Another stupid idea???

[Jim47]

Since this forum has been dedicated to the more conservative Lutherans and I haven't read anyone of "us" yet who is opposed to having the non-conservative members visit here, why can't we ask administration for the right to debate the non-conservative members who want to visit us here at conservative.com?

Like I said,"another stupid idea"?

I think the only rule we would need in place is the general old forum rules "no flaming"

Anybody?

 

[SPALATIN]

Since this forum has been dedicated to the more conservative Lutherans and I haven't read anyone of "us" yet who is opposed to having the non-conservative members visit here, why can't we ask administration for the right to debate the non-conservative members who want to visit us here at conservative.com?

Like I said,"another stupid idea"?

I think the only rule we would need in place is the general old forum rules "no flaming"

Anybody?

Actually Jim,

I think that the idea was that we take over the General Lutheran forum as there really is no need for this subforum as we don't have a problem debating and that is allowed on the main forum. So just post whatever issues on the mainforum that you feel need to be debated.

Scott

 

[Jim47]

Guess I'm not up to date with all the rule changes, but I thought we couldn't debate or in other words tell anyone that they were wrong in the main forum?


Has this been changed again?

 

[night2day]

Guess I'm not up to date with all the rule changes, but I thought we couldn't debate or in other words tell anyone that they were wrong in the main forum?

Has this been changed again?

I don't think so. I haven't actively participated in the main forum. As of late. But I would think the same rules apply.

I actually find this nicer here than the fuller "room" personally. It's nicer than reading posts of those who feel they're bashed simply because others don't accept the "historical critical method" under the umbrella among other things.

 

[ILoveYeshua]

whats the "historical critical method"

 

[keeptrying]

whats the "historical critical method"

Yea, what is the "historical critical method"?

 

[Jim47]

Yea, what is the "historical critical method"?

I am not the best to be able to explain this, so perhaps someone else will help.

To my understanding, people who doubt God's Word as written in the bible, not believeing in the 6 day creation for example, will use a combination of history and science to determine what they think actually happened and then offer then own man made beliefs in place of what God has told us. In a way, they are setting themselves up as God although they don't believe that.

They can use this to consider any teaching in the bible. The creation of man and woman, animals, the flood, things concerning Jesus, teachings given us by the Apostles that they disagree with like women as Pastors, homo-sexuals and any other number of things. They believe they do these things in love and that makes it right, but they neglect to show people their sins by preaching the law so that they may truely repent and be saved.

 

[keeptrying]

Thank-you Jim, I had not heard that phrase before.

 

[LutherNut]

Yea, what is the "historical critical method"?

In a nutshell, the historical-critical (or sometimes called "higher-critical") method of Biblical interpretation basically means that the books of the Bible were written at a specific point in time to a specific audience for a specific reason, and that they are really not applicable to us today.

For example, Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians concerning women being in submission to men in the Church or in 1 Timothy where he writes that women are not to have authority over men in the Church were only meant for those to whom Paul was writing at that place and time in history and that they mean nothing to us today.

It basically gives those who follow this method an excuse to ignore and/or reject God's word on a number of issues that are not socially popular such as ordination of women, homosexuality, close communion, abortion, etc.

 

[Flatscan82]

In a nutshell, the historical-critical (or sometimes called "higher-critical") method of Biblical interpretation basically means that the books of the Bible were written at a specific point in time to a specific audience for a specific reason, and that they are really not applicable to us today.

For example, Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians concerning women being in submission to men in the Church or in 1 Timothy where he writes that women are not to have authority over men in the Church were only meant for those to whom Paul was writing at that place and time in history and that they mean nothing to us today.

It basically gives those who follow this method an excuse to ignore and/or reject God's word on a number of issues that are not socially popular such as ordination of women, homosexuality, close communion, abortion, etc.

I agree with you, Although I would like to point out that Titus, timothy 1 and 2, that 99% of all biblical scholars for the past 300 years, believe that those books where not written by Paul but by someone who but put Paul’s name under it so people would listen to it. Plus those letters have been dated to around the founding of the Catholic Church. Also in 1 Corth: 14 some scholars think that versus it was added to Paul’s letter by someone else on a later date. Because if you look a chapter or two back it will talk about women prophesying in church.

Go figure?

