ChristiansUnite Forums

Hey Brothers and sisters in Christ,

I thought I would throw out some of my thoughts so you all can tell me how off the wall I am (with scriptural support please) or help me think them through better.

One of the things that kinda bugs me, is when well meaning Christians display an understanding of scripture as something like, " that was OT theology, but we are under NT grace."  I think we get confused by the labels--OT & NT--but they are not scripture, just labels describing a part of the Bible.

The more I read the Bible, the more I agree with the old saying, "the OT is the NT concealed, and the NT is the OT revealed."  They are saying the same thing.  The scriptures Paul argued from, proving to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah were the OT.  The scriptures appealed to by the Bereans in Acts 17:11 to see if what Paul ( a NT christian) said was true, were the OT.  The things Jesus said in His ministry on earth were almost all direct Quotes from the OT.  He even said that He only repeats what the Father told Him to say.  From the cross,Jesus quoted Ps 22:1, I think, to bring to mind the descriptive prophesy about the messiah, the observers were seeing right in front of them.  When Jesus said, "hear oh Israel, the Lord is one...love the Lord your God with all thine heart..." He was quoting Deut. 6:4...and on and on. Hebrews 4:2,6 says the OT Jews heard the same Ghospel as we did,  Zeph. 1:7 talks about a sacrafice that was allready prepared, and Heb. 13:20 says that sacrafice was Jesus--the Eternal covenant.

As I read it, the covenant given in Gen. 17:7,8 was an eternal covenant, the same covenant we are under in the NT---if God is our God we will inherit the promised land forever.  In Gal 3:17, Paul says the OT covenant made in Gen 17 was not nullified by the law given to Moses.


Another point is that time is only relative to us, not God.  To claim that "Jesus hadn't died yet" is really irrelevent I think in the light of the eternal covenant.  (Now this is where I get a little goofy)  I take it one step further in my understanding.  I define 'time' as that 'thing' that seperates events.  If God is outside of time, then to God, everything is 'now' and there is no such thing as 'then'.  My dead Grandparents, Moses, and I will all approach the Throne at the same instant, immediately following each of our respective deaths.  This elliminates the conceptual need for a 'holding tank' for those who die before the end of 'time'.  It also renders 'salvation by faith' in the OT a non issue in my own ability to understand it.  One more step I take on this thought ( although I haven't really figgured out why yet  :), is that it is legitimate for me to pray now for the apostle Pauls welfare.  Kind of rediculus, 'cause I know how the story turns out, but I don't know the emotional battles he faced, and I can support him with prayer just as I can support my wife as she visits her mom in the hospital,  Because God is outside the realm of 'time'.


OK, theres a couple of my thoughts---fire away   ;D

Hello 1Tim,

Brother, what you are asking for would be a book. Many of us here will try to help you, but I'll start by telling you that those well-meaning Christians you talked about told you right. As a start, I will tell you that many portions of the Holy Bible won't make any sense at all unless you heed some of the advice given to you by those well-meaning Christians. I don't have the time or energy to write that book for you right now, but I will help you understand a few major things that are absolute musts for you to understand the Holy Bible.

1 - There is a massive difference between being under the Law as opposed to living under Grace. First, the Mosaic Law was for Israel, GOD'S chosen people, the Jews. GOD deals with Israel separately in many ways, and this must be understood. As a New Testament Example, Israel is NOT the CHURCH which is THE BODY OF CHRIST, and one can't understand much of the New Testament until the differences are learned. GOD made specific promises to Israel that don't apply to all people. AND, GOD made specific promises to the BODY OF CHRIST that don't apply to most of Israel.

2 - The crucifixion of JESUS CHRIST was and is the most precious event in human history. One must understand why JESUS CHRIST went willingly to the CROSS and what changed at the CROSS to understand the basic concepts of Salvation. It stands to reason that there were huge reasons for Very GOD to humble Himself, make Himself manifest in the flesh, and submit Himself to a death considered a curse when HE was completely innocent, Holy, and without fault of any kind. So, there is a massive reason why those well-meaning Christians told you the truth about HUGE differences between before the CROSS and after the CROSS.

3 - All mature Christians will tell you that the entire Bible from cover to cover is MOST worthy of study, and much of what you said about studying the Old and New Testament is completely true. However, you must make distinctions between the two before you will ever have a chance of understanding the Holy Bible. There are ample reasons for the Titles of Old and New Testament.

4 - The Bible itself, not just some well-meaning Christians, mentions and expounds on the differences between Law and Grace in many portions of the Holy Bible. The same is true for Israel as opposed to the CHURCH which is the BODY OF CHRIST. The same is true for other ages and events in the Holy Bible that one couldn't possibly understand without learning the basics first. The examples are too numerous to mention, but they wouldn't mean much until the basics were learned first. AND, I must tell you that heeding the advice already given to you by those well-meaning Christians are musts.

The Holy Bible is not a book that someone is going to understand in 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, or 20 years. Studying the Holy Bible properly would take several lifetimes, much longer than any of us will live. It's a challenge but many Christians really love studying the Bible and learning the precious truths that are contained in its pages from cover to cover.

I would recommend that you find a church that offers Bible classes for people who want to learn and study the Holy Bible. There are entire books written about single Chapters of the Holy Bible, so I hope that you understand that what you asked for in your post would begin about 15 feet high. BUT, I give thanks that the way to Salvation is simple enough for a child to understand. Belief in JESUS CHRIST, very GOD, and believing what HE did on the CROSS in our place is the only way for Salvation. Once a person accepts JESUS CHRIST as Lord and Saviour, it is a natural thing to want to study the Bible and understand it.

I hope this helps some in getting you started. We do have quite a few threads already on the forum about how to study the Bible, but nothing will replace finding a good Bible class and spending large amounts of your own time. Once you really get into studying the Bible, it's habit forming and begins to be a time that you look forward to.

Finally, prayer for people who have already physically died like the Apostle Paul mean nothing at all. When the Apostle Paul physically died, he was absent from the body and present with JESUS CHRIST. This short physical life on earth is the only chance someone gets to accept JESUS CHRIST as Lord and Saviour. I can assure you that the Apostle Paul was Saved and is with the precious one he served, JESUS CHRIST.

Love In Christ,
Tom

2 Timothy 2:15 NASB  Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Amen Brother BEP's

Amen Brother Tom!

Hi 1Tim,

You did make a few good points. The OT is not a throw away book as some would have it. For "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". As Brother Tom said though we must be sure to place all scripture in it's proper place. What happened before the cross and what happened at and after the cross. There are many that would bring us back under the law by putting emphasis on the OT teachings and ignoring what Jesus Christ did on the cross.

You are right when saying that time is not relevant to God. He transcends all time.  He created time and put it's constraints on man.

Add another, AMEN Brother!

Amen Brothers Tom and Roger.

All right, everyone I wanted opinions from are here...well almost everyone, but I suspect 2nd Timothy will be along shortly, and a few others   ;), so lets get a couple things straight.

