| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"oldwetdog" |
| Date: |
15 Feb 2007 12:30:26 PM |
| Object: |
RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
Rightly Dividing the Word of God, 1.
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly dividing" the
Word of Truth?
A.) The simplest idea may be that, in the days of the Early Church,
there were no numbers in the text. The numbers we are familiar with
today were not added for several hundred years after the establishment
of the Church. To make things more difficult, the early Hebrew or Greek
Text did not use punctuation as we do today. So the simplest meaning is
that one had to understand, correctly, where the idea or subject began
and ended. It would be easy, under those conditions (no verse numbers,
no punctuation) to begin in the wrong place, end in the wrong place, and
thus make the Word of God seem to say something it did not say.
First Example: "Our prayer unto our God and set a watch against them day
and night because of them and Judah said the strength of the bearers of
burdens is decayed and there is much rubbish so that we are not able to
build the wall and our adversaries (Ne 4:9) What? "Build the wall *and*
our adversaries?"
Second example: "Verily I say to thee To-day shalt thou be with me in
paradise." (Luke 23:43) Some people think this should read, "Truly I say
to you, today you will be with me in paradise." While others say it
should be, "Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise."
Jesus was in the belly of the earth for three days, so it does not seem
likely that He was with the thief in paradise "today." Mat 12:40.
B.) The next possible idea is that "rightly dividing" means using the
correct meaning of the Scripture, as defined in, and by, its entire
context. Therefore using the Scripture out of context is misapplying it,
or wrongfully dividing.
Example: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day
is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
(2 Pet 3:8) In this example, in context, Peter is talking about God's
patience toward sinners. By "wrongfully dividing" His Word, removing the
phrase from its context, some contend that He means one day IS a
thousand years. The false teachers even "wrongfully divide" one-half of
that phrase from the other half - because using the entire statement
would not support their false doctrine. (Compare Gen 1:1-5 to Dan 8:26.)
C.) The next possible meaning is an extension of the previous idea, and
is a little more complicated, but not much. By separating a word, or a
verse of Scripture, from its complete context, and then using a
misapplication of the definition of one or more of the words in the
Scripture, one can arrive at the same result (falsifying His word) as
the first idea above, if not worse.
Example: "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together
with them in the clouds..." 1 Thes 4:17. Some false teachers have taken
the words "caught up" and defined, or re-defined, them to mean something
different from "Gather" or "Ascend." Mat 24:31 and Rev 11:12.
In an effort to force this 're-definition' of "caught up," these false
teachers must also redefine the meaning of the Seventh Trumpet, the Last
Trumpet and the Trump of God. 1 Thes 4:14-17, 1 Cor 15:50-54, Rev
11:7-19 and Mat 24:29-31.
Taking His Word out of context and using it to lead people away from
Truth is a method of Sophistry: Slight-of-hand as practiced by the same
magicians and "wise men" who advised Pharaoh and Herod to murder
children, the same "wise men" who could not interpret Nebuchadnezzar's
dream. Dan 2:2-13.
I will post four examples given to illustrate A, B and C, based on the
following statement:
Quote:
"AFTER the millennium, the DEVIL (separate entity) is cast into the
"lake of fire," where the BEAST (separate entity, the antichrist) and
the FALSE PROPHET (separate entity, the antijew) already ARE. Are you so
stupid you can't tell the difference between three different entities
when John writes about three different entities, and did from the
beginning of Revelation.
End quote.
(To be continued)
owd
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
-----
The wise man is the teachable man. Abraham Lincoln
.
|
|
| User: "weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 01:55:35 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote
Rightly Dividing the Word of God, 1.
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: " ::: vera :::" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 04:20:04 PM |
|
|
In news:XU2Bh.7308$5j1.2004@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
weatherwax <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> typed:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote
Rightly Dividing the Word of God, 1.
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Oh - but that makes me wonder... You gave it as a proof in the other
post about Paul and his "dislike" for women... So does that mean it is
no proof at all, and he has never written that women should not teach?
--Wax
::: vera :::
--
___________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
::::::: http://alpha.org/default.asp :::::::
.
|
|
|
| User: "weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 10:10:50 PM |
|
|
" ::: vera :::" <veralein@lycos.com> wrote
weatherwax <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> typed:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote
Rightly Dividing the Word of God, 1.
