Looking for serious Bible students - hard to find?

[BobRyan]

By "serious Bible students" I don't just mean "people who agree with my POV".

I mean people who show they are capable of considering a doctrine from the Bible that is not already what they are thinking and can give it serious consideration rather than a response that is of the form "no texts at all -- I just differ with you" or "Lets not look at those texts you posted at all - lets look at something else".

I am currently trying this discussion idea out in the prophecy forum) of CF - with an example sermon that has a big-bang ending out of Rev 6.

Looking for at least one other serious Bible student - regarding end times.

It's harder to find than you might think. A lot of people view forums like this one on endtimes as not really for serious Bible students since few if any are willing to consider that they are wrong about something and will not accept a text in opposition to their view no matter how clear it is...

www.christianforums.com

And it is actually going quite well in my POV -- even though prophecy is one of the most "diverse" areas of discussion where people are quick to post a great many wide ranging proposals.

How about on this GT area of CF? - do you find it hard to get serious consideration of a Bible teaching that people do not already agree with?

My question for someone in your position as you describe in your post - is whether you have found it hard (or easy) to get an objective serious response to a thread you have posted where you quote a chapter or a few verses and give your understanding it -- then are looking for serious consideration of what you posted.

Where "serious" means "not ignoring every detail in the text I just posted", where serious means "not insisting that we talk about another chapter of the bible instead", where "serious" means giving a serious POV on what those same texts mean as they exist in the chapter being quoted.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

By "serious Bible students" I don't just mean "people who agree with my POV".

I mean people who show they are capable of considering a doctrine from the Bible that is not already what they are thinking and can give it serious consideration rather than a response that is of the form "no texts at all -- I just differ with you" or "Lets not look at those texts you posted at all - lets look at something else".

I am currently trying this discussion idea out in the prophecy forum) of CF - with an example sermon that has a big-bang ending out of Rev 6.

Looking for at least one other serious Bible student - regarding end times.

It's harder to find than you might think. A lot of people view forums like this one on endtimes as not really for serious Bible students since few if any are willing to consider that they are wrong about something and will not accept a text in opposition to their view no matter how clear it is...

www.christianforums.com

And it is actually going quite well in my POV -- even though prophecy is one of the most "diverse" areas of discussion where people are quick to post a great many wide ranging proposals.

How about on this GT area of CF? - do you find it hard to get serious consideration of a Bible teaching that people do not already agree with?

I am a serious bible student.

I have looked at many parallel interpretations, in parallel to review the fruit of the categories of interpretations beyond denominational lines.

In that search, I have found that end times studies tend to fall outside the narrow thesis given to the apostles when they asked if God would restore the kingdom of Israel at this time. Jesus said it was none of their business, and to go preach the gospel to everyone around them, to their neighbors they didn't like, and then the whole world.

I find any interpretation that does not heed the instructions provided within the scripture about the scripture ... is not the fruit of a serious bible study.

 

[Blade]

Hmm maybe try a different approach. The way you come across speaks volumes so the out come is already known. Not here to offend but this is one of those ..its not them its me kind of things.

 

[BobRyan]

I am a serious bible student.

I have looked at many parallel interpretations, in parallel to review the fruit of the categories of interpretations beyond denominational lines.

Nice to know.

So when a given doctrine/topic/idea is posted as a thread - you take a look at the texts and either agree or disagree while not simply dumping all the texts out the window and every detail that was identified in them. But rather address the points made directly from the texts?

In that search, I have found that end times studies tend to fall outside the narrow thesis given to the apostles when they asked if God would restore the kingdom of Israel at this time.

In the thread linked - there is a lot of focus on Matt 24 and the disciples respond to Jesus' statement that not one stone will be left on top of another when it comes to the temple in Jerusalem that they were looking at -- at the time - by asking him.

1. When will these things be
2. What is the sign of your coming and of the end of the world.


Matt 24: 3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” --- and the rest of the chapter addresses that subject.