I was raised christian, memorizing scripture, and am fairly familiar with it.  I remember more scripture than I can find when I want it.  Because of that though, I recognized something about myself, I don't allways come up with the questions I need to think through, because most of the Bible I learned before the "thinking gear" kicked in, and since it was a part of my thought process allready, once I could think things through, I didn't realize I needed to.

My best learning is done in argument form, therefore I tend to serch out those who disagree with me, and can defend their opinion well, to bounce my own opinion off of, to test it.  I am looking for dialogue with you guys to do just that.

I do not disagree with anything posted here so far, except Toms  comment on the "praying for Paul thingy"  I only included that because it is the logical conclusion of my premis about time.  I recognize it is meaningless, and useless for any kind of doctrinal foundation.  It's purely my own speculation, unsupported by scripture.

I did not intend to suggest that we are still under law, it was man that made it a condition of salvation, not the wrighters of the OT, and I am prepared to defend that statement.  My proposition is that we are under Grace, just as the OT believers were, even though they may not have  realized  that.  The only difference between the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant is: the OC was conditional on man maintaining God as their God, the NC is conditional on God, an absolute,  but the rest of the respective covenants are the same.  The two were even established the same way.  In Ex 24:8, Moses "instituted" the Covenant of the Law with blood, in Matt. 26:28 Jesus did.  Under both covenants, the object was not behavior modification, but a relationship with Jesus / God.  One described what it looked like, and the other illustrated it, but both were designed to reveal our need for Jesus, that we could not 'look like' what he required, and that we needed Him to work in us the state of being that produced the results that satisfied the condition of being righteuss.  It was that 'state of being' in both covenants that was the objective.  IMO

It is not a quarrel I am after, but an argument that I can test my own opinion against, and examine opposing arguments---and after all, this forum is called "debate".    ;D

Galatians 3:22-25 ASV
(22)  But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(23)  But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
(24)  So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(25)  But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor.


The law was not perfect. It was to help guide people to the more perfect sacrifice.  It as the verses note above a "tutor" If the law were perfect we would not have needed a Saviour.

Hebrews 7:11 KJVR
(11)  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 7:22-24 KJVR
(22)  By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
(23)  And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
(24)  But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

The Old Law was written for our learning.

Romans 15:4 KJVR
(4)  For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

Jesus took the Old Law and nailed it to the cross

Colossians 2:12-14 KJVR
(12)  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
(13)  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
(14)  Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Yes the Old Law is instructional and we can glean much good from it, but it is definitly not what we rest our hope on! We rest our hope in Jesus

Ephesians 2:12-16 KJVR
(12)  That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
(13)  But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
(14)  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
(15)  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
(16)  And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

I don't see a conflict between my expressed theories and these scriptures.  If the law was a "tutor" then it was established to show us, or teach us how we should be--yet were / are not--therefore, the need for Jesus.  But the question is why were we not able to look like what the law said we should.  The answer IMO is sin of course, but sin within our nature deep down beyond the behavior level, at the motive level, where it should have been recognized that the promise of a coming savior was needed just as much as the realization nowdays that he did come.  The promise then was that He would come and cover all sin, and the promise now is that His comeing did cover all sin.

The law wasn't adequate because it addressed our behavior, not our core, but by revealing that our behavior was not what it should look like, it was addressing our core (state of being)--that it was not what it should be.  That, I think is why the law could never impart righteusness.  Not only could it never be perfectly obeyed, but even if it was--by humans--it would still be behavior that was righteuss, and not our state of being, wich only Jesus could address.

The covenant Jesus established resolves the problem of our state of being.  It is the eternal covenant that existed in the OT too.

Hello 1Tim,

I was trying to help you with some basics to get you started in understanding  how to Study the Bible, not argue. I have no intention of arguing with you. I'll simply tell you that you should learn the basics before you try to start arguments. Maybe someone else will be interested in arguing with you.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 8:1-2 NASB  Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

I think that not only did the OT law (and one must also veiw this from the eyes of the times they lived) modify behavior, it was also intended by the Almighty to be taken internally..........like water of a spring. When you internalize the laws of God they change your intentions, and deep motivations for God. Many however could not hold fast to the law, internally, and therfore the Savior and risen Lord was required to wash us.

The OT law (specifically the 10 commandments) is not obsolete, simply supplimented. there are countless volumes of scripture that will give additional rules but it is all based in whole on the ten, and gives clarification for the times, and situations they faces. Just as no we need Christ to save us from the barage of multimedia sin piped at us from all sides causing our eye to sin and lust in our hearts (speaking of my own struggles here ;)) and without the loveing salvation and stregnth of God and Christ, I too would perish in eternal damnation because of my weaknesses.


God knew all along we would need Christ and intended Him to come from the very beginning, and just in time to save us all from ourselves.

I agree with BEP....you are asking for many hours of study here.  God will answer all of your qwuestions in HIS time, but I am sure He would want you to learn some basic doctrine first so later you will have something to build on.  The OT and NT are most definetaly 2 seperate books and should be thought as such.  Each can ocrrolate to the other but we must know what pertains to us Now in this church age.  Studying the bible takes decades of intense love of the word.  The stronger we love the word, the more we learn, there is always degree's amongst believers, some will fulfill this love with maximum learning others will not.

 But when learning, PATIENCE is required, if God wants you to know something NOW, He will tell you through His word.  When He doesn't want you to know something NOW, it is usually because the foundation is not READY for the other part of the bricks for this structure.  Knowledge does not come before spiritual growth, and only the Lord know's when we are ready for it.  We must have our foundation in place and STURDY, BEFORE we can take on more concrete.  Your questions will be answered in time, so in the mean time, don't think about it, yet we are to concentrate on what is at hand right now.  It will come, so until then I would find your right pastor teacher and learn the bible everyday.

 The following  pretty much sums it up for me..............

"The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder, the soul and the spirit, the joints of the marrow, and is the thought and critic and intense of the heart. All scripture is God breathed, and is profitable, for doctrine, for re-proof, for correction for instructions in righteousness, that the man of God might be mature, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamded, rightly dividing the word of truth."




 

Personally, I agree with the OT and NT being two different books, and the OT being meant for the Jews of that time, as Christians were not, as of that time (obviously).

I am just starting studies in theology, so I am reading closely the OT now. I can say this: I am forever grateful for Jesus coming to us, Praise God. In the OT, women are viewed badly in many ways. EVERYTHING, pretty much for a woman needs cleansing time--or a woman is really in seclusion pretty much most of her life in the OT. This bothers me a bit, but I have it on my list to consult with God, when I get there. I don't understand how, women--being the only bearer of life, since man couldn't possibly bear life without her ability to give birth--can be so dirty after natural things happening because of this ability.

Praise Jesus for so many things changing with His birth, life, death and resurrection. I love the OT--I am enthralled with the story of David in Samuel right now. But, I do have issues with the OT and how many "sins" women have in there.

Um, I do believe I got off subject a bit but..hey, I am old.

God Bless,
Kelly

Oops........

Whatever it was, I didn't do it!......lol   :D


I am only guessing this is in reference to the "Israel being a nation" thread I started some time ago?   Let me put your mind at ease 1Tim.....I do not believe in law keeping as means of salvation if this is what came across somewhere in my prior postings.