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Oh - but that makes me wonder... You gave it as a proof in
the other post about Paul and his "dislike" for women... So does that mean
it is no proof at all, and he has never written that women should not
teach?
It doesn't bother me. You accept 2 Timothy as being written by Paul,
therefore you are the one who is stuck with those words.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: " ::: vera :::" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 10:23:44 PM |
|
|
In news:e9aBh.58582$2m6.11018@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
weatherwax <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> typed:
" ::: vera :::" <veralein@lycos.com> wrote
weatherwax <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> typed:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote
Rightly Dividing the Word of God, 1.
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Oh - but that makes me wonder... You gave it as a proof in
the other post about Paul and his "dislike" for women... So does
that mean it is no proof at all, and he has never written that women
should not teach?
It doesn't bother me. You accept 2 Timothy as being written by Paul,
therefore you are the one who is stuck with those words.
The one who is completely stuck but has not noticed yet - that would be
you. :-D
And you have just proved that you are nothing more than an atheist troll
in the Christian newsgroups.
--Wax
::: vera :::
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
16 Feb 2007 08:31:22 AM |
|
|
On Feb 15, 11:23 pm, " ::: vera :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote:
And you have just proved that you are nothing more than an atheist troll
in the Christian newsgroups.
Hello Vera:
I realize that you are not refering to me, but I'm reading this in
alt.bible, and one does not have to be a "Christian" to read and
discuss the bible. The trolls here are those who only post to preach,
but refuse to continue a discussion in which they must defend their
position. Legitimate users of a bible board are those who recognize
the fact that there is no "proof" for anything in the bible, and so
they post for discussion, not to preach.
What do you think?
.
|
|
|
| User: " ::: vera :::" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
16 Feb 2007 11:31:10 AM |
|
|
In news:1171636280.396738.188530@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Provoker <provoker@3web.com> typed:
On Feb 15, 11:23 pm, " ::: vera :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote:
And you have just proved that you are nothing more than an atheist
troll in the Christian newsgroups.
Hello Vera:
I realize that you are not refering to me, but I'm reading this in
alt.bible, and one does not have to be a "Christian" to read and
discuss the bible. The trolls here are those who only post to preach,
but refuse to continue a discussion in which they must defend their
position. Legitimate users of a bible board are those who recognize
the fact that there is no "proof" for anything in the bible, and so
they post for discussion, not to preach.
What do you think?
Do you also go to a rabbit breeder club and force them to discuss that
it would be better to breed cats instead, and go ad hominem with the
rabbit breeders? How do you call such people in the usenet? If you are
no rabbit breeder and join a newsgroup of rabbit breeders, it is not you
who is the one to tell others how to breed rabbits - but it is you who
should listen and respect the rabbit breeders and stop ad hominem
attacks because they love breeding rabbits. A discussion about the Bible
might be possible on this base, otherwise it is just trolling.
"Trolling is the practice of maliciously trying to incite others that
use a newsgroup, to deviate from the stated topic of the group. In other
words, trolling is an attempt to anger others to the point of drawing
them into an argument or an off topic debate." From the web...
::: vera :::
--
___________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
::::::: http://alpha.org/default.asp :::::::
.
|
|
|
| User: "weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
16 Feb 2007 02:04:13 PM |
|
|
" ::: vera :::" <veralein@lycos.com> wrote
In Provoker <provoker@3web.com> typed:
" ::: vera :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote:
And you have just proved that you are nothing more than an atheist troll
in the Christian newsgroups.
Hello Vera:
I realize that you are not refering to me, but I'm reading
this in alt.bible, and one does not have to be a "Christian"
to read and discuss the bible. The trolls here are those who
only post to preach, but refuse to continue a discussion in
which they must defend their position. Legitimate users of a bible board
are those who recognize the fact that there
is no "proof" for anything in the bible, and so
they post for discussion, not to preach.
What do you think?
Do you also go to a rabbit breeder club and force them to
discuss that it would be better to breed cats instead, and go ad hominem
with the rabbit breeders? How do you call such people in the usenet? If
you are no rabbit breeder and
join a newsgroup of rabbit breeders, it is not you who is the one to tell
others how to breed rabbits - but it is you
who should listen and respect the rabbit breeders and stop
ad hominem attacks because they love breeding rabbits. A
discussion about the Bible might be possible on this base,
otherwise it is just trolling.
