Jesus Realizes...That The Apostles Are Still Sinners!!!

Page 2 of 3 (47 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 46 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 15 2012 5:19 AM

Rosie Perera:

Room4more:

By the way, it would be interesting to read a slight poll on how many discuss the sunday sermon on the way home....?

Total thread hijack, but an interesting one. At my church we discuss the sermon during the worship service, immediately following the sermon, for about 10-15 minutes. I love it! It makes the sermons more memorable, and I'm more likely to apply them in my life in the coming weeks. In my parents' church they have an optional time of discussion of the sermon after the service, after a short break for coffee and fellowship; they return to the sanctuary and chew it over with the pastor, with Q&A and contributing their personal reflections on the message for up to half an hour. That's great too. Not dissimilar to our model, but we weave ours into the service so it ends up being shorter.

You’r so silly….no one is attempting anything, just seems to be a paranoia syndrome…..

Anywho, I just was curious no one forced any one to answer, they come willingly. As with any forum, reply’s and statements are not coerced but rather one reads and decides to answer or not, as you have demonstrated.

 

But I do appreciate the reply.....Confused----

[EDIT:

In all honesty, I am still reading from a Greek and still am having difficulties in trying to establish the note in reference to "realize" since this seems to be the crux of the matter. But a dictionary was entered into the mix and it still does not clarify the contradictory note; from the position of the FSB statement. The note seems to be right on spot with the tenure of the Scriptures.....]

 

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 15 2012 10:22 AM

Two asides to get out of the way first:

  1. I think Rosie was referring to herself hijacking the thread away from the original topic. I don't think she was accusing you. fwiw.
  2. I almost answered Richard in regards to "realize" but nobody forced me to then, or now. Big Smile    So here goes:

Room4more:
trying to establish the note in reference to "realize" since this seems to be the crux of the matter.

The dictionary really does not matter here, the colloquial usage is the key to good communication. Marie Antoinette literally said nothing wrong with, "Let them eat cake." But the peasants sure took offence at the underlying message. In common American usage "realize" implies a moving from not knowing to a state of knowing. That implies discovery at some point. For FSB to use "realize" was unfortunate in this instance because of the pre-existing doctrinal arguments on when the old covenant ended and the new covenant began, the date of the establishment of the church, and the question of when the disciples were saved.

I "realize" not everyone will use a dictionary to check syntax but it is indeed the crux of the matter.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 15 2012 10:41 AM

Super Tramp:
I think Rosie was referring to herself hijacking the thread away from the original topic. I don't think she was accusing you. fwiw.
Yes

Posts 5564
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 15 2012 11:29 AM

Super Tramp:
For FSB to use "realize" was unfortunate in this instance because of the pre-existing doctrinal arguments on when the old covenant ended and the new covenant began, the date of the establishment of the church, and the question of when the disciples were saved.

Agreed. Another major issue clouding clear communication here is the puzzling and hotly debated relationship of Jesus' humanity and divinity in the context of the degree to which He emptied Himself (Phil.2). Oh - please, let's not debate that here.

I've heard that the first rule of written communication is that if it can be misunderstood, it will be. In this case it seems to be true.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 26129
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 15 2012 12:23 PM

Super Tramp:
the colloquial usage is the key to good communication.

The problem is that the circulation of the translation is much greater than any particular colloquial use. That means that translators have to be cautious in the use of words that are doctrinally loaded, have colloquial usages, etc. etc. There are translations that utilize specific colloquial dialect e.g. The Cotton patch Bible but I don't think that's the FSB's model,Stick out tongue

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 18644
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 15 2012 2:23 PM

Room4more:
You’r so silly….no one is attempting anything, just seems to be a paranoia syndrome…..

Paranoia? Yikes. That's a pretty strong word for someone who was kidding around. No offense taken, though. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being lighthearted too.

Super Tramp:
I think Rosie was referring to herself hijacking the thread away from the original topic. I don't think she was accusing you. fwiw.

