Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Mary · (This post was last modified: 07-07-2011 05:56 AM by Mary.)

(07-03-2011 10:45 PM)Mary Wrote:
(07-03-2011 10:25 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:
(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: I'm sure you will concede that it is also possible to be unpopular and biblically incorrect.

Yes, of course I would. (BTW I wasn't arguing my position is correct because it is the less popular, but that popularity doesn't make a position correct, as we can see from the Pharisees).

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: THE Bible's message is clear, and is quite simple. I have understood it since childhood to be:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I said from the onset, that when it came to essential Christianity I was orthodox, but WRT theological non-essentials, not so much. So you'll get no argument from me quoting [John 3:16].

Consider, the bible has about 31124 or so verses. Of those, approximately 23210 are OT. So about 74.57% of the Bible is OT. There are Christians and Christian ministers alike, who publicly argue the OT is obsolete, not necessary; despite [2 Timothy 3:16]. Clearly the OT points to Christ.

Of the Bible's 31124 or so verses, approximately 6641 OT verses and 1711 NT verses are predictive or prophetic. In total, 8352 of the Bibles verses are predicative or prophetic, which is just under 27% (so 1/3). Likewise Christians and Christian ministers alike often shrug off or write off prophecy as unknowable and uncertain.

When it comes to salvation, understanding Christ's atoning sacrifice, on the cross is everything. Beyond that, when it comes to understanding the bible (one doesn't need to understand the bible to be saved incidentally), the OT and prophecy are clearly important, and the question is, are the details important? I'd argue beyond salvation, the rejection of any part of the bible is a rejection of Christ, so it is worth contending for the faith, as we are all doing here.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: You entered the discussion by saying that Christian theology is based on an incorrect understanding and incorrect translation of "ecclesia" and "church" and congregation". Having stated that, essentially, you left no room for argument, because anyone who disagreed with you would then be subscribing to this incorrect translation.

Well, if the argument presented was valid, it says that any theology using of those English words in a cavalier way are without biblical foundation; which should make people examine their own presuppositions. There should be no room for further argument.

On the other hand, I've made an argument about biblical meaning and the use of words. If I've committed an error, or employed a fallacy, point it out and that's room for further argument. Either my argument is shown to be false, or it is accepted; that generally is how it works.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: Rose took you back to basics - the church is the body of believers in Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, and who is God.

But Mary, if you accept the argument that Greek words have had theological meaning imparted to them, and 'ekklesia' is such an example, than any theology that builds off that 'added' meaning is without biblical foundation. You have to decide for yourself, whether I'm correct or not (I've shown you my reason). If I am correct, you have to accept my conclusion and determine what it means for theology that uses such words.

Here's the thing, I don't a accept your argument. Just saying something is so, doesn't make it so. You have not convinced me that you are correct, and actually the thread has become so long that I'm no longer entirely sure what your conclusion is. Is it that all Christians today are actually blood descendants of the children of Israel? And if so, what has happened to the children of Abraham? and God's covenant with Abraham?

I've been through the same process, and am convinced that theology has been injected which was not originally there. I'm even more convinced this is the source of every major theological debate; (Calvinism vs Arminianism for example, is the covenant unconditional or conditional - well clearly from my point of view, such as question doesn't understand the covenant, Likewise how can OT prophecy be understood, if people can't answer simple question 'is it talking about the 'church' or 'Israel'?' etc).

I've showed you a number of these cases were the Greek doesn't seem to have the meaning, that the English words impart. Because I accept the arguments, I accept the conclusion, and have had to adjust my own understanding of theology. Remember, I was originally questioned on my assertion that I understood the 'ekklesia' (congregation) and Israel to be one and the same thing. I believe I've shown my reasons, whether or not others share that belief.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: I think you have misunderstood Rose's point about the Greek woman in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. In fact I think you have misunderstood the passages in those verses entirely. In my next post I will go through them.

It's possible. I reread both [Mark 7] and [Matthew 15], and then I'll reread Rose's argument.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: You ask has anyone read of the prodigal sons. I have read of the prodigal son. Where will we find the prodigal sons?

