The B I B L E, yes, that's the book for me!
So, over the past few days, in the post Christmas quiet, I’ve read Ephesians, Jude, and Galatians.
I read them in 5 different versions with Strongs Concordance at my side…oh the wonders of the Computer Age. Three comments:
1. In Ephesians, there is a demarcation between “we” and “you” in the first chapter. WE being Paul and the Jews, who were predestined corporately and the YOU who became part of the elect through the decision to believe the Good News when it was preached to them.
2. Jude has one of my favorite sections about how some need to be corrected gently in love and others need to be dragged forcibly away from the edge of the pit. It also seems to be addressing those who think because Grace saves us we don’t have to worry about doing anything.
3. Galatians is mainly Paul defending his apostolic authority and the fact that gentiles don’t need to become Jews to be righteous. Circumcision is the main issue, although feasts and Sabbaths are mentioned too. I also compared the word “fool” as in Matt. 5 and “foolish” as in Galatians 3. The word “Rhaka” means empty one, or worthless one, that’s the Matt. 5 word. The word in Galatians means stupid, or unwise. I for one, am neither.
27 comments:
Jason, what I am really trying to avoid is another pointless argument with you. I believe in Jesus, I love Jesus. God bless us, everyone.
Eph 1:
1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: 2Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
It would seem that any reference to us, we, or you would include all who are in the church at Ephesus. The letter makes no delineation as chapter 2 is pointing out that such a delineation no longer exists.
Eph 1:1 to 1:12 "We were..."
Eph 1:13 So it was with you, when you heard...
The saints and the faithful (2 different groups perhaps)
It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter...
Ecc. 1:2
yet still, I continue...Gal. the accursed are not the believing Jews or Gentiles, but the false teachers who are telling the converted gentiles that they need to be circumsised in order to be saved...
"How is this pointless? Since when is someone's eternal destiny pointless?"
Whose destiny are you concerned about here?
My point was merely that Paul is writing to the Ephesians, so that when he uses we, or us, he is including himself along with them; and when he says "you", he is excluding himself.
Chris, was Paul writing to himself?
Jason, define the gospel.
The question of "you" "We" "us" and "Them" needs not only be discussed in the context of Ephesians, but with Paul's other writings, such as in Romans where he makes a clear pre-gospel distinction between the Jews and the Greeks. Branches were broken off and other branches grafted in, so in Christ there are no Jews or Greeks. But the Gentiles had to be grafted onto the plant that the Jews were naturally a part of. The Jews were the chosen people, a concept supported by nearly every book of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. The Gentiles, who were not "God's Chosen People" became such after, and only after, being grafted into the Jewish religion, which is what Christianity really is. So, now the Gentiles can also claim all the blessings and prophecies of the Jewish people not because the Church has replaced Israel, but because the Church has joined with Israel. The Jews were predestined to be the people of God, the blessing of the world, and the race that brought us God's Messiah. The Gentiles can claim all of that in Christ, thus tearing down the dividing wall and bringing the two into one, but they had to chose to join in, and Paul warns them in Romans to remain faithful because if the Jewish (predestined) branches can be cut off, how much moreso those grafted in afterwards?
God Bless, ABR
humanity was chosen and created with a divine destiny. from before the foundations of the earth God knew each face and each heart and had a perfect and divine plan for each. It was His desire that we choose freely to love Him, therefore He gave us the ablility and freedome to choose.
I am very tired of this. I am sorry for promoting this arguement, of adding fuel to this fire, I need to just let it go.
Paul was including himself as one of the Body, which he is, along with his Ephesian brothers and sisters. Paul says nothing in the salutation that suggests he is speaking of Jew and Gentile as separate, as that would violate the intent of the letter. If he begins the letter by addressing it to the church at Ephesus, and then begins to say we and us, he is then speaking about himeself and them together. This is not a translation issue, it is a grammatical one. Otherwise his letter makes no sense at all.
We are grafted into the heritage of Abraham, which already included Jew and Gentile. Israel failed because God deemed it so. So that the covenant given to Abraham would be fulfilled. That is the point of 9-10-11.
Paul's warning that we can be cut off does not mean that God would do such a thing. He is simply saying that we are to squelch our pride, since in reality we have nothing to do with the fact that we are saved.
Many thanks to Jason and Chris.