ST is right. I wasn't accusing. Your question ("it would be interesting to read a slight poll on how many discuss the sunday sermon on the way home?") was indeed a non sequitur for the topic of the thread, and thus it was an invitation to hijack the thread, not a hijack in itself. I was the one who turned it into a hijack. But I also don't consider hijack a pejorative in the context of thread hijacking, or I wouldn't have jumped right in with my comments. And I wouldn't have participated with such glee in the infamous "The correct way to Hijack a thread" thread. Smile

So apologies if I misframed my comment and made it sound like I was accusing you. That was not my intent at all. It was all said in good fun. I guess since I haven't been all that active lately, my jovial and pacifistic personality is not remembered by some of the newer forum members.

Shalom.

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Sep 16 2012 4:58 AM

Rosie Perera:

Room4more:
You’r so silly….no one is attempting anything, just seems to be a paranoia syndrome…..

 Paranoia? Yikes. That's a pretty strong word for someone who was kidding around. No offense taken, though. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being lighthearted too. 

Super Tramp:
I think Rosie was referring to herself hijacking the thread away from the original topic. I don't think she was accusing you. fwiw.

ST is right. I wasn't accusing. Your question ("it would be interesting to read a slight poll on how many discuss the sunday sermon on the way home?") was indeed a non sequitur for the topic of the thread, and thus it was an invitation to hijack the thread, not a hijack in itself. I was the one who turned it into a hijack. But I also don't consider hijack a pejorative in the context of thread hijacking, or I wouldn't have jumped right in with my comments. And I wouldn't have participated with such glee in the infamous "The correct way to Hijack a thread" thread. Smile

So apologies if I misframed my comment and made it sound like I was accusing you. That was not my intent at all. It was all said in good fun. I guess since I haven't been all that active lately, my jovial and pacifistic personality is not remembered by some of the newer forum members.

Shalom.

True; and yet still False.

There was no intention to hijack, again this is your silly thinking, no invitation either; Just a wandering thought....

***

I think that the most amusing part is that the quibble is about a note and not the actual text that is in question………..making it appear as towards a ‘presumption’ without any viable proof and u guy’s are running with it. The note makes no mention of the word nor does it indicate as such. But the OP did emphasize ‘realizes’ which is an actual statement from the FSB and not the TEXT itself, and thus following the tenure of the Scriptures....

 

It will be interesting to see how the dev’s re-write this note to reflect a flawed theology. This is prime example…..

The question in my mind is : Will they seek to express the Scriptures, or will it be according to what they want it to reflect?

I believe that the choice of words in the note reflect the True understanding of Christ and the WHOLE of the Scriptures, too bad it clashes with the FSB statement of ""theology""....we shall see-won't we..

Then again, thats just my starbucks $1.50$

R4m

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Sep 16 2012 9:19 PM

Room4more:
again this is your silly thinking, no invitation either; Just a wandering thought....

You are not very  careful at reading what others post. You attribute statements to others they did not assert.  Hijacking is not my beef with this thread. Theological discussion is. Coffee

Just a wandering thought...: Anyone who disagrees with your opinion has "silly" thinking. I would rather be "silly" than wrong.Stick out tongue

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 17 2012 6:08 AM

Room4more:
By the way, it would be interesting to read a slight poll on how many discuss the sunday sermon on the way home....?

I've always been one to take extensive notes during a sermon, just so that I can reference them in future clases in church (and at home).

It's always amusing to see the look on our Senior Pastor's face when, weeks latter, over coffee or a meal I bring up what he said in the pulpit. He always makes that "I really did say that" expression

Big Smile

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 17 2012 3:21 PM

Super Tramp:

Room4more:
again this is your silly thinking, no invitation either; Just a wandering thought....

You are not very  careful at reading what others post. You attribute statements to others they did not assert.  Hijacking is not my beef with this thread. Theological discussion is. Coffee

WOW!! You totally missed that one didn’t ya(?) Tongue Tied

Super Tramp:

Just a wandering thought...: Anyone who disagrees with your opinion has "silly" thinking. I would rather be "silly" than wrong.Stick out tongue

Nnaaww......thats just your way of thinking. If I disagree with someone, I WILL say it, I do not beat around the bush.....Wink

***

Thanks Paul.

