| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2008 05:27:36 PM |
| Object: |
DID THEY JUST FORGET? - INTRO |
Hi!
Imagine if you will, that you were simply trying
to determine when something was written, whether
before or after a certain date. I'm serious. Forget
about your beliefs and your doctrine and all of that.
Just focus on the scholarly work of trying to figure
out when something was written, regardless of
what it would mean to your beliefs about something.
You see, we don't have to actually be scholars, to apply
some common sense and see where we land. :)
So if you say, "But I'm not a scholar", well then, what
is that but an admission that you aren't qualified to say
whether something is right or wrong here and it is
automatically an admission that you shouldn't enter
the discussion at all then! In other words, you don't
get to say that and then claim that you are capable
of correcting anyone who doesn't believe exactly as
you do. That is the same as saying; "I am not qualified
to judge this, but I am qualified to judge this.". Huh? :)
And after all, isn't that what true scholarship is? Leaving
our biases and preassumed doctrines behind, in the search
of the scientific truth of the matter, using our God given
logic and common sense and using our education about
history (since they were written almost 2,000 years ago)
to try to reach a conclusion? And before you object,
remember, that every time you quote a "church father",
or even a passage from Scripture to show something
that happened, you are quoting history!
Or is it proper to have made your conclusion before
examining the document(s) and then force whatever
you see to fit your preassumed conclusion? Honestly.
Which approach is proper scholarship?
Do you read things that make assumptions and call them
"scholarship"? Or do you look for honesty? I hope it is
the latter!
And just FYI, if you have already jumped to a conclusion
about what I'm going to say, or that I must be wrong
because your doctrine says such and such, then I would
recommend that you stop reading now, since it is obvious
that you cannot be honest and have jumped to a conclusion
before I even presented anything to you and that the only
thing that's important to you, is your closed mindedness
and fighting anyone who says anything that might rock
your little boat, because you have an assumption and
think you're God, since you think you cannot possibly
be wrong, nor could you possibly have anything to learn.
If this is where you are right now, please stop reading
right now and please, don't bother responding, because
I'll just call you an idiot and be done with you! That
doesn't mean we can't disagree. But it does mean that
you don't get to pretend that you making a conclusion
and not caring what the evidence is, or even what
the subject is, is not idiocy and frankly, that simply
doesn't deserve any time wasted on it, period!
Now if you are willing to look at some things and to ask
yourself some questions that I will pose, then you should
keep reading, so that you can try to come to some type
of conclusion, being ready to be open minded enough
to examine the evidence before coming to a conclusion.
So now that we have that straight, let's take a look at
a document and see what common sense tells us. :)
The question I asked is; "Did they just forget?". Well,
forget what? Wouldn't that be the question? I would
think it would, amen? :)
So let's look at the issue of when the Book of Revelation
was written and let's not get too technical and let's not
even bother trying to interpret passages. Let's just apply
some common sense and look at a bit of other documentation
and as I said, see where we land, okay? :)
Much has been made of the differences in the interpretation
of Revelation, based on various eschatological views. And
much of the "hoo ha" has been in regard to the differences
between Preterism and Futurism/Dispensationalism.
So I will post a series of messages about the Book of
Revelation and you can decide for yourself what makes
sense to you, okay? :)
I will start with the next post, as this was just an intro,
to hopefully set the stage for some honest consideration
and may some discussion. :)
A few more messages to follow, which I'm sure
will draw some personal attacks, but zero rebuttal,
from Carl, Chuck, Fred, Rod and Vera, which they
will pretend means that what I show here isn't true.
--
I hit the <CTRL> key, but I'm still not normal!
.
|
|
| User: "steve smith" |
|
| Title: Re: DID THEY JUST FORGET? - INTRO |
20 Jan 2008 05:44:38 PM |
|
|
You're the only person who believes what you believe, no one else
believes it, ask yourself why ? Maybe because it's all crap. Jesus
didn't come in 70ad, wake up Dave, you're in cult of one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: DID THEY JUST FORGET? - INTRO |
20 Jan 2008 09:32:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:44:38 -0800 (PST), steve smith
<stevesmithbook@googlemail.com> said the following:
You're the only person who believes what you believe
no one else believes it, ask yourself why ? Maybe because
it's all crap. Jesus didn't come in 70ad, wake up Dave,
you're in cult of one.
Tell me you weren't stupid enough to say this!
Bawahahahaha!!!
And now, why don't you refute what I wrote?
Oh, that's right, you can't and you think that
majority opinion equals truth!
So when will you admit that you're an evolutionist?
After all, majority opinion equals truth, right?
Or will you now be a hypocrite again?
Steve, you're a foolish little boy and you show it!