Your wealth of wisdom and knowledge is impressive to say the least. I am sorry that you have wasted so much time trying to get through to this tired, stubborn old woman. Ecclesiastes 2:15-16
MaryEllen - I am sorry they are being so taxing on you. It is odd that they spend so much time arguing with you, who are in basic agreement, but don't want to argue. Particularly in light of the fact that someone "outside the fold" has so many questions they refuse to address since I am apparently already lost.
The lessons with the prodigail son, the good samaritan and the conversion of Saul apparently were added fluff of little importance since they can't be bothered to address the issues that could very well be what stands between me and the church. Or perhaps they are afraid of my questions, not knowing how to answer them, they pick and choose and call me damned, or just attack you for using a different brand of deodrant before going to church.
I truly don't understand you folks. You speak as if you have the authority of God to say what you say. Yet if you speak for God, then by example it would appear that God prefers to quibble and appear childish. This isn't any representation of the Deity I know. Who would worship a child?
well, the magi worshiped a child, as did simeon and anna in the temple...but honestly wanderer, i get you point very well.
if my faith were based on the behavior of Christians, i would be totally faithless. but my hope and faith is built on nothing less than Jesus. so, i stumble on, keeping my eyes on the light, and hoping that some how, in some way that same light is shining through me and making this dark world a little brighter...
Maryellen~ I loved your comment...I did a mini post about it on my blog...hope you're having a wonderful night :) Thanks for the way you put things so gracefully.
Stephanie, thanks for the encouraging comment. break is almost up and i have a ton of papers to correct before we go back. tomorrow - new year's eve - is my wedding anniversary but we're "broke" until the 13th, so we'll just be spending a quiet evening at home. i can't seem to make comments on you site, but i enjoy reading it. haven't seen narnia yet, funny how some "christians" are blasting it, i got in trouble in a Christian School once for showing the "Wonderworks" version of it to my 5th and 6th graders. I love Narnia! Blessings...
blessings all...
"...if my faith were based on the behavior of Christians, i would be totally faithless. but my hope and faith is built on nothing less than Jesus. so, i stumble on, keeping my eyes on the light, and hoping that some how, in some way that same light is shining through me and making this dark world a little brighter..."
Well done, Maryellen. Excellently said. Amen.
I'm sorry you can't leave comments on my blog...not sure why....I totally understand about break being almost over and having a lot to do. Enjoy the rest of break and Happy Anniversary!!!
Jason S. - This point you make is understood, but it is not applicable.
Yes there are rules that were written down in the bible, as you have indicated. The problem is that so many people read them, quote them and point to the fact that they irrefutably know the precise meaning and that others are wrong.
Let's take your example. The neighbor instead of questioning as you put it, simply points out that my rules don't mean what they say, or that they weren't intended to include him (a more apt metaphor, don't you think?) and so she had no right to question him on the issue.
In this case she has the advantage. She is my wife, she has a solid claim to point to the fact that she knows me better than my neighbor. This is key. To review whether you can truly make such a claim. The other key is this: She could be wrong. Yep. Consider that fact. As well as she knows me, and as good as her intentions might be, she could be wrong. The reason? Because ultimately, as well as she knows me, she isn't me, so she can't know everything that is a part of my make up.
Lets take this word thing a step further, and point to the fact that I am a blogger and a writer. My words are in print all over the place to be pointed to. As such, my wife could point to something I said and interpret it out loud to a neighbor that it means I am going to do them serious physical harm. She won't do that though. Because she knows that even if it appears likely, that is a bit too big of a claim to make on my behalf.
Consider this and the fact that damnation is a little bit more significant than getting beaten up. There is a point when the severity of your accusations require you to be positive. More positive than you can be in regards to God's thoughts.
Jason,
you inspire me so!
lets talk about the different gospel. Wanderer is not preaching any gospel, since he has never once said that we should all believe as he does. mainly he is trying to come with grips with the fact that although you and I believe in the same Jesus and the same Bible, we are in frequent disagreement and you seem to be condemning me for my interpretation of certian scriptures which are infact open to interpretation. I just got back from a Church service where the gospel of Christ was very clearly preached, and the congregation given ample opportunity to respond to that gospel, there were candles, hymnals, icons and crucifixes on the wall. Did the trimings and style of worship make the gospel any less true? Does my salvation depend upon whether or not I believe in personal predestination? You seem to be the type who would tell the farmer to go out and pull all the weeds, when the Farmer chooses to wait until harvest so that it is clear just which are wheat and which are tares. Wanderer may still end up being a stalk of wheat rather than a tare, and Jesus made it clear that some people who are yet convinced that what they are doing is in the Name of God, (did we not do miracles in Your Name?) who won't make it in.
