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? :yum:

[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? :yum:

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

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, 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."
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
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,


but the other 3 gospel either say a colt or a donkey.

[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. :doh:

[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. :doh:

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. :doh:

[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. :doh:

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. :doh:

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

[Protoevangel]

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? :yum:
So, is this what you were hoping for Jim? ;)

[LutherNut]

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.

This is where you depart from Lutheran understanding of the nature and the authority of the Bible. My question still stands... where do you get the authority to determine what parts are God's word and what parts are the mere "opinions" of men? No one to date has been able to adequately answer that question.


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.'


But Scripture is "God-breathed" and does not come from inside men but from outside, from God.


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


I have. They are part of the undisputed texts of the New Testament. Always have been. 1 Timothy and Titus are dated to approximately 63-65 AD. 2 Timothy is dated to 66-67 AD while he was imprisoned under Emporer Nero. Again, I don't know where you get your information, but it is obviously wrong.


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...


Many of these that you have mentioned have been rejected as heretical.

[Jim47]

So, is this what you were hoping for Jim? ;)


I've given up Dan. I'm really not even up to debate anymore. Gettin old I guess. :priest:

[LutherNut]

I've given up Dan. I'm really not even up to debate anymore. Gettin old I guess. :priest:

Scaredy-cat? ;)

[Protoevangel]

I've given up Dan. I'm really not even up to debate anymore. Gettin old I guess. :priest:
So, just open the gate and run, huh? :P :D

[Flatscan82]

This is where you depart from Lutheran understanding of the nature and the authority of the Bible. My question still stands... where do you get the authority to determine what parts are God's word and what parts are the mere "opinions" of men? No one to date has been able to adequately answer that question.



the holy spirit

[Protoevangel]

the holy spirit
feathers and all

[keeptrying]

This is where you depart from Lutheran understanding of the nature and the authority of the Bible. My question still stands... where do you get the authority to determine what parts are God's word and what parts are the mere "opinions" of men? No one to date has been able to adequately answer that question.
According to you a person needs "authority" to read and interpret the bible outside the church. We don't need the permission of anyone to read and interpret the bible. The church was created by people not the other way around. Martin Luther left the Catholic Church because of that very thing.


But Scripture is "God-breathed" and does not come from inside men but from outside, from God.
and by whose authority do you decide that all the bible is "God-breathed". What about books that were not included in the bible? Are they "God-breathed" too? and by whose authority do you make that decision?

The other quotes you added were not from my posts please always include the name of the person being quoted.

[Jim47]

feathers and all


Hey! Take it easy on me will Ya? ^_^

[Jim47]

keeptrying
According to you a person needs "authority" to read and interpret the bible outside the church. We don't need the permission of anyone to read and interpret the bible. The church was created by people not the other way around. Martin Luther left the Catholic Church because of that very thing.




We are instructed by scripture to read The Word of God. The church was not created by man, but by Christ.

Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.



and by whose authority do you decide that all the bible is "God-breathed".



2Pe 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.




What about books that were not included in the bible? Are they "God-breathed" too? and by whose authority do you make that decision?



I'm sure you have heard of the term "scripture interprets scripture"

We know this is true because God does not lie and the books that were not included as cannon do not agree with the teachings of the books written by the Apostles. Why would you think that God would let just anyone write scripture? We have been warned many times about false teachers and many have attempted to change the message God has given us, so would you just believe anyone who writes? Or would you trust only that which has been written by prophets and Apostles?

[Flatscan82]

2Pe 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

was he talking about the prophets in the old testament or the new, because the new testament came around 100 years after peter died.





I'm sure you have heard of the term "scripture interprets scripture"

We know this is true because God does not lie
[/qoute]

but men do...

[quote=Jim47]

Or would you trust only that which has been written by prophets and Apostles?

I trust it when the holy spirit moves me to trust it.

[keeptrying]

The church was not created by man, but by Christ.

This one I will give you. I used a bad choice of words. The church was created by Christ and ran by men with all their faults and still is.

I have enjoyed debating with you all but now we are just going around and around.

God bless you all.:wave:

[LutherNut]

it seems like you get your information from the 1% of people that belive those letters where writen by Paul.

Yeah, like the Church fathers. Are you aware of the criteria to determine the NT canon?

Might I ask where you are getting your information?

Like I said, Paul's letters, all of them including 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, have always been part of the homologoumena, the undisputed books. And not lust recognized by your "1%", but by most if not all of the early church fathers and practically every credible scholar and theologian since.

[Ethan_Fetch]

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

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, 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."
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
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,


but the other 3 gospel either say a colt or a donkey.

This text has been edited by the Revisionists in the Vatican.

Originally the text had Jesus sitting on one of the animals and His wife, Mary Magdalene, sitting on the other.

It's just a really bad editing job by the Roman Patriarchal Oppressors. The original text, where now we read "and Jesus sat on them" originally read, "and Jesus and Mary sat on them".

No, I'm not serious, I just thought it might be fun to play Dan Brown for a moment.

More seriously, I've seen this before and I do understand that it's somewhat facile to say that the "them" referred to are the cloaks rather than both animals, but it could be so...

Similarly, Jesus may have ridden on one animal and then on the other...We don't know, either way, it poses no real difficulty for the Christian who accepts inerrancy.

However, even leaving it aside, I'll draw your attention to the fact that I did say that the H-C method has some value. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen to be an area where it is any more help than the H-G.

[Ethan_Fetch]

was he talking about the prophets in the old testament or the new, because the new testament came around 100 years after peter died.

But isn't it fascinating that in the third chapter of that same Second Letter of the Apostle Peter he equates the writings of Paul with Scripture and even, effectively, calls them such?

2 Pe. 3:15-16
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Peter seems to have no trouble at all discerning what Scripture is, so references to "prophecies of Scripture" would seem to refer extensively to Scripture itself regardless of the time of it's writing or the human author involved.

[LutherNut]

According to you a person needs "authority" to read and interpret the bible outside the church. We don't need the permission of anyone to read and interpret the bible. The church was created by people not the other way around. Martin Luther left the Catholic Church because of that very thing.

I never said anything about authority to interpret the Bible. Scripture interprets Scripture. There is a hermeneutic that prevails, that being faith in God and His inerrant, inspired Word.

My question again is by whose or what authority do you determine what parts of the Bible are God's word and what parts are not?

Still waiting...



and by whose authority do you decide that all the bible is "God-breathed".

2 Peter 1:21
2 Timothy 3:16

...in other words, God's authority...

...and a little something called "faith."

What about books that were not included in the bible? Are they "God-breathed" too?

Apparently not. The books of the canon were codified by those who were moved by the Spirit to do so.

[LutherNut]

More seriously, I've seen this before and I do understand that it's somewhat facile to say that the "them" referred to are the cloaks rather than both animals, but it could be so...

You intrigued me with this so I dug out the Greek text and discovered that you are absolutely right about this. Let's take a look, shall we...

Matthew 21:7 (translated from the Greek), "They brought the donkey and the colt, and upon them they put the cloaks and Jesus sat on them."

Now, the first "them" (they placed their cloaks on them) refers to the donkey and the colt. When talking about mixed genders (the donkey is female and the colt is male according to the Greek text) the masculine term is always used. In Greek a pronoun must always match its referent in case, number, and gender. The word for "them" used here is masculine because it is referring to both the donkey and the colt.
The second "them" refers to the cloaks. We know this because the word for "cloaks" is "imatia" which is a neuter word. The pronoun used for the second "them" is also neuter. It also must refer to the closest referent in the sentence, otherwise another word in Greek would have been used. It therefore MUST refer to the cloaks. It cannot refer to the animals at all.

Bottom line, Jesus didn't sit upon two animals, He sat upon a number of cloaks, placed upon the animals. It cannot be deduced at all that Jesus sat upon more than one animal. Therefore, this passage agrees perfectly with the other Gospel accounts.

[Flatscan82]

You intrigued me with this so I dug out the Greek text and discovered that you are absolutely right about this. Let's take a look, shall we...

Matthew 21:7 (translated from the Greek), "They brought the donkey and the colt, and upon them they put the cloaks and Jesus sat on them."

Now, the first "them" (they placed their cloaks on them) refers to the donkey and the colt. When talking about mixed genders (the donkey is female and the colt is male according to the Greek text) the masculine term is always used. In Greek a pronoun must always match its referent in case, number, and gender. The word for "them" used here is masculine because it is referring to both the donkey and the colt.
The second "them" refers to the cloaks. We know this because the word for "cloaks" is "imatia" which is a neuter word. The pronoun used for the second "them" is also neuter. It also must refer to the closest referent in the sentence, otherwise another word in Greek would have been used. It therefore MUST refer to the cloaks. It cannot refer to the animals at all.

Bottom line, Jesus didn't sit upon two animals, He sat upon a number of cloaks, placed upon the animals. It cannot be deduced at all that Jesus sat upon more than one animal. Therefore, this passage agrees perfectly with the other Gospel accounts.


"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.'


you forgot to do that veruse

[Ethan_Fetch]

you should take care of the things you say, some may consider it blasphemey agaisnt the holy spirit. since you not know me or how the spirit works in me.


Mark 3: 29
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

I don't believe that was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I will take seriously your warning...although...now that I think of it, Mark may not have actually written that. It may have been added later by puritanical Montanists...

You don't really know.

[Flatscan82]

I don't believe that was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I will take seriously your warning...although...now that I think of it, Mark may not have actually written that. It may have been added later by puritanical Montanists...

You don't really know.

your right, we dont

[LutherNut]

The problem is that you don't even know what the word of God is. By your own admission you have flat out rejected most of it. So you are not captive to God's word but to your own falwed sinful idea of what God's word is... or isn't.

[Jim47]

Flatscan82
You seem to suffer the extreme arrogance that plagued Paul. Who said in Galatians if even an angel came a said some thing different Paul then let that angel be accurse. Not an even angel from god can even change your mind. I am shaking the dust from my sandals as testimony against you.




You need to do some serious bible study if that is the understanding you have if this scripture. What Paul was saying was that no one should believe any other message of salvation thna that of Christ crucified. Or did you just choose to take that out of context because it fits your agenda?

As for angels coming from God, frankly how would you know if the angel was from God or from the devil? Any angel that preaches other than what is written in God's Word is from Satan and is a liar as is Satan.

You would do well to sit down and read the bible from cover to cover in a modern english speaking version.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MOD HAT ON

Brothers!

A reminder of Rule #1 here at CF...

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"
1.1 You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. Directly calling another member “cultist”, “heretic” or “bigot” as these are personal attacks and are not conducive to civil discussion.
b. Calling famous individuals derogatory names (unless it is a well-known nickname) as this may be considered defamation.
1.2 You will not directly call another member or his or her religious organization a “cult”, “heretic”, “demonic” or “satanic” but you may discuss doctrines, teachings, practices or writings of other religious organizations as long as evidence (including Scripture) is provided.
1.3 You will only post negative statements about another individual’s belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say “The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence”.
1.4 You will not misquote another member regardless of context. You will not quote another member in your profile including your signature without permission - such quotes will be removed.
1.5You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.

It's important to remember that we are to respond to the post - to what is written in the post, and to not make our posts personal. Personal conversations are to be made in Personal Messages.


Thanks!!!


MOD HAT OFF

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MAD HAT ON


Closed for Staff review.


MOD HAT OFF

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post.

FIRST: Please note that this subforum is intended to be a place for members of the LCMS, WELS, ELS, and LCC -- generally the more conservative Lutheran synods -- to fellowship together without interference or challenge from members of other synods who may dissent from their views. If you are a member of one of these synods, but dissent from the positions taken by these synods, you should not be posting that dissent in this subforum as that goes against the purpose for which the subforums were created. If you are NOT a member of one of these synods or a similarly conservative synod, then you mus restrict yourself to fellowship posts and questions.

Before posting in this thread, whether for the first time or again, please review the Christian Forums Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules). Pay particular attention to rules 1.1 and 2.5. The pertinent portion of rule 1 has already been quoted for you: "you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks". Rule 2.5 also prohibits any responses addressed to the poster, rather than dealing with the content of his or her post.

A number of posts violating these two rules have been deleted from this thread, and some posts that have other intrinsic merit have been editted to remove such violations. Threads with such a large number of blatant rules violations are often deleted; we chose to make the extra effort to clean this thread instead in order to preserve the valuable discussion in this thread regarding the different perspectives on Historical Criticism, the thread has been cleaned instead of being deleted.

Note that the rules do not restrict the position that you may take or the ideas that you may present; however, the manner in which those ideas are presented must conform to civil and courteous standards. It isn't what you say, but how you say it, that determines whether a post is within the standards for Christian Forums.

Regards,
Pamela

[Jim47]

This is my fault more than anyone else Pamela, as I opened this thread with the hopes of allowing debate in this forum since the conservative Lutherans don't seem to mind it.

Me sorry! :sorry:

[Flatscan82]

This is my fault more than anyone else Pamela, as I opened this thread with the hopes of allowing debate in this forum since the conservative Lutherans don't seem to mind it.

Me sorry! :sorry:

don't blame yourself i have an extremely hot temper when people start calling me liberal

[Jim47]

don't blame yourself i have an extremely hot temper when people start calling me liberal


Yeah , me hot head too, but its cooling off with the years. ^_^ I wish!