"Trolling is the practice of maliciously trying to incite others
that use a newsgroup, to deviate from the stated topic of
the group. In other words, trolling is an attempt to anger
others to the point of drawing them into an argument or an
off topic debate." From the web...
Where did I lie to you?
You criticized me for saying that 2 Timothy was not written by Paul, while
at the same time had I used it as evidence that Paul hated women. There was
no inconsistency with that because I knew that you accepted 2 Timothy as
being written by Paul, so it was your problem. And why get into another
argument.
When you post on alt.bible you must expect to find people who disagree with
you. That does not make them trolls or liars.
I post on alt.bible because I want to discuss the Bible. If you look over
my posts, you will find that to be exactly what I do.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
16 Feb 2007 01:09:20 PM |
|
|
On Feb 16, 12:31 pm, " ::: vera :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote:
Do you also go to a rabbit breeder club and force them to discuss that
it would be better to breed cats instead, and go ad hominem with the
rabbit breeders? How do you call such people in the usenet? If you are
no rabbit breeder and join a newsgroup of rabbit breeders, it is not you
who is the one to tell others how to breed rabbits - but it is you who
should listen and respect the rabbit breeders and stop ad hominem
attacks because they love breeding rabbits. A discussion about the Bible
might be possible on this base, otherwise it is just trolling.
Hello Vera:
I was simply pointing out a common principle of civil discussion, and
was neither defending his position on the subject of the thread, nor
criticizing your position on the subject of the thread.
Sticking with your analogy, everyone who posts here appears to have
some knowledge of rabbit breeding, and therefore are qualified to
argue points on this rabbit breeding discussion board, and to accuse
another rabbit breeder of being a troll, simply because one feels
incited by his arguements, would seem to be "going ad hominem".
"Trolling is the practice of maliciously trying to incite others that
use a newsgroup, to deviate from the stated topic of the group. In other
words, trolling is an attempt to anger others to the point of drawing
them into an argument or an off topic debate." From the web...
Who is to judge? If standing up and arguing against another's
position is trolling, then all legitimate posters are trolls, however,
accusing someone of being a troll, would seem to be inciting, and off
topic, don't you think?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@home0745679865854684654548756" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 06:43:44 PM |
|
|
" ::: vera :::" <veralein@lycos.com> wrote:
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Oh - but that makes me wonder... You gave it as a proof in the other post
about Paul and his "dislike" for women... So does that mean it is no proof
at all, and he has never written that women should not teach?
Silly little fundamentalist!!!!
Some of the letters in the Bible ARE by Paul, some are NOT by Paul. Some we
do not know whether it is Paul or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
50 - 60 CE
- 1 Thessalonians (Paul)
- Philippians (Paul)
- Galatians (Paul)
- 1 Corinthians (Paul)
- 2 Corinthians (Paul)
- Romans (Paul)
- Philemon (Paul)
50 - 80 CE
- Colossians (May not be Paul)
50 - 95 CE
- Hebrews (Not Paul)
80 -100 CE
- 2 Thessalonians (May not be Paul)
- Ephesians (May not be Paul)
100 -150 CE
-1 Timothy (Not Paul)
- 2 Timothy (Not Paul)
- Titus (Not Paul)
All this poses HUGE problems for anyone thinking that the Bible is
"inerrant" or "the Word of God".
Can "all scripture is inspired by God" really be God's revelation to us
through Paul when written in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 by someone impersonating
Paul?????
How do fundies explain this away???? "It's a miracle!!!' ... Their dogma
takes precedence over truth.
Read http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 02:49:04 PM |
|
|
weatherwax wrote:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote
Rightly Dividing the Word of God, 1.
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
--Wax
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@home0745679865854684654548756" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 06:27:09 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" wrote:
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Wrong.
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
Read http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html ......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to
regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp.
264-5):
Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may
seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are
not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the
deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306
words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part
of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century.
Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular
Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the
deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina
non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means
"upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so
on.
Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with
dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or
imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet
meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of
literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence
or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as
envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction
of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce
it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must
have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in
the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction
of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a
reflection of known historical reality.