Also before I get any replies back about my sacrilegious post.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'

Folly, foolishness, being stupid, not seeing what is right before your eyes

 

[keeptrying]

I agree with you, Although I would like to point out that Titus, timothy 1 and 2, that 99% of all biblical scholars for the past 300 years, believe that those books where not written by Paul but by someone who but put Paul’s name under it so people would listen to it. Plus those letters have been dated to around the founding of the Catholic Church. Also in 1 Corth: 14 some scholars think that versus it was added to Paul’s letter by someone else on a later date. Because if you look a chapter or two back it will talk about women prophesying in church.

Go figure?

Also before I get any replies back about my sacrilegious post.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'

Folly, foolishness, being stupid, not seeing what is right before your eyes

I don't think it is such a sacrilegious post. The bible was written by men in a certain time period and some of the things written are because of the customs of the day. America use to not let women vote, but society changes and grows for the better. Another example is slaves, very common and excepted in the bible to own slaves should we do that now? Of course not it was just an excepted thing in that time period.

We must not confuse the truth of the gospel message with things that were just an excepted practice of that time. There were also many women active in the early church in leadership positions. Correct me if I am wrong but Paul is the only writer who states this about women not being in authority over men in the church (ouch, I'm going to hear about that one), he is certainly the one who is always quoted. Human beings wrote the bible and it is only normal that their personal beliefs would be included. That does not change the gospel message.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

There are aspects of what is called the Historical Critical method which are useful.

It's good for example to understand the context in which the text was written and the situation it was written to address, etc.

It forms an important safeguard against allegoricalism on the one hand and too subjective an approach on the other (well, may those are on the same hand...anyway...)

The Historical-Critical method goes bad when it operates from the assumption that the Bible is not the Word of God and that it is just another ancient document subject to all the same criticisms and dissections any ancient document would be.

What is often called the Historical-Grammatical method is that which understands, first and foremost, the Bible to be truly, in the fullest sense, the very Word of God and then proceeds to bring lingusitic and historical analysis to it, always remembering that there is nothing in it, morally or doctrinally which is "merely contextual" i.e. solely applicable to it's audience and situation.

 

[Flatscan82]

The Historical-Critical method goes bad when it operates from the assumption that the Bible is not the Word of God and that it is just another ancient document subject to all the same criticisms and dissections any ancient document would be.

not always, if that being true then the bible has no flaws, even the gospel have a few interseting things.

if you turn to mathew 21 were jesus is riding into jeruslem. It says that Jesus is riding a donkey, and a colt at the same time. two animals at once. btw it also says a it was a female donkey, a colt is a male. it also says jesus rode both.

ahhh i just make it easy i will post what i am talking about

[FONT=&quot]As they approached [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jerusalem[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and came to Bethphage on the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mount of Olives[/FONT][FONT=&quot], Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away." [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
but the other 3 gospel either say a colt or a donkey. [/FONT]

 

[LutherNut]

I agree with you, Although I would like to point out that Titus, timothy 1 and 2, that 99% of all biblical scholars for the past 300 years, believe that those books where not written by Paul but by someone who but put Paul’s name under it so people would listen to it. Plus those letters have been dated to around the founding of the Catholic Church. Also in 1 Corth: 14 some scholars think that versus it was added to Paul’s letter by someone else on a later date. Because if you look a chapter or two back it will talk about women prophesying in church.

This is a perfect example of "historical-critical" interpretation. I have studied the Scriptures rather intently over the years and have NEVER heard that Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy were written by anyone other than Paul in the first century AD (which BTW was when the catholic church was founded). All of Paul's epistles are part of the homologoumena, that being the universally accepted books of the canon from earliest times.

Also, the point about women "prophesying" says nothing about women holding the office of the pastoral ministry. Prophesying and administering the office of the keys and the Word and Sacrament ministry of the Church are two entirely different things.

I don't know where you got your info, but it is dead wrong.

 

[LutherNut]

I don't think it is such a sacrilegious post. The bible was written by men in a certain time period and some of the things written are because of the customs of the day. America use to not let women vote, but society changes and grows for the better. Another example is slaves, very common and excepted in the bible to own slaves should we do that now? Of course not it was just an excepted thing in that time period.

We must not confuse the truth of the gospel message with things that were just an excepted practice of that time. There were also many women active in the early church in leadership positions. Correct me if I am wrong but Paul is the only writer who states this about women not being in authority over men in the church (ouch, I'm going to hear about that one), he is certainly the one who is always quoted. Human beings wrote the bible and it is only normal that their personal beliefs would be included. That does not change the gospel message.