Eph 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9  Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Perhaps I misunderstand though  ???


I believe the OT and NT is the whole of things, its all inspired by God.   Being in the age of Grace, we the Church have the unique place in time of being able to look back and see the entire plan that God has for mankind, whereas the OT saints were not quite able to understand it all, even though they knew it was all about faith and trusting God as well.


As others have suggested, you could get into all kinds of things along this topic, but I assure you I'm not the final authority on these things, nor do claim to be....so please don't be alarmed at my presense here.   Only God has the final authority on these things, and like you, I'm searching and seeking to understand those truths just as you are.


Think of me as fun loving brother who loves Prophecy...Please!   :)

Blessings!

Amen 2T. Much in the OT ( law ) was a shadow of things to come ( NT Grace ). However the OT is a valued wealth of information whereby we can understand the entire scriptures much better. Not two separate books but all one book. Jesus knew from the begining of creation the plan that was laid out for all creation and the entire Bible tells us of this. From Creation to Revelations, all is scripture and we are told that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". No we are not inder the law but we can learn from the OT as well as from the New what it meant to be under the law and how man failed miserably giving us the need to be under grace, the need for the wonderful mercies of Jesus Christ and the cross.

Thank you for your responce 2nd Timothy, and no, I was not referring to your past thread, but your ability to think things through in the light of scripture, it is evident in your posts.

I have read and reread my original post, and cannot find anything in it that suggests my opinion is that we are still under Law, but most of you all seem to think that is what I said.  Could you show me what I wrote that suggests that?


Kelly, I am suprised, just a bit, that you didn't recognize how the OT law takes women out of the roles the occult placed them in.  The society the law was given to was one that was immersed in the Egypt occult system.  Alleister Crowley got a bit more...uh...colorful... in his rendition of the practices.


I find it mildly amusing that the "counsil" given here, and agreed with, is to seek out a "church" that teaches, rather than a God that does.  What is a church, but a fellowship of believers supporting each other...like this website...I thought. One poster did appeal to God as the teacher, but then negates it right away by appealing to man.  If I wanted to follow a religion, I would find a church or preacher I liked and believe everything he said--because he said so.  The object of Christianity though, is to understand the Bible and what God is saying.  The opinion of man may help, or may hinder, but is never an authority.

The reason God gave some to be pastors, some teachers...ect. is because He chose to reveal bits and pieces to each one of us, encouraging us all to work together, toward fellowship, otherwise He would have made us all philosophers, theologians, encouragers, evangelists, prophets...ect.

I did expect to be disagreed with, but I also expected that someone here would take 1 Peter 3:15 seriously, but if you would rather make an ambiguous appeal to a 15'  stack of books, than to the Bible, I completely understand.

While I agree with most of what you said here we must realize what pastors and teachers role is. A pastors role is to feed the sheep. This says that the pastor is to preach the word of God. A teachers role is to teach the word of God. For this reason we are to heed what they have to say. Yes there are many false preachers and teachers today so in this aspect I agree with you that we all have need to study God's word and to test the spirits, to insure that they are indeed in the word of God and not in the word of man.

1Tim:


1Tim, I must shamefully admit that I was sort of quickly skimming through the thread and picked up on Law dealy in someones reply and sort of ran with the ball.  :-[  The law vs Grace debate has raged on the board here in the not so distant past, so I most likely jumped to a conclusion that was wrong.....My apologies there brother!   I promise to give the thread a thorough reading over again and will try to respond at that time.   

I work late nights so I'm sorta pooped at the moment, but I will get back to this in the next day or so.   :)

Blessings!

Zoiks!   I've been censured....lol   (OK I'm not pooped, I'm VERY VERY TIRED)   ;D  :P

I think the confusion came from the comment on " that was OT theology, but we are under NT grace." Most people that say this then launch into a long speal about our needing to still observe the Laws of the OT. Perhaps people read that and overlooked the rest of the statements that were made.

I have a sneaking suspicion these comments are about me, and that is ok, everyone has a right on how they wish to learn the written word.
 
God the Holy Spirit is our teacher, and the reason He gave us "God gave some to be pastors", is just exactly that.  He "Gave" (A Gift)  SOME to be teachers with the "GIFT" of pastor teacher.  To deny this is to say God does not know what He is talking about or He didn't know what He was doing when He said this.  Those words should be headed, (as ALL of His words should be) they were spoken by the Lord, and the reason the Lord said that is because (being omniscient) He knew WE would speak a different language than HE.  The Lord spoke Arimain, the writers spoke Hebrew and Koine Greek.  They did not speak english!  Unless we are languages theologians of the "ANCIENT" languages, it would be impossible to for us to know what these words means aside from learning by a pastor teacher (The pastor MUST know the ancient languages) or a college professor.  That takes years of college, and "THE GIFT", and God only gave "SOME" to have that gift (To teach).  The writers of the bible did not speak english, and the earliest writing was 3,500 years ago, languages have certainly changed since, and their definitions have also.  To deny this would be just silly.
 
God put "Teachers" here for our growth and edification, we just need to find "Our right pastor Teacher".  These teachers (that KNOW the ancient languages) are our gift from the Lord, and without knowing the ancient languages it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand FULLY the word of God.  I want to know the word of God, EVERY word, as it was "Spoken back then" and I will NOT leave that up to guess my work, for His WORDS are way too important to me and to all of us.  But to each their own, the "Privacy Of the Priesthood,"...... God gave us the marvelous gift of free will too.
 
 
 
Teach Isagogically.
That means we consider the historical, geographical, economic, political, & cultural elements of the time period in which the Scriptures were written. An accurate interpretation of the Word of God without such due consideration is impossible.
 
 
 
Teach Categorically.
That means we develop particular topics, or doctrines of Scripture, according to the entire revealed Word of God. We correlate each individual doctrine to other doctrines in Scripture, and to the overall revelation of God's Word. For example, the Doctrine of Soteriology (salvation), would have several other doctrines included within and related to it, such as the Doctrine of Redemption, the Doctrine of Justification, the Doctrine of Reconciliation, the Doctrine of Propitiation, etc. An accurate interpretation of any portion of Scripture is impossible without an understanding of how that portion relates to the entire body of Scriptures.
 

 
Teach Exegetically.
That means we teach verse-by-verse from the original Hebrew and Greek texts. An accurate interpretation of God's Word must include an accurate understanding of the original meaning of the original words to the original audience of each particular passage of Scripture.
 

You say: "I can't figure things out"
God says: I will direct your steps
(Proverbs 3:5-6)
 
You say: "I'm not smart enough"
God says: I give you wisdom
(I Corinthians 1:30)
 

God has given me wisdom through the teachings of my right pastor teacher, because I KNEW I was not smart enough. True Humility is "Teachabilty".  My pastor is under the authority of God, I am under the authority of God and my right pastor teacher when learning the Word, with the filling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit (when Filled) tells you when things are wrong and tells you when things are lies.
   
 

Sister while I see nothing at all wrong with your metodologies ( in fact they are great ) I must respectfully disagree with your statement on this. There are many excellant pastor/teachers that do not know a single word of Hebrew or Greek. These are led by the Holy Spirit for all things are possible through God.