Surprise

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 4753
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 17 2012 6:30 PM

This is where that truism that is universally accepted as gospel truth among the "educated" is shown to be false. I'm referring to the canard that etymology is nearly worthless in determining meaning--it's all about the context of usage. Blech!!

Simply think for a moment...

"REALIZE". It means to move from a place of abstraction and insubstantiality to a place of realization. The usages that have been put forward in this thread, including those which have called upon dictionary definitions, have pretty much overlooked this simple fact. In fact, so-called "common" usage of the term "realize" is a bastardized usage that pollutes the meaning of the word...even though the dictionaries have long since added these common polutions to their sacrosanct pages. Yeah, I know, languages are living things and over time changes of usage take place and they become the reality that subverts and overturns earlier usages and this is normal and acceptable and yada-yada-yada, blah blah blah.

Baloney. It may be the way of the world, but it is the EXACT kind of pollution that is the very opposite of holiness...and it is precisely this kind of mixing of sense with nonsense that will require and result in the ultimate renewing and purification of language. Getting back to the point at hand, the true meaning of realize is to move from the unrealm of abstract thoughts and theory into the realm of the practical and substantial. It doens't matter how often someone may say "I realize that"--if they haven't moved something from theory to actuality, THEY HAVEN'T REALIZED ANYTHING AT ALL. In other words, the "common" dictionary definition, absent the just described activity, is simply WRONG, and those who use the word that way are equally wrong. Even if every human being on the planet misuses the word in the way this thread has, they ALL would be wrong. The reason is fundamental: languages are not simply human tools, as nearly everyone assumes is true. Such thinking is evolutionary. Words, in the face of all who proclaim otherwise, DO HAVE ETYMOLOGICAL ANCHORS...like it or not. That concept is theological. Because language, at its most fundamental, is not man's invention--it is God's revelation. I'm not talking about English, obviously. I'm talking about Edenic reality. I'm not talking about any particular language; I'm talking about the core concept of language. Whatever language YHWH spoke with Adam and Eve (perhaps it was Hebrew), they were pre-programmed to understand it, and you can bet the farm it wasn't haphazard, nor was it subject to "tampering". Yeah, yeah...Adam named the animals. So? Guess what...he very likely named them in accord with the language that ':Elohhiym had "given" him. Obviously, no one can know what the exact circumstances were, one way or the other.

So, if Yeishuu`a was in fact bringing to substantial reality something that had previously only been conceptual (even if that abstract concept applied to a substantial thing, such as the group of the disciples), then He may indeed have realized something. Otherwise...no. In that case, a different word altogether must be chosen...one that describes what He was doing.

Posts 4753
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 17 2012 6:38 PM

Peter Lever:

"John 16:7 will not come to you Jesus realizes that it is time for His disciples to carry on His work. The disciples could not have God’s presence dwell in them while still sinners—He needed to die for that to be so. 

Next canard to be dealt with...all humans are NOT sinners. The Bible doesn't not say any such thing. According to Scripture, a sinner is one who PRACTICES sin...in precisely the way someone might practice basketball, juggling, or any other activity. Anyone who PRACTICES righteousness IS righteous. Again, such a person will be actively and repetitively performing righteousness.

Contrary to virtually all Christian theological thought, NOTHING in the OT says a person who commits a single sin is perceived to be a sinful person, as long as the person responds to the recognition of the sin by humbly offering in repentance the proscribed sacrifice.

Posts 4753
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 17 2012 6:47 PM

Peter Lever:

Barry, J. D., Grigoni, M. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Mangum, D., & Whitehead, M. M. (2012). Faithlife Study Bible (Jn 16:7). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software."

Last canard to be dealt with...with regard to Jn. 16:7: Yeishuu`a is not making some vast and profound theological pronouncement here. He is instead making a very pedestrian statement of simple fact. His comment is a simple acknowledgment of the fundamental thread of the moh`:adhiym. Passover comes before Pentecost. The only way to get to Pentecost is through Passover. That's all He's saying here. There is no trinitarian dogma attached to this statement whatsoever.

