Been thinking about Fridays
-
Dear All:
Have been following this subforum for sometime, though i am not an active member :)
Much have been said and discussed in this forum, you guys have already quite a few threads on science, history, social[money] issues and i would just like to share a little something that's of a slightly different taste. And i promise it's gonna be short
Have you ever ponder about Fridays? No matter if you are a student or a working adult, Friday is a day when, somehow, we feel happier. We treat people nicer, we sing or chrip cheerfully to work, when someone asks a favor from us, we gladly oblige.
Probably it's because weekend's just around the corner. Probably it's because we can see and even taste the rest and relax that's coming right at us, after, say, 5:30pm? Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyday could be like Fridays? [Some would even say, Why not everyday like the weekends itself!]
But sadly, things turn for the worse, when Sunday night comes and Monday comes. When some of us have to drag our feet to school or work or whatever.
Dear friends, can you see how Hope changes us? When we have hope that the weekends is near, can you see how this hope changes us? When we have no hope, and we know we need to go back to work/school, can you see how the absense of hope affects us?
Christianity offers an Eternal Hope for us [precisely the title of this Sub Forum]. A hope of something Eternal [not eternally hoping for something that never exists] A hope that far better days [not on earth] is ours, a hope that one day all tears would be no more, A hope that one day we would meet God, that we have Eternal Life. John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
An eternal hope that could make every Monday in to days far greater then Fridays!
So, then, to Christians in this forum, if we are still sulking, we have a problem, don't we? And non-Christians, i invite you, to discover for yourselfs through the Word of God, how could we, posses this Eternal Hope.
regards,
Don
Partially adapted from Ps john Piper. But i take all the errors and mistakes of this text as my own -
The thing about "eternal hope" would mean that the objective would never be achieved, hence the need for eternal hope.
-
Hi Dadeadman1337
Thanks for pointing that out. Have briefly made some changes to my text.
-
Originally posted by don1266:
Hi Dadeadman1337
Thanks for pointing that out. Have briefly made some changes to my text.
I would like to raise some points, perhaps with an example. Say theres a family, one father, one mother and one daughter. One day, without any reason the mother dies, and the child wonders why her mother does not return. So her father lies, saying "Mom is coming back soon". It gives hope, hope that someday her mother might return, but everyone else knows that would not happen. But day after day the child stares at the front door with hope. How would such a scenario seem?
-
Hi again Dadeadman1337
Thanks for your response. Your point is a valid one, and an extremely crucial one. False hope is worse then no hope, because at the end of the day, the hurt that false hopes cause might be even worse.
This of course would lead us to the question, is the Christian Hope true or false. What should i say? The Word of God, the Bible is the Christian's authoritative guide. This would then lead us to ask, how truthful is the Bible, isn't it?
To me, personally, i believe the Bible to be inerrant, and that it stands to the test of time. There are a lot of paradoxes that seemingly contradict, but given humility, sincerity and wisdom, i believe would lead to opened doors of Biblical truth.
Probably you have read the Bible, and even studied it, and find it contradicting, non-sense and so on. But i would like to invite you again, to pick up the Word of God again, humbly if possible, to discover the vast Greatness and Glory of God and His Eternal Truth, that produces eternal hope.
regards,
Don
-
Originally posted by don1266:
Hi again Dadeadman1337
Thanks for your response. Your point is a valid one, and an extremely crucial one. False hope is worse then no hope, because at the end of the day, the hurt that false hopes cause might be even worse.
This of course would lead us to the question, is the Christian Hope true or false. What should i say? The Word of God, the Bible is the Christian's authoritative guide. This would then lead us to ask, how truthful is the Bible, isn't it?
To me, personally, i believe the Bible to be inerrant, and that it stands to the test of time. There are a lot of paradoxes that seemingly contradict, but given humility, sincerity and wisdom, i believe would lead to opened doors of Biblical truth.
Probably you have read the Bible, and even studied it, and find it contradicting, non-sense and so on. But i would like to invite you again, to pick up the Word of God again, humbly if possible, to discover the vast Greatness and Glory of God and His Eternal Truth, that produces eternal hope.
regards,
Don
Thanks for the civility, getting rarer nowadays. Would you say that you judge the bible with a less stringent criteria than you do other books? Would you share something from the bible following your views? It would be easier for a discussion. As for the bible being truth, that really depends on the reader, through interpretation, one can say the apple described in the book is an orange. If one does not wish to take the bible literally, I ask by what standards do they deem a passage literal or symbolic. If the interpretation can keeps changing, according to times and moral standards, it would seem that the truth lies not in a book, but what we believe in.