These languages may have been there primary native languages but they were not the only languages that they spoke. Jesus had the ability to speak and be understood in all languages. Many of the Apostles were multi-lingual as they were born and raised in a society where more than one language was spoken and I am not talking about the instances of speaking in tongues through the Holy Spirit.

Amen to pretty much everything else that I have read.  But one thing that I always like to teach is time is relevant to God.  PR you are correct that he does transcend time.  He is above and beyond, and all around time.  And being that he is not constrained by time.   But to say that since He is beyond that and created that then it is not relevant to Him would also stated He created man, put the constraints on man and we are aslo not relevant. 

Just because God created something and is not in affected by His creation (ie gravity, laws of physics, etc) does not mean they are not relevant to Him.  They are relevant to us because He created them for us.  He loves us so much that he created these for us.  That in itself implies they are relevant to Him.  We must always put the term relevant into context.  Is time relevant to God's existance?  No.  Is man relevant to God's existance? No.  But is time relevant to God because He has made it so?  Yes by sheer will of creation He has made it relevant to HImself.  It is still not relevant to His specific existance, but relevant none the less.

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

I agree totaly with that Brother Jerry. Perhaps I should have clarified that more.

OK 1Tim, let me see if I can shed a little light on this for you.





I think its probably going a bit too far to view it as you have layed things out here.   For some reason I am reminded of the movie back to the future...lol    If we get into that mindset, we could wind up as confused and confounded as I was trying to figure out that movie.   (great movie BTW)

Let me explain.

Yes it is true that God is not bound by time as we are, therefore He is outside that realm if you will.  We however, are bound to time which God chose to bind us to.   Why?  Because in Gods eyes this was good for man.  If you go back to the beginning where God made all of creation for MAN, He said it was good.   So us being bound to a time frame, in Gods eyes is a good thing!   If its good with God, its good with me  ;)


Now, Since we are bound to this thing called time, we must live accordingly, in that goodness that He created for us.  After man sinned, God chose to use this for the revealing of His eternal plan to all of mankind in a gradual sense.   Most teachers call this Dispensational teaching.   As man moved along in knowledge of God, He uncovered more and more, and progressed in His own dealings with man in a gradual manner.   For example.  In Adam and Eve's time, God was dealing with them on the same time line we are on, BUT, with their current understanding and knowledge of Gods ultimate plan.   They did not yet understand sin, nor were they guilty of that sin until they disobeyed.   So obviously God dealt with them in this innocence quite differently then.  When man did disobey, God moved man to a knew phase of understanding His immense Grace, by teaching us about the consequences of sin (death), how devastating it is to us, and how He provided a means of us being forgiven.   With each dispensation, God moved us to a knew, deeper understanding of His grace and mercy.....all within the confines of His GOOD creation....time!

Think of it as a child being born.  An child being innocent can in no way understand the depths of our adoration and love for him.   But as it grows and learns, he begins to see how much it is loved, and learns of dangers of life, discipline, consequences of actions etc.   We are a lot like that child on Gods created time line.   God knowing the grand plan, and us being his children being raised under His watchful eyes, while He pleasingly reveals more and more about His glory and mercy to us as we grew througout history.


So the constraints of time might be irrelevant to God in HIS sense, but it was how God chose to deal with man, and it was good according to His own word.


I would say for us to get to where God wants us to be, we need to stay within the confines of His good creation TIME.   We simply do not have the capacity to view it on Gods level.   Its hard enough on ours....lol


I'll stop here for now, because work calls, but I will try to get back and address a few other points in your OP.

Blessings!

I would agree that in many aspects of this linssue we would have to disagree.  And reasons are obviously not based on anything other than personal experience.

I am similar to you in that I like to know what the original text said.  And there are times I pull out a lexicon or similar to check the definition.  And I can also say that my pastor is a teacher, a preacher, and a pastor of great love for God and a heart that is focused only on Jesus.  With that in mind I can also say that as far as original language then I think I can safely say I know more than he does.  That does not make me any more a pastor than him or any less of a pastor than anyone else.

If you take a look at the biblical use of tongues as mentioned by Paul and in Acts what do you find?  You find that someone was preaching and the Spirit came in and filled the people so that they would be talking and everyone could understand them.  Imagine if you will a kung-fu flick dubbed over...someone would speak in Aramaic and a person who only knew Hebrew could understand them.  This is the first true translation of the Word of God.  

When you look at things even such as the KJV and look at it's origins you find that there were many scholarly people with a heart towards God involved in reading the original manuscripts and such and translating from there.  No matter what you do when you read something that you do not know the language.  And I mean language not words.  You are trusting is someone elses translation/interpretation.  We put faith in not the authors, but in God that He would not let His word be tarnished.  And that the translation we use of the Bible is true to the word and spirit of the original words written 1000's of years ago.  

So it is by faith that we modern language speakers take any translation we read as truthful to the original written language.  It is by that same faith that we take any definition of words and explanations of terms of the original languages or any other language we do not know as being truthful.

Take for example the spanish term Co'mo esta'  commonly translated as "how are you"  however a true translation would reveal that it is strictly "how are"  The language of Spanish has like many devolved some and shortened phrases.  The full phrase would be Co'mo esta' usted for how are you.  Now unless you spoke the language fluently (being born in it), or someone taught you the dialects, and the devolution of the language you would would be confused the first time someone came up to you and said "co'mo esta'"  You would be waiting for them to finish their question.  Cause it would be embarassing if you then just blurted out that your hemoroids were hurting that day :D  

So unless we fully understand the language we are still relying on others to interpret and translate for us.  I for one have found that English Bibles are generally enough for me.  I do like to pick up other resources at times to delve a little deeper into their meanings but I also understand that everyone alive today is doing the same thing since those languages are dead languages.  They are going on the information that they have and translate from what they know.  But no one knows the original languages and inflections and possible dialects and such that may have been written.  But we have faith enough in God that He preserved His word for all to read, listen too, and experience as only the Holy Ghost can.

God Bless and praise to you Linssue.  It really matters not how you learn the word of God, only that you do and you help others learn it as well.  We must also remember that we should tolerate others if they learn in different ways as long as they are learning the way.

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

linssue55,

Sister I think that you misunderstood me. I applaud your Pastor's teaching methods. I think that it is a great way to get into the meat of the Bible. There are many that are not ready for meat and must be given milk. When I was in the Military I was assigned as an instructor. I learned quickly that not all people can learn in the same manner. Some learn very quickly and effectively from a book yet others need hands on training yet others need someone to help them understand the job.


I was simply saying that the method you mentioned is not the only way for a Pastor to preach just as we have been told in the Bible. There are indeed different teaching methods for different Pastors. Peter did not preach the same way that Paul did and neither did the other Apostles preach in the same manner they did. Yet each one delivered the Gospel in a very effective manner.

I am very happy for you that you found a way for you to learn that is effective for you.

You set up a valid argument, but you loose me at the conclusion you draw.  If time is relevant to God, what does that mean.  What conclusions does that suggest to you?