That was a typing error. Sorry about that.

no worries.

Perhaps we need to clear up what you mean by theology exactly. Or do you mean doctrine?

(07-03-2011 10:45 PM)Mary Wrote:
(07-03-2011 10:25 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:
(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: I'm sure you will concede that it is also possible to be unpopular and biblically incorrect.

Yes, of course I would. (BTW I wasn't arguing my position is correct because it is the less popular, but that popularity doesn't make a position correct, as we can see from the Pharisees).

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: THE Bible's message is clear, and is quite simple. I have understood it since childhood to be:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I said from the onset, that when it came to essential Christianity I was orthodox, but WRT theological non-essentials, not so much. So you'll get no argument from me quoting [John 3:16].

Consider, the bible has about 31124 or so verses. Of those, approximately 23210 are OT. So about 74.57% of the Bible is OT. There are Christians and Christian ministers alike, who publicly argue the OT is obsolete, not necessary; despite [2 Timothy 3:16]. Clearly the OT points to Christ.

Of the Bible's 31124 or so verses, approximately 6641 OT verses and 1711 NT verses are predictive or prophetic. In total, 8352 of the Bibles verses are predicative or prophetic, which is just under 27% (so 1/3). Likewise Christians and Christian ministers alike often shrug off or write off prophecy as unknowable and uncertain.

When it comes to salvation, understanding Christ's atoning sacrifice, on the cross is everything. Beyond that, when it comes to understanding the bible (one doesn't need to understand the bible to be saved incidentally), the OT and prophecy are clearly important, and the question is, are the details important? I'd argue beyond salvation, the rejection of any part of the bible is a rejection of Christ, so it is worth contending for the faith, as we are all doing here.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: You entered the discussion by saying that Christian theology is based on an incorrect understanding and incorrect translation of "ecclesia" and "church" and congregation". Having stated that, essentially, you left no room for argument, because anyone who disagreed with you would then be subscribing to this incorrect translation.

Well, if the argument presented was valid, it says that any theology using of those English words in a cavalier way are without biblical foundation; which should make people examine their own presuppositions. There should be no room for further argument.

On the other hand, I've made an argument about biblical meaning and the use of words. If I've committed an error, or employed a fallacy, point it out and that's room for further argument. Either my argument is shown to be false, or it is accepted; that generally is how it works.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: Rose took you back to basics - the church is the body of believers in Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, and who is God.

But Mary, if you accept the argument that Greek words have had theological meaning imparted to them, and 'ekklesia' is such an example, than any theology that builds off that 'added' meaning is without biblical foundation. You have to decide for yourself, whether I'm correct or not (I've shown you my reason). If I am correct, you have to accept my conclusion and determine what it means for theology that uses such words.

I've been through the same process, and am convinced that theology has been injected which was not originally there. I'm even more convinced this is the source of every major theological debate; (Calvinism vs Arminianism for example, is the covenant unconditional or conditional - well clearly from my point of view, such as question doesn't understand the covenant, Likewise how can OT prophecy be understood, if people can't answer simple question 'is it talking about the 'church' or 'Israel'?' etc).

I've showed you a number of these cases were the Greek doesn't seem to have the meaning, that the English words impart. Because I accept the arguments, I accept the conclusion, and have had to adjust my own understanding of theology. Remember, I was originally questioned on my assertion that I understood the 'ekklesia' (congregation) and Israel to be one and the same thing. I believe I've shown my reasons, whether or not others share that belief.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: I think you have misunderstood Rose's point about the Greek woman in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. In fact I think you have misunderstood the passages in those verses entirely. In my next post I will go through them.

It's possible. I reread both [Mark 7] and [Matthew 15], and then I'll reread Rose's argument.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: You ask has anyone read of the prodigal sons. I have read of the prodigal son. Where will we find the prodigal sons?

That was a typing error. Sorry about that.

no worries.

Perhaps we need to clear up what you mean by theology exactly. Or do you mean doctrine?

Also, I'm not sure what your point is about the number of verses in the Bible, and that some people dismiss the OT. What is the relevance of this at this point in the discusssion?

