|
|
Results 1 - 20
|
|
Results from: Answered Questions, Answers, Unanswered Questions, Notes
Contents include: "Orthodox"
On or After: Thursday, November 20, 2008
|
| Results |
Type |
Verse |
Author |
Date |
| 1 |
... |
Note |
Eph 2:15 |
ovadyah |
Thu 11/20/08, 2:42pm |
| |
... |
| 2 |
seven baptisms wet or dry help |
Note |
Matt 3:6 |
Searcher56 |
Sun 12/7/08, 4:08am |
| |
God's day to you, Cheri
Campbellism (sorry I forgot an "l") refer to those who are part of the Churches of Christ founded by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell.
One of their doctrines is baptismal regeneration, which says one must be baptized in order to be saved. Other groups that hold this are Catholics,
Orthodox churches, Anglicans and Mormons.
Searcher |
| 3 |
Why did Jesus fold His burial napkin? |
Answer |
John 20:7 |
MJH |
Wed 12/10/08, 11:29am |
| |
I suppose the real reason is somewhat speculative in nature unless someone can find a custom that has merit.
I heard a pastor relate the servant/master custom in the early 1990's but couldn't find verification then. Now it is an e-mail phenomena being passed on as fact, but it is actually a myth.
"We have checked numerous Bible study sources and have found nothing about this alleged Jewish custom of the folded napkins. We did not find any Bible scholars who have used this story and illustration about the meaning of the folded napkin.
Additionally we talked with a Jewish rabbi friend of TruthOrFiction.com's who has been a life-long Orthodox Jew, a Jewish scholar, and lives in Jerusalem, Israel, and he said he'd never heard of it"
from the site: www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/folded-napkin.htm
MJH
|
| 4 |
Sell what you have-give alms |
Note |
Bible general |
Hank |
Fri 12/19/08, 6:32pm |
| |
Flyman, the plethora of questions your posts have raised added to the minute details you are seeking overwhelm me, so I refrain from writing a word about all those individual trees until we've taken a peek at the whole forest. In your user profile you wrote of desiring God, of seeking a walk with Him, and mentioned that you hope to be guided in some way by your interaction with people of this Forum. Well may you be, but frankly that is not the place I'd pick to begin my search. You mention nothing of church attendance, but a conservative, orthodox local congretation having a conservative, orthodox pastor is the best place to hang your hat right now, I'd say. This Forum has a lofty aim to be sure, but church it isn't. You need to go to God's house, for which there is absolutely no substitute. And may I suggest that you in connection with your Bible stuy. stop inspecting the individual trees so minutely right now, and instead that you look first at the forest, the big picture. You need to fully understand what 2 Timothy 2:15 really means and learn how to do what it says to do. This knowledge comes about slowly and takes a lot of time. ...... Where you are "coming from" I think I know, because many years ago I believe I sounded much like you. You may come off as being argumentative perhaps, but I don't think that is your aim. Just lighten up a little and be paiient. You are not going to understand everything in the Bible....not ever. Friend, I've been a follower of Jesus Christ for almost 60 years and studied the Bible for the same length of time. I'm probably boasting to say that maybe I understand 10 per cent of it by now. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Surrender your will to Him. That's the most important thing in life. --Hank |
| 5 |
Iam having some questions |
Note |
John 17:1 |
skccab |
Wed 12/31/08, 2:23pm |
| |
Greetings Val,
Just an FYI for you - the 600 or so commandments (actually 613) are the commandments found in Torah.
As an example between the two (the 613 and oral), Exodus 23:19b "You shall not boil a young goat in it's mother's milk" - That is one of the 613 actual commandments of God given to Moses, and it doesn't sound so hard to keep. Now, the oral part that you are thinking about, observed to this very day, adds that one cannot even drink milk and eat meat together. Orthodox Jews keep milk products and meat products in separate refridgerators (my understanding is that they even have separate utensils, dishware and cookware) - all this to "help" them not break the actual simple commandment. Now THAT'S hard!!
The number 613 seems big, but the vast majority of the laws for the ordinary citizen are similar to Lev. 19:35 and 36, 2 separate "laws", one is a "do" and the other says the very same thing as a "do not do" (or vice versa).
Matt. 5:17-20. It was the Oral Law/Tradition that Jesus was so against, it put far too much burden on the ordinary guy, only to make the priests look oh so holy.
:-)
Have a safe New Year
Cheri |
| 6 |
Iam having some questions |
Note |
John 17:1 |
DocTrinsograce |
Fri 01/2/09, 8:23pm |
| |
Dear MJH,
Any given statement may, in and of itself, be a valid one. However, just as the grammatical and historical context of a passage of Scripture is an important ingredient to rendering a sound exegesis, so it is in all textual or verbal interpretation. You see, those principles of interpretation do not stand solely in the arena of Biblical hermeneutics. Thus, when you talk to a Mormon or a Romanist about redemption, you don't evaluate their words in a vacuum. You must understand that they have defined the terms used -- especially the ones we use in common -- in very particular ways. Terms like salvation, grace, faith, etc. have very unique definitions. Given the time and effort, we can uncover how those words differ from Christian orthodoxy.