Excellent post Amigo! :).   I tend to agree with almost everything, but I would add that the Greek written language is constructed in a way so as to include in it the inflections lost in our own written language.  I could have written simply the one word, "right" in responce to your post, but you couldnt tell if I meant it enthusiastically, sarcastically, casually, or took offence and muttered it.  The Greek written language tends to capture  moods like that, and that is valuable.  I too tend to rely on the English, but find great value in researching the original language.  When addressing the doctrine of the Bible with others that are not christian, I tend to rely on only the English, and reason, because those are two things immediately accessable and researchable for those I'm talking to.  I try to keep references to the original languages to a minimum so as not to set myself up as an authority to be believed.

Other than that I couldn't agree more.  Its allways amazed me that God recorded His Word in a language that He established in order to preserved moods in the written form.

Let me also qualify, that I do not intend to minimize the office of pastor or teacher in the church.  I also have a few Pastors I love to listen to---but they are still men, and James 3:2, I think, pretty much guarantees that something he says will be false.  The question that comes up in my mind is why did God not give me the same insight that he gave the pastor?  Well on one hand He did--through the pastor, but why not directly?  I've concluded that for some reason that I don't understand, He elected to do it that way.  As we look arround us, almost everything has a hierarchy of authority.  God established an authority progression in the Home, at work, in the military, in the Government...ect., and also in His Church.  This is what I ws attempting to address.  Although God chooses to give me guidence through the pastor and teacher I sit under (as well as friends and other Christians) only He is the Teacher.

 Matthew 23:8-10
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

In these passages, I believe Jesus is addressing who He is.  There are many commentaries that the pastor I had growing up taught from that said these passages were addressing the Disciples, and their tendancy towards pride. I agree that they could be, as a side note, but the scope of the passages themselves is focused on the character and position of Jesus Himself.  He's saying, ' You're not the rabbi [master], or teacher, I am.  You're Father whom you are defined by is Me.' IMO

I believe vs 10 says we are to learn from Jesus only, and those set up in authority positions in the church are only there to guide our learning, but we must take everything heard from them to the Word, and to Jesus, before committing it to our belief system.

Interesting position, I have allways suspected this to be the case, but was never really able to scripturally support it.  How do you support this?

BTW, and plus also, and all that jazz,

The working definition of the word "argument" I use is the definition used in the sciences of logic and philosophy:

Argument: a set of premises a conclusion is drawn from.

Just to avoid confusion   ;D

We all do that.  It was just your turn   :)

1Tim

Time Reply:
Sorry it swayed towards confusion on the post.

The simplist way to state it would be that Time is irrelevant to the existance of God.  But since God created time for us and we are relevant to God then time itself is relevant to God. 

Maybe that helps, I hope

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

1Tim

Tongues

I will gather up that study and post it under a new thread.  It is a very enlightening study actually.  So look for it soon (within next week).  I will put it in the theology section

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

OK continuing with my previous thought process (hope it made some sense)


I think perhaps a parable might make understanding this better.   I'm sure a few of you have heard me use this one a few times before on the board, but it fits too well here not to use it again.


There was a man who had discovered a decent sized mound of ants in a field.  He would go out every day and watch his tiny companions carry on about their little lives.   One day, he noticed a bulldozer clearing the area and it was heading straight for the mound of his beloved little friends.  He tried picking up the dirt from the mound in his hands to move them, but the ants just bit him, not understanding what was happening.   The man thought to himself, "if only there was someway I could become an ant myself, and tell them about the coming danger, then they would listen to me".    

You see, in order for this man help, he would have become an ant, all the while maintaining his human ability to assess the current dangers in order to communicate his intentions and how much danger they were in.   This is exactly what Jesus did for mankind.   He had to become man, while at the same time maintaining His Deity in order to assess the Fathers will and current dangers we all face.  We simply are not capable of seeing things on Gods level, or timelessness.   So even though God is outside of time as you say, He still operates on our time, or our level, in our progression throughout Gods Pre-known history, all the while leading us out of harms way, and into His will.  Even though God is not bound by time, He is right here with us today, this minute, this second.  How unsearchable are the things of God!

You mentioned that you thought you might pray for Paul, because for God, history is timeless.  Well, God placed you here and now in the 21st century for specific reasons.   His plan for you is now, in this day, this time.   You are here for His purpose to do His will, and shape your current universe as a tool in His hand.   Much like Paul was during his time on earth.   So I would have to say that praying for someone who time has passed, is probably fruitless (and certainly not instructed in scripture), because God is right here with us in OUR time using us to mold the world as He sees fit today!- NOW, and FUTURE!.   He has already done His purpose with Paul in Paul's time, so praying for him is pointless.  Do you see what I mean?  Your responsibility as a believer is yielding to Gods will in YOUR life (YOUR time) to serve Him, and affect those around you in your time and life.  You have no effect on those who have died, because they have already served Gods earthly purpose in their time.


Would you agree that praying for anything requires faith?  I'm sure you do.  Look at this verse....

Heb 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If we are hoping for something, we are expecting it!  To expect something you would have to look froward for that would you not?   So when we pray, we are faithfully looking ahead at Gods outcome to our prayers, not behind  ;)    Because we already know whats back there  8)


OK I've hammered away at that enough I think.   I have one more item I want to touch on regarding the promise, but I will give you a chance to chew on this for a while.

Blessings!

Good argument, and I tend to agree, but to bring the illustration a little closer to home...

Say I am driving down the road, and I pass a traffic accident with an ambulance present.  As is my attempted habit, I say a quick prayer for those involved in the accident, and their loved ones.  Specifically, I tend to pray for their understanding of God to grow from the event, from whatever point they are at , at that stage in their life, that He would reveal Himself to them.

If the events within time unfolded so that that person died just before I passed by and said that prayer, do you think that prayer is disqualified because that person was dead and I didn't know it?  Could it not be possible that God responded to my prayer before the point in time when I actually said it, and the victim had a death bed conversion?

I don't know, but according to my understanding, I would rather err toward saying the prayer.  On one hand I tend to think that since God would have all men to be saved and come unto a knowledge of the truth, that He would have postponed their death untill after I passed and prayed if it mattered.  On the other hand, this is all speculative, and like you said, there is no example in scripture suggesting it is relevant either.

To err?  To err is to follow mans doctrines, to attempt to reason in man's logic. If the person is dead at the time you prayed for them then they are still dead. The Bible clearly tells us to not be concerned with those that are dead but to turn our efforts to the living.

Luk 9:60  Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.


No where, absolutely no where, are we told to pray for the dead. We are told to preach to and pray for the living many, many times. Should we expend our time and our efforts on those already dead or would it not be better for us to do as the Lord has told us to do and to preach to and pray for the living before it is to late for them.

Whoa there, I aint mormon  ;D, I don't pray for the dead, but in my hypothetical example I was unaware there was any dead at the scene.

So are you suggesting I would be sinning if I prayed for them and they were allready dead, even if I was not aware they were?

