The Marketing Of Christianity

quote:

---

But Paul did not get knocked off his horse he just changed sides. That happens.

---

Could you please point out the word "horse" in the passages about Paul on the road to Damascus ?

quote:

---

He may well have had an hallucination or epileptic fit or sun stroke or any number of things; plus you are cherry picking the version of the story again.

---

So an epileptic fit changed Saul of Tarsus from a persecutor of the Christian church to an apostle ?

So a well planned hallucination ( enacted by who ?? ) changed Saul 180 degrees around from a persecutor of the Christians to a disciple / evangelist / apostle and author of some 13 or so books of the New Testament ?

The cherry picker seems to be you jar.

quote:

---

The story changed and evolved over time and there were even contradictory versions.

---

Please produce three notable versions of the testimony and explain how it evolved. Show us the embellishments over time and explain its alleged "evolution".

quote:

---

The creator of all that is seen and unseen says it was all good. That's not the unknown author of John trying to sell his product but rather what the Bible claims God said.

---

By process of elimination we can be pretty certain that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of John. Other disciples are mentioned in third person. And the writer's humble identity is that he was "the disciple that Jesus loved."

Of course Jesus loved all the disciples. But to experience that love was all the identity that he wanted us to know - IE. "I was LOVED by Jesus".

Anyway, I have no problem believing that John was the author of the Gospel of John.

If I didn't want to believe that jar wrote anything I could equally spin a conspiracy theory that several different people are using his tag or PC. Thus I could rationalize that it is impossible to really know who is expressing the opinions under the id of jar.

quote:

---

I have no reason to think they were genuine. I have no doubt that Paul thought he had a calling but that only says Paul thought he had a calling not that there really was a calling.

---

What benefit did he derive from a delusional calling, except a life of much suffering, persecution, imprisonment, betrayal, criticism, and ultimately beheading from Nero ?

The same Spirit of Jesus Paul experienced many of us experience. We can vouch that he pioneered deeply into this reality.

You are going through a lot of effort to persuade yourself that the New Testament is not worthy of taking seriously.

quote:

---

AbE: also, you seem to be inserting the concept of the Trinity, when there is no real reason to think Paul saw Jesus as God and not a god, a separate individual. The Trinity doctrine is much later and begins with the Gnostics.

---

Peter, the first among the 12, recommended Paul's wisdom. Why would he if he thought Paul, a younger apostle and former enemy of the church, had not genuinely had a turn from unbelief to follow Christ ?

As for the Three-One God, I suppose I will have to go into Romans 8:9-11 again. Paul uses the terms interchangeably -

The Spirit of God ,
The Spirit of Christ ,
Christ,
The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead.

You have ONE supernatural "Person" with interchangeable names showing the unity and distinction of the "Persons" of the Godhead. Paul certainly taught the three-oneness of God.

"But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Rom. 8:9-11)

This is not a doctrinal statement of systematic theology. This is the talk of one conversing with an audience who is enjoying the experience of the Trinity. He is encouraging their experience of the three-one God in their subjective participation.

The Spirit of God = the Spirit of Christ = Christ = the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead. That is the Trinity

The Gospel of John claims authorship from "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 21:20) Who is that ?

We can eliminate it shouldn't be Peter, Phillip, Thomas, or Andrew. These disciples are mentioned in the third person (1:41; 6:9; 14:5, 8). The fact that the disciple leaned on the breast of Jesus (John 13:23-25) indicates that he was in the inner circle of the three closest disciples to Jesus (James, Peter, and John).

The very close disciple leaning on the breast of Jesus at the last supper, had "inside information" as indicated in (John 18:15). Jesus also committed the care of His mother to this disciple, a request He made from the cross (John 18:26, 27) . This most likely eliminates James who died early in the days of the Jerusalem church about A.D. 44. Herod the Great had him killed (Acts 12:2).