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The
arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is
overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all
the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the
emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have
written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.
The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are
expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In
addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel
adds a few more considerations.
Concerning the struggle against the false teachers, Kummel writes (op. cit.,
pp. 379-80):
. . . in addition to the predictions concerning the appearance of the
false teachers 'in the last days' (I Tim 4:1 ff; II Tim 3:1 ff, 13; 4:3 f),
there are references to the present activity of the false teachers and
instructions about combating them (I Tim 1:3 ff, 19 f; 6:20 f; II Tim 2:16
ff; 3:8; Tit 1:10 ff; 3:9 ff), so that there is no perceptible distinction
between the teaching of the predicted false teachers and the present ones.
But since nowhere in the Pastorals is there to be found any consciousness of
living 'in the last days,' in the prediction of the End-time which evidently
describes present phenomena it is clear that we are dealing only with a
traditional literary motif (vaticinium ex eventu) which is now being
employed by 'Paul.' Still more striking, however, is the matter of how the
false teachers are opposed. Completely otherwise than in Col, the viewpoints
of the false teachers are not contradicted by being confronted with the
preaching about Christ, but they are countered simply by reference to the
traditional teaching, from which the false teachers have erred and which is
to be held fast (I Tim 4:1; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2 Tit 3:10 f). The lack of
any substantive debate cannot be explained on the ground that Paul did not
regard the prattle of false teachers as being worth contradicting and
assumed that Timothy and Titus themselves knew what should be said in
refutation of the false teachers. In that case there would be no necessity
to make those addressed aware of the dangers of the false teaching in
detail. This lack is much more readily explained by the fact that Paul is
not writing these letters.
In the pastorals, there is an emphasis on the preservation of tradition, and
the community situation seems to be that of the sub-apostolic age. The
pastorals evince a level of church organization that most likely would not
have existed in the lifetime of Paul. The requirements particular to bishops
and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit.,
pp. 381-2):
The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the
correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their
pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of
succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders
of office in the congregations - not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of
tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II
Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a
community which, in contrast to Paul's expectation of a near end of the age,
is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of
tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul
certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through
ordanted presbyters (presbuteros is not meant in Paul as an indication of an
office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose
essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is
totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals
presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer
any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the
community.
And Kummel goes on to amass further evidence that the theological
expressions used are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp.
382-84). All these arguments establish that the pastoral epistles are second
century products.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 07:46:30 PM |
|
|
Mark T wrote:
"oldwetdog" wrote:
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Wrong.
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
Thanks anyway....
[clip to save bandwidth] (and 26,242 1/3 electrons]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@home0745679865854684654548756" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 07:56:54 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" wrote:
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Wrong.
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
No, it is objective scholarly opinion based on what is currently known.
Erroneously thinking that 2 Timothy WAS written by Paul is your subjective
ignorant opinion based on fundamentalist dogma.
THINK!!!!
If you ever study the history of New Testament times at a proper University
and say that Paul wrote 2 Timothy you will be failed on that point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A FUNDAMENTALIST
.... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
.....
Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
.....
From Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 08:13:06 PM |
|
|
Mark T wrote:
"oldwetdog" wrote:
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Wrong.
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
No, it is objective scholarly opinion based on what is currently known.
Take a moment, and read what YOU have written!
Above, YOU STATED -- as if it were *FACT* that,
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
To which I replied:
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
Then YOU, Mark, respond with:
Quote:
No, it is objective scholarly opinion based on what is currently known.
end quote.
*DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN* !?
"...scholarly *OPINION*
Do you see that Mark? You make a statement AS IF IT IS FACT,
then admit that it is ONLY OPINION!!
NOT ONLY THAT!!
But it is *OPINION* "based on what is CURRENTLY KNOWN."
(When what you men is, we/they THINK they know, but maybe they will
learn something else later, so [covering our bases] our opinion NOW
is.... blah bla.
Opinion is NOT Fact.
AND THAT IS A FACT!
I am not interested in OPINION passed out as if it is FACT.
Thanks anyway Mark,
Have a nice day.
owd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@home074567986366587595637636579" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 08:39:30 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" wrote:
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Wrong.
