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.
Memorize this:
Romans 10:14-17 How, then, should they be invoking One in Whom they
do not believe? Yet how should they be believing One of Whom they do not
hear? Yet how should they be hearing apart from one heralding? (15) Yet
how should they be heralding if ever they should not be commissioned?
According as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those bringing an
evangel of good! (16) But not all obey the evangel, for Isaiah is saying,
"Lord, who believes our tidings? (17) Consequently, faith is out of tidings,
yet the tidings through a declaration of Christ."
E- I don't disagree that God uses man through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But what you have to understand is that it is the Holy Spirit teaching man what to teach. What the Holy Spirit teaches is Christ. But what you are saying is man has to teach Christ before the Holy Spirit can do its job. That is backwards thinking, for man cannot teach Christ without the Holy Spirit.
And if you read the whole chapter you will see the difference between what Moses taught and what Christ taught.
And those verses have nothing to do with the bible.
Quote:
2Ti 3:10 Now you fully follow me in my teaching, motive, purpose, faith,
patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings, such as occurred to
me in Antioch, in Iconium, in Lystra: persecutions such as I undergo, and
out of them all the Lord rescues me."
It wasn't just following Paul's example but his teaching also.
Those are not Paul's teachings, they are the teachings of the Holy Spirit from a man who had the mind of Christ. You do not get the mind of Christ from reading the bible, you get the mind of Christ from the Holy Spirit's indwelling within you.
Paul said it is no longer I that liveth but Christ that liveth in me, yet I live.
Quote:
It has everything to do with the Bible. Teachers teach the the Scriptures.
Then they are teaching in error, teachers are to teach Christ crucified.
Quote:
Evangelists preach Christ from the Scriptures,
And thus all the confusion concerning Him. They are to teach Christ from the Holy Spirit's indwelling within them.
Quote:
not from their own personal experiences.
Tell that to Paul who gave his own judgment concerning virginity. Where do you suppose Paul came to that knowledge? Obviously it did not come from the scriptures or Paul would have told us it did.
Quote:
Pastors feed the flock with the word of God and keep the flock safe.
Teaching scripture has nothing to do with the above. Scripture cannot keep the flock safe, only Christ's indwelling can do that.
Quote:
The whole flock back then as the spirit of Christ in them. But this did not preclude them from the need of these men God gave them to adjust them and they should all attain to the unity of the faith. Obviously we all need that man teach us because God gave us teachers to adjust us.
Nonsense, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will teach you everything you need to know and that we do not need any man to teach us.
Is Christ the scriptures?
Is the Holy Spirit the scriptures?
No and no, but the scriptures are used to lead us to Christ and once Christ is found the Holy Spirit is given to teach us concerning the fullness of Father and the Son.
Quote:
That you don't think you need to follow Paul in this is probably the reason why you and those of like belief are,
as Paul says: "surging hither and thither and being carried about by every wind of
teaching, by human caprice,
by craftiness with a view to the systematizing
of the deception
How can we who follow the Holy Spirits teaching be said to befollowing human caprice?
E- there is nothing wrong with teaching from the scriptures (no one here is saying that) the scriptures are a treasure map useful to lead others to Christ, but once Christ is found the map is no longer needed.
Most Christian seem to think everything we will ever need to know or can know can be found recorded in the scriptures. However even the scriptures proclaim eye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor entered into the hearts of man all the things that God is preparing for those who love Him.
Simply put brother, God is bigger then the scriptures.
Just look at the difference between the teachings of the OT and NT. More understanding of the Father is seen in the NT then the OT because of the comforter whom Christ sent. We are suppose to have the comforter within us and it is his job to lead us into all truth.
What did the comforter stop working within man with the apostles!? Hardly
So even though Paul and the boys had a greater understanding of the Father then those in the OT, we who are members of His body will have greater understanding then those men of God had 2000 years ago for we will be made perfect with them and we will know the things eye hath not seen nor ear heard nor entered into the hearts of man.
God is NOT done revealing Himself to man yet brother.
E- I don't disagree that God uses man through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But what you have to understand is that it is the Holy Spirit teaching man what to teach. What the Holy Spirit teaches is Christ. But what you are saying is man has to teach Christ before the Holy Spirit can do its job. That is backwards thinking, for man cannot teach Christ without the Holy Spirit.
And if you read the whole chapter you will see the difference between what Moses taught and what Christ taught.
God is NOT done revealing Himself to man yet brother.
Paul told Timothy to teach just what he taught:
1Ti_6:2 ". . . . These things teach and entreat."
2Ti_2:2 And what things you hear from me through many witnesses, these
commit to faithful men, who shall be competent to teach others also."
Here again is a very good explanation of Luke 2:2 from Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
Luke 2:2
And this taxing was first made ... - This verse has given as much perplexity, perhaps, as any one in
the New Testament. The difficulty consists in the fact that “Cyrenius,” or “Quirinius,” was not
governor of Syria until 12 or 15 years after the birth of Jesus. Jesus was born during the reign of
Herod. At that time “Varus” was president of Syria. Herod was succeeded by “Archelaus,” who
reigned eight or nine years; and after he was removed, Judea was annexed to the province of Syria,
and Cyrenius was sent as the governor (Josephus, “Ant.,” b. xvii. 5). The difficulty has been to
reconcile this account with that in Luke. Various attempts have been made to do this. The one that
seems most satisfactory is that proposed by Dr. Lardner. According to his view, the passage here
means, “This was the “first” census of Cyrenius, governor of Syria.” It is called the “first” to
distinguish it from one “afterward” taken by Cyrenius, Act_5:37. It is said to be the census taken by
“Cyrenius; governor of Syria; “not that he was “then” governor, but that it was taken by him who was afterward familiarly known as governor. “Cyrenius, governor of Syria,” was the name by which
the man was known when Luke wrote his gospel, and it was not improper to say that the taxing was
made by Cyrenius, the governor of Syria,” though he might not have been actually governor for many
years afterward. Thus, Herodian says that to Marcus “the emperor” were born several daughters and two sons,” though several of those children were born to him “before” he was emperor. Thus, it is not improper to say that General Washington saved Braddock’s army, or was engaged in the old French war, though he was not actually made “general” until many years afterward. According to this Augustus sent Cyrenius, an active, enterprising man, to take the census. At that time he was a Roman senator. Afterward, he was made governorof the same country, and received the title which Luke gives him.
If you say the above is not correct then you fail to see the logic behind it.
RESPONSE:
This is incorrect, but, more importantly, it is an argument beside the point.
There are only two facts that need to be considered:
1. Was there a census of Judea in 6 AD when Archelaus was deposed and exiled by the Romans?
2. Does Luke claim that Jesus wsas born during the Roman census of Judea?
The Documents:
1.Josephus, Antiquities 18.1-4 "Quirinius, a Roman senator who had proceeded through all the magistracies to the consulship and a man who was extremely distinguished in other respects, arrived in Syria, dispatched by Caesar to be governor of the nation and to make an assessment of their property. Coponius, a man of equestrian rank, was sent along with him to rule over the Jews with full authority. Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus."
And,
2. Luke 2:1-5
In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3All went to their own towns to be registered. 4Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. 5He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child." (NRSV)
Common sense dictates that if there was an inventory of Judean "estate" of Archelaus (who became ruler of Judea following King Herod's death), and Jesus was born during this inventory (of people and property), Jesus couldn't have been born during Herod's lifetime.
With all due respect to Mr. Barnes, there are all kinds of notes on this passage written by literalists trying to argue for scriptural inerrantcy. Some people even believe them. But most who read the basic dosuments aren't that gullible.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 05-25-2012 at 08:51 AM..
Reason: typo
And some made shipwreck as to the faith of who are . . .
