ECT You are unique in the body of Christ, just like everyone else in the body of Christ
- Thread starter oatmeal
- Start date
LA speaks to my posts and others posts as if we have no Bible wisdom, no life experience, and we're all brand new to scripture. i see many that have "fallen" into that pattern, maybe they don't realize it, having had the gifts for so long/ when i speak honestly and admit that i could be doing better in many areas, some folks must think i'm asking for help or insults. just because i don't spew forth scripture veiled within various forms of judging. maybe i just read alot of people wrong here. not.i can see the difference in christians like tftn5280 and many others, and the few unteacing andunteachable christians here. unfortunately, the latter can't see the difference in themselves. i have gifts that have been prepared by God throughout my life. i don't feel a need,or a duty to list them on the internet to strangers. i enjoy many of your posts ignoring your opinions, seeing only scriptures this post is TO LA
Levolor
New member
Hi, T.
Glad that you are here among us.
It certainly does. Recognizes truth right away as well as untruth too.
Agree totally.
There is much within Catholicism that is appealing.
Actually it is in the bible. The meaning is: Master.
When they called Jesus teacher, they called Him Master.
John 11:8 KJV
His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
In many of the other translations, the word Master is replaced with Rabbi/Teacher.
Same with the following:
John 13:13 KJV
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
No wonder James advises for there to not be many Masters among us.
I hope you come back, if only for a little while.
Now, lol, your first post, last.
For me, when facing this kind of questioning, I think of the following verses:
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 1 Corinthians 3:5, 6, 7 (NKJV)
It is best not to be attached to the outcome of anything that is trying to be gotten across to someone. It is God who gives the increase.
To show I am not missing the intent of your words, though, yes... it does say something about the responder, yet, that is still in God's hands. It is He who judges, convicts, draws, and we just don't know when that which was faught against so stridently today, will in a year have the person :think: and realize :doh:
God bless.
Glad that you are here among us.
It certainly does. Recognizes truth right away as well as untruth too.
Agree totally.
There is much within Catholicism that is appealing.
Actually it is in the bible. The meaning is: Master.
When they called Jesus teacher, they called Him Master.
John 11:8 KJV
His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
In many of the other translations, the word Master is replaced with Rabbi/Teacher.
Same with the following:
John 13:13 KJV
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
No wonder James advises for there to not be many Masters among us.
I hope you come back, if only for a little while.
Now, lol, your first post, last.
For me, when facing this kind of questioning, I think of the following verses:
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 1 Corinthians 3:5, 6, 7 (NKJV)
It is best not to be attached to the outcome of anything that is trying to be gotten across to someone. It is God who gives the increase.
To show I am not missing the intent of your words, though, yes... it does say something about the responder, yet, that is still in God's hands. It is He who judges, convicts, draws, and we just don't know when that which was faught against so stridently today, will in a year have the person :think: and realize :doh:
God bless.
Hi, T.
Glad that you are here among us.
It certainly does. Recognizes truth right away as well as untruth too.
Agree totally.
There is much within Catholicism that is appealing.
Actually it is in the bible. The meaning is: Master.
When they called Jesus teacher, they called Him Master.
John 11:8 KJV
His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
In many of the other translations, the word Master is replaced with Rabbi/Teacher.
Same with the following:
John 13:13 KJV
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
No wonder James advises for there to not be many Masters among us.
I hope you come back, if only for a little while.
Now, lol, your first post, last.
For me, when facing this kind of questioning, I think of the following verses:
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 1 Corinthians 3:5, 6, 7 (NKJV)
It is best not to be attached to the outcome of anything that is trying to be gotten across to someone. It is God who gives the increase.
To show I am not missing the intent of your words, though, yes... it does say something about the responder, yet, that is still in God's hands. It is He who judges, convicts, draws, and we just don't know when that which was faught against so stridently today, will in a year have the person :think: and realize :doh:
God bless.
Another great post by Levolor, filled with God's Spirit, Truth and imparted with Love. How do women do that ? jk - your posts ARE filled with God's Wisdom and Love, often with the right words at the right times. God Bless ! ! !
You are not the kind of person I am addressing in my posts, and I post with scripture.
You tend to judge the poster instead of the post.
You must cease doing that and find out what the Lord is saying instead of what I am saying.
I am not always revealing what I see in the scriptures I post.
LA
Levolor
New member
Bless you, Patrick; you are blessed.