Peter, the other disciple in the inner circle of three, was named in the third person (John 21:21). So Peter and James each are not "the disciple whom Jesus loved" though, of course, Jesus loved all of the 12 disciples.
The disciple writing the book of John humbly reminds us and himself that he was "the disciple whom Jesus loved" . By elimination the author of the fourth Gospel we can ascertain is John.

The John Rylands Fragment suggests an early writing of John ( c. A.D. 117 ).

Early witnesses to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel being from John include-

Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. These writers lived approximately around the time of the writing of the Marcionite Prologue to John and the Muratorian Canon of the second half of the second century. Of these witnesses Irenaeus is specially significant because only one generation separates him and John. Polycarp was a teacher of Irenaeus (Eusebius V, xx.6). And Polycarp was a disciple of John.

The first person references indicate that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness - (John 20:2; 21:4).

Jewish attitudes and practices were quite familiar to the writer suggesting that the writer was likely a Jew. He was well acquainted with purification (2:6), burial (19:40), feasts (5:1), and Jewish attitdudes (7:49).

Familiarity with the geography and topography of land (see 2:12; 4:11; 5:2; 18:11; 19:17). It can be ascertained that the author seems to be a Palestinian Jew. The evidence points to the disciple John.

This information was derived from the book Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, in the chapter The Historical Reliability of the New Testament .

It is not Message 401. But here is what needs to be examined. And I will.

The story of Paul's conversion also evolved over time and as different people retold the story. The first and earliest mention is found in 1 Corinthians 15:8. Here is that passage in context. Paul in 1Cor 15:3-8 writes: 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. It's a very simple mention that Paul saw Jesus but void of any of the details found in latter stories. The next recounting is from somewhat later and again it is pretty simple and in fact says it was a revelation from God (not Jesus) and that he was not speaking with flesh and blood. Paul in Galatians 1:11-16 writes: 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: As an aside, Galatians is one of those very important interoffice memos (and just as today, we don't have access to the original but only copies from about a half century later) where Paul begins outlining his new definition of Pauline Christianity. Still later, the author of Acts, attributed to Luke, recounts yet another version but now there are far more details and far more stagecraft. Luke in Acts 9:3–9 writes: 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. The story picks up at verse 13. Luke in Acts 9:13–19 writes: 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. In Acts 22 the story is recounted another time but again the details are elaborate and the details contradict the earlier version. Paul said to be speaking in Acts 22 writes: 22 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. 2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) 3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. 4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. 5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. 6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. 12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

So I guess I have to look in his link What is Christianity? Message 401 .
We'll see.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The story of Paul's conversion also evolved over time and as different people retold the story. The first and earliest mention is found in 1 Corinthians 15:8. Here is that passage in context.

---

Paul in 1Cor 15:3-8 writes: 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

The formula " I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, ..." is believed by notable scholars to be the customary fashion in which a disciple indicated that he was faithful to the teaching he received.

There is NOTHING in this passage that contradicts Paul's Damascus experience. Acts tells us that he was baptized by Ananias and was among Christians, though they feared him. Eventually he was received with the encouragement of Barnabus.

Along WITH his personal dramatic experience Paul also surely was instructed by teachers as to fundamentals of the Christian gospel.

It is not unthinkable that someone having a dramatic conversion, and being very learned, would also, in humility hear teaching passed on to him from others.

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

These are mostly points of major doctrinal importance. Along with them is his confession that the resurrected Christ also appeared to Paul, after he had appeared to these other mentioned people.

That is completely consistent with the book of Acts.
No evolution of the story is indicated in this passage in First Corinthians [EDITED] at all.

The only notable matter is that in Galatians Paul indicates that God directly revealed much truth to him.

1.) Both his personal revelations from God and his recalled instruction from older disciples are entirely possible. Most Christians have similar experience though not always as dramatic.