Since the word 'bury' in vs 59 and 60, is in the aorist tense, suggesting a future action, it seems reasonable to read this passage as the man Jesus is speaking to is saying, 'after my father dies', suggesting he isn't dead yet--physically.  Jesus responce suggests that he is dead spiritually though.  The dialog then is saying that we cannot wait to follow Jesus till a more oppertune time, when we may not offend someone who is spiritually dead, by our choice to follow Him. Therefore, Lk.9:59,60 does not apply to my hypothetical model.


You are correct though that it is a wiser use of our time and effort to focus on the living.  I will concede that point.

In light of my original proposition that it would be legitimate to "...pray for Paul...", I will say again that that is the logical conclusion to the definition of time I'm useing.  It is not scripturally supported, nor is it nessesarily practical, but I can not help but recognize that since God is not bound by time, and  the prayer of the righteuss is powerful and effective, that it may still be true.

I find it curios that so much effort is spent presenting arguments to my conclusion instead of the premis.  I think that is one of the problems we face when contending with opposition (...say, at the door with Mormons or JW's).  I tend to do that too, more often than I would like to admit, I think.

I deal with them everyday, as out of the 250 people here. Only 6 aren't mormon.  :o

AMEN!!

 ??? ??? ???

"Here..." as in on the forum, or at your work?

At home, I live in a rural area.  You miss the fun, when I start to preach to the missionaries (mormon). ;D  Though they are starting to advoid me now. :'(

Edited to fix a typo.

Don't know if you would be interested but I wrote a paper on witnessing to mormons.  I e-mailed it to John for him to consider for his web sit about a week ago.  My approach is to defeat their own doctrines, with their own doctrines.  Just useing the Bible isn't enough with them because they believe the doctrine's of God are progressive---allways evolving.  The bible was accurate only at that time, but now the new revelations are more accurate for this time.  Also, if you reveal to them the true scriptural doctrine of salvation, what they hear you saying is that we are saved by Satans plan.


WARNING: Useing it will make you more of a pain in their you-know-what than you allready are.

Tim I am PM'ing you my e-mail address.  Chances are I will put it up on my website as well, with your name.

Better yet, why don't you post it. Start a new thread. ;D  Oh by the way, I am a Pastor. :D

Just use my screen name please (like its that different :-X)  I been a big enough pain to them on other forums that I'm sure they would love to find out who I am.

And by all means, if you find it worthy, distribute it at church.

  :o :o


Thank you brother   :D :D

And with this, I'm heading off to bed.  Good night brother.

Not at all. I made my post in accordance with all of your posts which would indicate that is what you are talking about.


Jesus used the word dead here in both the spiritual as well as the physical sense. The only futuristic part of this is that the mans father was not buried yet. There is nothing to indicate that he was not physically dead yet.


Yes that is the point that Jesus was getting across. My point also pertains in this statement.




Perhaps that is because the one is tied so closely to the other. If what you are saying about time is correct then you are saying that it is ok to pray for the dead because the argument that you are standing on is the same argument that many use to support their actions of praying for the dead.

OK, here is where I think you might be missing something.  You asked...



We should already know that our prayers don't alert God to things, as He already knows everything. right?.   Using your analogy here, a "prayer thats qualified" (or unqualified) as you put it, because you are suddenly alerted to a situation and begin praying doesn't change the outcome of Gods will.   When we pray, we are not moving God into action and wielding Him about with our Will as we think best, but rather its just the opposite.  We are moving into the center of Gods Will through prayer.     And God will respond according to His Will regardless to bring about His purpose, and if He is determined to use such a thing for His glory, HE WILL FIND a way, before this person dies to hear and accept His truth.   Here is a good point to bring up God NOT being bound by time.   He can foresee the outcome of this accident and move the world to bring about His Will and purpose, in the time frame of that individuals life.   

See, Gods got this time thing under control, and He uses it for His glory.   We don't need to be time warped back and forth.   We are here to serve His purpose on our track of time....He will take care of moving outer worldly things to happen when we need them to happen, because He is God almighty!   Doc's time flux capacitor ain't got nothing on God.   If Doc think 1.21 gigawatt's is something, he ain't seen nothing yet...lol    ;D






It is true that God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, but the thought of God being limited to your availability to pray in present or in some time warp theory, so this person who died 5 mins ago would be saved puts US in charge, not Him.   God will do His purpose whether we are obedient and faithful in prayer or not.  If we are not, He will find someone who is.  So a more likely scenario would be that God would have someone on the scene sharing His Love and Gospel before this person died.   


Ecc 3:11  He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.
Ecc 3:12  I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good in one's lifetime;


As I said before.  God created you for the very time you are living in.  You are appropriate in this time says verse 11.   And God has plans for your lifetime.   






If you really want to avoid erring, then allow your prayers to move you towards the center of Gods will and into action.   If you are praying for someones heart to be softened so that they can hear the Gospel, then be sure to follow up and deliver that Gospel message in faith, that God has heard and answered your prayer.   If you are praying for victims involved in an accident, for their care and loved ones, then allow God to make use of you and get involved in some active way.  When Jesus was here, He did not spend time praying for those who died years ago.  And when He prayed for individuals currently living, He got involved with them actively, loving, sharing, teaching.

If you begin to view prayer in this light, you will see that God can use the uniqueness He created you with, in miraculous ways, and people will see Christ in your life like never before.   The people who need to hear the Gospel of Christ in your little corner of the world, are still living, right now.   The people who need Gods tender mercies in your little corner of the world are there, right now!   God wants to use you there, NOW!   

This is why we must follow Him and what His word teaches.   God wants to use you in this way, but if can't, He will find someone else He can use there, now!   


I know your thinking on this is all well meaning, but in truth, its not scriptural friend, and I do say this with the utmost love.   We must live by what His word teaches, and it does not teach us to pray for those who have passed, or those in history.  Stick with what it says and you wont err.   Start adding and changing things, and you will ALWAYS err!

I love you bro!

Grace and Peace!

Amen 2T. Very well said.

Ouch!  Ok guys, you win  :).  I made a couple jumps in reasoning you guys filled in.  Good Job, and thanks.

And yes PR, this is exactly what I asked for, and why. :)  I didn't see the jumps I made, but suspected they were there.  Well done amigos.

No kidding???   Who might that be?  I've never heard anyone use this argument supporting prayer for the dead.  Useually they try to reason that their souls are in purgatory or some other holding tank that they can get out of.

Blessings 1Tim....we're all winners because God's our team captain!   ;)

Various new age cults. Those using the purgatory argument are those that have been around for some time.

As you can see now, there are considerable # of quotes from mormon "scripture" in it.   Do you still think it's acceptable??

Just so long as it is in support of the Holy Bible and not in support of Mormon doctrine.

It does brother, it shows the lies of the book of moron. Although it does need to be cleaned up some, from the breaks in line.

Cleaned up how?

e-mail it back to me with highlighted examples.   Oh, and I finally found MS Word on my computer  ;D, so I'll run it through spell check.