"mainly he is trying to come with grips with the fact that although you and I believe in the same Jesus and the same Bible, we are in frequent disagreement and you seem to be condemning me for my interpretation of certian scriptures which are infact open to interpretation."
Yes, MaryEllen. This is precisely what I am trying to come to grips with. This attached to the claim that the Bible is not at all ambiguous. If what is written there is clear and not open to interpretation, then it follows that one person is right, and the others are wrong. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't (in fact it couldn't) include directions on how to discern who interprets the Bible correctly. So then, who does determine this? God, obviously. But until the day of judgement, how is one to know?
It amazes me, given the above seeming logic, that more people don't practice a little more caution in their declarations in God's name given these facts.
And before that same worn out song and dance erupts again and I am accused once more of saying what I didn't, I will clarify. The greater portion of the Bible can be clearly understood, so we can understand what God wants. I am pointing to the fact that the greater part isn't what you folks are arguing about. It is the minor details that aren't clear, so don't claim that I am trying to throw out the validity of the whole book.
Jason, what makes you right and me wrong? Which are more right? The Methodists or the Baptists? Again Wanderer has clearly stated the main gist of the matter. We are not to preach a false gospel, what makes a gospel false? Why are you stuck in Galatians? No one is telling you to get circumsised.
Wanderer said
"It amazes me, given the above seeming logic, that more people don't practice a little more caution in their declarations in God's name given these facts."
The scripture is filled with warnings of this nature. Jason, what do you think of the church service I described? Are you ready to say that those people are not saved? It wasn't, by the way, a Roman Catholic Church. I think maybe wanderer would be amused at how frequently the Roman Catholic Church is described as Pagan by other "Christians."
"Any time anything is added or subtracted from the gospel it becomes false. That is Paul's point."
Given this point, why do you keep quoting select verses at us? Aren't you being problematic when you cite specific verses instead of citing the whole entity then? (Of course not, but then this drags us back to the heart of man question from earlier.)
"Was there anything ambiguous about the verses that I cited?"
Yes, obviously there is, since you have been debated on the meanings of several of them by others.
and jason, you never answered me when i asked the very same question. actually i have stated the gospel several times in my writings. i do not add, i do not subtract (except when i am teaching math) i read what it says with my only bias being that God is Good, God is Love and in Him there is no darkness at all.
Jason
quoting verses out of John, or anyother book does not explain what you mean by the gospel...if i were to answer by quoting, i'd have to quote all of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, for those are in fact The Gospels. We are saved when we choose to repent of our sins and put our faith in Jesus. But of course saying you believe in Jesus isn't really enough for even the demons believe in Jesus. We could use Paul's "roman road" to salvation if we choose. And I wouldn't deny any of it. Except I'd have to clairify where he quotes Psalm 14 and 53, pointing to the multitiude of vereses where people are urged, commanded, and instructed to seek God. If you want to go back to my long post, the comment I made in all caps should clarify my stand, not that i feel it is necessary to claify anything for you. You "gave up" on me once. I've resolved not to "spred my poison" anywhere else in the blog world, except here. If I am preaching a false gospel here, than don't listen/read.
James said:
Faith without works is dead...
does dead faith save?
"Please tell me what was ambiguous so that we can discuss together."
You have got to be joking, because you certainly have seemed to demonstrate more intelligence than this statement indicates.
First, I am not the primary one debating the meaning of individual verses. Several have. The existence of this fact doesn't make you wrong, but it does mean that said verse is not clear cut. In that, then yes, some of these verses are ambiguous.
As for discussing it with you? Fortunately I have enough of a sense of humor to laugh at such an insulting statement.
Why would I discuss something with someone that thus far has declared me damned and stated they have nothing to learn from me? This wouldn't be a discussion then if you wouldn't be listening to me. It would be a lecture series. No thanks.
"To say He knows ahead of time who will choose Him is just another way of saying he determined the outcomes. Because of His great mercy and sovereignty, fearlessly exercised by leaving the individual’s choice open, Yahweh reveals His compassion… See the difference?"
Odd, I thought you had always been in disagreement with me on this point. Was I wrong then, or am i misinterpreting now?
Post a Comment