2.) Personal revelation could ALSO be in instruction he received from others.
In prayer and fellowship and reading of the scripture with others God could impress upon Paul things in a very personal way.

quote:

---

It's a very simple mention that Paul saw Jesus but void of any of the details found in latter stories.

---

This is a lame observation, as if everything written by a man about a life changing experience has to be verbatim repetition of all details. What rule demands that every mention of a Christian's backround must be verbatim repetition of all details.

I can give my personal testimony emphasizing certain matters at one time with one audience. I can give my personal testimony emphasizing other matters to another audience at another time.

quote:

---

The next recounting is from somewhat later and again it is pretty simple and in fact says it was a revelation from God (not Jesus) and that he was not speaking with flesh and blood.

---

The history I will ignore for the moment. What is important is if jar can locate serious discrepancies with the different accounts.

Paul in Galatians 1:11-16 writes: 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

That the Gospel was not according to man is TRUE whether or not Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus. That the Gospel is sourced in God makes it NOT [edited] according to man though it is announced by man.

Paul is saying the Gospel is not the product of human invention regardless of HOW he learned it.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

That is consistent with Acts. And it is not negated by the fact that the brothers in the church informed Paul of major aspects of the Gospel. Even if he did hear them, he was persuaded that they did not invent these things. Therefore, either way, the Gospel is God's revelation rather than a product of human imagination.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

That is certainly consistent with the book of Acts.
Nothing "evolved" and changed here.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

That merely means that God's hand was on his life way before he was an adult. From birth God had a plan for him. At the appointed time God revealed His Son IN Paul - ie. Christ entered into Paul to be his indwelling Lord and Savior.

Not only so, Paul LIVED by this indwelling and growing Christ so that Christ was revealed more and more IN Paul.

There is no morphing of his testimonial here. There is only realization that all his life God had His eyes on this chosen vessel.

quote:

---

As an aside, Galatians is one of those very important interoffice memos (and just as today, we don't have access to the original but only copies from about a half century later) where Paul begins outlining his new definition of Pauline Christianity.

Still later, the author of Acts, attributed to Luke, recounts yet another version but now there are far more details and far more stagecraft.

---

There is no "another version" in any major detail. One can recount one's dramatic personal experience and at different times highlight different aspects of it.

The testimonial is essentially the same. Jar proves no evolution of the telling.

Luke in Acts 9:3–9 writes: 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

What difference is there of really significant nature ?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

So he mentions something additional said by Christ which in another recounting he omitted or Luke omitted. You don't know which one, Paul or Luke, is responsible for the variation.

What MAJOR difference does it present? None.
Does it agree with Galatians that Paul was in God's view all along, even from his mother's womb? Yes, it says Paul was like a stubborn horse in God's wagon, kicking against his destiny.

The second account is really a confirmation rather than a contradiction. It certainly presents no serious descrepency such that we should be alarmed. No significant "evolving" of Paul's testimony is proved in this version.

Details not mentioned previously are now mentioned. For all we know Jesus may have said even more to Paul on that occasion which did not come down to us in the New Testament.

We are told what is most essential. What contradiction of significance can jar point out here?

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

No essential significant difference is in this version.
The wording is different.

It is entirely possible that the conversation between Paul and the exalted Jesus was more extended then ONE version reveals. It is possible that by putting two records of Paul's testimonial together, the exchange was more involved then the first testimony shows.

This is jar's straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

I stop here for space and time.

.

Edited by jaywill, : editing on style

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : Editing of style.
Dependency should be Descrepency

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : typo changed from Galatians to First Corinthians.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Luke in Acts 9:13–19 writes: 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

So what ?

What has your Oh So Superior reading ability have to point out as a major evolution in Paul's conversion story?

What details here do you have a problem with as hugely significant indication of the morphing of Paul's testimonial ?

17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

So what ?

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

So he was baptized and was with some disciples at Damascus.
I suppose one may notice that in Galatians Paul said immediately he did not confer with flesh and blood.