--
"The real mark of someone who wants to know the Truth
is not that they expect others to prove it to them,
but that they seek after it themselves." - Chayil
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: DID THEY JUST FORGET? - INTRO |
21 Jan 2008 04:04:04 AM |
|
|
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,
temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not
a lover of money. (NIV)
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose
children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and
disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must
be blameless -- not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to
drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must
be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled,
upright, holy and disciplined. (NIV)
BISHOP
An overseer, elder, or pastor charged with the responsibility of
spiritual leadership in a local church in New Testament times.
Before the church was founded, the Greek word for bishop was used in a
general sense to refer to local gods as those who watched over people
or countries. The word was later applied to men, including those who
held positions as magistrates or other government offices. And
eventually the term was extended to refer to officials in religious
communities with various functions, including those who supervised the
revenues of pagan temples.
The SEPTUAGINT (Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses bishop to
refer to those who exercise power; sometimes it indicates those who
hold positions of authority. It represents a Hebrew term that refers
to those who are overseers or officers (Num 4:16; Neh 9:9).
In the New Testament, Jesus is called the "Overseer of your souls" (1
Peter 2:25). In this passage the word is associated with the term
shepherd. It is also used to identify the leader of a Christian
community or the one who filled the office of overseer. In Acts 20:28
the elders of the church at Ephesus summoned to meet Paul are
identified as overseers. Their responsibility, given by the Holy
Spirit, was "to shepherd the church of God." In Phil 1 bishops are
associated with deacons, and the qualifications are outlined in 1 Tim
3:2-7 and Titus 1:7-9. Included are standards for his personal and
home life, as well as the bishop's relationships with non-believers.
In Acts 20:17,28 and Titus 1:5,7, the terms bishop and elder are used
synonymously. Also the word bishop, or its related words, appears to
be synonymous with the word shepherd, or its equivalents (Acts 20:28;
1 Peter 2:25; 5:2).
In his work, the bishop was to oversee the flock of God, to shepherd
his people, to protect them from enemies, and to teach, exhort, and
encourage. He was to accomplish this primarily by being an example to
his people. He was to do this willingly and with an eager spirit, not
by coercion or for financial gain. To desire a position as bishop, the
apostle Paul declared, was to desire a good work (1 Tim 3:1). Also see
ELDER.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
ELDER
A term used throughout the Bible but designating different ideas at
various times in biblical history. The word may refer to age,
experience, and authority, as well as specific leadership roles.
In ancient times authority was given to older people with wider
experience. These were often considered the most qualified to hold
places of leadership. The basic meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words
for elder is "old age."
In the Old Testament those leaders associated with Moses in governing
the nation of Israel were called "the elders of Israel" (Ex 3:16;
24:1), "the elders of the people" (Ex 19:7), or the "seventy
elders" (Ex 24:1). Moses called these elders together to give them
instructions for the observance of the Passover before the Exodus from
Egypt.
Later, after the years of wandering in the wilderness, bodies of
elders ruled in each city. These elders were viewed as the
representatives of the nation and its people. The term elder
eventually came to be applied to those who governed in the local
communities, the rulers of the various tribes, and those who ruled all
of Israel. These leaders were responsible for legal, political and
military guidance and supervision.
During the years of Israel's captivity in Babylon and the following
centuries, elders again appeared as leaders who were responsible for
governing in the Jewish communities. These elders became the upper
class, forming a type of ruling aristocracy. Later in this period, a
council of elders of 71 members, called the SANHEDRIN, emerged. This
council had both religious and political authority among all the
Jewish people in Palestine, particularly in New Testament times. The
HIGH PRIEST was the chairman of the Sanhedrin. Local Jewish
synagogues, which emerged in the period between the Old and New
Testaments, were also governed by a council of elders.
A governing structure similar to the ruling elders among the Jews was
followed in the early church. The title elder was continued, but the
significance of the office changed. Thus, the term elder is used in
the New Testament to refer to the Jewish elders of the synagogue, to
the members of the Sanhedrin, and to certain persons who held office
in the church. It also implied seniority by reason of age (1 Tim 5:2;
1 Peter 5:5).
The presence of elders in the church in the New Testament indicates
that this office was taken over from the synagogue. Elders were
associated with James in Jerusalem in the local church's government
(Acts 11:30; 21:18) and, with the apostles, in the decision of the
early church council (Acts 15). Elders were also appointed in the
churches established during the apostle Paul's first missionary
journey (Acts 14:23). Paul addressed the elders at Ephesus (Acts
20:17-35). Elders played an important role in church life through
their ministry to the sick (James 5:14,15). They were apparently the
teachers also in a local congregation. In addition to ministering to
the sick, their duties consisted of explaining the Scriptures and
teaching doctrine (1 Tim 5:17; 1 Peter 5:5).
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