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
No, it is objective scholarly opinion based on what is currently known.
Take a moment, and read what YOU have written!
OK ... I just did.
Above, YOU STATED -- as if it were *FACT* that,
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
To which I replied:
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
Theories / scholaraly opinions are not necessarily false. You do not
understand the way I am using words.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
modifying text from
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/index.shtml
Theories / scholarly opinions are explanations that make sense of some
aspect of the subject being studied, are based on evidence, allow scholars
to make valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. Theories /
scholarly opinions are supported, modified, or replaced as new evidence
appears. Theories / scholarly opinions give scholars frameworks within which
to work.
The scholarly definition of "theory" should not be confused with the way
the term is commonly used to mean a guess or a hunch. In scholarly reserach,
a theory / scholarly opinion means much more and is far more well-founded.
They must be evidence-based, internally consistent and well-tested
explanations.
Understanding the role of theory / scholarly opinion in education is
essential to scholars and vital to the informed citizen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Try jumping out of the top window in a 20 story building and see if the
theory of (scholarly opinion on the nature of) gravity works.
Try placing a metal knife into a live power socket and see if the theory of
(scholarly opinion on the nature of) elecrtricity works.
I'm placing my bets that the scholarly opinion on the nature of gravity and
electricity will prevail over anything else just as the scholarly opinion on
the nature of biblical texts will prevail over fundamentalist subjective
unproven dogma.
Then YOU, Mark, respond with:
Quote:
No, it is objective scholarly opinion based on what is currently known.
end quote.
*DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN* !?
"...scholarly *OPINION*
So?
ALL that is taught in university (or ANY place of learning) is scholarly
opinion. (see above)
All so-called "facts" are open to change with new evidence. That's the
nature of progress and education. Always was and always will be.
Do you see that Mark? You make a statement AS IF IT IS FACT,
then admit that it is ONLY OPINION!!
See above experiments.
But it is *OPINION* "based on what is CURRENTLY KNOWN."
Yep! As is ALL knowledge. There may be a new discovery tomorrow that
changes all that. All current knowledge of ANY sort is provisional.
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 09:25:40 PM |
|
|
Mark T wrote:
"oldwetdog" wrote:
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Wrong.
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
No, it is objective scholarly opinion based on what is currently known.
Take a moment, and read what YOU have written!
OK ... I just did.
Above, YOU STATED -- as if it were *FACT* that,
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
To which I replied:
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
Theories / scholaraly opinions are not necessarily false.
Certainly scholarly opinions are not necessarily false -- but they are
still opinions, and they are still NOT fact.
Thanks Mark
have a nice day.
owd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 07:59:15 PM |
|
|
Mark T wrote:
"oldwetdog" wrote:
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly
dividing" the Word of Truth?
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Wrong.
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
No, it is objective scholarly opinion based on what is currently known.
Erroneously thinking that 2 Timothy WAS written by Paul is your subjective
ignorant opinion based on fundamentalist dogma.
THINK!!!!
I think when you insult me, I don't listen to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@home0745679865854684654548756" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 08:08:13 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
2 Tim. 2:15
.....
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Wrong.
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
No, it is objective scholarly opinion based on what is currently known.
Erroneously thinking that 2 Timothy WAS written by Paul is your
subjective ignorant opinion based on fundamentalist dogma.
THINK!!!!
I think when you insult me, I don't listen to you.
Sometimes the truth needs to be told. I didn't insult you, I insulted your
opinion which is wrong.
Read the information ......
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
Read http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html ......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to
regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp.
264-5):
Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may
seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are
not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the
deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306
words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part
of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century.
Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular
Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the
deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina
non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means
"upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so
on.
Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with
dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or
imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet
meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of
literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence
or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as
envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction
of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce
it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must
have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in
the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction
of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a
reflection of known historical reality.
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The
arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is
overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all
the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the
emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have
written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.
The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are
expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In
addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel
adds a few more considerations.
Concerning the struggle against the false teachers, Kummel writes (op. cit.,
pp. 379-80):
. . . in addition to the predictions concerning the appearance of the
false teachers 'in the last days' (I Tim 4:1 ff; II Tim 3:1 ff, 13; 4:3 f),
there are references to the present activity of the false teachers and
instructions about combating them (I Tim 1:3 ff, 19 f; 6:20 f; II Tim 2:16
ff; 3:8; Tit 1:10 ff; 3:9 ff), so that there is no perceptible distinction
between the teaching of the predicted false teachers and the present ones.