Thank you for your very kind words, but anything of value within me is due to and because of God. Anything that is ever seen that is not good, that would be me.
May God continue to bless you in all ways, always.
Point taken. I discern the opinions and translations of the poster. that IS the post. if you prefer the word judge, amen. "i MUST CEASE" - see ? and i MUST - FIND OUT , instead of commenting on your delivery. we can all post with scripture
oatmeal
Well-known member
I am sure you do have knowledge of scripture.
That's wonderful.
II Timothy 2:15 states that a workman of the word is to rightly divide the word of truth.
What is your method and criteria to determine whether you are rightly dividing the word of truth?
Do you even have one?
The Judeans, the religious elite who opposed Jesus' ministry had knowledge of scripture, so did those who opposed the apostles, Stephen, Paul, the first century believers in general. I have been confronted by many elitists on this website, (and have confronted them) whose claim to fame is that they adhere to the traditional beliefs of the church.
But do you rightly divide the word of truth?
Yes? Please let us know what methods and criteria you use.
I eagerly await your reply.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Which twelve? the twelve which includes Judas Iscariot?
Who is
?
Judas did not make it into the body of Christ, he committed suicide before the day of Pentecost, when the eleven and Matthias received the new birth. Acts 2:1-4
oatmeal
Well-known member
Patrick Jane,
That is one of the questions I had when I started this thread.
Is that anyone's business?
Paul had no problem declaring his calling.
We are all called to believe scripture.
How much we choose to believe scripture is a different matter.
My intent if someone did not feel comfortable with this is to provoke godly thinking on the matter, and the action necessary for some to find out more specifically what God has in mind for them
Maybe it is to simply be the best husband or wife that they can be so that they can teach others.
Maybe it is to give with simplicity, yet many on this website balk at giving.
Maybe it is to be merciful with cheerfulness, but among some, there is little mercy to be had.
Of course, God does not wish to limit our godly achievements to one category only, God is interested that we receive the blessings of His promises in all relevant categories of life.
TFTn5280
New member
You asked about my hermeneutic. Fair question. I have received formal training in several hermeneutics. I know them all and I’m sure I employ them each in my studies.
However, the Hermeneutic that I follow is not formal. To the contrary my Hermeneutic is quite personal. I have come to understand Bible study to be scientific in its approach. That is, the tools I bring to the subject of my study is object driven. In science the tools you use to study “objects” are germane to the object of your study. You would not use a microscope to study the stars; nor a telescope atoms. The object of your inquiry sets the rules for your study. The same holds true in my study of Scripture.
Hence, Jesus Christ is my Hermeneutic. He is the object of my study and he determines the tools which I use to study him. One day it will be a Greek lexicon, the next "Our Daily Bread."
The day I realized this Hermeneutic, I had to close my Bible and walk away from it. Days I spent in prayer ~ the pray without ceasing kind ~ knowing that this called for a radical shift in my thinking, not only in how I was to approach Scripture, but in the things I thought I knew about both God and humans and his interactions with us.
When I reopened my bible, I determined first to know Jesus, and only when I knew him exhaustively would I move out with him as my Mediator to other subjects. That so, I read Jesus. Then I read Jesus in his interpersonal relations with and interpretations of God. Then I moved into a study of humanity: for Jesus is both God and man. Many things started to shift in my theology. I no longer thought of God abstractly, systematically, which is “what” oriented. Now I knew him personally, relationally. My study of God had become “who” oriented.
I had to let go of many systematic beliefs I had held both about God and about humans as well. Arguments about things like Predestination over against Free Will, even things like what is the right hermeneutic, I found, are futile if not resolved in Christ. There is no true knowledge of God apart from him.
I no longer think of God systematically ~ the “what” oriented approach. Now I know him personally, relationally. My study has become “who” oriented. The object of my study first being God as mediated to me in Christ Jesus and then humanity as mediated by the same.
Years now I’ve studied under the tutelage of this new Hermeneutic.
How do I know I rightly divide the Word? I know Jesus.
“God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things,” ~ even hermeneutics.
Last edited:
oatmeal
Well-known member
hermeneutics is the science of interpreting and explaining, especially as it pertains to scripture.
Science implies that you have a scientific method.
If you wish to figure out at what temperature aluminum melts
You would need some aluminum, a heat source, a way of measuring the temperature as a bare minimum.
Then you need to record what you did and learned to find out if the results can be replicated.