I do not see a major problem. When Peter recognized Jesus as the Christ the Son of God, Jesus said flesh and blood had not revealed this to him but God the Father (Matthew 16:13-20).

" And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in the heavens." (Matt. 16:16,17)

Yes, Paul said in Galatians -

" But when it pleased God ... to reveal His Son in me that I might announce Him as the gospel ... immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood, ..." (See Gal. 1:15,16)

This does not have to mean that he was not with the disciples in Damascus.
Neither does it have to mean that they were not teaching him things or at least saying things in his presence that he heard.

I take it to mean that he needed no one to confirm what he knew, and knew what he knew he knew. Deep within God the Father had revealed to him that Jesus was the Son of the living God just as the Father had revealed to Peter.

Flesh and blood teaching of a natural sort could not do what divine revelation from God could do. Perhaps he knew BETTER and DEEPER than any of the believers in Damascus concerning the nature of Christ.

They may have been eager to teach him things. But deep in his being what God had burned into his being made their words a little anti-climactic.

He did not have to confer with flesh and blood. I do not take Galatians 1:16 to contradict necessarily -

19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

In the same Galatian letter he admits that he did talk with the "pillars " of the church in Jerusalem - Cephas and James. But he waters down the Galatians expectation of their seniority in terms of revelation. Paul says they added nothing to him.

What they knew he also knew and quite deeply and more.

In Acts 22 the story is recounted another time but again the details are elaborate and the details contradict the earlier version. Paul said to be speaking in Acts 22 writes: 22 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. 2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) 3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Where any contradiction in this?

4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

Where the contradiction here ?

5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

Where's the contradiction here?

6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Where any significant major contradiction here?

8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Where's any major contradiction here?
What rule dictates that when a man gives a personal testimony of a dramatic event in his life, each and every detail has to be told ?

In one instance he may exclude something.
In another instance he may include that part and exclude something formerly said.

My conversion to Jesus was dramatic. I have told it many times. I probably included or excluded certain details which all happened, as I care to tailor my testimony.

This is not falsehood. This is not necessarily repeating ALL the details in exactly the same way because of withholding or including aspects of the experience as I see fit.

Then if someone else is writing about my speaking, for his own purposes he may do the same.

You have nothing here jar.

11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. 12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

There is nothing here that dictates because details of what Ananias said, proof of evolution indicates fabrication.

I vaguely remember someone pointing out the light and the voice particulars cause some readers puzzlement. It has never been a major problem to me.

Rather than differences like this being a test to Paul's testimony I think they are rather a test to the rest of us. Will we miss the point ? We are often experts at missing the point when it comes to God's revelation.

If you have something else which you think proves a fictional account evolved over time about something that never happened, what is it?

quote:

---

One thing that I noticed upon googling the term, personal revelation is that almost all of the sites mentioned were from The Church Of latter Day Saints...the mormons!
This led me back to my Bible where I studied some more and was reminded(personally, maybe? ) of a scripture 2 Peter:1:19-21

which basically says that

---

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

quote:

---

This scripture to me would seemingly challenge the idea of personal revelation. What do you think, jaywill?

---

I think you have to consider the phrase "of private interpretation" not to mean no one has a revelation.

In the church meetings the Apostle Paul even said the functioning members may have a revelation.

"What then, brothers? Whenever you come together each one has a psalm, has a teaching, HAS A REVELATION, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for the building up." ( 1 Cor. 14:26)

Of course Paul also said that the other should discern.
He said all things should be for the building up.
And He said love is the greatest gift.

So I think it would be a reactionary over cautious attitude to think the New Testament says no Christian can have a private revelation. In fact Peter's words about the morning star arising in our hearts, indicates, if not revelation, illumination of spiritual light.

The intimate personal revealing we derive from prayerful study of the word of God should not contradict the whole tenor of the Bible. That would be an indication that we may be being deceived. God will not tell us something in private to contradict what He has spoken in the Scripture.

So I would take "private interpretation" in the sense of asking "Is this interpretation so personalized that it blatantly contradicts the whole Scripture?"

We are not called by God to write the Bible. We are not called to add revelation to the Bible that God has not revealed to His apostles and prophets. We do receive enlightenment on passages which shine on our personal lives or our church lives.

The footnote on First Peter 1:20 in the Recovery Version may help.

(v.20) " [interpretation] Lit, loosening, untying; hence disclosure, explanation, exposition. One's own interpretation means the prophet's or writer's own explanation or exposition, which would not be inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. The thought here is that no prophecy of Scripture is of the prophet's or writer's own concept, idea, or understanding; no prophecy comes from that source, the source of man; no prophecy originates from any prophet's or writer's private and personal thought. This is confirmed and explained by succeeding the verse. ... (v.21) For introduces an explanation of the preceeding verse. No prophecy of Scripture is of the prophet's or writer's expositiion, for no prophecy was ever borne, or carried along, by the will of man. Rather, men spoke from God while being borne by the Holy Spirit.

The word "borne" is the same in Greek as the word appearing in verses 17 and 18. No prophecy of Scripture was borne by the will of man. The will, desire, and wish of man with man's thought and exposition, were not the source from which any prophecy of Scripture came. The source was God. God's Holy Spirit was what bore men to write like the wind in the sails of a ship.

The writers therefore spoke from God and from God's will and desire.

What we speak today to illumine the word of God should build up the believers and be based upon what God has prophetically spoken in the 66 books of the Bible. When I introduce something of my own opinion, which I am not sure is confirmed by the Bible, I usually indicate such.

And I don't think anyone today is adding new chapters to the Bible as new revelation. Some may be helping us to be enlightened to what is THERE in the Bible which we have difficulty seeing sometimes.

I hope this helps.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Hi Jaywill. First I want to say how much I generally appreciate your posts. When you are on a thread I figure I can sit back and let you say it all because it's usually the truth better than I would be able to say it.

This statement above caught my attention, though, and I want to ask if you consider yourself a charismatic, believing that the spiritual gifts are for today?

---

I do not believe such gifts have been done away.
I do not believe we should ever consider that the gifts named are the only ones.
We should consider them only as representative.

I think there has been over emphasis on unusual manifestations such as tongues or the miraculous.

Paul clearly said the more valuable gift for building up the church was to prophesy. And that does not mean supernatural prediction, at least only. It far more means to speak encouraging words from God or actually speaking forth God from your spirit to people and into people.

He wanted all the saints to prophesy - speak forth God and speak out God and speak God into other people. Everyone should learn to do this.

It is very important in the gatherings of a normal local church and/or small group gatherings (ie so called "cell groups") , that all the members be able to function and speak for mutual encouragement. Therefore the model of a one man speaker, meeting after meeting, is not healthy.

This kind of practice which is prevalent in the denominations stifles the function of the members of the Body.

If after even a short time of being saved, a Christian feels he or she cannot pray, or speak a word of encouragement or praise, this is not good. If they are indoctrinated to think that only a perfessional Pastor can pray, or speak, or praise, or give a little teaching for edification, this is playing into the hands of the enemy.

" Each one has ... " - is the God ordained manner in which Christians should meet.

At particular times, a single speaker may indeed be needed. Do not think that there are not times to give the floor for an extended period of time to one experienced Christian speaker. But to do so week after week, every single week, and every single Christian meeting does not build up the Body very well.

This keeps members passive and expecting that they are not required to experience Jesus Christ in order to share the top portion of their enjoyment with the congregation.

I do not meet with a Charismatic group per se. I have met with charismatic groups years ago, and enjoyed it.

This requires a lot of fellowship. One post does not adequately speak to the matter. Would you like me to perhaps start a thread on the profitable Christian meeting ?

Where I meet ALL participants are encouraged to be able to function in mutuality building up one another. We have to learn to be balanced by others, not either under function or over function. We have to learn to be attuned to the Body and tempered together with others.

We have to learn that even for a new Christian in the meeting to utter a word of thanksgiving or praise is extremely healthy to the congregation.

We also have to learn to gather with other Christians without being domineering and dominate all the functioning. To over function disallowing others to enter, is wrong. Also to under function, deeming that we are not qualified to say or do anything is also wrong.

I can share more in a thread dedicated to Christian meetings.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You're never going to bring people to salvation by not demonstrating the love of God first.

---

I have not read ALL of the discussion. I am inserting my comment, therefore, in the middle of your talk.

Your comment seems to assume that to tell people of the Redemption and Justification and Jesus being their Lord, Friend, and Savior is not an expression of love towards them.

quote:

---

Jesus fed the masses with fish and loaves of bread without demanding their acceptance to his sacrificial offering of salvation.

---

But after His resurrection there were only 120 followers in the upper room ready to follow Him in His next move. Where were the thousands who were fed and healed ?

Sure, plenty got what they needed that day and disappeared back into society. Jesus had only 120 who cared enough to await the next stage in God's move on the earth.

Your concept is not without merit in practicality. But it may be overly "man centered" as if the only need is that of man. What about the need of God?

In Acts 13:1 it says a great missionary work began with Barnabas and Paul. Please notice that it started with the leading teachers and prophets in the church in Antioch ministering to the need of the Lord.

"Now there were in Antioch, in the local church, prophets and teachers: Barnabas and Simeon, who was called Niger, and Lucius the Cyrenian, and Manean, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Set apart for Me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." (Acts 13:1,2)

These consecrated men ministered to the Lord Jesus being concerned for what God's need was. Surely people have needs. But God has His need too. And these men were calibrated right, setting aside time to ascertain what God's need was.

The 10,000 some fed and healed by Jesus may not have included that many people so concerned. Human nature is very self centered. And we often want God not to go away too far, because we may need Him again. But in the meantime we are nearly completely centered on ourselves.

quote:

---

He spent 3 years doing all kinds of good works before offering himself up.

That's what these street preaching bible thumpers just don't get. They place the cart before the horse when they think saying a few verses to strangers is suddenly going to make them fall to their knees and beg for mercy from God. Not gonna happen. People become convicted when they see an upright life devoted to selflessness. That's what changes hearts and minds.

---

There is no need to BEG for mercy. The sinner may simply THANK God for His mercy in the redemption of Jesus Christ. God is not interested in men BEGGING and groveling for mercy. God is interested that men BELIEVE the good news.

I don't totally disagree with your complaint. Both preaching is needed and forming communities of faith as churches. We learn to coordinate together. Some evangelize. Some shepherd those who come to Christ. Some help care for the practical needs of the believers.

And some, as you say, minister practical help in their outreach to manifest the love of Christ. There is room for both outreach in preaching and the service of practical helps. There is no need to pit one against the other.

quote:

---

Christians often say that being a christian is about being "Christ-like". In your book, Jesus fed and healed thousands no matter their religion. Are you implying that it was an error and not something he should have done because humans are selfish?

---

No.

quote:

---

Funny how the god you market is like humans.

---

We are made in God's image and in His likeness (Gen. 1:26,27). So some correspondence is expected.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, not at all. I am simply pointing out that it is less effective than simply helping people with no strings attached.

---

I see.

quote:

---

me:

But after His resurrection there were only 120 followers in the upper room ready to follow Him in His next move. Where were the thousands who were fed and healed ?

Hyr:
It wasn't documented so we cannot know.

---

We don't know the precise numner healed. We are secure to believe (if we want to ) that thousands witnessed His miracle/s.

Acts 1:15 tells us that about one hundred and twenty were in the upper room praying together.

quote:

---

Well, you are assuming that only 120 received the message.

---

That's right. Why not? To remain together for ten days praying requires some kind of deliberate fortitude. That fortitude, I logically assume, had its source in the instructions of Jesus to do so according to His instructions (Luke 1:49; Acts 1:4) .

quote:

---

Even if they didn't receive it, so what? He fed them in accordance with his will and with the full knowledge of who would respond or not.

---

As I review the New Testament "His will" ie. the will of God, encompasses much more than just this feeding. The "will" of God may include a feeding like this but it certainly doesn't end there.

There is also the matter of God's permissive will and His perfect will. Man's tendency may lean towards understanding God's will to merely be what God will permit. A fuller appreciation of God's will includes not just this but what His plan is, what His purpose is.

Sure, God permits me to just obtain a good meal and go off on my own way, assuming the will of God has been done. But Jesus taught about God's will in a more extensive sense.

See John 17 for example.
And see the whole book of Ephesians as another example.

In the synoptic Matthew the will of God in chapters 5 through 8 consists of quite more than simply the material neediness of man being met.

" For all these things the Gentiles are anxiously seeking, For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt. 6:32,33)

I think you may be talking about abuse on the other extreme. The Apostle John taught the practicality of expressing the indwelling eternal life in caring for the practical need of the Christian brother.

"But whoever has the livelihood of the world and sees that his brother has need and shuts up his affections from him, how does the love of God abide in him ? (1 John 3:17)

And there are similar exhortations about the practicality of brotherly love.
Since Christ is balanced He is ready to expand in both aspects in those seeking to live through Him.

quote:

---

You don't start a conversation about the Love of God by telling people what God, a perfect being, needs. Jesus opens the door to discuss such things at a later time by first addressing their physical needs and by demonstrating what the love of God looks like.

---

This is not necessarily true. Some people have all the physical supply they practically need yet feel empty of purpose and meaning.

There are also those who are rich yet have no real peace within. They need peace towards God.

quote:

---

me:
These consecrated men ministered to the Lord Jesus being concerned for what God's need was. Surely people have needs. But God has His need too. And these men were calibrated right, setting aside time to ascertain what God's need was.
And those were already believers...

hyr: That was my point about placing the cart before the horse. Let the horse lead the cart, not the cart leading the horse... the rest will fall in to place.

---

At this point without going back to read all your comments before I jumped into the discussion, would give me a clearer idea of what you meant.

However, it is quite exemplary that the leading teachers and prophets in the church in Antioch were proactively seeking to minister to the need of God.

However you would consider the spread of the Gospel, preaching and announcing the good news has its place and was commanded by Christ.

He does desire that the preacher be living what he is announcing so that the message and the messenger are one. We announce the Jesus Christ that we live. And we seek to live the Jesus Christ that we announce.

One theologian put your view perhaps in these words -

"Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary."

I would not go that far. But the point of the saying is a good one.
The point of living out Christ in your preaching is a good point.

At the same time Paul asks "And how shall they hear without one who proclaims Him ? (Rom. 10:14c)

quote:

---

And if that is man's nature, whose fault is that? Do you blame the created being or the one who created it?

---

So you want to move from this matter to another, concerning who to blame for man's fallen nature ?

Another reason to announce the Justification through the redemption of Christ is that men obtain peace with God regardless of how strenuously they carry on the philosophical debate as to who is the blame for the fall of man.

I would tell the thoughtful sinner that though the paradox of man's sinful condition is perhaps unsolvable in a total philosophical sense, they nonetheless may have the peace of Christ which surpasses every man's understanding.

Since we were talking about practicality, this is important. There are paradoxes which I admit I cannot explain to the fault finder's full satisfaction, or even perhaps to my own. But the know God, to know Christ, and to know the Holy Spirit's salvation furnishes a peace with God which seems to practically supply the peace towards God.

" And the peace of God which surpasses every man's understanding, will guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 4:7)

This question of who is the blame for the fall of man is too tough for me. I might be able to answer an easier question.

