DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 369--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stephen's Speech in Acts
By: Kerry Date: December 10, 2014, 10:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I'll take it "All" and have what it teaches of the
unchangeble principles of God and what it tells me of Him and
what is required of me to serve Him. I pray for wisdom from it
and not head knowledge. I use it to measure what people say of
God and accept it as God breathed, the fool that I am...for
doing so[/quote]You say it's unchangeable, but yet you want to
have Moses saying one thing and Stephen contradicting him.
I've given you what I think the lesson was in Genesis about
Jesus forsaking his father. That is also in line with what
Jesus said. What wisdom do you derive from Stephen's speech
when he said Abraham left after his father died?
#Post#: 370--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stephen's Speech in Acts
By: Ivor1 Date: December 10, 2014, 11:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I said God's principles are unchangeable,
You ask: What wisdom do you derive from Stephen's speech when he
said Abraham left after his father died?
Wisdom is used in a course of "action" from our discernment of
knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, insight and
revelation and for a Christian that means what we can change to
grow closer to Father.
I derive no "wisdom" from the scripture that Abraham left after
his father died, In this season of mine it brings me no closer
to God nor farther away. It may do in my next season though...
who knows? If something brings me closer to Him then I soak it
up like a sponge but if it draws me away from him I step away
from it and that quote does neither, it does not action a change
of course in my relationship being closer to God, although it
may well do for you as we are all different.
#Post#: 372--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stephen's Speech in Acts
By: Deborah Date: December 11, 2014, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Danger Mouse link=topic=35.msg368#msg368
date=1418270421]
No, I said I agree with it. The question is over what books
are in fact "Scripture"? Do you think Paul meant Timothy was
studying the New Testament when he wrote this:
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy
scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
I know what books he meant there since I know which books the
Jews called "Scriptures." That doesn't provide a clue about
what books in the New Testament should be called "Scriptures."
Similarly, Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3 does not tell us
what other books should be.
You accept most of the books the Catholic Church decided were
Scriptures. Do you accept all of them? I doubt it. If not,
why not? Do you accept the Book of Enoch as Scripture? If you
accept Jude as Scripture, then you should accept Enoch too since
he quotes from it.
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of
these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his
saints,
I think the honest truth is that you never thought much about
it. People told you all the books in the Bible are all
Scriptures and divinely inspired and you believed what you were
told. My impression of you so far is you like easy answers.
If all of Stephen's speech is "inspired," then God would be the
author of confusion and also inspired Stephen to lie. That
cannot be.
[/quote]
[quote]what books are in fact "Scripture"? Do you think Paul
meant Timothy was studying the New Testament when he wrote
this:[/quote]
Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke and calls it 'Scripture' (I
Timothy 5:18)
The books that we call 'the New Testament' were obviously being
circulated and regarded as authoritative as soon as they were
written.
[quote]If you accept Jude as Scripture, then you should accept
Enoch too since he quotes from it. [/quote]
Why? We accept Paul's teaching as apostolic and therefore
authoritative - but just because he quotes from Greek poets in
order to make a point (Acts 17:28), that doesn't mean we regard
the Greek poets as Scripture.
[quote]If all of Stephen's speech is "inspired," then God would
be the author of confusion and also inspired Stephen to lie.
[/quote]
Lots of words in Scripture are not directly inspired by God.
What about the words of Satan (Genesis 3:1-5; Job 1:9-11)? And
there are other instances of people speaking deceitfully and
saying things that are wrong - which is clear from the context.
Scripture as a whole, in its overall message, IS inspired - but
not every individual sentence within it.
#Post#: 374--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stephen's Speech in Acts
By: Kerry Date: December 11, 2014, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Deborah link=topic=35.msg372#msg372
date=1418293697]
Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke and calls it 'Scripture' (I
Timothy 5:18)[/quote]Good try, but this does not convince me.
:) Paul is quoting first of all:
Deuteronomy 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth
out the corn.
Elsewhere he attributes it to Moses:
1 Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, thou
shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
Doth God take care for oxen?