-
Hi Dadeadman1337
Wow! great insight and questions! Your views and questions would lead us into an discussion of exegesis and hermeneutics.
May i point us to part of an article by Ps John Macarthur: [emphasis mine]
*start quote*
7. Now, practically pulling our thinking all together, "What is the final step that links inerrancy to preaching?"
First, the true text must be used. ... This is the starting point. Without the text as God gave it, the preacher would be helpless to deliver it as God intended.
Second, having begun with a true text, we need to interpret the text accurately. The science of hermeneutics is in view.
As a theological discipline hermeneutics is the science of the correct interpretation of the Bible. It is a special application of the general science of linguistics and meaning. It seeks to formulate those particular rules which pertain to the special factors connected with the Bible....Hermeneutics is a science in that it can determine certain principles for discovering the meaning of a document, and in that these principles are not a mere list of rules but bear organic connection to each other. It is also an art as we previously indicated because principles or rules can never be applied mechanically but involve the skill (technmae) of the interpreter. (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 11)
So exegesis is the skillful application of sound hermeneutical principles to the Biblical text in the original language with a view to understanding and declaring the author's intended meaning both to the immediate and subsequent audiences. In tandem, hermeneutics and exegesis focus on the Biblical text to determine what it said and what it meant originally (cf. John D. Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis, 7). Thus, exegesis in its broadest sense will include the various disciplines of literary criticism, historical studies, grammatical exegesis, historical theology, biblical theology and systematic theology. Proper exegesis will tell the student what the text says, what the text means, and how the text applies personally.
Fourth, we are now ready for a true exposition. Based on the flow of thinking that we have just come through, I assert that expository preaching is really exegetical preaching and not so much the homiletical form of the message. Merrill Unger accurately noted:
It is not the length of the portion treated, whether a single verse or a larger unit, but the manner of treatment. No matter what the length of the portion explained may be, if it is handled in such a way that its real and essential meaning as it existed in the light of the overall context of Scripture is made plain and applied to the present-day needs of the hearers, it may properly be said to be expository preaching. (Merrill F. Unger, Principles of Expository Preaching, 33)
As a result of this exegetical process that began with inerrancy, the expositor is equipped with a true message, with true intent and with true application. It gives him preaching perspective historically, theologically, contextually, literarily, synoptically and culturally. His message is God's intended message.
*end quote*
In short, many Christians have fallen for the trap of wishy washy interpretation of the Bible, mainly because they want the text to suite themselves, and to gain more converts and so on. But in return, they have left us with the tarnished name of not being stringent and strict.
If the Bible is the Truth, then it should stand to the strictest and most stringent scrutiny. That's my take.
regards,
Don
Ps. apologies for taking longer to reply. Your questions are good ones and i wanted to think more lest i talk rubbish and you ignore me.
-
Originally posted by don1266:
Hi Dadeadman1337
Wow! great insight and questions! Your views and questions would lead us into an discussion of exegesis and hermeneutics.
May i point us to part of an article by Ps John Macarthur: [emphasis mine]
*start quote*
7. Now, practically pulling our thinking all together, "What is the final step that links inerrancy to preaching?"
First, the true text must be used. ... This is the starting point. Without the text as God gave it, the preacher would be helpless to deliver it as God intended.
Second, having begun with a true text, we need to interpret the text accurately. The science of hermeneutics is in view.
So exegesis is the skillful application of sound hermeneutical principles to the Biblical text in the original language with a view to understanding and declaring the author's intended meaning both to the immediate and subsequent audiences. In tandem, hermeneutics and exegesis focus on the Biblical text to determine what it said and what it meant originally (cf. John D. Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis, 7). Thus, exegesis in its broadest sense will include the various disciplines of literary criticism, historical studies, grammatical exegesis, historical theology, biblical theology and systematic theology. Proper exegesis will tell the student what the text says, what the text means, and how the text applies personally.
Fourth, we are now ready for a true exposition. Based on the flow of thinking that we have just come through, I assert that expository preaching is really exegetical preaching and not so much the homiletical form of the message. Merrill Unger accurately noted:
As a result of this exegetical process that began with inerrancy, the expositor is equipped with a true message, with true intent and with true application. It gives him preaching perspective historically, theologically, contextually, literarily, synoptically and culturally. His message is God's intended message.