But since nowhere in the Pastorals is there to be found any consciousness of
living 'in the last days,' in the prediction of the End-time which evidently
describes present phenomena it is clear that we are dealing only with a
traditional literary motif (vaticinium ex eventu) which is now being
employed by 'Paul.' Still more striking, however, is the matter of how the
false teachers are opposed. Completely otherwise than in Col, the viewpoints
of the false teachers are not contradicted by being confronted with the
preaching about Christ, but they are countered simply by reference to the
traditional teaching, from which the false teachers have erred and which is
to be held fast (I Tim 4:1; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2 Tit 3:10 f). The lack of
any substantive debate cannot be explained on the ground that Paul did not
regard the prattle of false teachers as being worth contradicting and
assumed that Timothy and Titus themselves knew what should be said in
refutation of the false teachers. In that case there would be no necessity
to make those addressed aware of the dangers of the false teaching in
detail. This lack is much more readily explained by the fact that Paul is
not writing these letters.
In the pastorals, there is an emphasis on the preservation of tradition, and
the community situation seems to be that of the sub-apostolic age. The
pastorals evince a level of church organization that most likely would not
have existed in the lifetime of Paul. The requirements particular to bishops
and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit.,
pp. 381-2):
The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the
correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their
pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of
succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders
of office in the congregations - not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of
tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II
Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a
community which, in contrast to Paul's expectation of a near end of the age,
is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of
tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul
certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through
ordanted presbyters (presbuteros is not meant in Paul as an indication of an
office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose
essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is
totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals
presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer
any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the
community.
And Kummel goes on to amass further evidence that the theological
expressions used are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp.
382-84). All these arguments establish that the pastoral epistles are second
century products.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Therefore .....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A FUNDAMENTALIST
.... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
.....
Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
.....
From Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have a choice between remaining ignorant on the matter or being
informed.
"the method, results and implications of modern critical study of the Bible"
are here to stay and cannot be dismissed just because they go against your
beliefs.
To address "the method, results and implications of modern critical study of
the Bible" one must understand it and refute it on the same basis - on a
scholarly level.
If Paul wrote 2 Timothy then PROVE it. Universities across the world will be
amazed and astounded at your superior knowledge that God has given you.
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 08:14:38 PM |
|
|
Mark T wrote:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
2 Tim. 2:15
....
Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. It's a forgery.
Wrong.
2 Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
That is someone's theory... I don't buy it.
No, it is objective scholarly opinion based on what is currently known.
Erroneously thinking that 2 Timothy WAS written by Paul is your
subjective ignorant opinion based on fundamentalist dogma.
THINK!!!!
I think when you insult me, I don't listen to you.
Sometimes the truth needs to be told. I didn't insult you, I insulted your
opinion which is wrong.
Read the information ....
I'm not interested, see my second reply...
thanks anyway
have a nice day
owd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@home074567986366587595637636579" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 08:41:10 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" wrote:
Read the information ....
I'm not interested
You have a choice between remaining ignorant on the matter or being
informed.
To address "the method, results and implications of modern critical study of
the Bible" one must understand it and refute it on the same basis - on a
scholarly level.
If Paul wrote 2 Timothy then PROVE it. Universities across the world will be
amazed and astounded at your superior knowledge that God has given you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A FUNDAMENTALIST
.... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
.....
Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
.....
From Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 09:40:20 PM |
|
|
Mark T wrote:
"oldwetdog" wrote:
Read the information ....
I'm not interested
You have a choice between remaining ignorant on the matter or being
informed.
I am informed, and advise you, that it is ignorant to accept someone's
opinion as if it were fact.
owd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
16 Feb 2007 08:14:29 AM |
|
|
On Feb 15, 8:59 pm, oldwetdog <g.aedhea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think when you insult me, I don't listen to you
Hello OWD:
I don't insult you and you don't listen to me...LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 03:33:30 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12t99mdt8j6gm82@corp.supernews.com...
Rightly Dividing the Word of God, 1.
This Bible nonsense does not alter the fact that the bibles are still books
of nonsense.
The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.
The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in
existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are
available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable
veracity. The books of the Bibles were written over 1,000 years before the
invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were
supposedly written by 56 or more different authors of unknown veracity. They
are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy. And
the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their follower's
belief in their Bible stories. There are 18 different English versions alone
and there is no way of knowing how far they have wondered from the
originals.
And there is no evidence that even the originals are anything more than pure
fiction.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 01:46:07 PM |
|
|
On Feb 15, 1:30 pm, oldwetdog <g.aedhea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rightly Dividing the Word of God, 1.
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly dividing" the
Word of Truth?
Hello OWD:
Whatever Paul meant, it appears to have been completely wasted on
denominational Christianity, which doesn't "divide" anything, but
simply puts it's trust in the "dividing" of those who split their
particular sect off from the universal mother church.
I am not sure that I divide rightly, but at least I do "divide", and I
know why I "divide" as I do, and I do not simply put my trust in
another man's "dividing"...LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "nancy" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 02:00:48 PM |
|
|
On Feb 15, 2:46?pm, "Provoker" <provo...@3web.com> wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:30 pm, oldwetdog <g.aedhea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rightly Dividing the Word of God, 1.
Dividing correctly: as opposed to dividing incorrectly.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
What was Paul's meaning when he used this term "rightly dividing" the
Word of Truth?
Hello OWD:
Whatever Paul meant, it appears to have been completely wasted on
denominational Christianity, which doesn't "divide" anything, but
simply puts it's trust in the "dividing" of those who split their
particular sect off from the universal mother church.
I am not sure that I divide rightly, but at least I do "divide", and I
know why I "divide" as I do, and I do not simply put my trust in
another man's "dividing"...LOL
~~~~~~~
You do well to not go to man for understanding.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be on precept, precept on precept; line on
line, line on line; here a little, there a little;
This is what God says....I believe it goes for ministers and
teachers,as well.
Isa 8:19 And when they shall say to you, Seek to the mediums and to
wizards who peep and mutter; should not a people seek to their God,
than for the living to the dead?
Isa 8:20 To the Law and to the testimony! If they do not speak
according to this Word, it is because no light is in them.
~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
15 Feb 2007 07:37:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:30:26 -0800, oldwetdog
<g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> claimed:
Rightly Dividing the Word of God, 1.
Something you lack knowledge of.
--
Hope for a physical kingdom is to deny Christ's words.
He dispelled that idea in Luke 17:20-21 and He never
said, "But later it will be", nor can Jesus be quoted
anywhere in Scripture saying that it will be physical.
Reading other passages that you think say it will be,
is not to refute this statement, but rather, it is to
pit the Bible against itself and an Apostle against
his Lord, since it would be a contradiction!
I would not want to be in that position!
The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!
If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that
you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make
that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD (1.) |
16 Feb 2007 08:10:50 AM |
|
|
On Feb 15, 8:37 pm, Bible Believer <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Hope for a physical kingdom is to deny Christ's words.
He dispelled that idea in Luke 17:20-21 and He never
said, "But later it will be", nor can Jesus be quoted
anywhere in Scripture saying that it will be physical.
Reading other passages that you think say it will be,
is not to refute this statement, but rather, it is to
pit the Bible against itself and an Apostle against
his Lord, since it would be a contradiction!
Hello BB:
We don't know any of "Christ's" words, because the christ has yet to
come, and we really don't know any of Jesus' words for sure, because
of Roman editing, and subsequent biased interpretation and
paraphrasing. If you were to read the bible as a story, which it is,
you might discover this to be true.
Attempting to make every last word in the bible, an integral part of
some specific doctrine, is pitting the bible against it'self, and is
the very reason that there are thousands of doctrinally disagreeing
denominations.
If the prophecy that a child will be born who will be given the
kingdom of his father David, is literal, then the Davidic kingdom of
Israel will be literally resurrected with the christ on the
throne...if that prophecy is not literal, then there will be no christ
born.
When you read the story which flows with continuity from beginning to
end of the bible, you might be able to rightly divide the literal from
the metaphorical, and come up with some doctrines which do not
contradict each other.
Why do you insist on placing your doctrinally selected single verses
above the story which flows through the bible?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