This brings up an important question: Is the law of Moses still
applicable? The other phrase is more nebulous since Jesus says
something similar, as you have said, in Luke:
Luke 16:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such
things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go
not from house to house.
I would say Jesus was citing the Torah? We all know the story
about how Laban played games with Jacob's wages; and we also
read these passages:
Leviticus 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither
rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with
thee all night until the morning.
Deuteronomy 24:14 Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that
is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy
strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:
15 At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the
sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon
it: lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, and it be sin unto
thee.
[quote]The books that we call 'the New Testament' were obviously
being circulated and regarded as authoritative as soon as they
were written.[/quote]
We can do a thread about this if you like; but this is not as
simple as you think. It took years for the church to come a
consensus. Different Bishops had different books that they had
read for Liturgies. One reason for this was money since books
were expensive. Another reason was the availability of copies.
Yet another was that while some Bishops believed some books were
authentic and inspired, others were not always convinced. I've
read the various lists compiled by early Church Fathers.
When Luther left the Catholic Church, he knew about the
difficulties of the early church; and he decided to redo the
list. Thus he rejected some books. He rejected James (maybe
because of its doctrines?) and he said of Revelation, in his
HTML http://gervatoshav.blogspot.com/2009/02/martin-luthers-preface-to-revelation-of.htmlPreface
HTML http:// to it:
About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free
to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my
opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one
thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither
apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but
prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and
Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to
speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and
visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to
say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions
and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book
of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced
it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he
commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22]—indeed, more
than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more
important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from
it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed
to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no
one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is
just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there
are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago;
although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms
and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many
mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at
all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Luther also rejected Jude and Hebrews as well as all the
deuterocanonical works that the Catholics approve.
It may surprise some to be told that the King James Version
originally contained the deuterocanonical books. Few editions
today have them; if you want to read the KJV of them, you can
buy it in a separate book.
[quote]Why? We accept Paul's teaching as apostolic and therefore
authoritative - but just because he quotes from Greek poets in
order to make a point (Acts 17:28), that doesn't mean we regard
the Greek poets as Scripture.
Lots of words in Scripture are not directly inspired by God.
What about the words of Satan (Genesis 3:1-5; Job 1:9-11)? And
there are other instances of people speaking deceitfully and
saying things that are wrong - which is clear from the context.
Scripture as a whole, in its overall message, IS inspired - but
not every individual sentence within it.[/quote]I've no problems
in this area. We also can read Job's friends speeches; and we
also read later that some of what they said was desperately
wrong. That doesn't mean that section of the Bible is untrue or
even uninspired. If someone is accurately reporting the lies
of others, he is telling us the truth about what the liars said.
This does not pose a problem for me.
I would say, myself, what the Catholic Church used to say, that
the Bible is "infallible" meaning it cannot fail. Even if it
contains errors, it will still not fail in its purposes. Their
current position seems to have evolved over time in response to
Protestants' claim of its inerrancy. They seem reluctant to
state publicly that the Bible in fact does contain errors lest
people think they were impious. Yet it was debated as late as
the Second Vatican Council
HTML http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441,<br
/>and it may interest you what Cardinal König of Vienna had to
say:
On October 2, 1964, Cardinal Franz König of Vienna spoke before
the Council Fathers on behalf of all the German-speaking
bishops' conferences, stating that the Bible does, in fact,
contain errors of science, history and incorrectly-attributed
quotations. He then proceeded to provide several examples of
apparent contradictions and misinformation.12 Of König's
intervention, Cardinal Alois Grillmeier writes,
His speech mentioned a few examples [of errors]: according to Mk
2:26 David had entered the house of God under the high priest
Abiathar and eaten the bread of the Presence. In fact, however,
according to 1 Sam 21:1 ff., it was not under Abiathar, but
under his father Abimelech. In Matthew 27:9 we read that in the
fate of Judas a prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. In fact it
is Zech 11:12 f. that is quoted. In Dan 1:1 we read that King
Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of King
Jehoiakim, i.e. 607 B.C., but from the authentic chronicle of
King Nebuchadnessar that has been discovered we know that the
siege can only have taken place three years later."13
I must agree with him about Mark 2:26 since it was not Abiathar
but Abimelech. He is surely correct too that it was the prophet
Zechariah and not Jeremiah who wrote that, so Matthew 27:9 is
wrong. I disagree with him about Daniel 1:1 however since that
has an explanation. I will concede to him however that Daniel
1:1 is vague and could have been worded better; but then I
follow the Jews on this and place the book of Daniel in the
books of the "Writings" and not in with the "Prophets."
Re: Paul quoting the Greek poet, I think we should believe
that that poet was inspired to a degree, at least when he wrote
that passage. Truth is truth wherever we find it and no matter
who said it; and we ought not to think God works only with "us"
the chosen few. We risk becoming like the insular Jews in
Jesus' day if we take that approach. People can learn a lot
about God just by studying nature. Don't the prophets tell us
this?
#Post#: 375--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stephen's Speech in Acts
By: Kerry Date: December 11, 2014, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ivor1 link=topic=35.msg370#msg370 date=1418277577]
I said God's principles are unchangeable,[/quote]So you keep
saying while also saying what God says changes.
[quote]You ask: What wisdom do you derive from Stephen's speech
when he said Abraham left after his father died?
Wisdom is used in a course of "action" from our discernment of
knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, insight and
revelation and for a Christian that means what we can change to
grow closer to Father. [/quote]
I would think seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in such
matters would be more profitable than reading the Bible.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he
will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and
he will shew you things to come.
This does not say sit down with your Bible and ask God to teach
you what it means. Many may look at it that way; but that's
what it says. It says the Holy Spirit will show us about things
to come. I read that to mean we will guided so our actions make
things work out right. "All things work together for the good
to them that love God."
If our hearts are hard, then the Bible is useful for correction.
When Israel did not want to hear the Voice of God, they asked
Moses to go off into the wilderness to talk to God. Israel
then got a book. They got a system of sacrifices. Both the
book and the sacrifices were instituted because of their hard
hearts. I have found that the bible is more useful in telling
me where I was wrong than in telling me I'm right. "Profitable
for correction and reproof," yes indeed.
[quote]I derive no "wisdom" from the scripture that Abraham left
after his father died, In this season of mine it brings me no
closer to God nor farther away. It may do in my next season
though... who knows? If something brings me closer to Him then I
soak it up like a sponge but if it draws me away from him I step
away from it and that quote does neither, it does not action a
change of course in my relationship being closer to God,
although it may well do for you as we are all different.[/quote]
What about the seventy five souls in Egypt? Do you derive any
wisdom from that? I can tell you what wisdom I derived from the
seventy mentioned in the Torah. I can also tell you that it
taught me something about God's love and about how I should love
all men. Indeed, all the Law and Prophets are about loving God
and loving our neighbors.
I like you derive absolutely no wisdom from Stephen's speech.
Nor did it injure me. If it's a forgery, what is that to me? I
can't see the Love in it, and that is what I must find in a
passage before I dare to say to myself I understand it. I care
not about forgeries in the Bible. I can take up such serpents
without injury -- because I don't take anything seriously unless
I can see how Jesus was right: That all Scriptures must be
about Love.
There are passages I don't understand. I don't know if it's me
being stupid? My having a hard heart and resisting the lesson?
Or perhaps they're forgeries. I simply don't know. So I
"hold fast" to what I do know. When it rings true in my heart
and I perceive the goodness of God in a passage, then and only
then can I feel confident it is in fact Divinely inspired
Scripture. At that point it's also written on my heart. And
that is where real Scripture is written.
Deuteronomy 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day,
shall be in thine heart:
Not the written laws in the written Torah. That's the letter,
the literal. The real Torah is Living and written in the
heart. The Word of God is perfect. Man's words, no matter
how good, are not. The person who confuses the written words of
the Bible with the Living Word is doing what the Jews did when
Jeremiah reproved them:
Jeremiah 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord
is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the
scribes is in vain.
You are right to seek wisdom in the Bible; but the real Wisdom
comes from above and is ever present.
Proverbs 1:20 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in
the streets:
21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings
of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page