Other scientists would want to check your methods by analysis and by repeating your experiment to confirm or deny your results.
They may wish to learn how to fine tune the results.
There would be papers with the methods and results written down for others to see and review and check.
What is your method?
How do you rightly divide the word of truth?
By prayer? That's a good start, but prayer without believing doesn't work, Mark 11:23-24, Matthew 21:22
What specific believing actions do you take? Believing without works is dead. James 2:17
What specific actions do you take?
What checklist do you have?
Let me give you an example.
One way that scripture interprets itself is right where it is written. VP Wierwille
Examples: Genesis 1:1, it is self explanatory.
John 3:16 is likewise self explanatory.
Matthew 2:11 is mostly self explanatory. for instance, we know what a house is
Next is context. Matthew 2:11 Who is the they? context tells us, it is the wise men. Does context tell us how many there were? No, there is no scripture that tells us how many there were. Therefore, since God does not tell us, we do not guess, we quietly and thankfully accept that we don't need to know.
A third aspect is scripture is for the most part self defining. If we wish to know what the word "god" means as God uses it. We look for how God uses it.
(I say, for the most part, because I did not learn to read English from an English Bible. I need to learn English before I can read the Bible. Most certainly, some may have learned English by first learning to read from scripture, but the English Bible is not a comprehensive dictionary of all English words that could be useful for reading scripture.
Genesis 1:1 God is someone who creates or is the initiator of things
Is it a title or a name? We learn that is it a title, not a name.
Exodus 7:1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
As we continue to read what God did we learn that God does more than create. He speaks, He sees, divides, He calls, He makes etc.
Those are three basic methods of learning the meaning of scripture. Each of those has subcategories.
Anyone can claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding them, but claiming and demonstrating that are two different matters.
For that matter, until a person knows scripture enough to learn who God is and who he isn't, that person could be easily fooled by unholy spirits
TFTn5280
New member
Oatmeal, I am not going to debate hermeneutics with you. You demonstrate by even posting that you have no comprehension of anything I have said. Please go back to my first post and answer the questions I asked you.
Blessings,
T
Last edited:
oatmeal
Well-known member
T,
Your first post is as follows:
Your questions are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Answers:
1. Having certain long suits does not guarantee that anyone is actually using them or will continue to use them. Hence, your claim is only that, a claim. Peter was an apostle, but he erred. Judas Iscariot was also an apostle, but his fruit was not so good.
Judas had access to the same basic knowledge that Peter did, but Judas used it differently or ignored it or manipulated it to his own ends, not the ends that the truth was intended for
Thus we are to know people by their fruits, not by the gifts or long suits they may or may not possess. Gifts do not guarantee goodness and truth and trustworthiness.
That is not say that we ignore those gifts or long suits, but by their fruits we know how they are using those gifts.
Life itself is a gift, being alive is no proof of goodness.
Whether you, me or anyone else is utilizing their strengths in godly means to godly ends is know by our fruits
If their fruit is good then respect is earned and should be given
2. That there is an abundance of open rebuke, even rudeness is not surprising to anyone who has shared the gospel. Even on this website. You must have read II Corinthians 11:16-33? Paul knew that the enemy, our adversary was working hard to oppose his ministry. Yet God's answer to him was for him and for us, "My grace is sufficient for thee, for My strength is made perfect in weakness"
Man up.
3. I have functions to carry out. I do what I am able to at this stage of my discipleship to carry them out.
I find this website is one of many ways to fulfill my functions
"Jesus Christ is the subject of God's word from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 22:21. Thus he is the master key to understanding scripture." VP Wierwille
But there is much more to hermeneutics than that.
TFTn5280
New member
Levolor
New member
Hallelujah!
"Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.
Praise the Lord!" Psalm 150:6
TFTn5280
New member
If I may, one more post before I go. In God's equipping of teachers for the edification of the church, he will likely use tools unrelated to Scripture to assist in a right interpretation of Scripture. Below is an example of just what I am talking about. My BA degree was an historiographal approach to Philosophy, wherein I studied the great philosophers extensively. Through those studies I became aware of things I would not have otherwise been equipped to recognize in my study of Scripture. Yet graciously God equipped me to do just that. Please read:
In Ephesians 1.10 Paul writes, "that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times [God the Father] might gather together in one the all in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him" (my translation).