In that chapter Jesus gets to the end of his lengthy reveal - and says "33 so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door."

I think you will find the sermon at that link pretty interesting.

================================================

In any case that is the discussion happening in one form or another at the thread linked to in the OP for that one specific topic.

On this thread I am simply asking the more general question about serious Bible students who will respond to whatever the topic is by paying attention to the details in the text of scripture being highlighted and responding in agreement or disagreement based on actual details in the text - not merely preference.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmm maybe try a different approach. The way you come across speaks volumes so the out come is already known. Not here to offend but this is one of those ..its not them its me kind of things.

In my OP I affirm both the view of someone agreeing with a given doctrine posted from scripture and someone that differs with what is posted. My only requirement is "agree or disagree -- but be serious in your ability to pay attention to the details in the texts under discussion".

If you are saying that this will not work for those who do not value the idea of paying attention to the texts being identified as supporting some POV - then I also agree that sort of person will not be very engaged on this kind of topic.

 

[SamInNi]

Our intentions are key in sharing Scripture and learning Truth. Do we share because we are driven by the need to convince others, or are we motivated by the humble need to see them built up in Christ and to grow ourselves?

In Colossians 3 we are encouraged to “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (v. 16). And we should do this “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 17).

Even if we are not gifted in teaching within a local assembly, many of us can maturely share truth with others who are genuine believers. But that’s not a carte blanche excuse for anyone to think they have God-given authority to teach. Most don’t and most shouldn’t. There’s a lot of bad teaching out there, often from those who have convinced themselves they are gifted to teach.

Teaching badly is costly and leads others into error, so we must remember that we are accountable before God. Being firmly grounded in Scripture protects us from bad/false teaching and helps us recognise dangerous half-truths that creep in the back door. Meditating on Scripture “day and night” is essential (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:2), but uncommon.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Nice to know.

So when a given doctrine/topic/idea is posted as a thread - you take a look at the texts and either agree or disagree while not simply dumping all the texts out the window and every detail that was identified in them. But rather address the points made directly from the texts?


In the thread linked - there is a lot of focus on Matt 24 and the disciples respond to Jesus' statement that not one stone will be left on top of another when it comes to the temple in Jerusalem that they were looking at -- at the time - by asking him.

1. When will these things be
2. What is the sign of your coming and of the end of the world.


Matt 24: 3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” --- and the rest of the chapter addresses that subject.

In that chapter Jesus gets to the end of his lengthy reveal - and says "33 so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door."

I think you will find the sermon at that link pretty interesting.

================================================

In any case that is the discussion happening in one form or another at the thread linked to in the OP for that one specific topic.

On this thread I am simply asking the more general question about serious Bible students who will respond to whatever the topic is by paying attention to the details in the text of scripture being highlighted and responding in agreement or disagreement based on actual details in the text - not merely preference.

If one ignores the foundational teachings identified as such within the bible in their teaching; No matter how detailed or how complex the explanation ... it is merely their personal preference .. not the truth.

 

[BobRyan]

If one ignores the foundational teachings identified as such within the bible in their teaching; No matter how detailed or how complex the explanation ... it is merely their personal preference .. not the truth.

no doubt one can pay serious attention to the text and still get it wrong. But at least they are serious and were not simply looking for any ol' excuse to ignore the information in the text.

My point is not that every serious effort will come up with the right reading of the text on the first attempt. In John 16 Christ tells His own disciples that they are not ready to accept the remaining truths he has yet to tell them.

 

[BobRyan]

Our intentions are key in sharing Scripture and learning Truth. Do we share because we are driven by the need to convince others, or are we motivated by the humble need to see them built up in Christ and to grow ourselves?

OR are we simply willing to learn something from scripture even if it does not fit our traditions, bias and preference?

If so then we are "Serious" in our Bible study.

In Colossians 3 we are encouraged to “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (v. 16). And we should do this “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 17).