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Sep 18 2012 3:10 PM

David Paul:

[...]

Romans 3:23 (NET1)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 3:10 (NET1)
10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one,

 

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Sep 18 2012 3:34 PM

Room4more:
Romans 3:23 (NET1)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 3:10 (NET1)
10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one,

 

Yes

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Sep 18 2012 9:58 PM

The very fact everybody is having a theological discussion in the Logos forum is proof tht there are no righteous posters. Devil

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 10039
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Sep 18 2012 10:17 PM

That's due to the hand-writing on the wall.


Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Sep 19 2012 4:07 AM

Super Tramp:

The very fact everybody is having a theological discussion in the Logos forum is proof tht there are no righteous posters. Devil

Are you feeling left out? Besides the fact that the "theological discussion" you speak of is not really a discussion about theology at all, at least not from what I am reading.

Confused

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 4753
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 20 2012 2:59 AM

Paul Golder:

Room4more:
Romans 3:23 (NET1)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 3:10 (NET1)
10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one,

Yes

Ezek. 13:22

Canard explosion time...

Ok, guys...Re: Rom. 3:23. Yes...that is true, but that is NOT DEFINITIVE of what it means to be A SINNER as far as Tanakh is concerned. Nor is it definitive in the Gospels. Simply having sinned in one's lifetime doesn't make you A SINNER according to scripture. The difference is pretty simple to see and has rather significant import. A SINNER is one who has no desire to keep Tohraah at all...he or she refuses to do so for any number of reasons. Just for the sake of clarity, the Jews (meaning practicers of Judaism) don't keep Tohraah. They keep Mishnah & Talmud & other rabbinic writings (all of which by their own definition are "adding to and taking away from the law" cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:42) that are quasi-related to Tohraah. According to Tohraah, a righteous person is one who keeps Tohraah. When such a person sins, he or she presents the required sacrifice with a humble and repentant heart. That obedient act, itself in accord with Tohraah, brings peace...temporarily. The animal doesn't remove the sin...only Yeishuu`a's blood can do that. But the action of reconforming to Tohraah by obdiently providing the required sacrifice is all that is required of the righteous person who sins...according to Tohraah and according to YHWH. The person who sins and provides the required sacrifice was considered RIGHTEOUS according to Tohraah and YHWH.

So, yes...all have fallen short of the glory of God...but there is NOTHING--ABSOLUTELY NOTHING--in TaNaKh that says all such people are considered sinners. Only the ones who have not attempted in legitimate faithfulness to keep Tohraah are considered SINNERS (i.e. are in danger of destruction for their actions). In other words, quoting Rom. 3:23 doesn't prove what those who quote it intend it to prove.

Re: Rom. 3:10. I'm quite glad you chose to quote the NET Bible...and since you did, I'm going to quote the NET Bible note for Eccl. 7:20.

The term “truly” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. Qoheleth does not deny the existence of some people who are relatively righteous.   The NET Bible (Ec 7:20). (2006). Biblical Studies Press.

Specifically, Eccl. 8:14 & Eccl. 9:1. This is the NET version of verse 20: 7:20 For there is not one truly righteous person on the earth who continually does good and never sins.

Though you may never have considered it before, the sheer fact of the matter is this verse DOES NOT say there are no righteous humans--it simply says there are no righteous people who never sin...key word being "never". But that simply takes us back to my comments on Rom. 3:23--NOTHING in Tohraah or TaNaKh suggests that a person must be absolutely without sin to be considered righteous (Prov. 24:16, Ezek. 18:21-22, 27; Ezek. 33:14-16, 19; 1 Jn. 1:9--this verse was true from the beginning, but accomplished by the cross)...one must only be a practitioner of righteousness to be considered righteous in YHWH's sight. In other words, one must practice Tohraah.