So, you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God? You don't believe in the inspired authorship? You think that some parts are to be followed as God's word and others are not? By what authority do you make these claims? By what authority do you determine what parts of God's word are relevent today and what parts can be ignored?

Yet, another perfect example of the heretical "historical-critical" interpretation.

 

[keeptrying]

So, you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God? You don't believe in the inspired authorship? You think that some parts are to be followed as God's word and others are not? By what authority do you make these claims? By what authority do you determine what parts of God's word are relevent today and what parts can be ignored?

Yet, another perfect example of the heretical "historical-critical" interpretation.

The bible was written by MEN inspired by God. It is a collection of different books written in different time periods and is a collection of historical events remembered by those present or handed down to. In it are contained the words of the Lord AND the opinions of man. If you can't without a problem separate the two maybe you should continue to study. There are many different books that could have been included in the bilble. God did not put the books of the bible together.

 

[Flatscan82]

So, you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God? You don't believe in the inspired authorship? You think that some parts are to be followed as God's word and others are not? By what authority do you make these claims? By what authority do you determine what parts of God's word are relevent today and what parts can be ignored?

Yet, another perfect example of the heretical "historical-critical" interpretation.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'

 

[Flatscan82]

The bible was written by MEN inspired by God. It is a collection of different books written in different time periods and is a collection of historical events remembered by those present or handed down to. In it are contained the words of the Lord AND the opinions of man. If you can't without a problem separate the two maybe you should continue to study. There are many different books that could have been included in the bilble. God did not put the books of the bible together.

serioulsy, and i have read a lot of them. Gospel of thomas, gospel of mary, gospel of peter(i really liked that one), seret gospel of mark, acts of pilate, protevangelium of james, dialogue of the savior, espitel of Barabas, the infancy gospel of thomas, gospel of the hebrews, etc etc etc...

 

[Flatscan82]

This is a perfect example of "historical-critical" interpretation. I have studied the Scriptures rather intently over the years and have NEVER heard that Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy were written by anyone other than Paul in the first century AD (which BTW was when the catholic church was founded). All of Paul's epistles are part of the homologoumena, that being the universally accepted books of the canon from earliest times.

Also, the point about women "prophesying" says nothing about women holding the office of the pastoral ministry. Prophesying and administering the office of the keys and the Word and Sacrament ministry of the Church are two entirely different things.

I don't know where you got your info, but it is dead wrong.

look it up for yourself Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy have been dated to 100ad-150ad the last "know" letter of paul we have is around 50-60ad

 

[Gospellightofmine]

What happened to the Apostle Paul after his first imprisonment in Rome? The Book of Acts ends with Paul still imprisoned during the years 61-63. Therefore we do not have any more complete information on what happened to him. However, the Pastoral Epistles were written after his first Roman imprisonment; and from these epistles we can gather some information about Paul's life after the close of Acts. Traditions and some guesswork are also used to add some not totally reliable information. Traditions say that not long after his first Roman imprisonment, Paul made his voyage to Spain and preached the Gospel there. We know at least that Paul had a desire to visit Spain (Rom 12:23 24). From his Prison Epistles, we know also that Paul intended to visit again his churches in Asia and Macedonia. (See Ph. 2:24, words addressed to Christians at Philippi, and Phm. 22, words addressed to Philemon, who lived in Colosse.) From Paul's Pastoral Epistles, it seems that Paul actually carried out those intentions. The following is perhaps Paul's route while revisiting churches and making new stops: On his return to the east he stopped at the Island of Crete and carried on mission work there. When he continued eastward, he left Titus in Crete to complete unfinished work (Titus 1:5). Paul stopped briefly in Ephesus and left Timothy in charge in Ephesus. Paul then went on to Macedonia: and from Macedonia he wrote his First Letter to Timothy (1 Ti. 1:3) and his Letter to Titus (Titus 3:12) Paul evidently wrote his letter to Titus shortly before leaving Macedonia for Nicopolis, on the west coast of Achaia. Between the writing of The Letter to Titus and the writing of 2 Timothy, Paul evidently visited Troas, Corinth and Miletus (2 Ti. 4:13, 20). Sometime later, Paul was arrested again and imprisoned in Rome for the second time. It is clear that during this imprisonment Paul did not expect to be released. During this second Roman imprisonment, Paul wrote his Second Letter to Timothy (see 2 Ti. 2:9 and 2 Ti. 4:6). Sometime later, perhaps 66 or 67 A.D., Paul died a martyr's death under Emperor Nero