Yes we can share what scripture says - but a given thread is going to come up where the person posting it does not already share our view of it and they will often point to a text and its details such that when taken seriously lends support to their POV. A serious response requires taking the points raised from the text - seriously.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

no doubt one can pay serious attention to the text and still get it wrong. But at least they are serious and were not simply looking for any ol' excuse to ignore the information in the text.

My point is not that every serious effort will come up with the right reading of the text on the first attempt. In John 16 Christ tells His own disciples that they are not ready to accept the remaining truths he has yet to tell them.

It is important to be grateful for what we have, that people didn't have prior to the death of our Savior Jesus Christ.

The law points to Christ, so people point to the law.

But Jesus is no longer on the cross, and invites us to walk in the newness of the life illustrated in His resurrection.

So there's serious study of the "point to Jesus" and serious study of the "Walk with Jesus."

Since there are new things to discover for those born again by the Holy Spirit, that is what I am seriously interested in examining.

However, people insist on pointing to Jesus as if He's still hanging on a cross, not so interested in that.

 

[BobRyan]

It is important to be grateful for what we have, that people didn't have prior to the death of our Savior Jesus Christ.

True.

But we know from scripture "The Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

The law points to Christ,

True in the case of the lost - the Law points to their sin and their need of a Savior.

But Jesus is no longer on the cross, and invites us to walk in the newness of the

The NEW Covenant is in the OLD testament - Jer 31:31-34
Which is how we find Moses and Elijah standing "in glory with Christ" in Matt 17 and in Luke 9:28-34

So there's serious study of the "point to Jesus" and serious study of the "Walk with Jesus."

No doubt.

Jesus is now in heaven as our High Priest - (Heb 8) and is interceding for us - (Heb 9)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

True.

But we know from scripture "The Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8



True in the case of the lost - the Law points to their sin and their need of a Savior.

The NEW Covenant is in the OLD testament - Jer 31:31-34
Which is how we find Moses and Elijah standing "in glory with Christ" in Matt 17 and in Luke 9:28-34



No doubt.

Jesus is now in heaven as our High Priest - (Heb 8) and is interceding for us - (Heb 9)

I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” (Galatians 2:21)

When a message takes a law focused approach, this is "setting aside grace" through emphasis of said message.

Since I don't want to intrinsically communicate that "Christ died in vain" I cannot accept the emphasis of the above post.

 

[Chaleb]

John 16 Christ tells His own disciples that they are not ready to accept the remaining truths he has yet to tell them.

And that is why Christ sent Paul.
Paul reveals all that which Christ was referring to in John 16.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
John 16 Christ tells His own disciples that they are not ready to accept the remaining truths he has yet to tell them

And that is why Christ sent Paul.
Paul reveals all that which Christ was referring to in John 16.

Paul does provide part of that information - but John 16 places "The Holy Spirit" as the teacher and does not limit it to just the writings of Paul. (Might be an interesting thread topic)

In Acts 10 Peter is told directly by God to not neglect gentile evangelism. As Peter reports it "call no man unclean".

Paul does not start teaching Christians anything at all until sometime after Acts 13.

Then of course John comes along and writes John 16 - after being released from Patmos - long after Paul had been killed.

John's book of Revelation was written after the death of Paul and teaches many things about events future to the first century that Paul never mentioned.

 

[BobRyan]

we know from scripture "The Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

I do not set aside the grace of God;

Neither does Paul in Gal 3:8.

Gal 1:6-9 tells us there is only one Gospel and Gal 3:8 tells us that the one and only gospel referenced in chapter 1 - was "preached to Abraham".

Peter tells us that this OT gospel included "the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow" as taught to the OT writers "by the Spirit of Christ within THEM" as Peter said.

Since I don't want to intrinsically communicate that "Christ died in vain" I cannot accept the emphasis of the above post.