None righteous?? Then consider: Gen. 6:9 (first use of "righteous" in Scripture); Gen. 7:1; Gen. 18:19; 2 Sam. 8:15; 2 Sam. 22:21, 25; 1 Chr. 18:14; Psa. 18:20, 24; Psa. 32:11; Psa. 33:1; Psa. 34:15, 17; Psa. 97:12; Psa. 106:3; Psa. 119:121; Psa. 146:8; Prov. 12:5; Isa. 1:21 (referring to 2 Sam. 8:15 & 1 Chr. 18:14); Isa. 3:10; Ezek. 14:14, 20; Ezek. 18:5-9; Hos. 14:9; Mt. 21:32; Mt. 23:29; Mt. 23:35, Mt. 25:37, 46; Mk. 6:20; Lk. 1:5-6; Lk. 1:73-75; Lk. 2:25; Lk. 23: 50; Acts 10:22; Rom. 10:5; Heb. 11:4; Heb. 12:11; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Pet. 2:5-8; 1 Jn. 2:29, 1 Jn. 3:7, 10; 1 Jn. 3:12; Rev. 19:8; Rev. 22:11. I could have easily quadrupled this list, and then quadrupled it again.

So, considering the above verses, "there is none righteous, no not one" is shown to not be true...unless the Bible lies. Then what about the two verses that are most often considered to be the source of Paul's Rom. 3:10 quote? Hmmmm...yes. Psa. 14:1-3 & Psa. 53:1-3...when I read these passages, it always makes me wonder if people ever stop to consider and examine their Sunday school, knee-jerk reactions. To properly comprehend these two passages, one must consider the context. To whom is David referring his comments? In case you've overlooked it, check the first two words in each Psalm...that is your context. There are no righteous FOOLS...no not one. How can we know these verses are limited in this way? THE NEXT TWO VERSES SAY SO!! Psa. 14:4-5 tells us explicitly...the wicked fools who "do not call upon YHWH" are in dread because "God is with the RIGHTEOUS generation"!!!! How can there truly be NONE righteous if YHWH is WITH righteous people??? DOH!!! Surprise

Okay. So now we must examine the one verse that seems to say that no person is righteous...Psa. 143:2. No doubt, it sounds that way...BUT...and this is a major "but"...there is a massive field of blue about two inches above that testifies otherwise. Does that mean that the blue storm above is wrong? No. Does that mean that Psa. 143:2 is wrong. No. But it does present us a paradox...one which can only be resolved by adjusting OUR perception of what is being said, because clearly what YHWH has inspired in His word doesn't allow us to take things in Psa. 143:2 as we might on first blush. Why adjust Psa. 143:2 and not the hundreds of other verses that seemingly speak against it? Frankly, that ought to be self-evident...but 100-to-1 (ultra-conservatively determined) should be your hint.

Now...what could YHWH potentially mean in Psa. 143:2? I think something very much like a combination of Eccl. 7:20 & Rom. 3:23--in other words, no one is perfect. What a surprise! Surprise  Meh, not so much. Why not? Because He knows that we are but flesh (Psa. 78:39, Psa 103:14 in context w Psa. 103:6-18) and that He made us that way (Job 10:9) out of fabric that CANNOT serve him (Rom. 8:6-8). All He requires is that we deny the fabric of our existence and by His Spirit, His Word, His Tohraah, pursue righteousness (Mt. 5:48). HE KNOWS THAT ALL WE CAN DO WHILE IN THE FLESH IS STRIVE AGAINST OURSELVES...BUT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT & ALL HE WANTS (1 Jn. 3:10, 1 Jn. 2:29). What is righteousness? (Deut. 6:25; Isa. 42:21). In other words, don't be lawless, because if  you are...you are a disciple of the Man of Lawlessness.

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 20 2012 8:55 AM

David Paul:

Ezek. 13:22

Canard explosion time...

Ok, guys...Re: Rom. 3:23. Yes...that is true, but that is NOT DEFINITIVE of what it means to be A SINNER as far as Tanakh is concerned. Nor is it definitive in the Gospels. Simply having sinned in one's lifetime doesn't make you A SINNER according to scripture. [...]

 

Fortunately, I only need one verse of Scripture to point you in the right direction, and also disproves your opening:

 

James 4:17 “Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.”

[I suggest reading the whole of the chapter to get the full meaning of the verse.]

 

That should be enough for now…..

 

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Page 2 of 3 (47 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS