OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[buckeyegrad]

So, until the days of trouble come to pass, it's not actually proper to say this prophecy is A) fulfilled by anything and/or B) is even a prophecy at all, in that it might end up being false, and thus not of God. True?

I would agree that I would not call such prophesy as having been fulfilled, since it points to a future time than where we now stand. In fact, I would call it "unfulfilled" prophesy. However, by that I do not mean it is false prophesy (i.e. incorrect), but only that we are still waiting for the fulfillment.

What about believers who have sinned without repenting? As adopted in to a royal family goes, that sounds awfully human to me. I'm not trying to start something here, I just am not sure I understand your remark the way you intend it. It seems to me, I should already be in God's family, as He is my Creator and Father.

God is certainly one's Creator, but He cannot be called one's Father if one remains in sin and separate from the Truth, which is Jesus. (From the Biblical perspective of course.)

 

[MaxBuck]

God is certainly one's Creator, but He cannot be called one's Father if one remains in sin and separate from the Truth, which is Jesus. (From the Biblical perspective of course.)

Here is another area in which you and I are in substantial disagreement, grad. If my son is disobedient, does that make him any less my son? I think not.

God IS the Heavenly Father of each and every one of us. It's up to us to recognize that fact and behave in such a way that pleases Him -- to the best of our limitied ability.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Here is another area in which you and I are in substantial disagreement, grad. If my son is disobedient, does that make him any less my son? I think not.

Biologically yes. But it may cause your son to lose his inheritance and the right to call you "father".

God IS the Heavenly Father of each and every one of us. It's up to us to recognize that fact and behave in such a way that pleases Him -- to the best of our limitied ability.

As always, my test is: What scipture do you have to back this up?

 

[MaxBuck]

Biologically yes. But it may cause your son to lose his inheritance and the right to call you "father". Never would my son lose the right to call me Dad. Though he might lose my respect, or lose his inheritance; that I'll grant you. You need to realize, though, that in my case the inheritance wouldn't amount to all that much.

As always, my test is: What scipture do you have to back this up?

I'm not sure what part of my post you believe to be contradictory to Scripture. But again, I look at the Bible holistically rather than verse-by-verse, so I'll just say that the vision of God the Father as presented by Jesus is pretty much the model for how any earthly dad should strive to be for his children -- though of course we will inevitably fall short of that goal.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I'm not sure what part of my post you believe to be contradictory to Scripture. But again, I look at the Bible holistically rather than verse-by-verse, so I'll just say that the vision of God the Father as presented by Jesus is pretty much the model for how any earthly dad should strive to be for his children -- though of course we will inevitably fall short of that goal.

Well, specifically, the verse that comes immediately to mind is "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

It seems pretty clear that unless you have accepted Jesus as your savior, you cannot even approach God. If you cannot even approach Him, how can you call Him Father? After all, what father would deny the approach of His son? Now, if you want to take a holistic approach, which I do as well, since I believe the whole and the particular must resonate in perfect harmony to truly understand Scripture, I think this verse holds up pretty well to embracing and representing that larger picture. If you look at the ****-narrative of the Bible, it is that through sin we have lost the right/privelege/blessing to call God our Father, but through Jesus' incarnation, death, and resurrection, approaching God as our Father is once more possible.

To take a non-Biblical example, I draw from my own life. Being adopted, I have no inheritence, nor do I call my biological "father" (similar to creator) by the name/title of dad/father. It is because I am separate from him, I do not know him, and I cannot approach him. Instead, the person I call dad/father is the one who raised me, whom I know, can approach, and will receive an inheritence. I guess in other words I am saying that it is the existing relationship that grants the ability to use the title father, not the fact that you can trace your existence to someone/some being.



P.S. Could someone please explain to me why the prefix "m-e-t-a" keeps being replaced by **** in these messages.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Don't know for sure why the sight is blocking it, but m-e-t-a can be a HTML tag. That may have something to do with it.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

P.S. Could someone please explain to me why the prefix "m-e-t-a" keeps being replaced by **** in these messages.

The word m-e-t-a is forbidden owing to those hacker attacks last year.

 

[Gatorubet]

The word m-e-t-a is forbidden owing to those hacker attacks last year.

You can't spell the meat in meat chicken without m e t a

 

[Gatorubet]

Well, specifically, the verse that comes immediately to mind is "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

It seems pretty clear that unless you have accepted Jesus as your savior, you cannot even approach God.

Well, I've heard some say that "the except through me" can be read as "without following the Golden Rule", the gist of his teachings. See His numerous examples of how displays of dismissing mere religious display and affirmative approval of care for the poor and helpless, and selfless devotion to others. Some say this is what was meant.

This is just the "salvation by grace" versus "salvation by works" argument. It does seem to many that the former is rather arbitrary and self aggrandizing, as a lifetime of living the golden rule is worth crap absent acknowledgment that Jesus is Lord. At least that is the part that many non-Christians say to me in such discussions. What will happen to the unsaved is a pivotal question in the discussion, as condemning them to eternal damnation seems the act of a less than loving God. And so, while some denominations insist on the lake of fire deal, it is probably not biblically correct, but more absorption of the heathen culture that was taken over by Christianity.

 

[muffler dragon]

Also, one thing to remember about prophesy is that it is not limited to simply predicting future events. Prophesy is any instance where God is speaking through a person. Therefore, when God tells Israel and Judah by speaking through people like Isaiah that he is displeaed with their breaking of His covenant with them, that is still prophesy.

Point of clarification: I understand that you're describing prophesy from a Christian POV; however, this is not the same understanding of prophesy from a Judaic POV. Taking the book of Daniel, for instance: Daniel may or may not have been a prophet as he did not communicate with G-d directly nor did he speak/write of events that were going to happen to his immediate generation. In Judaism, a Navi (prophet) is a mouthpiece for G-d via direct communication that speaks to his immediate generation. As you may note, in the Jewish Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings)), Daniel is NOT a part of the Nevi'im, but instead, the Ketuvim.

Just some info to pass on.

 

[muffler dragon]

because it's not about heaven and hell. burning in hell is not a Biblical concept. non believers do not suffer for eternity. they cease to exist.

From a Judaic POV, this is not completely true. While it's true that there is not Christian concept of "hell"; there isn't nihilism (for the most part) either.

it's about being adopted into God's royal family.

And I'll leave that for those who hold to the Christian testament. :)

 

[muffler dragon]

What will happen to the unsaved is a pivotal question in the discussion, as condemning them to eternal damnation seems the act of a less than loving God. And so, while some denominations insist on the lake of fire deal, it is probably not biblically correct, but more absorption of the heathen culture that was taken over by Christianity.

Insight that I agree with. "Unsaved" has so much question begging that it really becomes interesting yet tedious.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Well, I've heard some say that "the except through me" can be read as "without following the Golden Rule", the gist of his teachings. See His numerous examples of how displays of dismissing mere religious display and affirmative approval of care for the poor and helpless, and selfless devotion to others. Some say this is what was meant.

There is a big problem with that interpretation--it is based upon horrible exegesis. It is not something that can be drawn from the immediate text and is rather someone reading their own preference into it. What do I mean by this. First, if you look at the larger context of John 14 and the entire book of John you will not find anything backing such an interpretation of "except through me". First look at the verses preceding 14:6.

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

So our setting is the Last Supper, the night before Jesus' death. He has already predicted his betrayal and Peter's denial of him. The disciples are obviously worried about the fact that they are going to be left behind without him. He is reassurring them by stating that they will eventually go where is going. When Thomas says that they do not know where that he is going and therefore do not know the way, Jesus responds (14:6) by saying that they know the way, because he is the way, and that they know where they are going because that is to be with the Father (i.e. God).

Following 14:6, the conversation continues:

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?.......

Now why would Philip ask to see the Father if Jesus was talking about a way of living one's life? Or, why would Jesus not correct his wrong-thinking? Instead, we see Jesus talking about himself and the Father being one. This verifies even more so that the context of the conversation is about Jesus being the way to the Father. Not any Golden Rule, but he himself, since ultimately he is with the Father and the Father is with him. This of course is important to the primary thesis of John's Gospel, which from the very beginning states that Jesus is the Word and the Word is with God, and the Word is God.

Now how does one read the Golden Rule into this account? I really don't know since the conversation at that point obviously is not talking about that principle. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Golden Rule appears in Matthew and Luke, but no where in John. Why would John not mention this teaching of Jesus anywhere in his gospel, if this is what he meant by his statement in 14:6.

 

[Gatorubet]

There is a big problem with that interpretation--it is based upon horrible exegesis. It is not something that can be drawn from the immediate text and is rather someone reading their own preference into it.

Hey - the Catholic Church bases its claim for Pope as head of the church, with the whole accompanying Ecclesiastical structure on a statement with less claim than that..."on this rock"

 

[Gatorubet]

There is a big problem with that interpretation--it is based upon horrible exegesis. It is not something that can be drawn from the immediate text and is rather someone reading their own preference into it. What do I mean by this. First, if you look at the larger context of John 14 and the entire book of John you will not find anything backing such an interpretation of "except through me". First look at the verses preceding 14:6.

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

I don't see anything in that quote to disprove a claim that it is the essence of his teachings, and that "trust in God" and his son can be seen as a reminder to trust the veracity of the teachings, not to proclaim him Lord or else you are toast.