Yes those who went back to a literal understanding of the bible, instead of remaining Christ minded and centered, and allowing Christ in you to teach you.
The same Christ that unfolded the scripture to those boys heading out to Emmaus because their literal understanding of scripture of God and the bible lay dead outside of the city and failed them, lives in us.
This is incorrect, but, more importantly, it is an argument beside the point.
But that's just it, it is not an argument beside the point or I wouldn't have brought it up and neither would Lardner!
Quote:
There are only two facts that need to be considered:
1. Was there a census of Judea in 6 AD when Archelaus was deposed and exiled by the Romans?
2. Does Luke claim that Jesus wsas born during the Roman census of Judea?
The Documents:
1.Josephus, Antiquities 18.1-4 "Quirinius, a Roman senator who had proceeded through all the magistracies to the consulship and a man who was extremely distinguished in other respects, arrived in Syria, dispatched by Caesar to be governor of the nation and to make an assessment of their property. Coponius, a man of equestrian rank, was sent along with him to rule over the Jews with full authority. Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus."
And,
2. Luke 2:1-5
In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3All went to their own towns to be registered. 4Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. 5He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child." (NRSV)
You are going by the NRSV and not by the original manuscript. The Greek does not say "while" nor "when" Quirinius was governor.
Quote:
Common sense dictates that if there was an inventory of Judean "estate" of Archelaus (who became ruler of Judea following King Herod's death), and Jesus was born during this, Jesus wasn't born during Herod's lifetime.
Quote:
With all due respect to Mr. Barnes, there are all kinds of notes on this passage written by literalists trying to argue for scriptural inerrantcy. Some people even believe them. But most who read the basic dosuments aren't that gullible.
But Jesus was born during Herod's lifetime. Herod sought to kill Jesus. Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt to get away from Herod then moved back after Herod's death. Herod died in 4 B.C. and Christ was born as some suggest in 4 B.C. prior to Herod's death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius And some made shipwreck as to the faith of who are . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcamps
Yes those who went back to a literal understanding of the bible, instead of remaining Christ minded and centered, and allowing Christ in you to teach you.
The same Christ that unfolded the scripture to those boys heading out to Emmaus because their literal understanding of scripture of God and the bible lay dead outside of the city and failed them, lives in us.
No, that is false that those who made shipwreck as to the faith were those who went back to a literal understanding of the bible.
1 Timothy 1:19-20 having faith and a good conscience, which some,
thrusting away, have made shipwreck as to the faith;" (20) of whom
are Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I give up to Satan, that they may be
trained not to calumniate."
2 Timothy 2:15-18 Endeavor to present yourself to God qualified, an
unashamed worker, correctly cutting the word of truth." (16) Yet from
profane prattlings stand aloof, for they will be progressing to more
irreverence, (17) and their word will spread as gangrene, of whom are
Hymeneus and Philetus, (18) who swerve as to truth, saying that the
resurrection has already occurred, and are subverting the faith of some."
See what happened to the non-literalist? Their word is like gangrene. They tried to make something spiritual out of the resurrection. And as to the faith Paul gave to Timothy to hand down to others of repute, they went like you into esoteric kinds of teachings.
It all depends on which version of the yarn you want to believe.
Either:
Version # 1 1 Sam 31:4 "So Saul took his own sword and fell upon it." (NRSV)
Version #2 2 Sam 1:8-10 "And he said to me, “Who are you?” I answered him, “I am an Amalekite.” 9He said to me, “Come, stand over me and kill me; for convulsions have seized me, and yet my life still lingers.” 10So I stood over him, and killed him, for I knew that he could not live after he had fallen." (NRSV)
Version #3 2 Sam 21: 12 12David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan from the people of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hung them up, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa. (NRSV)
Version # 4 1Chron 10:13 "Therefore the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse. " (NRSV)
So himself, Amalekite, the Philistines, or the Lord killed Saul. All inerrant scripture, right?
Question: Are you going to tell us that three of these are "scribal error"?
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.