The Lord is "God of the living". No one is dead to Him. "...to win salvation through our Lord Jesus Chirst, who died for us so that, alive or dead, we should still live united in Him." - 1 Thess. 5:10 Paul says elsewhere that all at once, all together, no man or woman or child alone, we will meet our Savior. He calls this great meeting a far better thing than to simply fly away, one at a time, to the Lord. What an explosion of joy! What a cacophony of glory! To come, not to meet the ancients who have been with the Lord for millenia already, but to join them and walk beside them as, all at once, "the Lord showers righteousness upon them". The whole creation waits to see the saints revealed - alongside one another, as the perfected family of God, the Bride of the Lord.
My dad has said over and over how he wished he could have held his father's hand, and walked into Heaven together, rather than let that man cross over without him. I hope that he will have this wish, and me too; whether it is true that the "dead" are waiting on the "living" to enter glory together, or whether it is true that there is no Time (and no waiting) at all in the presence of God.

Amen Willow, when a person dies the body returns to the dust and the soul returns to God.

Thanks Willow  :),


When my grandpa died, my only regret was that I never went hunting with him.  It was a regret I felt deep down, not real heavy, but it was there.  By the time I was old enough, and had the money to buy an out-of-state License, he was not able to enjoy a hunting trip any more.

The night before his funeral, I had a dream.  All I can remember about that dream was a phesant folding up in a cloud of feathers in front of my barking shotgun, and grandpa was there.  I've never been phesant hunting, and allways wanted to try it.

In the morning, that sense of regret that I felt for not having gone hunting with grandpa was gone, and in its place was a sense of satisfaction...that ain't the right word...I knew we had gone hunting together and had the time of our...lives(???)

Was it real, or imagined? Was it just a dream??  It didn't hit me as just a dream, no dream I ever had remained with me like that did.  I don't know what it was really, but what is crystal clear was that Jesus did something for me that nite, and I was overjoyed, and at peace.  I still look foreward to our next hunting trip, but if it never happens, we'll be in His house forever, and it won't matter.

I don't know why I wrote that, but I'm trusting that I was led to.

1Tim

I posted that study under the General Theology sections.  I was going to put where to find it....but you know I thought of a better idea....LINKS!!  Those things are great...they like allow you to link stuff from one page to the next...what a great concept....DUH

Here it is

http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=12433.0 (http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=12433.0)

Well. 1 Tim,

You have some action for your question. I have not read the entire thread as of yet, but will resp to the initial one re: 1 Pet 3:15. (reply # 17)

Albert Barnes is a favorite of mine - available in e-Sword - freeware.  He says of:  "To give an answer - Greek, “An apology,” (ἀπολογίαν  apologian.) This word formerly did not mean, as the word apology does now, an excuse for anything that is done as if it were wrong, but a defense of anything. We apply the word now to denote something written or said in extenuation of what appears to others to be wrong, or what might be construed as wrong - as when we make an apology to others for not fulfilling an engagement, or for some conduct which might be construed as designed neglect. The word originally, however, referred rather to that which was thought not to be true, than that which might be construed as wrong; and the defense or “apology” which Christians were to make of their religion, was not on the supposition that others would regard it as wrong, but in order to show them that it was true. The word used here is rendered “defense,” Act_22:1; Phi_1:7, Phi_1:17; answer, Act_25:16; 1Co_9:3; 2Ti_4:16; 1Pe_3:15; and clearing of yourselves in 2Co_7:11. We are not to hold ourselves ready to make an apology for our religion as if it were a wrong thing to be a Christian; but we are always to be ready to give reasons for regarding it as true.

Following this is the use of the word "hope" (elpis in Greek)  Again, today's use of this word does not contain the original use of the word.  Hope for Paul was a "confident expectation" different than "I hope it doesn't rain today" - it never meant maybe.

The hope that is within your heart, 1 Tim, is your eternal life with God, Christ, and your departed loved ones in heaven.  -  Amen?

Your dream may be prophetic or just wishful thinking - God knows - but your peace only comes from Him and He may use this venue.

You're a little young to be "dreaming dreams", but we gotta start somewhere.

Hopefully,
doc

I've done more reading 1 Tim,

Authority, accountability and devotion - - all point to The Lord.  A baby Christian needs milk, not solid food, so there are intermediaries along the way, as you have perhaps discovered.  After some spiritual maturation the intermediaries and the false hierarchy may be unnecessary - even harmful - and it is time to move on for more growing up. "For though by this time you ought to be teachers , you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food."   Hebrews 5:12 NKJV  The Hebrew writer was talking to the diaspora of Jews and to us today, as with all scripture.

The hierarchy defined in Eph 4 is a misreading by "the Church" - the institution, in my opinion.  Many years of seeking has convinced me these are the characteristics of a mature Christian, not the offices of His Body.  Paul carefully defines the 2 offices in God's Body - overseer (elder) and deacon.  (Timothy and Titus.)  All else is a fleshly creation - pride, power, controll, etc. over many centuries have allowed this system to exist and flourish.  The eventual maturation of any Christian - man or woman - is God's plan of discipleship.  How we express this maturation is an individual issue, but never forget: "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together , as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching."  Hebrews 10:24-25 NKJV  (I love this book)

In His Glorious Name,

a growing doc,

If I understand your post, Brother Jerry, you are saying each believer spoke thier own langauge but each nonbeliever heard and understood what was said in THEIR language. If I am wrong in this understanding of your post, I  apologize.

But if I understand you correctly, I have to refer you to Scripture that says that they spoke in languages not their own. Big diff, there.

Were the believers speaking in tongues or were the nonbelievers hearing in tongues? If nonbelievers were hearing in tongues, then that means nonbelievers received a Spiritual gift...hearing in tongues. I really don't think it happened that way because Scripture says it happened another. (Call me silly.)

yer silly.

 ;D

I already know YOU think I'm silly. :D :D

Len



[/quote]Were the believers speaking in tongues or were the nonbelievers hearing in tongues? If nonbelievers were hearing in tongues, then that means nonbelievers received a Spiritual gift...hearing in tongues. I really don't think it happened that way because Scripture says it happened another. (Call me silly.)
[/quote]
Take a read at Acts 10:44 "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word"
We see that the Holy Ghost came upon all who were there to hear the word of God preached by Peter.  It was not that the Spirit came upon Peter and he spoke in different languages.  It was that the Spirit came upon all who were there, and later in verse 46 mentions "For they heard them speak" thus the miracle is that they heard them speak in their own language.  Which if we then go back to Acts 2 we notice a couple of things.  It is specified that they heard them speak in their own language.  If the preachers were simply speaking in their own language and others were simply seeing thier lips move and it was coming out as normal it would not have been an amazing affect, no one would have noticed.  For example if you were to see a speaker and he was speaking in English and you saw his lips move to match his words you would think nothing of it.  But now if you saw that speaker speaking and heard it in English but yet his lips moved to words spoken in Russian it would be an amazing thing.

The miracle or sign that God was working was not an optical illusion of having a person or persons speaking and lipping different languages all at once...but that the speakers were speaking in their native tongues but yet everyone heard it in their own native tongue.

In Acts 10:44, it was Cornelius' household, those who had allready heard the message, who recieved the Spirit, and were speaking in toungs, as a sign to Peter and the believers with him, and those who he told about the situation.  I think it can be assumed that they also believed the word they heard, as Paul illustrates in Galations 3:2, that the Spirit is recieved by believing the Word.