(07-03-2011 10:45 PM)Mary Wrote:
(07-03-2011 10:25 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:
(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: I'm sure you will concede that it is also possible to be unpopular and biblically incorrect.

Yes, of course I would. (BTW I wasn't arguing my position is correct because it is the less popular, but that popularity doesn't make a position correct, as we can see from the Pharisees).

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: THE Bible's message is clear, and is quite simple. I have understood it since childhood to be:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I said from the onset, that when it came to essential Christianity I was orthodox, but WRT theological non-essentials, not so much. So you'll get no argument from me quoting [John 3:16].

Consider, the bible has about 31124 or so verses. Of those, approximately 23210 are OT. So about 74.57% of the Bible is OT. There are Christians and Christian ministers alike, who publicly argue the OT is obsolete, not necessary; despite [2 Timothy 3:16]. Clearly the OT points to Christ.

Of the Bible's 31124 or so verses, approximately 6641 OT verses and 1711 NT verses are predictive or prophetic. In total, 8352 of the Bibles verses are predicative or prophetic, which is just under 27% (so 1/3). Likewise Christians and Christian ministers alike often shrug off or write off prophecy as unknowable and uncertain.

When it comes to salvation, understanding Christ's atoning sacrifice, on the cross is everything. Beyond that, when it comes to understanding the bible (one doesn't need to understand the bible to be saved incidentally), the OT and prophecy are clearly important, and the question is, are the details important? I'd argue beyond salvation, the rejection of any part of the bible is a rejection of Christ, so it is worth contending for the faith, as we are all doing here.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: You entered the discussion by saying that Christian theology is based on an incorrect understanding and incorrect translation of "ecclesia" and "church" and congregation". Having stated that, essentially, you left no room for argument, because anyone who disagreed with you would then be subscribing to this incorrect translation.

Well, if the argument presented was valid, it says that any theology using of those English words in a cavalier way are without biblical foundation; which should make people examine their own presuppositions. There should be no room for further argument.

On the other hand, I've made an argument about biblical meaning and the use of words. If I've committed an error, or employed a fallacy, point it out and that's room for further argument. Either my argument is shown to be false, or it is accepted; that generally is how it works.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: Rose took you back to basics - the church is the body of believers in Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, and who is God.

But Mary, if you accept the argument that Greek words have had theological meaning imparted to them, and 'ekklesia' is such an example, than any theology that builds off that 'added' meaning is without biblical foundation. You have to decide for yourself, whether I'm correct or not (I've shown you my reason). If I am correct, you have to accept my conclusion and determine what it means for theology that uses such words.

I've been through the same process, and am convinced that theology has been injected which was not originally there. I'm even more convinced this is the source of every major theological debate; (Calvinism vs Arminianism for example, is the covenant unconditional or conditional - well clearly from my point of view, such as question doesn't understand the covenant, Likewise how can OT prophecy be understood, if people can't answer simple question 'is it talking about the 'church' or 'Israel'?' etc).

I've showed you a number of these cases were the Greek doesn't seem to have the meaning, that the English words impart. Because I accept the arguments, I accept the conclusion, and have had to adjust my own understanding of theology. Remember, I was originally questioned on my assertion that I understood the 'ekklesia' (congregation) and Israel to be one and the same thing. I believe I've shown my reasons, whether or not others share that belief.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: I think you have misunderstood Rose's point about the Greek woman in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. In fact I think you have misunderstood the passages in those verses entirely. In my next post I will go through them.

It's possible. I reread both [Mark 7] and [Matthew 15], and then I'll reread Rose's argument.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: You ask has anyone read of the prodigal sons. I have read of the prodigal son. Where will we find the prodigal sons?

That was a typing error. Sorry about that.

no worries.

Perhaps we need to clear up what you mean by theology exactly. Or do you mean doctrine?

(07-03-2011 10:45 PM)Mary Wrote:
(07-03-2011 10:25 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:
(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: I'm sure you will concede that it is also possible to be unpopular and biblically incorrect.

Yes, of course I would. (BTW I wasn't arguing my position is correct because it is the less popular, but that popularity doesn't make a position correct, as we can see from the Pharisees).

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: THE Bible's message is clear, and is quite simple. I have understood it since childhood to be:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I said from the onset, that when it came to essential Christianity I was orthodox, but WRT theological non-essentials, not so much. So you'll get no argument from me quoting [John 3:16].

Consider, the bible has about 31124 or so verses. Of those, approximately 23210 are OT. So about 74.57% of the Bible is OT. There are Christians and Christian ministers alike, who publicly argue the OT is obsolete, not necessary; despite [2 Timothy 3:16]. Clearly the OT points to Christ.

Of the Bible's 31124 or so verses, approximately 6641 OT verses and 1711 NT verses are predictive or prophetic. In total, 8352 of the Bibles verses are predicative or prophetic, which is just under 27% (so 1/3). Likewise Christians and Christian ministers alike often shrug off or write off prophecy as unknowable and uncertain.

When it comes to salvation, understanding Christ's atoning sacrifice, on the cross is everything. Beyond that, when it comes to understanding the bible (one doesn't need to understand the bible to be saved incidentally), the OT and prophecy are clearly important, and the question is, are the details important? I'd argue beyond salvation, the rejection of any part of the bible is a rejection of Christ, so it is worth contending for the faith, as we are all doing here.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: You entered the discussion by saying that Christian theology is based on an incorrect understanding and incorrect translation of "ecclesia" and "church" and congregation". Having stated that, essentially, you left no room for argument, because anyone who disagreed with you would then be subscribing to this incorrect translation.

Well, if the argument presented was valid, it says that any theology using of those English words in a cavalier way are without biblical foundation; which should make people examine their own presuppositions. There should be no room for further argument.

On the other hand, I've made an argument about biblical meaning and the use of words. If I've committed an error, or employed a fallacy, point it out and that's room for further argument. Either my argument is shown to be false, or it is accepted; that generally is how it works.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: Rose took you back to basics - the church is the body of believers in Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, and who is God.

But Mary, if you accept the argument that Greek words have had theological meaning imparted to them, and 'ekklesia' is such an example, than any theology that builds off that 'added' meaning is without biblical foundation. You have to decide for yourself, whether I'm correct or not (I've shown you my reason). If I am correct, you have to accept my conclusion and determine what it means for theology that uses such words.

I've been through the same process, and am convinced that theology has been injected which was not originally there. I'm even more convinced this is the source of every major theological debate; (Calvinism vs Arminianism for example, is the covenant unconditional or conditional - well clearly from my point of view, such as question doesn't understand the covenant, Likewise how can OT prophecy be understood, if people can't answer simple question 'is it talking about the 'church' or 'Israel'?' etc).

I've showed you a number of these cases were the Greek doesn't seem to have the meaning, that the English words impart. Because I accept the arguments, I accept the conclusion, and have had to adjust my own understanding of theology. Remember, I was originally questioned on my assertion that I understood the 'ekklesia' (congregation) and Israel to be one and the same thing. I believe I've shown my reasons, whether or not others share that belief.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: I think you have misunderstood Rose's point about the Greek woman in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. In fact I think you have misunderstood the passages in those verses entirely. In my next post I will go through them.

It's possible. I reread both [Mark 7] and [Matthew 15], and then I'll reread Rose's argument.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote: You ask has anyone read of the prodigal sons. I have read of the prodigal son. Where will we find the prodigal sons?

That was a typing error. Sorry about that.

no worries.

Perhaps we need to clear up what you mean by theology exactly. Or do you mean doctrine?

Also, I'm not sure what your point is about the number of verses in the Bible, and that some people dismiss the OT. What is the relevance of this at this point in the discusssion?

Furthermore, I'm a little confused about whether you mean John 3 16 is a theological non essential, or whether the ecclesia issue is a non essential?

(07-06-2011 06:33 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:
(07-06-2011 03:54 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: So we are back to the Church versus Israel thing.

If it's biblical, so it's worth coming back to.

(07-06-2011 03:54 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: It's very simple.Israel are the descendants of Jacob.You want to make them one and the same because if I understand your doctrine correctly, all christians are Israel and must have formed part of the 12 tribes at some point.

