Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mike, Where are you getting the idea that only the apostles could baptize? May I remind you that all christians are priests. Anyone can baptize, and I'm sure they did in both instances you mention. Just because Acts 3 and 4 do not tell us whether or not the people were baptized does not mean they weren't. Later in the book of Acts, we do see people being baptized.
I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth in order to bolster their argument. I never said that only Apostles could baptize.
You are arguing from a position of silence and therefore, from weakness. You are reading into the text something that isn't there. You are making an assumption in order to support your belief that a ritual is required for eternal salvation
Quote:
Acts 8:12-13 tells us that once the people heard the good news about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, they were baptized.
12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
Acts 16 tells us that Lydia and her household heard the word and were baptized.
People get water baptized AFTER they have believed in Christ and are therefore already saved.
Quote:
And Paul, who you claim didn't think baptism was important, was told, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16)
And again, Paul had already been saved prior to being water baptized. The washing away of sins is symbolic only. Sins are forgiven at the moment of faith in Christ.
Quote:
Has it ocurred to you that Luke when writing the book of Acts thought it redundant to repeat over and over the plan of salvation? God's plan for redemption is spread out all over the New Testament.
No more redundant than when John in the Gospel of John repeated 'believe in Christ' or other variations many dozens of times. I haven't bothered to personally count how many times, but one source said that the word 'believe' is used 49 times, with there being other variations.
Quote:
There are instances in Acts when we are told that people believed and were baptized. Does this mean they didn't have to confess Jesus as Lord?
The only requirement for eternal salvation is to believe in Christ. As far as acknowledging Christ as Lord, Romans 10:9 needs to be understood in context as does all Scripture. And this study on Romans 10:8-10 pretty well covers it. Don't complain about being given a link rather than me saying it in my own words. This is what you're getting. I've spent enough time on this subject as it is. Romans 10:9, 10
Quote:
So to say that the people in Acts 3 and 4 were not baptized because it wasn't important or necessary is a false conclusion based on the other passages listed above (and others not listed).
Again you put words in my mouth. I said that there was no opportunity for those 5000 people to be baptized that evening. And there is nothing in the passage to suggest otherwise.
Quote:
You left out verse 10-13. Could you please explain what the context is in which Paul says, "I thank God I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius"?
10 I appeal to you, brothers,by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
I also think you fail to notice a very important point in this passage. Paul is speaking to a group of christians. They were all baptized!
Katie
No, I didn't fail to notice that Paul was speaking to believers. Look. I am going to say this and leave it at that. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, Paul makes it very clear that a person is saved by receiving the gospel. That is, responding to it. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul makes a distinction between the gospel and water baptism.
Do you understand what I said? Paul made a distinction between the gospel message and water baptism (1 Corinthians 1:17).
Paul made it clear that it is by responding to the gospel that a person is saved (1 Corinthians 15:1-2).
Paul made it clear that a person is saved by the gospel. Not by water baptism. Unless you have an agenda in holding to your belief in baptismal regeneration for whatever reason, and unless you can't be honest with yourself, then you will acknowledge (if only to yourself) that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation.
I am now done with this. You have been given enough information to understand that water baptism is only a ritual. It has a purpose, but not for salvation.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-18-2011 at 06:36 AM..
With reference to Acts chapter 3 and 4, Peter and John were arrested while giving their message and thrown into jail. There was no opportunity for anyone to be water baptized. There were about 5000 people who were saved that evening simply by believing the message that they had heard about Christ.
Why was there no opportunity for anyone to be water baptized? Was it because the Apostles were in jail? Was it because there were too many people and not enough time? What was it?
Quote:
A ritual cannot result in eternal salvation. Only faith alone in Christ alone is acceptable to God for the purpose of receiving the gift of eternal life.
You are quite right that a ritual, in and of itself, cannot result in eternal salvation. I also agree that faith in Christ alone is essential for the purpose of receiving the gift of eternal life.
Mike555;18772992]I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth in order to bolster their argument. I never said that only Apostles could baptize. You are arguing from a position of silence and therefore, from weakness. You are reading into the text something that isn't there. You are making an assumption in order to support your belief that a ritual is required for eternal salvation
Good Morning Mike,
You are also arguing from a position of silence as well. The scriptures do not tell us one way or the other that the people in Acts 3 and 4 were baptized. You are also reading into the text something that isn't there. You made an assumption based on your prior belief that faith alone saves. I make the assumption based on my prior belief that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Can we agree to disagree on this passage?