*end quote*
In short, many Christians have fallen for the trap of wishy washy interpretation of the Bible, mainly because they want the text to suite themselves, and to gain more converts and so on. But in return, they have left us with the tarnished name of not being stringent and strict.
If the Bible is the Truth, then it should stand to the strictest and most stringent scrutiny. That's my take.
regards,
Don
Ps. apologies for taking longer to reply. Your questions are good ones and i wanted to think more lest i talk rubbish and you ignore me.
If we were to take what the bible says in the context of the past, I don't think many things would be applicable, as you said, most people like to believe what seems good to them. Could you cite an example of truth in the bible? Then I would have something to type about. Kudos for a nice reply.
-
Originally posted by don1266:
Hi Dadeadman1337
Wow! great insight and questions! Your views and questions would lead us into an discussion of exegesis and hermeneutics.
May i point us to part of an article by Ps John Macarthur: [emphasis mine]
*start quote*
7. Now, practically pulling our thinking all together, "What is the final step that links inerrancy to preaching?"
First, the true text must be used. ... This is the starting point. Without the text as God gave it, the preacher would be helpless to deliver it as God intended.
Second, having begun with a true text, we need to interpret the text accurately. The science of hermeneutics is in view.
So exegesis is the skillful application of sound hermeneutical principles to the Biblical text in the original language with a view to understanding and declaring the author's intended meaning both to the immediate and subsequent audiences. In tandem, hermeneutics and exegesis focus on the Biblical text to determine what it said and what it meant originally (cf. John D. Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis, 7). Thus, exegesis in its broadest sense will include the various disciplines of literary criticism, historical studies, grammatical exegesis, historical theology, biblical theology and systematic theology. Proper exegesis will tell the student what the text says, what the text means, and how the text applies personally.
Fourth, we are now ready for a true exposition. Based on the flow of thinking that we have just come through, I assert that expository preaching is really exegetical preaching and not so much the homiletical form of the message. Merrill Unger accurately noted:
As a result of this exegetical process that began with inerrancy, the expositor is equipped with a true message, with true intent and with true application. It gives him preaching perspective historically, theologically, contextually, literarily, synoptically and culturally. His message is God's intended message.
*end quote*
In short, many Christians have fallen for the trap of wishy washy interpretation of the Bible, mainly because they want the text to suite themselves, and to gain more converts and so on. But in return, they have left us with the tarnished name of not being stringent and strict.
If the Bible is the Truth, then it should stand to the strictest and most stringent scrutiny. That's my take.
regards,
Don
Ps. apologies for taking longer to reply. Your questions are good ones and i wanted to think more lest i talk rubbish and you ignore me.
For all of that Don, the thinking behind bible exegesis is very roman hellenistic. This is very different from the hebraic way of thought.
-
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:
If we were to take what the bible says in the context of the past, I don't think many things would be applicable, as you said, most people like to believe what seems good to them. Could you cite an example of truth in the bible? Then I would have something to type about. Kudos for a nice reply.
Care to elaborate?
-
I must say that god in the Old Testament, seems to be an arbiter for the rules he sets, which are ridiculous at best. Why, logically, would a god actually need/want sacrifices of animals? Why this focus on blood? It seems illogical for a god to have such a focus, but entirely thinkable for the primitive man, where blood was seen to be a life-sustaining essense. It looks as if the bible was not the word of any god, but the stories created by man. I hold no dispute with the teachings like "turn the other cheek" or those about helping others, but while certain passages of the bible are acceptable, other parts seem to be supersitious fantasy.
-
The sacrifice deals with many things, there is the sin sacrifice, there is the free will offerings etc. The focus on blood is primarily for cleansing. But then there are other sacrifices as well for sanctification, for redemption, for justification, for restoration and for reconciliation. Of all these blood is also essential. In His mitzvot, Yahweh has commanded that we do not eat blood. It is forbidden.