In Acts 2:4, we are told it was the diciples in the house who both recieved the Spirit, and began to speak in other toungs, apparently, before there were unbelievers arround to hear them.  In vs. 13, they are accused of drunken babbeling, illustrating that some of the disciples were speaking sounds unrecognizable to some of the hearers, and they knew that others were hearing the same thing they were, unrecognized "gibberish"--for, to make a statement like that to others who could understand the speech would be absurd.

Speak in tongues, hear in tongues.

If we look at he many verses in regards to this we will actually see both spoken of. One person speaking yet everyone there hearing what is said "in their own tongue". If we take notice that in some instances it is said they spoke in toungues (plural) not just spoke in another tongue (singular).

Acts 2:4 does say that they "began to speak with other tongues" but it was not just gibberish as in Acts 2:5 - 12 we are told that there were men of many languages present and yet they all heard in their own language.

Those people mentioned in verse 13 accusing them of being drunk would not have heard the word even if it had been in their own language (they were blind and could not hear). These were mockers, unbelievers, their heart was hardened and did not believe (Acts 19:9 ).

Mat 13:15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Acts 2:4. "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues , as the Spirit was giving them utterance."

Do you have a verse to share that says they heard in a tongue not their own?

I never said that. They all heard in their own language.

Act 2:6  Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Act 2:8  And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?


Take note here that there were many that were listening at the same time and yet each one heard it in their own tongue.

I'm with you on this, Pastor Roger. My response and query was to Brother Jerry. But, there were many speaking, each one in a different tongue, making it possible for each one listening to hear the word in his own tongue.

It sounds to me like each tongue represented was addressed by someone who was speaking for the first time in that tongue.

Len,
Then we are speaking on the same page.  My whole point is that the speaking in tongues that is found in the Charismatic movement of today, and even of the first century, is unbiblical.  When the Bible speaks of speaking in tongues they are known languages.  Yes a miracle that one person may speak and people of many languages may understand.  But it is not the gibberish and confusion that you would find in the charasmatic churches today.

Paul speaks of that as confusion and God would not author confusion. 

agreed   :)

Absolutely. No confusion at all in Scripture. Just our own feeble minds.

But help me if you will. Where in Scripture has just one person spoken and many heard, each in his own tongue? I can't seem to find that anywhere. I don't deny the possibility. I'm just looking for Scriptural confirmation.

Acts 2:6 "Now when this wasw noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."
Acts 2:8 "And how hear we every man in our tongue, wherein we were born?"

Amen Brother Jerry.

Len,

Some people use Acts 2:4 to show that they all were speaking in tongues at the same time. That verse does not say they were all talking at the same time. I realize that it isn't clear in this matter but we see in other scriptures where it is taught that we are not to speak all at once as it does nothing but cause confusion.

When a teacher (Apostle) spoke in the synagogues only one would speak at a time. We know this to be a fact from many other scriptures. With only one speaking at a time and yet every man hearing it in his own tongue as is shown in the verses Brother Jerry gave we know that they all heard one person yet in many languages.

Thanks guys. I never read it like that before. Calls for some study on my part.

'cept'n one thing...er...maybe plural things...

Acts 2:6
6 When they  (plural) heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one (each singular listener in the croud) heard them (plural speakers) speaking in his (plural number of singular  listeners) own language.

Acts 2:8
8 Then how is it that each of us (plural listeners) hears them (plural speakers) in his (plural number of singular  listeners) own native language?

 IMO If the speakers were speaking in their own language, and each listener heard their own toung they wouldn't have known it, and the reference to the fact that they were Gallileans --uneducated people- would have been irrelevant since an event where the lips did not match the speech coming from them does not happen based on education.  Also, what would you do then, with 2:4, that specifically says the disciples were speaking in other languages?

Though I agree that possibly, they were not all speaking at the same time, only assumtion, not the text, supports that.  We're seeing an event that happened over a longer time frame than a couple scentences initially reveals.  There was enough time elapsed from the "sound of the wind" to assemble a large croud, and for the croud to assess the situation.  It is also possible that in the croud, dispersed amongst them, the desciples did speak in toungs simultaneously with each other, but distant enough from each other that they were not competing with each other to be heard.

Untill we can difinatively answer questions like: how much time elapsed, how big was the croud, how much ground did the croud cover, and who said what, when, we can't make assumtions.  As soon as we do, we limit our understanding of the text, and develop theological positions that give skeptics of Christianity a foothold on the claim that the Bible contradicts itself (many assumed contradictions are based on exactly this type of extrapolation--though this example is fairly minor)

Let's take a closer look at verse 8:

Act 2:8 (KJV)  And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?


Acts 2:8 (New International Version)

8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?

Acts 2:8 (New American Standard Bible)

8"And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?


Either version you look at here shows that each person there heard them (all of them) in their own tongue. Not one heard one and another heard another in their own tongue. As with any scripture that people use to claim contradictions we must interpret scripture with scripture. We know from other scripture that when speaking only one would speak at a time and this verse does indicate that also.

Exactly PR
Scripture with Scripture.

But then I am still trying to figure out where the debate is coming from...we all appear to be in agreement :)

That's the best type of debate. One where we are actually having a beautiful discussion on the Bible.

Proverbs 27:17
17 As iron sharpens iron,
so one man sharpens another. 

Psalm 144:1

1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock,
who trains my hands for war,
my fingers for battle.

Skill, is developed.   Andplusalso, if I'm wrong, I wont know it unless I face an opponent with a better argument.  As you can see here, we can even look at the same words and see them different ways.

Glad to see you think the same way on this point PR.    ;D ;D

I still don't understand how you can claim "scripture interpreted with scripture" (which I 100% agree) and avoid 2:4, just a few vs. earlier, w/in the same thought even, that specifically says the disciples spoke in toungs.  Why would they speak in toungs, where there is no interpreter (another thing Paul speaks against)  and not speak in toungs just a few minuts/hours later when there were interpreters/ listeners?

I didn't ignore that verse and did in fact address it but I will expound on it now. If that were the case (that there were no interpreters/listeners then how would the "multitudes" have heard about it and came there to see for themselves. I realize that you are also pointing out the plural of tongues in 2:4 but notice it also says there "as the Spirit gave them utterance". No where does it say that they all spoke at the same time and yes 2:4 does not say they didn't. That is where we look to other scripture.


Act 2:6  Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

So..just to clarify, you are saying this passage says,  "...and [the multitude] were confounded because that every man [of the multitude] heard them [the disciples] speak in his [ each individual disciples' ] own language

Is this correct?

Hey I know this is a very old post...but was scanning through some things..


Roger do you by chance still have those verses handy....I was actually talking with someone just the other day on a similar topic and was thinking there were some verses related to this but could not recall them for the life of me :)

That is the primary portion that I was speaking of as 1 Corinthians 14 speaks of understanding and confusion. If everyone were speaking something different all at the exact same time there would be no understanding but it would be total confusion.

The Gospel preaching of Isaiah


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeY-M97J46I


Approx. 700 B.C.

Thank you