Any time you are trying to think of a reason to reject Gal 3:8 and Gal 1:6-9 you are on a wrong track

Possibly a topic for its own thread.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

we know from scripture "The Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

Neither does Paul in Gal 3:8.

Gal 1:6-9 tells us there is only one Gospel and Gal 3:8 tells us that the one and only gospel referenced in chapter 1 - was "preached to Abraham".

Peter tells us that this OT gospel included "the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow" as taught to the OT writers "by the Spirit of Christ within THEM" as Peter said.

Any time you are trying to think of a reason to reject Gal 3:8 and Gal 1:6-9 you are on a wrong track

Possibly a topic for its own thread.

Well, what I see here is this scripture vs that scripture which precludes a serious study of the bible in any sense.

The text says what it says, and if at any time it does not say what it says .. then a return to basic bible study is required.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, what I see here is this scripture vs that scripture

Is see that in your responses.

I prefer both-and.

which means that tossing Gal 3:8 and Gal 1:6-9 is not even an option.

Gal 1:6-9 tells us there is only one Gospel and Gal 3:8 tells us that the one and only gospel referenced in chapter 1 - was "preached to Abraham".

Peter tells us that this OT gospel included "the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow" as taught to the OT writers "by the Spirit of Christ within THEM" as Peter said.

Any time you are trying to think of a reason to reject Gal 3:8 and Gal 1:6-9 you are on a wrong track

taking texts seriously does not allow tossing out the ones that do not fit one's preferences as noted in the OP and 2nd post.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Is see that in your responses.

I prefer both-and.

which means that tossing Gal 3:8 and Gal 1:6-9 is not even an option.

Gal 1:6-9 tells us there is only one Gospel and Gal 3:8 tells us that the one and only gospel referenced in chapter 1 - was "preached to Abraham".

Peter tells us that this OT gospel included "the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow" as taught to the OT writers "by the Spirit of Christ within THEM" as Peter said.

Any time you are trying to think of a reason to reject Gal 3:8 and Gal 1:6-9 you are on a wrong track

taking texts seriously does not allow tossing out the ones that do not fit one's preferences as noted in the OP and 2nd post.

Until Pentecost, no one received the Holy Spirit the way we do today. So what Abraham heard, and David illustrated through his action were types and shadows .. but not the reality that was to come, and is here today.

Going back to the law as a reference point is like telling Jesus that He died in vain. Jesus must be the reference point, His crucifixion, and His resurrection and how that impacts those who trust in Him now.

I've already studied the gospel for atheists and listened in on it for years, but the gospel for those in the kingdom is sparse because of theology much like the post I am replying to.

The text itself says that the old ways are obsolete, it's like trying to get around in a horse and buggy on a busy highway full of cars, minivans, and transport trucks. It's not only inappropriate, it's dangerous.

 

[BobRyan]

Until Pentecost, no one received the Holy Spirit the way we do today.

1 Peter 1:10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.

No wonder the New Covenant is in the OLD Testament - Jer 31:31-34 and is quoted verbatim ... unchanged in the NT Heb 8:6-12

Only the work of the Holy Spirit can do that as Jesus points out in John 3 and Jesus condemns Nicodemus because as a teacher of the OT scriptures he should know this doctrine of the Spirit and New Birth .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

1 Peter 1:10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.

No wonder the New Covenant is in the OLD Testament - Jer 31:31-34 and is quoted verbatim ... unchanged in the NT Heb 8:6-12

Only the work of the Holy Spirit can do that as Jesus points out in John 3 and Jesus condemns Nicodemus because as a teacher of the OT scriptures he should know this doctrine of the Spirit and New Birth .

I am getting the impression that the bible saying: I will give you a new covenant, it will not be like this one. Means same old, same old to you.

So I would refer you back to the saying of the snake in Genesis, "Did God really say that?"

I read your posts, but then scripture passages come back to mind to contradict the foundation of what you're saying. This makes discussing the contents of the bible not possible. Let alone a serious study, an honest study is simply not possible.