very different question than why he does what he does. WHO, and WHETHER, yes, God reveals that. WHY? That's a question whose only answer is: because he wants to. The tangible proof of God exists: God left specific concrete miracles, things that defy the regular laws of nature, as tangible evidence THAT he is. And the content of those miracles shows us WHO he is (and who he isn't). Nothing answers WHY, and he didn't reveal that. Now, when it comes to the tangible proofs of God, this is a science question. Trying to discuss it, in my experience, always turns into a ridiculous scrum of irrational and unscientific conclusions, for obvious reasons: once the proof is admitted, then one finds one's self forced onto a path of further inquiry and admission that limits ones rational freedom of choice. And people don't like that. They resist it for the same reason that smokers have always resisted the idea that it's bad for their health to smoke. Certainly if we want to go the route of Thomas and have the tangible proof, THAT we can have and do have, in spades. But just because we have it doesn't mean that men who don't want there to be such proof will accept it. The proof is not in the form of written words. Words are wind. Rather, the written words give us the backstory of the proofs. The proofs are tangible artifacts left by God. The written words give context to the artifacts, and the artifacts vouch for the written words. In tandem, they give us the skein of proof, history and law. What we choose to do with it then is up to us. Men who don't want there to be a God, or a law, will cross their arms and claim there is no proof. Baghdad Bob said that the Americans weren't in Baghdad too. Denial of reality doesn't change the reality. You spoke of two different threads: What Genesis said, and Why God did all of that. But here, you broached the subject that really is a completely different subject for a thread: the tangible physical proof of God. That's not in Genesis at all. Genesis is words on a page. Actual Thomas-satisfying proof is physical stuff you can touch and examine under a microscope...and when you do, discover that it cannot be under the laws of physics, but nevertheless IS. THAT is proof. Thomas didn't say "I won't believe unless I see", and then, when shown by Christ, say "I still don't believe. You could be a ghost or I might be crazy or hallucinating." The Pharisees were the ones doing that. They saw Jesus heal paralytics and couldn't deny it, so they said "He did it with the power of Satan". The price of accepting the evidence would have meant the overthrow of their religion and the acceptance of a new one, and many men would rather die than do that.
Why do you like girls?
Hey just checked. I have 2 Bozos and rarely posted here in the past. Can you beat that:)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
And this, ultimately is the question - not just for you but for every man who enters into such a discussion: are you really looking for answers - do you really want to know if there is tangible proof of God, and if it is said that there is, are you ready to look at the proffer scientifically with an unbiased mind? If so, you can learn much. Or are you a man who has in fact really already made up his mind, are certain that there's no such proof, that such proof cannot really exist, that anything shown as proof can and surely will be exploded by simply applying reason to it? Are you already certain that no satisfactory answers to your questions exist, or ever will exist? In other words, are your questions real questions that are truly searching for something, or are they rhetorical, leading questions whose answers you are already sure you know? The answer to these questions of intent determine whether any conversation is worthwhile. This question is important from the perspective of someone like me, who might or might not be willing to expend the effort to try to answer the questions. I am happy to bring my proofs to a real court, but it's a waste of time, worse than useless, to bring them before a kangaroo court. I've been before many kangaroo courts, and usually see them constituted. And the men who sit on them who sit in pre-judgment of all that would be brought before them are dull and foolish and not worth my time. Men with open minds who believe that maybe the questions CAN be answered, at least somewhat, and who are willing to find out: they are worth the time. Me, personally, I had to start with the tangible proofs of God. Without the proofs, without the knowledge certain THAT God is, I could see no point in investing the time necessary to really try to understand what he had to say or wanted of me. I am a man, and I give other men the courtesy of believing them to be exactly like me: wanting proof. I also give them the courtesy of believing them to be like me in being honest, at least with themselves, and earnestly seeking proof. I believe that any honest, intelligent, scientifically-educated man who studies the tangible proofs God left us will come face to face with the reality of the existence of God. And that changes the nature of scientific inquiry, because it removes many question marks. It makes new questions important, such as: Ok, God IS, but WHO is he? And what does he WANT of me (if anything). The tangible artifacts answer the first question completely. But then the trail goes cold. Then you have only two choices: God tells you directly, or you have to read accounts of other people telling you what God said to them. In the latter case, you have to compare what other men claim God said to them to the physical artifacts. If the claims of men contradict the physical proofs, then you have a choice to make: reject the physical proof that your own eyes can see, or reject the claims of men that contradict them. Me? I follow the second course. Then, if one has found a set of words that