-
Dear Dadeadman1337:
You seem to have given me a great task at hand. i need to do the following:
1. cite an example of truth
2. show how its being used out-of-context
3. show how it should be viewed
4. and still link back to my post of Eternal Hope
5. and keeping it short
This probably would be my last post for the coming hours since i have to focus on other things at the moment:
Let's take Isaiah 53:8 from the Old Testament, part of the sentence read as suchby his wounds we are healed.(Isaiah 53:8)
There were quite a bit of people citing this text as a verse to talk about healings. God will cure your cancer because by His wounds on the cross he has already healed you etc etc. This intepretation is of course, very tempting indeed. I see many many thousands flock to healing sessions just because of this sentence of scripture. And of course, some were disappointed, some were disillutioned and some hate Christianity because of this.
However, shouldn't we take a look at the FULL verse?
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.(Isaiah 53:8)
And we should also look into the FULL council of God. This is slightly easy because the Apostle Peter had given us some help in the new testament book, 1 Peter
24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.(1 Peter 2:24-25)
And also some direct help from the Prophet Jeremiah where through him God says
"Return, O faithless sons, I will heal your faithlessness." (Jeremiah 3:22)
Because Paul tells us in Romans
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
So we see that by the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross, he himself bore our sins, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
So Jesus, came to this world, to suffer the wrath of God [that was aimed at us] in our place, so we could have eternal life in Him. And a hope eternal.
Hope this makes some sense. And sincerely hope that the Word of God would touch our hearts, that we may repent and turn to Him.
regards
Don
-
Originally posted by breytonhartge:
The sacrifice deals with many things, there is the sin sacrifice, there is the free will offerings etc. The focus on blood is primarily for cleansing. But then there are other sacrifices as well for sanctification, for redemption, for justification, for restoration and for reconciliation. Of all these blood is also essential. In His mitzvot, Yahweh has commanded that we do not eat blood. It is forbidden.
It seems so very superficial, would a god really place so much emphasis on a liquid which he had created? Why would god be amused by the killing of a sheep and demand it be cooked in a certain way?
-
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:
It seems so very superficial, would a god really place so much emphasis on a liquid which he had created? Why would god be amused by the killing of a sheep and demand it be cooked in a certain way?
Until, we have the rejuvenation of the earth and our way of life as it was originally intended to be, we are left with the superficial as a type and shadow of things to come. The blood is a way of us becoming clean and holy before Him without which we cannot enter His presence. THe main thing is about being HOldy before Him. We cannot deem to think that we can do things our way and have it be acceptable to Yahweh. We do things His way because it is how it is prescribed for us.
-
Dear breytonhartge and Dadeadman1337:
Would appreciate that we keep the discussion to the topic that i have created from the start. If there is a need to talk about other issues, please open another thread. Thank you so much :)
-
Originally posted by don1266:
Hi again Dadeadman1337
Thanks for your response. Your point is a valid one, and an extremely crucial one. False hope is worse then no hope, because at the end of the day, the hurt that false hopes cause might be even worse.
This of course would lead us to the question, is the Christian Hope true or false. What should i say? The Word of God, the Bible is the Christian's authoritative guide. This would then lead us to ask, how truthful is the Bible, isn't it?
To me, personally, i believe the Bible to be inerrant, and that it stands to the test of time. There are a lot of paradoxes that seemingly contradict, but given humility, sincerity and wisdom, i believe would lead to opened doors of Biblical truth.
Probably you have read the Bible, and even studied it, and find it contradicting, non-sense and so on. But i would like to invite you again, to pick up the Word of God again, humbly if possible, to discover the vast Greatness and Glory of God and His Eternal Truth, that produces eternal hope.
regards,
Don
The reason for the paradoxes and the contradictions is because many christians do not read the bible in the correct context of time, of the language, of the people whom it was being written to. The mindset as I have stated is of a greek roman hellenistic one versus a hebraic one.
So then don, does your salvation produce this eternal hope? What is this eternal hope for? What is the eternal hope? As a believer what is our hope?
christianity offers a soothing balm to a wicked generation to ease their guilt without telling people the hard truth of the word of Yahweh. It's all about love, about forgiveness about grace. But have you ever thought beyond that? What is His love for? What is the grace for? How can one even have this eternal hope without first understanding the parameters of the choice placed before each and everyone of us??
-
Originally posted by don1266:
Dear breytonhartge and Dadeadman1337:
Would appreciate that we keep the discussion to the topic that i have created from the start. If there is a need to talk about other issues, please open another thread. Thank you so much :)
I was refering to the bible in particular, it might be the truth to you, however the practices which it preaches in the OT, though we don't practice anymore, makes it seem far from truth.
