He Gets Us campaign

[HarleyER]

OH, you got me! There's not an ounce of fire or brimstone in my theology. Was it the Ghost Rider avatar that gave it away?

Ah, and that's the trouble. Jesus spoke far more on fire and brimstone than any other topic. But then, when Thomas Jefferson didn't like something in scripture, he simply cut it out. He ended up cutting out 10% of his Bible, but that certainly solved his problems with the text and it made his theology sound really good.

 

[QvQ]

I do. Look again. But next time, pay attention to contexts. They mean everything.

In Context, Paul mentions the Holy Spirit 116+ times in his letters.
The Holy Spirit is the context.
It is certainly a major part of the content.

Paul's authority was not his educated, erudite exegesis of the Old Testament.
Paul's authority was the Holy Spirit.

 

[HarleyER]

The Mosaic Law was given to a gang of miscreants so difficult to handle that at various times both God and Moses threw up their hands and had to console one another. They were too barbarous to stand up to the real requirements Jesus has for his people, their hearts were too hard, thus they were given a lesser covenant that required lesser performance from them...not meeting the standards of the Messianic Covenant that Jesus would testate at a later and better time.

The Mosaic Law was not physically difficult to keep.

if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.

It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. --Deuteronomy 30

There was no question that the Pharisees and even the rich young ruler were able to keep all the commandments...physically. Where they failed was understanding and obeying the "weightier matters, " that is, the spiritual commands that the physical laws pointed to.

True, the Mosaic Law was not difficult to keep as you rightfully pointed out from your Deut. verses. My point was not to say whether the law could have been kept (which Moses states that it could). I could have been clearer. My point was to illustrate the de-evolution of the application of the law through time.

One can trace the corruption through the book of Judges. It really starts in Joshua with the attack on Ai and, later, the Gibbionites. But it is most clear in Judges. The law devolves to such a point that when you get to Micah (Judges 17-18) you have Levites roaming around selling themselves to people with idols and shrines. There are so many twists and turns with the law (and the Passover) that by the time the law got the Pharisees and the rich young ruler, with all its corruption, extraneous rules, and regulations, it looked nothing like the law handed down by Moses. For example, in Matthew 12, the Pharisees criticized the disciples for eating grain on the Sabbath. But the law in Deut 23:25 never mentions the Sabbath and says eating grain is perfectly acceptable. Man had corrupted the law by adding to it in this case.

What is remarkable, is that the Jews had the law sitting in the synagogues and temple. But they added things, deleted things, ignore things until the whole message was completely confusing. Quite frankly, it isn't unlike what people have done to the clear teaching of the scriptures today.

As an aside, Moses wasn't fooled by the "gang of miscreants" (I like that). Moses knew they would rebel.

Deut 31:27 For I know your rebellion and your stubbornness; behold, as long as I have been alive with you until today, you have been rebellious against the Lord; how much more, then, after my death? 28 Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against them. 29 For I know that after my death you will behave very corruptly and turn from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will confront you in the latter days, because you will do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him to anger with the work of your hands.”

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah, and that's the trouble. Jesus spoke far more on fire and brimstone than any other topic. But then, when Thomas Jefferson didn't like something in scripture, he simply cut it out. He ended up cutting out 10% of his Bible, but that certainly solved his problems with the text and it made his theology sound really good.

Ok. I see you didn't really understand my joke above.

Come back to me when you understand it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In Context, Paul mentions the Holy Spirit 116+ times in his letters.
The Holy Spirit is the context.
It is certainly a major part of the content.

Paul's authority was not his educated, erudite exegesis of the Old Testament.
Paul's authority was the Holy Spirit.

You don't get it, do you? I already know all of that. Why are you nit-picking?

 

[QvQ]

You don't get it, do you? I already know all of that.

Then why do you say people cannot understand the Bible unless they buy some contemporary influencer book to explain it to them?

Whatever happened to "read the Bible and Pray?"

Or are the masses incapable of understanding the Bible without proper instruction and guidance from contemporary exegetes?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then why do you say people cannot understand the Bible unless they buy some contemporary influencer book to explain it to them?

I didn"t specifically say that. It'd probably be a good thing to not misquote me. It'd also be a good thing not to misrepresent the need for "Christian influencers" among the entire Church. We both know that the Lord gave some to be pastors, some teachers, some evangelists, some as workers of beneficence, among other "influential" and needed capacities.

Whatever happened to "read the Bible and Pray?"

That's still one of the options on the Christian to-do-list as far as I know. It wasn't meant to be the only thing, though.

Or are the masses incapable of understanding the Bible without proper instruction and guidance from contemporary exegetes?

Apparently, being that they can't all see eye-to-eye and are all divided, the answer is staring us in the face, isn't it?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You suggested that they existed, so, yes, it does matter if you can't come up with any examples...while you know we have examples of the converse.

The fact that God dictated a law certainly does not imply that man, particularly as a society, ever willingly complied.

In fact...just the opposite. Man's natural reaction to God's command is disobedience.

Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet. ”But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. -- Romans 7

This was an exception to the law that a slave was to go free on the 7th year; thus a man who wanted to remain a slave to his master could do so. The commandment on the matter was not that he could do so, but about what was to be done to such a man.

 

[QvQ]

We both know that the Lord gave some to be pastors, some teachers, some evangelists, some as workers of beneficence, among other "influential" and needed capacities.

And gave some to be priests, bishops and popes
However Evangelicals would rather read and pray.
Sola Scriptura

But to each his own. A man I know couldn't read. I took him to the library. He was delighted to learn he could check out audio tapes of the Bible. All his life he had been "told" what the Bible said. He could listen and hear it for himself alone.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And gave some to be priests, bishops and popes
However Evangelicals would rather read and pray.
Sola Scriptura

But to each his own. A man I know couldn't read. I took him to the library. He was delighted to learn he could check out audio tapes of the Bible. All his life he had been "told" what the Bible said. He could listen and hear it for himself alone.

You influencer you! ................................ Good job! I'm glad you did that for him.

 

[Clare73]

In Context, Paul mentions the Holy Spirit 116+ times in his letters.
The Holy Spirit is the context.
It is certainly a major part of the content.

Paul's authority was not his educated, erudite exegesis of the Old Testament.
Paul's authority was the Holy Spirit.

You don't get it, do you? I already know all of that. Why are you nit-picking?

Actually, Paul's authority was
1) his appointment by God and Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1, Eph 1:1, Ro 1:1, 1 & 2 Co 1:1, Col 1:1, 1 & 2 Tim 1:1, Tit 1:1) and
2) the receiving of the gospel from Jesus Christ personally (Gal 1:11-12).

 

[Clare73]

This was an exception to the law that a slave was to go free on the 7th year; thus a man who wanted to remain a slave to his master could do so. The commandment on the matter was not that he could do so, but about what was to be done to such a man.

Actually, there were two sets of laws, one for Hebrew slaves (Lev 25:39-43) and one for Gentile slaves (Lev 25:44-46).
The one to which you are referring was for Hebrew slaves.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, Paul's authority was
1) his appointment by God and Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1, Eph 1:1, Ro 1:1, 1 & 2 Co 1:1, Col 1:1, 1 & 2 Tim 1:1, Tit 1:1) and
2) the receiving of the gospel from Jesus Christ personally (Gal 1:11-12).

No one is debating those points about Paul's authority, Clare. Have you noticed?

So, dear Sister, save yourself some time and effort since I'm sure you have other things you'd rather do with your day.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No one is debating those points about Paul's authority, Clare. Have you noticed?

So, dear Sister, save yourself some time and effort since I'm sure you have other things you'd rather do with your day.

You seem to have some objection to your claim —"Paul used his Deuteronomic reference to support his own authority as an apostle."— being objected to. What both @QvQ and @Clare73 said are relevant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You seem to have some objection to your claim —"Paul used his Deuteronomic reference to support his own authority as an apostle."— being objected to. What both @QvQ and @Clare73 said are relevant.

... so, let me get this straight: You guys are going to miss the forest for the trees simply because I didn't ALSO MENTION that Paul's authority comes by.............................EVERYTHING WE ALL ALREADY KNOW ABOUT HIM FROM THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT?

Say what? Why should I have to always add every qualifier to every sentence just to appease certain denominational sensibilities?

No, you all are straining at nats for no good reason, all the while utterly ignoring the point that I so accurately made earlier.

 

[Clare73]

No one is debating those points about Paul's authority, Clare. Have you noticed?

So, dear Sister, save yourself some time and effort since I'm sure you have other things you'd rather do with your day.

Is correct information not relevant to all forms of conversation?

Paul's authority as an apostle never rested on anything but the two facts I presented (post #431).
However, he could corroborate the truth of his teaching by the Scriptures.

Correct distinctions; e.g., between authority and corroboration, matter to correct understanding.
Loose handling of Scripture is a sloppy hermeneutic, leading to error (2 Pe 3:16).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is correct information not relevant to all forms of conversation?

Paul's authority as an apostle never rested on anything but the two facts I presented.
However, he could corroborate the truth of his teaching by the Scriptures.

Correct distinctions; e.g., between authority and corroboration, matter to correct understanding.
Loose handling of Scripture is a sloppy hermeneutic, leading to error (2 Pe 3:16).

OH, really? ... and what pray tell is the "correct hermeneutic" by which I need to express my biblical exegesis?

Let me make something very plain and clear here: YOU, Clare, have ZERO idea as to what my sources are which serve as "my" hermeneutic.

Here's a word of solid advice: You need to stop judging me (and my sources), especially without your having any clear discernment about them, especially before a hearing has even been conducted as to what, how and why I read, understand and express my views on the Bible in the way I do ...

Simply citing 2 Peter 3:16 serves as no discernible praxis or explanation as to "how" to understand Scripture. All it says is, "Be careful with what you read in Scripture and how you interpret it." That's it. Moreover, you need to stop before you get yourself in over your head where the Bible is concerned. And I know that's tough for you to do ... but back off.

 

[Clare73]

OH, really? ... and what pray tell is the "correct hermeneutic" by which I need to express my biblical exegesis?

Not only you, but everyone should use a hermeneutic that includes only correct and excludes all incorrect information; e.g., does not confuse "corroboration" with "authority."

Let me make something very plain and clear here: YOU, Clare, have ZERO idea as to what my sources are which serve as "my" hermeneutic.
Here's a word of solid advice: You need to stop judging me (and my sources), especially without your having any clear discernment about them, especially before a hearing has even been conducted as to what, how and why I read, understand and express my views on the Bible in the way I do ...

Simply citing 2 Peter 3:16 serves as no discernible praxis or explanation as to "how" to understand Scripture. All it says is, "Be careful with what you read in Scripture and how you interpret it." That's it. Moreover, you need to stop before you get yourself in over your head where the Bible is concerned. And I know that's tough for you to do ... but back off.

Who rubbed you with a hot brick?

 

[Rose_bud]

mmm...how about some feet washing beloveds

 

[Mark Quayle]

... so, let me get this straight: You guys are going to miss the forest for the trees simply because I didn't ALSO MENTION that Paul's authority comes by.............................EVERYTHING WE ALL ALREADY KNOW ABOUT HIM FROM THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT?

Say what? Why should I have to always add every qualifier to every sentence just to appease certain denominational sensibilities?

No, you all are straining at nats for no good reason, all the while utterly ignoring the point that I so accurately made earlier.

No, it is obvious there isn't enough room in a post to mention everything relevant to a subject. But that's not their point. I don't think they said what they did just to be contentious, either.

Take a look at the title under your avatar. Loose cannon for Christ is pretty accurate (yes, I saw the pun). "Like a rosebush in the hand of a drunkard", using God's word carelessly is damaging to those around —but, I will be measured by my own standard, so, I'll shut up now.