The words "gather together" here are a translation of the Greek word anakephalaiow, which literally means "to re-head-up." It was the Father's will that in the fullness of times he would send his unique son to "re-gather, via headship," in (by inference) the One "the all" in Christ (and here "all" is neuter so it is inclusive of everything, not just humanity, but definitely humanity, as included in the whole). Now that was really cumbersome. I apologize. But I believe it was necessary to gain comprehension of what's going, not only here, but elsewhere in passages like Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. For contained in this verse is the ancient Mediterranean-world concept of "the one and the many."
As westerners we do not so much think in terms of headship. We are much more individualistic in our concepts of responsibility, for example. Each one of us is responsible for his or her own actions but not so much the consequence of those actions on others. BUT in the Mediterranean social world at the time of Christ, specifically, that was not the case at all. In that setting there was very much in place the idea of one person standing in as representative or head of the entirety of a group of people under his headship. There is much to buttress our understanding of this social construct in the writings of early Greek philosophers such as Socrates via Plato, Plato himself, Aristotle, Ulysses, and others, where we extrapolate this concept of "the one and the many." Equipped with this information, we see clearly the same construct in ancient Semitic writings as well, in OT narratives like the accounts of Boaz and Ruth, and David as he stood in as head over all of Israel in his confrontation with Goliath. We see it also in Abraham over all of his descendants...and Adam over all of humanity, even over all of creation.
In Ephesians 1.10 we learn that God sent his Son, the Christ to re-head-up what was relinquished in the headship of the first head/representative, Adam. Now, that was a long way of getting to misinformed statement like "Christ isn't cleaning up Adam's mess as much as He is cleaning up Adam." You see, I think it might be better to say it this way: Christ was not only cleaning up Adam; he was cleaning up Adam's mess as well. That being the mess he made of all humanity and even all creation in his fall.
What is the significance of this? Under the headship of Adam, everything was lost, given over to new heads like sin, death, and the devil, for example, and the impact they have had on creation itself. But Christ came to re-head-up the collective of Adam's relinquished headship. In the "one" Adam the "many" or the "all" fell. But in the "One" Christ, the second Adam, the head over all, the "many" (I'm narrowing it down to a discussion of humanity) are re-gathered. Everyone represented in the headship of Adam are represented uniquely in the headship of the second Adam, Christ.
In the following passage I am going to provide a translation of the Greek text in order to bring out the Mediterranean social concept of "the one and the many," as it relates to Adam and Christ in Paul's address. The passage is Rom 5.15-19. All I will be doing is including the definite article ("the") where it appears in the Gr text. Please read it now from within the social construct of "the one and the many" or "the one and the all." Let's see how the inclusion of the definite article influences our understanding of the passage:
15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as through the one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through the one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by the one Man's obedience the many shall be made righteous.
Do you sense the subtle shift which takes place in our thinking when the definite article is removed as opposed to when it is included in the text? All of the Greek manuscripts we use, including the Textus Receptus, in our translations of the Gr NT into English have the definite article preceding the "one" and the "many" in this passage. This is an instance where translators have been unaware of New Testament/Mediterranean world constructs and thus literary conventions. Being unaware of this particular construct/convention, they omit the definite articles for sake of fluidity, which is not uncommon in Gr to English translations. In this case, however, their lack of awareness assisted in leading their readers into confusion as to what Paul was attempting to convey here, through their misinterpretation of this passage. I digress.
The impact of this and all the-one-and-the-many texts as they relate to Adam and Christ is that every single person, specifically, and thing in a macro-sense, that is represented by Adam is re-headed-up by way of representation in Christ, the second Adam. Here, in Romans, we discover that the "many" of the first man are the same as the "many" of the second Man, the difference being that where the first man brought death, condemnation, and judgment to "the many," which is "all"; the second Man brought an abundance of grace, righteousness, and justification of life to "the many," which is also "all." Hence the two are similar in that they are both representatives of "all men," but they are different in what they produced for that same group of "all men."
And so, we may conclude that this is not about some mysterious Adam-as-son-of-God doctrine. Rather it should stand as a model in our interpretation of Christ's incarnational atoning work. What are the implications, for example, of Christ's “justification” of all of humanity in our theological constructs?
I really must back out of here. Thanks for reading this lengthy post.
Blessings to all,
T
In Ephesians 1.10 Paul writes, "that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times [God the Father] might gather together in one the all in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him" (my translation).