It is very simply; insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. What are the biblical facts as you understand them? Please answer these questions:

Do you believe [Isa 20:28][Amos 9:9] (yes or no)?

Did God himself promise to shepherd his people Israel, after they were scattered IAW [Isa 31:10][Psa 80:1]?

Has the above promise happened, if so How?

Who is being addressed as flock in [Isa 31:10][Psa 80:1]?

In the bible, Does God promise a covenant with anyone other than Israel? If so, where?

Who does Christ say he came only to in [Matt 15:24], and do you believe him (yes or no)?

Who did Christ send his disciples to in [Matt 10:6]?

Who were the following verses addressed to: [1 Peter 1:1][James 1:1][Rom 4:1][Rom 9:10][Hebrew][Eph 2:12]

Who does the bible say the new covenant would be established with [Jer 31:31][Heb 8:8]

Has the new covenant been established? With whom?

Who are the elect? (Where is the election in the bible)?

Who are God's portion, His heritage?

(07-06-2011 03:54 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: This then ties in with your view that Christ came exclusively for Israelites and therefore non Israelites cannot look to Christ and take anything He said as being relevant to them since you repeatedly quote the verse where Christ said He was sent only to the lost sheep of the Hosue of Israel.

The view that "Christ was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" is not in fact "my view", it's Christ's claim. Yes, I have quoted it a number of times, but you have yet to answer the question whether or not you believe it. How sad!!

(07-06-2011 03:54 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: If my analysis of your doctrine is wrong please correct me.I find it very hard to follow what you mean by certain things sometimes.

I'm sorry that you find it hard to follow what I mean sometimes. I don't mind clarifying. I would like to explore some of the things you believe, if you're willing.

I am sorry that I have not been able to post as often as I needed to to keep up the study on Mark 7 and Matthew 15, but Rose has brought up some of the points I wanted to make. Perhaps you would consider answering some of my questions before, Rose or anyone else answers yours?.

I have to say that while you have accused Christians of basing doctrine on a mistranslated word, you are doing the same thing. However, to follow your doctrine would have Christ contradicting Himself. You do not really need me to take you through Mark 7 and Matthew 15. You know to look at the context, the events, and who He is speaking to at different times is clear. As you read and study, with prayer, consider Jesus words and actions. Remember, not only did Jesus use words to teach, but actions as well. Think about the word multitude in both chapters, and refer back to John 3:16 and think about the word world. Also consider Matthew 11:28. What does all mean to you? Again look at Romans 3 verse 23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;so again I ask what does all ,mean to you?

Then if you make a study of Romans 3, how will you reconcile it to your beliefs?

(07-06-2011 10:32 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Ekklesia,
at this late point in the discussion ,I still cannot understand the poiints you try to make. You keep harping on about Jesus coming only for the lost sheep of Israel and emphasising it yet I fail to see where this gets us.Yes Israel was called sheep many times in the OT but even in the end times people are still being called sheep.

We see Jesus preached everywhere in Israel at some point and all the people were regarded as sheep.

Mat 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Mat 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

Jesus called Himself that Shepherd who would look after his sheep and even refers to other folds.

Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

[/color][/b]

Quote:I can add, that Jesus was teaching, not for the sake of the goats, but for the sheep. He had to go amongst both sheep and goats to proclaim the gospel, for the sake of the sheep.

Where the synagogues full of 'sheep'? Hardly. Where their 'goats' in the synagogues? Clearly, since even in the temple in Jerusalem there were those who professed faith (which was actually a dead faith), and still rejected Christ.

The point was that Jesus went to villages and synagogues to proclaim the Gospel, where there were both 'sheep' and 'goats'. The 'sheep' responded to his voice; the goats did not. (This is clear biblically).

I am posting the Scriptures which speak of the sheep and the goats.We can see that it says all nations are gathered before Him.We then see that the dividing of the people is compared to a shepherd separatin g the sheep form goats and this separation is dependant on how his sheep treated one another and acted upon the Shepherd's words.

Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Thank you for those verses Rose.

I'd like to point out that Jesus himself was referred to as a sheep Is 53 vs7:
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.