But Christ's incarnation, life, death, resurrection and indwelling as the life giving Spirit guards our hearts and our thoughts in the realm of this wonderful Person and His love. Nothing can separate us from this love of God which is in Christ Jesus.

So I urge people to step into the sphere of this love of Christ. Perhaps in eternity we will see the mystery of God's overall providence more clearly to answer the philosophical question Well, whose to blame for this whole need for salvation anyway ??"

Does not having the answer to that question interfere with wanting to believe in the Son of God ? Do you doubt that you have sinned or that others have sinned against you, because you're not clear who to ultimately blame for those sins?

quote:

---

I'm not pitting them against each other, I am saying they should go hand in hand.

---

Point taken there.
The workers should coordinate together their varied functions.
That everything is done with Christ, by Christ, and in the empowering of Christ is paramount.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The point is that it is circular logic.

---

John Frame argues that there is no worldview that does not contain circular logic. I think he would say Marxism, Capitalism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism or any other world view contains circular logic.

Can you with reason prove that you can reason your way to truth ?
I don't think you can do so without circular reasoning.

Now in the case of God, He says He is the Alpha and the Omega. He says He is the Beginning and the End. He says He is the First and the Last. Seeing that God is the ground of our being and existence and our destinies consummate involving God, I sometimes wonder that thinking about reality will begin with God and end with God, therefore is necessarily circular.

While I contemplate that, you can contemplate how to reason that with reason man can arrive at truth (without arguing in a circle).

quote:

---

God is saving you from something he himself imparted and set up.

---

This has been contemplated by some.

I have never been convinced that this has to be so. And if I were a Darwinist speculating that since the Big Bang nothing but deterministic materialism has predetermined everything, it does nothing to alleviate the mystery of choice of freedom of will.

If the gray matter in my material brain only firing off synapses about everything I believe, then I can take no credit for "choosing" to believe the truth or "choosing" to follow after error. Materially I was determined to do one or the other based on interactions of atoms. Then "choosing" to believe anything would be an illusion. What you believe, whatever you believe, was predetermined by material interactions wholly apathetic to your "freedom" to decide for the truth.

quote:

---

That's like a firefighter who is secretly an arsonist who sets your house on fire just so that he can create for himself the opportunity to rescue you from the condition that he caused in the first place.

---

Some people may see it that way. Agnosticism or Atheism (usually based on a materialist view of reality) does nothing to solve the paradox, as I have tried to show above.

If the Materialist Atheistic view is right, you didn't really choose to believe what you just told me to be the way the world works. No thanks to the Materialist for choosing what was true over what was not.

Your gray matter just pre-deterministically fired off neurons in the brain. From the Big Bang these interactions just happened in that way.

I'd rather go with real freedom of will to choose what is true. Though, I do admit, the total explanation of that is a hard matter for the limited human mind to grasp.

I see God warning the first man Adam.
I don't see blaming God for the ignoring of that warning.

I do, however, see God's transcendent foreknowledge prepared to not be stopped in His will by man's disobedient exercise of his free will.

quote:

---

Does not having the answer to that question interfere with wanting to believe in the Son of God ? Do you doubt that you have sinned or that others have sinned against you, because you're not clear who to ultimately blame for those sins?
No, it's just that it's not relevant to whomever I sinned against or sinned against me. It is relevant when questioning the veracity of God's existence in the context of the bible.

---

From a pragmatic viewpoint, that's seems right to me at the moment.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's more geodesic than circular; it's a web. On a circle, you keep passing the same point over and over again - but you can navigate the logic on a web by coming at a point from different directions on different paths.

---

It is not a geometry problem.

And if you do wish to convert it into a geometry problem a theist could probably use the same tactic to address any contradiction you might want to rationalize in theology.

I see no obvious reason why a clever theologian could not utilize the very same procedure to sidestep logical contradictions related to theology. ie. "Well, its a geodesic situation here, you know ?"

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.