The words "gather together" here are a translation of the Greek word anakephalaiow, which literally means "to re-head-up." It was the Father's will that in the fullness of times he would send his unique son to "re-gather, via headship," in (by inference) the One "the all" in Christ (and here "all" is neuter so it is inclusive of everything, not just humanity, but definitely humanity, as included in the whole). Now that was really cumbersome. I apologize. But I believe it was necessary to gain comprehension of what's going, not only here, but elsewhere in passages like Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. For contained in this verse is the ancient Mediterranean-world concept of "the one and the many."
As westerners we do not so much think in terms of headship. We are much more individualistic in our concepts of responsibility, for example. Each one of us is responsible for his or her own actions but not so much the consequence of those actions on others. BUT in the Mediterranean social world at the time of Christ, specifically, that was not the case at all. In that setting there was very much in place the idea of one person standing in as representative or head of the entirety of a group of people under his headship. There is much to buttress our understanding of this social construct in the writings of early Greek philosophers such as Socrates via Plato, Plato himself, Aristotle, Ulysses, and others, where we extrapolate this concept of "the one and the many." Equipped with this information, we see clearly the same construct in ancient Semitic writings as well, in OT narratives like the accounts of Boaz and Ruth, and David as he stood in as head over all of Israel in his confrontation with Goliath. We see it also in Abraham over all of his descendants...and Adam over all of humanity, even over all of creation.
In Ephesians 1.10 we learn that God sent his Son, the Christ to re-head-up what was relinquished in the headship of the first head/representative, Adam. Now, that was a long way of getting to misinformed statement like "Christ isn't cleaning up Adam's mess as much as He is cleaning up Adam." You see, I think it might be better to say it this way: Christ was not only cleaning up Adam; he was cleaning up Adam's mess as well. That being the mess he made of all humanity and even all creation in his fall.
What is the significance of this? Under the headship of Adam, everything was lost, given over to new heads like sin, death, and the devil, for example, and the impact they have had on creation itself. But Christ came to re-head-up the collective of Adam's relinquished headship. In the "one" Adam the "many" or the "all" fell. But in the "One" Christ, the second Adam, the head over all, the "many" (I'm narrowing it down to a discussion of humanity) are re-gathered. Everyone represented in the headship of Adam are represented uniquely in the headship of the second Adam, Christ.
In the following passage I am going to provide a translation of the Greek text in order to bring out the Mediterranean social concept of "the one and the many," as it relates to Adam and Christ in Paul's address. The passage is Rom 5.15-19. All I will be doing is including the definite article ("the") where it appears in the Gr text. Please read it now from within the social construct of "the one and the many" or "the one and the all." Let's see how the inclusion of the definite article influences our understanding of the passage:
15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as through the one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through the one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by the one Man's obedience the many shall be made righteous.
Do you sense the subtle shift which takes place in our thinking when the definite article is removed as opposed to when it is included in the text? All of the Greek manuscripts we use, including the Textus Receptus, in our translations of the Gr NT into English have the definite article preceding the "one" and the "many" in this passage. This is an instance where translators have been unaware of New Testament/Mediterranean world constructs and thus literary conventions. Being unaware of this particular construct/convention, they omit the definite articles for sake of fluidity, which is not uncommon in Gr to English translations. In this case, however, their lack of awareness assisted in leading their readers into confusion as to what Paul was attempting to convey here, through their misinterpretation of this passage. I digress.
The impact of this and all the-one-and-the-many texts as they relate to Adam and Christ is that every single person, specifically, and thing in a macro-sense, that is represented by Adam is re-headed-up by way of representation in Christ, the second Adam. Here, in Romans, we discover that the "many" of the first man are the same as the "many" of the second Man, the difference being that where the first man brought death, condemnation, and judgment to "the many," which is "all"; the second Man brought an abundance of grace, righteousness, and justification of life to "the many," which is also "all." Hence the two are similar in that they are both representatives of "all men," but they are different in what they produced for that same group of "all men."
And so, we may conclude that this is not about some mysterious Adam-as-son-of-God doctrine. Rather it should stand as a model in our interpretation of Christ's incarnational atoning work. What are the implications, for example, of Christ's “justification” of all of humanity in our theological constructs?
I really must back out of here. Thanks for reading this lengthy post.
Blessings to all,
T
Levolor
New member
You are welcome.
I look forward to reading more of your offerings. Thank you for your blessings, and may they be returned to you magnified.