-
Originally posted by don1266:
Dear Dadeadman1337:
You seem to have given me a great task at hand. i need to do the following:
1. cite an example of truth
2. show how its being used out-of-context
3. show how it should be viewed
4. and still link back to my post of Eternal Hope
5. and keeping it short
This probably would be my last post for the coming hours since i have to focus on other things at the moment:
Let's take Isaiah 53:8 from the Old Testament, part of the sentence read as suchby his wounds we are healed.(Isaiah 53:8)
There were quite a bit of people citing this text as a verse to talk about healings. God will cure your cancer because by His wounds on the cross he has already healed you etc etc. This intepretation is of course, very tempting indeed. I see many many thousands flock to healing sessions just because of this sentence of scripture. And of course, some were disappointed, some were disillutioned and some hate Christianity because of this.
However, shouldn't we take a look at the FULL verse?
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.(Isaiah 53:8)
And we should also look into the FULL council of God. This is slightly easy because the Apostle Peter had given us some help in the new testament book, 1 Peter
24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.(1 Peter 2:24-25)
And also some direct help from the Prophet Jeremiah where through him God says
"Return, O faithless sons, I will heal your faithlessness." (Jeremiah 3:22)
Because Paul tells us in Romans
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
So we see that by the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross, he himself bore our sins, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
So Jesus, came to this world, to suffer the wrath of God [that was aimed at us] in our place, so we could have eternal life in Him. And a hope eternal.
Hope this makes some sense. And sincerely hope that the Word of God would touch our hearts, that we may repent and turn to Him.
regards
Don
I was requesting more for a passage which you found to be true, in this case you cited the death of jesus to pay for our sins. Why do you think this is true? I read the God Delusion and found the passage in it about this issue to be a rather interesting read. Why would god go to that extent to forgive our sins, couldn't he just do it at the snap of a finger? Who is he trying to impress?
-
Dear Breytonhartge:
Although i agree to a certain limited extent of what you say, i do not agree of the terms that you use.
"christianity offers a soothing balm to a wicked generation to ease their guilt without telling people the hard truth of the word of Yahweh" -- i would rather say, some, or even majority of the churches. Half of the Gospel isn't enough. But we are to lovingly point out what they lack, instead of being indifferent or just pure hate.
And to a certain extent, i have indeed said some points to which would somewhat echo you
"So Jesus, came to this world, to suffer the wrath of God [that was aimed at us] in our place, so we could have eternal life in Him. And a hope eternal." --in an earlier post by me"And we should also look into the FULL council of God." -- in an earlier post by me as well
The Word of God requires of us to treat it with care and trembling. I assume you would agree.
regards,
Don
-
Originally posted by don1266:
Dear Breytonhartge:
Although i agree to a certain limited extent of what you say, i do not agree of the terms that you use.
"christianity offers a soothing balm to a wicked generation to ease their guilt without telling people the hard truth of the word of Yahweh" -- i would rather say, some, or even majority of the churches. Half of the Gospel isn't enough. But we are to lovingly point out what they lack, instead of being indifferent or just pure hate.
And to a certain extent, i have indeed said some points to which would somewhat echo you
"So Jesus, came to this world, to suffer the wrath of God [that was aimed at us] in our place, so we could have eternal life in Him. And a hope eternal." --in an earlier post by me"And we should also look into the FULL council of God." -- in an earlier post by me as well
The Word of God requires of us to treat it with care and trembling. I assume you would agree.
regards,
Don
and yet, it is the church that does not treat it with care and trembling.
and so what is this hope eternal that you speak of? or is your definition akin to that put forth by christianity?
After getting this hope eternal, then what are you as a believer supposed to do with it?
christianity is not true to the word of Yahweh. It never has been otherwise it would not be in the state that it is in today. so then in your words, what do the churches lack??
-
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:
It seems so very superficial, would a god really place so much emphasis on a liquid which he had created? Why would god be amused by the killing of a sheep and demand it be cooked in a certain way?
hi dadeadman, may i know are you a christian or ex-christian ? all the points that you raised are precisely what i have been asking, the questions you asked are all very valid. i thought i am the only one pondering over them. -
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:
hi dadeadman, may i know are you a christian or ex-christian ? all the points that you raised are precisely what i have been asking, the questions you asked are all very valid. i thought i am the only one pondering over them.ex-christian. Raised as one, never really believed
-
---------