one believes contains words from God, one has to read and parse those words carefully, to see what they say and who they claim said what. It's worth the effort if God is, and if God spoke that way. It's an utter waste of time if God isn't. "Just believe that God is and go straight to the text" is an approach that works for some. Some of them are Christians. Some are Jews. Some are Muslims. Some are Hindus. Some are Bhuddists. They all contradict and they all have their books of words in which they believe, without anchoring in tangible proof. But words are wind, and if they don't come from God, they come from man. So I myself, personally, have to start with the tangible proof. Of course, I DIDN'T start with the tangible proof. In point of fact, my starting position was that no such tangible proof could possibly exist. I wasn't a skeptic, I was a cynic. So where I actually started was with revelation: God grabbed my face and threw me around and spoke to me. And showed me things. And visited often. And so did demons. I saw the Dove. I saw the City. I was plunged into the black Abyss. I found these experiences impressive, so I looked for tangible proofs to corroborate that I was in fact speaking with spirits and not just bat-shit crazy. There is a lot of tangible proof left by God, all of it quite astounding and quite impossible. So, God is. All of the tangible proof is Christian in nature. The informational content of the objects and artifacts are miraculous, and they present some Christian fact or simply are of Christians. If there were any counterexamples from any OTHER religion, there would be a competition of ideas, but there aren't. Every miraculous, science-defying artifact is Christian in content - every single one. I've identified about six dozen of them. The other religions have no entries in the game. So, personal revelation is corroborated by miracle, and all of the miracles - all of the cornucopia of artifacts left by God - are Christian in nature. Therefore God is the God of Christ, and all of the other religions are false or incomplete. Therefore there's no point in studying anything but Christianity. But there are 6000 squabbling, irritable Christianities, so maybe the answer is not to study Christianity, but to keep eyes focused on God. Ok, so, the artifacts are Christian miracles from God - where in Christianity does God speak directly? In written Scripture, and in some claimed revelations of saints. Since I've spoken to God, and what God and I spoke of is not Scripture, I know that God certainly DOES speak to people and perform miracles today, and did not stop doing so in the First Century. There's a made up tradition that says the opposite, but words are wind. I've experienced miracles, so arguments that God doesn't do that sort of thing anymore are lies. They're not just errors, because there was no basis for making the error: they are positively asserted lies by men seeking to privilege their particular power, gained by their learning. It would be great for them if God were so easily contained. But he isn't, and he said not to lie, so actually they're in duck soup and considerable danger, because of their own stubborn and foolish insistence on the authority of stories they made up out of wholecloth. Now then, proceeding on, God didn't say much to me, really. Lot's of repetition about specific points. The content of the artifacts says that God is, and Christ is divine. So what can we do? Well, we can look at the words of men who claim God spoke to them - both in the claims of saints since the First Century, and in the canonized claims of those from the First Century and before. And there, we can find a set of words, attributed to God directly, about 8% of Scripture and a few more sentences from claims of saints, embedded in a whole lot more verbiage that may or may not be true. The artifacts vouch for the God speaking in Scripture, so you look at what HE said DIRECTLY, first. Then you compare THOSE words to the rest of the words, and you find conflicts. You don't find conflict between God and himself, but there IS conflict between what God said directly, and what men said ABOUT God, both in Scripture and without. And then you have to make a choice. Well, me? I know God is, because I've spoken to him. And I know there's a Devil too - I've seen a demon. I know who God is from the artifacts. And I know what God said directly because it's recorded. So, THAT'S reliable. And then there's the rest of it. Where is agrees, that's good. Where it conflicts, well, there's a choice to be made, and 100% of the time I go with what God said directly, and I disregard or diminish in importance what some other man wrote that contradicts what God said directly out of his own mouth. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God." - Jesus, speaking to Satan. Seems pretty obvious, when you look at it all as a whole. So, if I've got God saying that he sends good and evil, but I've got some Psalmist saying that God is only good and never does evil, well, the Psalmist is wrong. All Scripture may be God breathed, but it's not all of equal authority. And it's only the fact of the reality of God that gives Scripture authority in the first place. The lack of concrete tangible evidence for the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita leave them unsubstantiated, but when contrasted with the presence of such concrete tangible evidence for the Christian Gospel only, the relative presence and lack of evidence proves the truth of the Christian Gospel and the falsity of the rest. That's how it all hangs together. We can talk about each piece, or not. It depends entirely on the mental attitude of the ones who wish to speak. If there is real interest and an open mind, then good. But if the interlocutor has a closed mind, Jesus said not to cast pearls before swine.
Nobody has bozoed me yet. I hope none do.
I may be fooling myself but I believe that this is what I have been doing since I started religous instruction when I was about six years old or so. But when I was a child a spoke as one.....yadadayadadayada....you know the rest of the line. "Seems pretty obvious, when you look at it all as a whole." And that is exactly the place to whence I came well over 50 years ago. And I have tested that position over and over and over again with each input of new data or observation or instruction or experience and continue to come to the same point. That is why I still have an unabiding belief in God and not so much for any church or those men that claim to know His mind or speak for Him.
LOL I give it a week:)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
LMAO. It must be the Jesuit in you. I don't have any yet. It must be my charming personality. BTW, can you help witless TC to unbunch his panties? Perhaps that will get you off the bozo list.
Well I've been cataloging terrorist Jihadi cells for well over 10 years now. After a few weeks you learn certain inflections and diction and can pin who it is. For you it was too easy. Almost like you wanted to be caught:) Almost as easy as unveiling the difference between a Sadrist cell and Iranian Kuds attack.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Are you calling me a Jihadist? Damn you:
And that is exactly the place to whence I came well over 50 years ago. And I have tested that position over and over and over again with each input of new data or observation or instruction or experience and continue to come to the same point. That is why I still have an unabiding belief in God and not so much for any church or those men that claim to know His mind or speak for Him. Well, then, good! That moves all the freight, and we can come down to the brass tacks. We both know God is. We both know that the Father is God of all, and that Jesus is divine. We both know that Jesus told us that we have to follow him to be acceptable to the Father, and that to follow him we have to do what he said. So, what did he say? Well, we know that there's a cut, a judgment, and that some pass it and enter into the City of God, and others are left outside and/or thrown into the Lake of Fire. We know that within the City there will be different distinctions, greater or lesser, based on what each person did or didn't do in life. Everybody who passes judgment gets a room, but everybody doesn't get a throne and a crown. In this sense it's sort of like high school: those who graduate are going to go on to other things. The ones who did best will have the best colleges and jobs. The ones who did less well will have correspondingly dimmer prospects, but still be better off than the guy dying of malaria in a swamp in Bangladesh. So, the first big cut, the dividing line, is what will cause you to fail judgment and be thrown into the fire. Jesus gave a handy list, twice repeated on the last two pages of the Bible: If you've killed people, committed adultery, or sexual immorality, or been abominable (which includes some other forms of sexual immorality), or been a liar, or an idolator, or a drug trafficker, or a coward, you're not going to pass judgement and are going to be thrown into the lake of fire UNLESS you're forgiven. And what must you do to be forgiven? Well, some Christians say "Believe in Christ", but Christ said "What good does it do you to say you believe in me if you don't do as I say?" In other words, believing that Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient to be forgiven your sins. Who says? Christ says. Some men say otherwise. They're wrong. Once they've been show what Christ said, as here, if they persist anyway, they're peddling lies. But what, then, did Christ say you have to do if you've committed any of those sins, to be forgiven them? He gave only one way: you have to forgive the sins and offenses that other men have done to you. That's it. That's all. Nothing more is required, but nothing less will do either. Christ said that if you forgive men their sins against you, God will forgive your sins against him, but that if you don't forgiven other men, then neither will God forgive you. That's what Christ said, and he was the Son of God and the one who has to be followed, so whoever disagrees is wrong and should be silent and change himself to follow Christ. And that is the whole religion, really. That is ultimately what you have to do to pass judgment. Beyond that, to enjoy high status in the City of God, well, for that you have to be an exemplar of Christ's virtues. I think it's important to start with the most basic of basics: be baptized, eat bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus, don't commit any of those deadly sins, and if you have, then repent, ask forgiveness, and forgive other men all of their sins against you. That's the whole thing. The rest is detail and opinion. Not much to it, when you get right down to it.
But what, then, did Christ say you have to do if you've committed any of those sins, to be forgiven them? He gave only one way: you have to forgive the sins and offenses that other men have done to you. That's it. That's all. Nothing more is required, but nothing less will do either. Christ said that if you forgive men their sins against you, God will forgive your sins against him, but that if you don't forgiven other men, then neither will God forgive you. That's the whole thing. The rest is detail and opinion. Not much to it, when you get right down to it. Ah, but we both know that the devil is in the details.....don't we. Wouldest your description of redemption be that simple. Perhaps God knows that it is and looks crossed eyed on those that don't see it that way. Man, through organized religions, has sure distorted things. I like your posit. It is clean. It is simple. It explodes the need for a Church and scores of versions of the Bible that each claim supremacy. BTW, you left out a very important first step, namely faith and how one comes to it.
How very well said. Liberals want catch and release hunting, liberals look in the air when they hear "look a dead bird".
Good news, Bob. Been praying for you, brutha.