You left me with the impression that the apostles couldn't baptize. I don't recall you saying that time was a factor. You may have. I don't remember. I apologize if I drew the wrong conclusion about what you thought.
You said baptism didn't ocurr and therefore was not necessary for salvation in Acts 3 and 4 because the apostles were jailed. That is an assumption on your part. The people in Acts 3 and 4 could have easily been baptized by the other new converts. There were already thousands of them at that time so I have no reason to doubt their baptism. I know that archaelogists have discovered 150 immersion pools in Jerusalem alone, so water wasn't an issue. It would seem quite silly that the other people in the book of Acts were baptized, but not this group. So I make this assumption based on my prior beliefs.
Again, I suggest we agree to disagree on this passage because neither of us can prove a thing based on what Acts 3 and 4 says.
Yes the command to believe is often repeated and is the basis for everything Jesus told us to do. The command to confess is only found once. Does that mean we don't have to confess?
Thank you for the link on Romans 10:9-10. I'll get back to you on that. If I take the time to read it, I hope you take the time to comment.
Quote:
No, I didn't fail to notice that Paul was speaking to believers. Look. I am going to say this and leave it at that. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, Paul makes it very clear that a person is saved by receiving the gospel. That is, responding to it. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul makes a distinction between the gospel and water baptism. Do you understand what I said? Paul made a distinction between the gospel message and water baptism (1 Corinthians 1:17). Paul made it clear that it is by responding to the gospel that a person is saved (1 Corinthians 15:1-2).
Paul made it clear that a person is saved by the gospel. Not by water baptism. Unless you have an agenda in holding to your belief in baptismal regeneration for whatever reason, and unless you can't be honest with yourself, then you will acknowledge (if only to yourself) that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation.
I am now done with this. You have been given enough information to understand that water baptism is only a ritual. It has a purpose, but not for salvation.
[/quote].
I absolutely 100% agree with you about 1 Corinthians 15:1-2. We must respond/obey the gospel to be saved. I didn't think that was in question.
You never addressed 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. I asked you what the context of the passage was when Paul said, "I thank God I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius so no one can say you were baptized in my name."
I really would like to know what you think the context of this passage is. I think this is a legitimate question.
I am not disagreeing with you about verse 17. Paul was called to preach the gospel, not to baptize.
However, you take a big leap when you say, "Paul made it clear that a person is saved by the gospel. Not by water baptism." Paul is not saying that at all.
No, all Paul is saying is that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach. You are drawing a conclusion that is false. You are making the passage say something it does not say.
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Thanks,
Katie
Last edited by MissKate12; 04-18-2011 at 06:56 AM..
Reason: Red font is reserved for moderation but you may use any of the other colors :)
Mike 555 said in post #131 to another katiemygirl “ You are arguing from a position of silence and therefore, from weakness. You are reading into the text something that isn't there. You are making an assumption in order to support your belief… ”
It's ironic in view of your complaint that others are arguing from a position of silence and that other are “reading into the text something that isn’t there”, to ask you again, if YOU would break YOUR silence regarding your rebuttal on the early Judao-christian belief of pre-existence and tell us what YOU are reading into Zech 12:1 that rebuts the early Christian belief that the spirit within man exists before birth. Remember your claim :
Post #109 reads :
Quote:
Regarding your rebuttal of the early Judao-Christian belief of Pre-existence :
“Mike555 said : In Judaism, one of the beliefs is of the pre-existence of the soul. In the Apocryphal book of 'The Wisdom of Solomon' 8:19-20, pre-existence is mentioned.
Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 ''As a child I was born to excellence, and a noble soul fell to my lot; or rather, I myself was noble, and I entered into an unblemished body.''
This contradicts Zech 12:1 'The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declared the LORD who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him.
Mike555, Can you explain why you think Zech 12:1 is a rebuttal to the Judao-Christian doctrine of pre-existence of spirits?
For example, the many, many Judao-Christian Tests I have quoted, do not contradict Zech 12:1. in fact, the Judao Christians may have been explaining what Zechariah 12:1 meant to the ancient Judao-Christian. I might have been tempted to used Zech 12:1 to SUPPORT pre-existence if I thought it had more value in indicating WHEN a spirit was formed.
Mike555, Is there some explanation or data that you want to add so as to make your rebuttal understandable, or to give it more strength???
Mike555, You are also reading SOMETHING into the verse you quoted in your attempt to rebut this early christian belief, but you are also silent on what it is that you are trying to read into this verse.... :
Mike will you “break your own silence in regard to this scripture AND tell us what it is that YOU are reading into this scripture Zechariah 12:1 that tells us the Early Christians were wrong about believing the spirits of mankind existed before the body was born? It is unclear WHY you think your personal theory is correct and the early Judao-Christians are wrong in regards to the spirit within mankind.
Thanks in advance if you are willing to do this
Clear
eivineneen
Last edited by Clear lens; 04-18-2011 at 09:35 AM..
Mike555;18759266]
The spiritual form of the kingdom is here, and through faith alone in Christ alone the church-age believer enters into it. The physical kingdom will be set up by Christ when He returns at the end of the tribulation.
Katie, you point to Acts 2:41, 47 and your obvious intent is to say 'see, they were baptized and then added to the kingdom'.
So to answer your question, From the day of Pentecost onward, the moment any person believes in Christ, he is added to the kingdom.
Mike, I am so happy that we can agree that we christians are in the spiritual Kingdom, the church. When Jesus comes again, He will hand over the Kingdom to God. I thank God each day that I am in the Kingdom of the Lord.
You said my intent is to show the people were baptized and then added to the Kingdom with Acts 2:41, 47. I don't know how I could draw any other conclusion.
If we begin with verse 36, Peter tells the people that they had crucified the Lord. The people were pierced to the heart. They ask what they should do. Peter tells them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And then verse 40, we learn that Peter exhorts them with many other words and says, "SAVE YOURSELVES from this crooked generation."
To me, that says the people have not been saved at this point. Wouldn't you agree? Can you honestly say the people have been saved at this point in the narrative? I would really love to know your answer to this question.
Then in verse 41, we learn that those who had received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about 3000 souls.
They received his word and were baptized. That sounds like they believed and were baptized. That ties right into the great commission in Mark 16.
Finally in verse 47"Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."
If we agree that the spiritual Kingdom is the church, then weren't the people added to the Kingdom in verse 41 and 47?
And that brings us to John 3:5. I can draw an honest conclusion that people were added to the church/Kingdom when they believed and were baptized using Acts 2:40, 41, and 47 and Mark 16:16. I don't need to make any assumptions. The scriptures are not silent on this point. Therefore I can conclude that John 3:5 is referring to the same baptism that is in Acts 2:38, 41 and Mark 16:16.
I don't see a single scripture that says you get into the Kingdom by faith alone in Christ alone. I agree that it is by Christ alone, but never faith alone. If you would drop the word alone, then we would be in complete agreement.
Katie
I believe we are saved by grace through faith and not by works of righteousness.
Grace is a free gift from God, but like any other gift, we must accept it. Accepting it requires doing something.
Baptism is no more a work of righteousness than is faith, repentance, or confessing Jesus is Lord. The scriptures say over and over that baptism is a work of God. To say baptism is a work of human merit is man's idea. It is not scriptural.
Last edited by MissKate12; 04-18-2011 at 01:19 PM..
Maybe He had bigger fish to fry. Ever think of that? Jesus was sent to preach the gospel of the Kingdom. That same Kingdom that we have to be born of water and Spirit to enter into. Baptizing was something Jesus' disciples could attend to. To minimize baptism because Jesus didn't personally baptize is ridiculous seeing that Jesus commanded the apostles to go into all the world and make disciples. How? By baptizing them. Jesus said, He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Those are the words of Jesus. Are you sure you want to hold to the idea that baptism isn't important?
Katie
I agree. He did say that. However, KMG you assumed that Jesus was saying the he who believes and is baptized (in water) shall be saved. No, Jesus did not specifically say “water”, he just said “baptized”. KMG it seems as soon you see the word “baptism”— you immediately think about water. You shouldn't be so quick to jump the gun. "Baptism" is not always equated with water.
It's ironic in view of your complaint that others are arguing from a position of silence and that other are “reading into the text something that isn’t thereâ€, to ask you again, if YOU would break YOUR silence regarding your rebuttal on the early Judao-christian belief of pre-existence and tell us what YOU are reading into Zech 12:1 that rebuts the early Christian belief that the spirit within man exists before birth. Remember your claim :
Post #109 reads :
Mike555, You are also reading SOMETHING into the verse you quoted in your attempt to rebut this early christian belief, but you are also silent on what it is that you are trying to read into this verse.... :
Mike will you “break your own silence in regard to this scripture AND tell us what it is that YOU are reading into this scripture Zechariah 12:1 that tells us the Early Christians were wrong about believing the spirits of mankind existed before the body was born? It is unclear WHY you think your personal theory is correct and the early Judao-Christians are wrong in regards to the spirit within mankind.
Thanks in advance if you are willing to do this
Clear
eivineneen
No clear lens. There is nothing ironic about it. You simply have to be patient until I get around to you.
It seems that to you, everything is a theory. No absolutes as far as you are concerned.
You seem to be trying to paint a picture that there was a universal belief in the early church of the pre-existence of the human spirit, or of the soul. Again, they are two different things.
As I pointed out in post #101, that is hardly the case. There were those who believed in it. Within Judaism one belief was of pre-existence, but there is no dogmatism in Judiasm according to some research I did when looking into the meaning of 'Haolam Ha-ba'. Plato taught pre-existence and Origen picked up his belief in pre-existence from Plato.
The issue is not what the early church believed or to what extent a certain belief existed. The issue is what the Bible teaches.
You want to know why Zech 12:1 puts the lie to Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20.
Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 ''As a child I was born to excellence, and a noble soul fell to my lot; or rather, I myself was noble, and I entered into an unblemished body.''
This contradicts Zech 12:1 'The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declared the LORD who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him.
Wisdom of Solomon teaches pre-existence. Zech 12:1 says that the spirit of man is formed within him.
The spirit of man is formed within him. That means that it didn't pre-exist. It was formed.
Jesus Himself declared that man does not pre-exist his physical birth.
John 8:23 'And He was saying to them, ''You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
8:23. Jesus pointed out His heavenly origin and His real home (from above . . . not of this world). They belong here (from below . . . of this world), but He does not.
[The Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 304]
So what about Ecclesiastes 12:7 which says, 'then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit (ruach) will return to God who gave it.' ?
From ruwach; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. A sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions) -- air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit((-ual)), tempest, X vain, ((whirl-))wind(-y). 7307. ?????? (ruach) -- breath, wind, spirit
This refers back to Gen 2:7 'Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (neshamah - soul) of life; and man became a living being.
Neshamah Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
blast, that breaths, inspiration, soul, spirit
From nasham; a puff, i.e. Wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. Or (concretely) an animal -- blast, (that) breath(-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit 5397. ???????? (neshamah) -- breath
As can be seen, there is a close relationship between the soul and the human spirit. But they are not the same.
Hebrews 4:12 'For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul (psuchēs) and spirit (pneumatos), of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.'
Psuche
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
soul, life, self
From psucho; breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from pneuma, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from zoe, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew nephesh, ruwach and chay) -- heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.
Both the soul and the human spirit are immaterial. Both are described in terms of wind, air, breath.
Here's another verse which makes a distinction between the soul and the spirit.
1 Thess 5:23 'Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ'.
So when does the soul and the spirit come into existence. They do not pre-exist.
Adam was created trichotomous - body, soul, and spirit. God warned Adam that if he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die. This involved both spiritual death and physical death. See link: Genesis 2:17 When Adam sinned he immediately died spiritually. His relationship with God was broken. As a result he later died physically. He lost his human spirit and became dichotomous - body and soul only. When he believed the gospel his human spirit was regenerated, and he had a new and better relationship with God. One that could never again be broken with regard to having eternal consequences.
Thereafter, every member of the human race is born dichotomous - body and soul only. And spiritually dead. This is why man must be born again. Regeneration is a new spiritual birth.
At the moment of faith in Christ, God the Holy Spirit regenerates the human spirit. Where there had been no human spirit, now there is.
If you are a believer, your spirit has been made alive by the Holy Spirit.
John 3:6 '...that which is born of the [Holy] Spirit is [human] spirit.
It is the human spirit which so to speak is a conduit between God and man. It is the human spirit which is that part of man which allows man to have a relationship with God.
John 4:24 ''God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.
Man is born spiritually dead. Thus the need for a spiritual rebirth - regeneration - being born again. This occurs at the moment of faith in Christ.
Eph 2:5 'even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),'
Col 2:13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgression,'
Titus 3:5 'He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done n righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,'
The human spirit of the one who believes in Christ is regenerated, renewed. When? At the moment of faith in Christ. Eph 2:8 'For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9] not as a result of works, that no one should boast.'
John 3:36 ''He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him''
He who believes in the Son is regenerated. He now has a human spirit to which is imputed God's very own eternal life. The one who has not believed does not, and if he dies without receiving Christ as Savior, shall not see life.
At physical death, the soul minus a human spirit goes first to Hades, and ultimately, to the lake of fire. (unbeliever)
At physical death, the soul plus the human spirit goes into the presence of the Lord in Heaven. (Believer)
No, it is not an option. This has been gone over before in other threads. Being 'born of water' does NOT refer to water baptism. I have just explained what that phrase meant to a Pharisee, and why Jesus used the term when He spoke to Nicodemus.
Water baptism merely symbolizes the real baptism [the baptism of the Holy Spirit] which occurs at the moment of faith in Christ for the church-age believer. What is the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Twin, you ask what the gift of the Holy Spirit is. There are seven salvation ministries of the Holy Spirit. If you wish to learn of those ministries then here is a good study on the subject. Seven Salvation Ministries of The Holy Spirit
This is an interpretation someone dreamed up 1500 years after the fact.
Water Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant much the way circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant.
Matthew 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now ; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented. ( and baptized Jesus )
What dose the water mean in 1Peter 3:21 ?
1Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ .
When was the church established ?
Upon what condition were required to become a member ?
Acts 2:38 Peter replied " Repent and be baptized , every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit .
This sure sounds like water baptism to me .
Acts 8:38 Then he gave orders to stop the chariot. then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Baptize in the Greek means Immersion !
Baptism is just as much a command of God's as Faith , Repentance or Prayer.
Pisteuo =Believe in the Greek means persuaded to the point of obedience.
Mike555 claimed a doctrine : Mike claims : "At the moment of faith in Christ, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and places it in the one who has believed."
Mike555 Claimed a scripture supports his doctrine : Zech 12:1 'The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declared the LORD who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him.
Mike555 elaborates an interpretation to support the doctrine : The spirit of man is formed within him. That means that it didn't pre-exist.
Mike, I admit that I've never seen a theology based on an interpretation of this scripture to mean that a living, thinking, feeling, man has no spirit within him until he is born again and then, upon being born again, God forms a spirit WITHIN the living, thinking, feeling man.
I admit that initially I thought the interpretation represented such concrete thinking that the interpretation represented more personality than religion. Sort of like the sort of misunderstanding where a father who worked for ford tells his son proudly, “My company made every engine in every ford car!” And the son would reply : “Dad, would it be better to have made the engine in a factory FIRST and then put it IN the car AFTER you made it rather than making the motor while it was in the car?”
It felt like the old jokes we used to play on the phone, calling stores and asking : “Do you have Sir Walter Raleigh in a can?” knowing that they would assume we were asking about a brand of tobacco that came in a can. If they then said “yes”, we’d say “Well then, you’d better let him out!”; start laughing; and slam the phone back down.
However, after I started considering your interpretation from a more objective viewpoint as a legitimate theory of theology, the next question one need ask is WHEN this interpretation originated since I’ve not seen it in any early mishna; none of the early Christian commentaries; none of the early writings I’m familiar with.
However, objectively I have to admit that I may have missed this system of interpretation of scripture because I was not looking for any non-orthodox interpretations. If your specific interpretation has historical significance, then we should be able to find it in early Judao-Christian literature. If your interpretation is not historically valid, then we may comfortably classify it as a modern invention. If the interpretation existed in the earliest periods, then it will be found in significant amounts in the earliest texts. However, if it originated over a lunch table in 1964 or at woodstock it will be less represented in the earliest texts.
So Mike555, so as to allow us to examine your claim that this interpretation has any historical validity, give us some examples of the usage of your interpretations among the early Judao-Christians and their literature from the 1st through 4th centuries that demonstrate this specific interpretation of scripture existed and was used by Judao-Christian groups.
Clear
eisetzvibb
Last edited by Clear lens; 04-18-2011 at 10:15 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