We are all given a measure of faith. We can squander it or let it grow.
I think more technically correct is that we are all offered a sufficent measure of faith. Some accept it, some do not. And those that do accept it have the free will to squander it. Fortunately for all of us it is a renewable resource:)
Did He need someone to love? Did He need someone to love Him? Did He need the physical Universe to play in? Or for His children to play in? Does God need anything? Again, as a mere mortal, how can THE Plan of the Infinite Almighty God be analyzed for motivation? By mortal standards of reason and rationale no less. We DO know the following: GOD IS LOVE. GOD IS JUST. And GOD HAS A PLAN. The Lord Has given man an inate Free Will with which to seek out and draw closer to Him, stand pat, or fold and completely reject Him. Are you in?
Bingo. All of my questions are about mortal attributes. If God in fact does need anything then He wouldn't be God, would He? And yes, free will is a bitch.
Yes. You've walked into THE Paradox. I realize your questions are more rhetorical in nature, but some folks still somehow expect ANY of your questions about The Almighty's nature to be answered with surety. Free will is a bitch. Can be, can't it? Could also be a blessing. "To be or not to be...."
More like embraced it with eyes wide open.
God does not need love from his creation, but I'm sure that it's something He deeply desires.
Hmmmmmmm.... A God that has no needs but does have desires. Need to ponder this one.
Yup, I agree. As does Red. He had hardwired us to love from birth. The love He demonstrates thru us here amongst us and through good people is just a taste of the love received while spending Eternity with Him. That love will be immeasurable in His Kingdom.
What does that mean? One foot in, one out?
BTW, you left out a very important first step, namely faith and how one comes to it. "Faith" can mean two things: TRUST in God, or mere BELIEF in God. I went on and on about how one can come to strong BELIEF that God exists: through the physical, examinable artifacts, the concrete miracles left to that purpose. Trust is an entirely different thing, though. After all, the Devil and all the demons KNOW God EXISTS, but they don't obey him. Men certainly can know that God exists. I do in two ways: I've spoken with him, seen angels and demons and places and experienced dramatic physical miracles. There is no question in my mind that God exists. If there WERE a question in my mind, then it would be like questioning whether water exists, or gravity, or daylight. Direct experience is knowledge certain. For the benefit of those who have not seen, touched and heard, I've gone and compiled the list of miracles that God left that can be forensically examined and seen to be physics-breakers. They're all clearly miraculous, and they're all Christian. So, with a basic scientific education and the time and inclination to study, anybody who has not seen God directly can have the proof of God's EXISTENCE right before his eyes. And not just his EXISTENCE, but his identity. But that's as far as that goes. What God WANTS of you, well, unless he tells you directly and unmistakeably, that knowledge can only come through a combination of conscience, which is God's breath within, and learning. Learning WHAT? Well, the only place one CAN look to see what the Christian God directly said is the Scriptures, so you have to look at THAT. And then it's important to look at what GOD HIMSELF said, directly, in the Bible. About 8% of the words in the Scriptures are directly spoken by God, and THOSE words are quite consistent through the text. So, that's how you can know what God wants. That's where my "short list" was drawn. But even if you know God is, know WHO God is, and know what God wants, you still have to trust that if you limit yourself in the important ways that God said, that you will reap the rewards he promises after death. That is faith: not belief, but trust.
One foot in, one out? I don't understand what you are asking. Do I believe in God? Yes. Do I believe that mortal man can know the Mind of God? No, not unless God directly allows him to, which I don't think has happened yet other than with respect to Christ's human nature.
I have maintained that the nature of Man's original sin was not disobiebence but a lack of trust in God. "Well, the only place one CAN look to see what the Christian God directly said is the Scriptures, so you have to look at THAT." Which translation of which version of which interpretation of which translation is the one true Scripture?
God in the Bible said he would translate his word to all tongues. What was the first English version and can you find any contradictions in it? It was the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible I believe. I haven't compared them word for word. But those two and the King James seem to tell the same story. In my opinion from what I have read I do not like the NIV. It is the same as the Jehovas Witness "Bible" in many regards.
Then why are the some many disagreements on what God said to man? Take transubstantiation, the staus of Mary, the status of saints, to name just a few.
You will have to be more specific for me to understand you better. If you are talking about different Bibles. I would think that some people deliberately try to deceive and some people are trying to translate it again because for some reason or another. They may get some parts right and some wrong. That is the way that I see it. Maybe not the best explanatin as I am not a scholar on the subject. I just have my belifs based what I have read and witnessed in life. I try to be honest with myself and others in the search for what is true and false. I surely get it wrong sometimes but I do seek the truth.
If you are talking about different Bibles. I would think that some people deliberately try to deceive and some people are trying to translate it again because for some reason or another. They may get some parts right and some wrong. Yes. I am referring to the myriad of differences of presumably the same version of the Bible just from the act of translating it from one language to another. I am also referring to the differences in versions that simply lead to disagremment on the nature of the eucarist, for example. "They may get some parts right and some wrong." And therein lies the nature of my question, who got it right? This certainly fuels the fire, the temptation, to say that they are all full of it. And certainly to suspicion of the guy that tries to sell you that his version is the one and only true Word of God. Consequently, in put little reliance on Scripture in bringing me to and keeping my relationsip with God. But that's just me.
Logic would seem to dictate to go with the first one in your language. Then test it. Does it contradict itself? If you think it contradicts itself study further and make sure you haven't missed something. I can find things that seem to me to be contradictions to me in the NIV. So I don't trust it. People have told me they have seen contradictions in the King James version. Sometimes people say there are. But I haven't seen anything myself. I know the King James version isn't the fist one. I trust it too though. The verses that I have randomly chose to look at and compare. If I recall sometimes were word for word. Or very as to not change the meaning in my mind. Some verses in other later Bibles seem to say something entirely different sometimes. Or at least miss something or even add stuff as I recall. I don't want to come across as some kind of expert. Because i'm not. But that is what popped out of my mind in response to your question.
And yes, free will is a bitch. God is sovereign. That is what many forget. One only needs to look from Genesis to Revelation. God is sovereign let that sink in for all of us. There is no 'cooperating' with God's Sovereign Grace. It is either trust/faith in Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God, or rejection the this same Gospel. In both cases God is Sovereign. He told that to Abraham, Moses, many prophets in the OT and His Sovereignty is proclaimed in the NT. The Holy Spirit moves people to the Truth as we see in the parable of the soils and as we see in Jesus' discourse to Nicodemus in John 3. At that point once presented the Gospel (the seed is planted) it either falls on a heart of good soil or bad soil. In all cases God is Sovereign. As recorded in Acts of the Apostles: Acts 18: When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. 6 But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” 7 And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. 9 Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city.” 11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. And here we see God's Sovereignty again: Ezekiel 36: 22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
We were created to Glorify God. God provided a plan of redemption and salvation no only to bring us back to Him, but more importantly to Glorify Him. John 14:13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Loads more here: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Indeed. Again, by God's Sovereignty we have the below a promise fulfilled and still going on today through the Power of the Holy Spirit: Acts 2: 2 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?” 13 Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.” But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
I was not describing "redemption". Who had to be "redeemed"? Go look at what God actually said. The Israelites - who were later reduced down to just the Jews - had to redeem the firstborn of their children and unclean animals by paying money. The redemption was from offering them to God. From the first Passover onward, God demanded that the firstborn of ISRAEL be offered to God. Redemption meant that the sons of man and of unclean animals like asses could be paid for and not offered. The first born of clean animals had to be offered to God, and that meant by slaughter and fire on the altar. But that was for JEWS. Nowhere did God ever say that the firstborn of all mankind or all animalkind, have to be "redeemed". Redemption has a logic of its own within the Jewish matrix. It never applied to Gentiles. Of course Jesus was speaking to Jews - to Peter, James, John, the 12, the 72, the women - all Jews. And given all of the Torah law and all of the traditions and ritual meanings, the Jews had to understand what Jesus was doing in terms of God's covenant with them. But I'm a Gentile. So are you, probably. God's deal with Gentiles was different from the time of Abraham forward. All of mankind was given a simple law from the time of Noah: don't shed human blood, and if you do, you must repay it blood for blood, don't eat living flesh ("flesh with the lifeblood in it), and don't commit adultery. Those are the only laws of God that are clearly revealed in Genesis, before Abraham. Those are the laws for mankind. There are three of them. Three. That's all. It was Jesus who picked back up the story of law for mankind in general, fleshing it out. The rest of Scripture, from Babel until Bethlehem, is only about the specific relationship of God and two particular people: the descendants of Abraham (from the covenant with Abraham), and then the Hebrews/Israelites (later: Jews) (from the covenant with Moses). And what was the covenant with Abraham? Circumcise yourself, and if your lineal heirs of the body continue to circumcise themselves through the ages, then your heirs will occupy a specific land. That's it. That's the "Law of Abraham", the whole thing. If you're not in lineal descent from Abraham, it doesn't apply to you. If you ARE in lineal descent from Abraham and you're an uncircumcised male, then it doesn't apply to you either. If your a circumcised male descendant of Abraham, then God has promised you the Levantine shore of the Middle East. God fulfilled that covenant. Look at the Levant. Who is there? Jews and Arabs, both circumcised, both descended from Abraham. Then was the Mosaic Covenant. It was here that God gave the rules of animal sacrifice and redemption - FOR ISRAELITES. And what was the covenant, exactly? It was: do all of these things, and - if you're a circumcised descendant of Abraham - you will be prosperous and safe on your own farm in Israel. That's it. That's all. God's covenant with the Hebrews did not speak of eternal life, or redemption from personal sin so that one could go to heaven and have life eternal. There were cleanliness laws, but they pertained to being able to participate in the Temple sacrifices, and nothing more. It was Jesus who brought the message of life after death, final judgment and eternal life. What God had revealed up to that point did not make any of that very clear. That's why the Sadduccees, the hereditary priestly class of Israel, missed it completely. There are hints and there is foreshadowing in the revelation to the Hebrews, but the future of human beings after death is not made plain until Jesus makes it so. When Jesus did that, he did it for the whole world, but his live audience was Jews, and the Apostles were all Jews. Jews had additional things to work out, given the extensive nature of revealed law and ritual that had been given specifically to them. Gentiles never were under the Jewish law in the first place. So, for GENTILES, like me, "redemption" is simple. I'm a first born Gentile son, not a Hebrew. Before Jesus came, the law for me was: don't shed human blood, don't eat living flesh and don't commit adultery. I was not a firstborn of Israel, so there was no redemption tax to be paid for me to the Temple. I didn't have to redeem. The animal sacrifices of Israel did not remove the sins of the people to give them everlasting life. They atoned for sin to remove the condemnation for breaking the Mosaic covenant. And recall well the promise of the Mosaic covenant was a farm, on earth, in Israel, for Israelites, and security and prosperity while alive, on that farm. The Mosaic covenant never had anything to do with life after death for Gentiles or for Jews either. That is why fulfilling the Mosaic rituals is so UTTERLY IRRELEVANT for Gentiles, and Jews too. Once Jesus pronounced the doom on the Temple and God tore down the only altar by Roman hands, and then killed and scattered the priesthood, it isn't possible to carry out the terms of the Mosaic covenant even were one to want to, and it wouldn't do any good for anybody other than circumcised lineal descendants of the Hebrews, and the only good it would do them would be to secure them a farm in Israel. In other words, the Old Testament is about a land claim. The only life after death concerning laws for Gentiles in it are: don't shed human blood, don't eat living flesh, and don't commit adultery. It was Jesus, and only Jesus, who brought a new covenant to the world. He didn't bring it to Israel, and it is not an extension of the Mosaic covenant to the world. To wit: Jesus never promised either Gentile or Jew a farm in Israel. What Jesus promised was life after death and eternal life with God, for individuals only (tribe doesn't count for this). And he gave the whole law. So, now Gentiles and Jews mustn't: Shed human blood, especially murder. Commit adultery or other sexual immorality. Lie. Serve idols. Practice pharmakeia. Be cowards. They must love their neighbor as themselves, and love God above all. If they have sinned, to be forgiven they must forgive. And ritualistically they must get themselves baptized and eat the bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus. Both of these things are "just becauses". They're not burdensome, but Jesus said they were necessary, so they are. And that's it. So much, so very much, of the rest of the New Testament is Paul and James and other Jews grappling with how to make the detailed Mosaic covenant they so loved square with the new covenant of Jesus. They really agonized about it, because traditions were so important to them, and they found all sorts of poetic and interesting reflections. But Gentiles have to keep their head. Gentiles don't have to be redeemed, because they were never under the first-born rule in the first place. What Gentiles have to do is follow the simple but rather demanding law, forgive to be forgiven, do the few required rituals, and trust God to carry through on his promises. That's it. There's no promise of a farm, like with the Covenant of Moses. In fact, there's a promise of adversity, in this life. The promised "mansion" comes later, after death. When you stick with God said and just read it, it is pretty straightforward. If as a Gentile you try to turn yourself into a Jew and make the mistake of thinking that the Jewish sacrifices and laws were part of a promise of eternal life, well, they're not, and they never say they are. It isn't that Jesus has come and we're no longer under that law. We weren't under it before either. Jesus has come, so we're under a law if we want to live forever. Jews too. It's the Jews who were released from those laws, by words, and by deeds: God tore down the Temple and wrecked the lineal priesthood, making it impossible to actually carry out the Mosaic covenant anyway. That's really the truth. But it leaves a lot of the Jewish-focused parts of the Bible beside the point. The Gentile message is simpler, because God never made a Constitution for the Gentiles. He actually RULED Israel, so for Israel, only, he had to make laws governing all things. For everybody else, and even Jews in this day and age, there's less law, but a greater reward. The City of God and "the life of eons" is a greater prize than a farm in the Middle East.
Gary gave a good laydown of this on LP many moons ago. Perhaps if he has time he can lay out for us the number of manuscripts circulating over the past 1900 years, location and other details. I know Vic and TC did some research on this waaay back as well. I pinged them. LOL, Vic had a great thread he responded to when an atheist screed was posted. He basically argued using the author's standard of manuscript evidence would 'prove' Julius Caesar never wrote anything and may not have existed:) AKA, Gary also opined on the JW Bible the NWT as well. SOSO has a proclivity to drop these "translation/transposing" bombs now and then as he did on LP.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
That's an easy one. There are those who take the Scriptures for what they say; and there are those who wrest Scriptures to support what they want it to say. Pretty easy. And one only needs to look at the consistency of God's Revelation to mankind from Genesis to Revelation to see that.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Just go to FR. There is a eucharist battle over there every day. A very unproductive one at it. You will get your fill there.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
A translation is but an echo. The Hebrew Dead Sea Scroll texts in Ivrit characters are the Hebrew Scriptures. To the extent that the texts are missing, then a comparison of the Hebrew Leningrad Codex with the Koine Greek Codex Vaticanus gives the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. A comparison of the Patriarchal Text and the Codex Vaticanus gives the best New Testament text. The one is in ancient Hebrew. The other is in Koine Greek. The best translation of both is the Vulgate Latin, because Jerome had access to massive amounts of ancient manuscript material lost to time, because the Church was not then divided in the way it has become since, because he was a genius, because Latin and Greek were both languages of the same milieu in the same culture, and because Jerome lived in the same Roman Empire as Jesus and the Jews had, with the same laws and cultural references and contexts, and he spoke Greek and Latin as a fluent native speaker. So, he had manuscripts, and he was a native speaker of the Greek he was translating. He compared the Hebrew and the Greek and found the Hebrew HE was looking at to be more persuasive than the Greek. Latin is even closer to us than Greek or Hebrew, but it's still a translation. Truth be told, there are only about 20 words in Scripture upon whose definitions everything turns. If one translates those words wrong, if one mangles the concept being conveyed, then one will come to a decidedly different place from what was actually expressed. Most English translations are reasonably good, if those key words are properly understood. When those words are misunderstood, then wildly different theologies emerge. And the words that matter most are the 8% or so in there directly spoken by God himself, for "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God." The words that proceeded forth out of the mouth of God are not many, but they give all the law, and they are the ones you absolutely have to focus on, or you can end up anywhere. What God said in Scripture doesn't conflict, but what men say ABOUT what God said in Scripture often conflicts. Those conflicts are not resolvable by pitting men against men, but they ARE resolvable by going to the words that proceeded forth directly out of the mouth of God. God said altogether less to men than men said ABOUT God to each other. The stuff men said ABOUT God is inspiring and inspired, but it's not LAW. What God said directly: that (and only that) is law. That is where your Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English studies need to focus, and most specifically on those 20 words. Understand what "life" IS, and you understand what is at stake throughout. Miss that, and you're flailing around trying to figure out how all of those various purity laws of the Jews, so important for their society as God constituted it, apply to you and me...and unfortunately you've only God Jews like Paul and John and James and Peter to guide you on those matters, and they focus on them in ways that resolve problems within Judaism that Gentiles don't have in the first place. The purpose should never be to find ways to quibble with fellow Christians, but rather, to discern just what precisely God said. And then do THAT.
Who got it right? Well Jesus Christ did of course! Luke 24: 25 Then He said to them,“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. ................ 44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. 46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” Then this as well with the Apostle Paul summarizing the importance of focusing on the Gospel of Jesus Christ: 1 Corinthians 15: 15 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. 12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Comments (81 - 223) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestEven Thomas needed tangible proof. Am I less than Thomas in that regard?
#41. To: SOSO (#39)
On this I totally agree. But its human nature to inquire, to want to know why. And isn't God that bestowed that nature upon us? At times it seems that He has a cruel sense of humor.
#42. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#41)
#43. To: SOSO (#39)
#44. To: redleghunter (#42)
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
And this, ultimately is the question - not just for you but for every man who enters into such a discussion: are you really looking for answers - do you really want to know if there is tangible proof of God, and if it is said that there is, are you ready to look at the proffer scientifically with an unbiased mind?
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
Nobody has bozoed me yet. I hope none do.
#47. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#42)
Hey just checked. I have 2 Bozos and rarely posted here in the past. Can you beat that:)
#48. To: SOSO (#47)
#49. To: redleghunter (#48)
Well I've been cataloging terrorist Jihadi cells for well over 10 years now.
#50. To: SOSO (#45)
I may be fooling myself but I believe that this is what I have been doing since I started religous instruction when I was about six years old or so. But when I was a child a spoke as one.....yadadayadadayada....you know the rest of the line.
#51. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#50)
And what must you do to be forgiven? Well, some Christians say "Believe in Christ", but Christ said "What good does it do you to say you believe in me if you don't do as I say?" In other words, believing that Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient to be forgiven your sins. Who says? Christ says. Some men say otherwise. They're wrong. Once they've been show what Christ said, as here, if they persist anyway, they're peddling lies.
#52. To: CZ82 (#34)
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
#53. To: BobCeleste (#26)
#54. To: SOSO (#51)
BTW, you left out a very important first step, namely faith and how one comes to it.
#55. To: A K A Stone (#54)
We are all given a measure of faith. We can squander it or let it grow.
#56. To: SOSO, redleghunter, Bob Celeste, Don, GarySpFc (#29)
But that [God = Love] doesn't explain why He created Man.
#57. To: Liberator, redleghunter, Bob Celeste, Don, GarySpFc (#56)
Again, as a mere mortal, how can THE Plan of the Infinite Almighty God be analyzed for motivation? By mortal standards of reason and rationale no less.
#58. To: SOSO (#57)
Bingo. All of my questions are about mortal attributes. If God in fact does need anything then He wouldn't be God, would He?
#59. To: Liberator (#58)
Yes. You've walked into THE Paradox
#60. To: SOSO, Liberator (#57)
If God in fact does need anything then He wouldn't be God, would He?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state.
Paul Craig Roberts
They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#61. To: Deckard, Liberator (#60)
God does not need love from his creation, but I'm sure that it's something He deeply desires.
#62. To: Deckard, SOSO, redleghunter (#60)
God does not need love from his creation, but I'm sure that it's something He deeply desires.
#63. To: SOSO (#59)
More like embraced it [The Paradox] with eyes wide open.
#64. To: SOSO (#51)
Wouldest your description of redemption be that simple. Perhaps God knows that it is and looks crossed eyed on those that don't see it that way. Man, through organized religions, has sure distorted things. I like your posit. It is clean. It is simple. It explodes the need for a Church and scores of versions of the Bible that each claim supremacy.
#65. To: Liberator (#63)
What does that mean?
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#64)
Trust is an entirely different thing, though.
#67. To: SOSO (#66)
Which translation of which version of which interpretation of which translation is the one true Scripture?
#68. To: A K A Stone (#67)
What was the first English version and can you find any contradictions in it? It was the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible I believe. I haven't compared them word for word. But those two and the King James seem to tell the same story.
#69. To: SOSO (#68)
Then why are the some many disagreements on what God said to man? Take transubstantiation, the staus of Mary, the status of saints, to name just a few.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#69)
You will have to be more specific for me to understand you better.
#71. To: SOSO (#70)
And therein lies the nature of my question, who got it right?
#72. To: SOSO, Liberator, Bob Celeste, Don, GarySpFc, TooConservative (#57)
Bingo. All of my questions are about mortal attributes. If God in fact does need anything then He wouldn't be God, would He?
#73. To: Deckard, SOSO, TooConservative, Liberator, GarySpFc (#60)
God does not need love from his creation, but I'm sure that it's something He deeply desires.
#74. To: A K A Stone, Liberator, SOSO (#67)
God in the Bible said he would translate his word to all tongues.
#75. To: SOSO (#51)
Wouldest your description of redemption be that simple.
#76. To: A K A Stone, GarySpFc, TooConservative, SOSO, Liberator, Vicomte13 (#67)
What was the first English version and can you find any contradictions in it? It was the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible I believe. I haven't compared them word for word. But those two and the King James seem to tell the same story.
#77. To: SOSO (#68)
Then why are the some many disagreements on what God said to man? Take transubstantiation, the staus of Mary, the status of saints, to name just a few.
#78. To: SOSO (#70)
differences in versions that simply lead to disagremment on the nature of the eucarist, for example.
#79. To: SOSO (#66)
Which translation of which version of which interpretation of which translation is the one true Scripture?
#80. To: SOSO, TooConservative, Liberator, A K A Stone, GarySpFc (#70)
And therein lies the nature of my question, who got it right? This certainly fuels the fire, the temptation, to say that they are all full of it. And certainly to suspicion of the guy that tries to sell you that his version is the one and only true Word of God.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]