If we were all standing on a street corner conversing, our words, once uttered, might only be retrieved insofar as each hearer had the ability to remember them. In a forum like this one, our words -- for good or ill -- can be reviewed. The context of all we say is readily researched by anyone with the desire to do so.
Consequently, given your penchant for Judaising Christian doctrine and practice, it only makes good sense to interpret your statements in that light. Indeed, you rarely venture beyond that single theme. The Scripture warns us to eschew all forms of legalism (and that form of legalism in particular) just as much as it warns us to eschew Antinomianism.
In Him, Doc |
| 7 |
Are apostles the same as evangelists? |
Answer |
Matt 28:19 |
BradK |
Mon 01/5/09, 3:38pm |
| |
Hello humility,
An apostle would be defined bibically- and from an Orthodox viewpoint- as one who was witness to the resurrection (Acts. 1:22). There are no more apostles! An evangelist is one such as a Billy Graham- who as a ministry- shares the gospel. However, all believers are in a sense- evangelists as we are called to share the "good news" with others (1 Pet. 3:15)
I hope this helps,
BradK |
| 8 |
What is sin? How is sin commited? |
Note |
Rom 14:23 |
DocTrinsograce |
Thu 01/8/09, 4:04pm |
| |
Dear Kcabm14,
Orthodox Christian theology attempts to exhaustively itemize and systematize all that the Scripture has to say about any given subject it addresses. These subjects are what we call doctrines. A doctrine is all that the Scripture has to say about a particular subject. The theological term for the study of the doctrine of sin is called hamartiology.
Although the passage of Scripture that you cited (1 John 3:4) speaks to the forensic aspect of sin. That's certainly an important aspect of sin, but to leave it that wouldn't properly capture everything the Bible has to say regarding sin. Erickson attempts to summarize that full spectrum, doing a fairly decent job of it. Still and all, even that falls short, because it has a passive sound to it.
Think about words like wicked, evil, iniquitous, crooked, perverse, froward, licentious, godless, immoral, etc. The Bible uses these words and others for sin. Each paints a slightly different aspect for us -- even though they are all address the same thing.
In Him, Doc |
| 9 |
Study Bible |
Note |
Bible general |
DocTrinsograce |
Sat 02/14/09, 1:02pm |
| |
Dear fcs375,
You wrote, "I firmly believe that one must study God's word first and foremost, asking the Holy Spirit to teach them and meditate upon it, and sometimes may require one to read over and over again. Good sound commentary has it's proper place in study but should be secondary" (sic)
Yes, secondary, but not utterly neglected -- so that we won't "be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men" (Ephesians 4:14b). (Remember that one of the worst trickster's we'll face is our own heart.) Sadly, most people who make these kinds of assertions of divine solidarity really mean that they will neglect orthodoxy for some kind of pious, personal walk with God. It is no surprise, therefore, that being "untaught and unstable [they] distort the Scriptures" with dire consequences (2 Peter 3:16).
Nor should it surprise us, therefore, to discover that we have gotten what the Spirit warned us about in Ephesians: Long after the Lord helped the church deal decisively with heresies like Arianism, Manichaeism, Pelagianism, Monarchianism, Montanism, Gnosticism, etc. etc. we are up to our ears in all those things. They go by different names, of course -- if they bother to be named at all; but such teachings are now more commonly espoused than is sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3-4). And they are espoused by people who claim to have the Spirit's teaching.
We will repeat history if we fail to learn from it; or, perhaps in this instance, by lightly esteeming the gifts plundered by Christ for the church (Psalm 68:18; Ephesians 4:8) of the past, we will fail to repeat it.
As my pastor often says: there are two ditches on either side of the road. Let's take care lest we fall into one ditch, while striving to avoid the other.
In Him, Doc |
| 10 |
Woman in pants |
Note |
Deut 22:5 |
KcabmI4 |
Sat 02/14/09, 9:43pm |
| |
... |
| 11 |
What does judgement look like |
Note |
2 Cor 5:10 |
bill0624 |
Thu 02/26/09, 10:51am |
| |
Val, we will simply have to agree to disagree. :) Being saved, according to Jesus himself, is based upon works, doing (not believing) the will of God. The devil and his minions believe that God sent Jesus, so belief is simply not enough. I simply don't agree that it all depends on Jesus' cross, as important as that was. Jesus called, not for belief in his death (in fact, even his own disciples didn't believe he would die), but for obedience. The focus of the Great Comission is not upon "believing" but upon teaching disciples to OBEY Jesus' teachings. I respectfully submit that it doesn't matter what the church traditionally teaches about salvation (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox). What matters is what JESUS said about salvation and he never separated belief in him from works. In fact, he said, "Why do you call me 'Lord' when you don't obey what I tell you." Professing Jesus as Lord is simply not enough. Practicing Jesus as Lord is what he desires. |
| 12 |
Rapture |
Note |
Rev 20:1 |
stjohn |
Sun 03/1/09, 2:42pm |
| |
Dear sister, Val...
Thank you for that post!
For some time now, from my limited understanding of Scripture, I've held a view that the resurrection[s] could come in phases. I've told a few people about this, but have kind of kept it under my hat, because I thought it was maybe a little too far off from the norm of orthodoxy and had not really put all the dots together to form a solid opinion. I'll for sure look at the link!
I'm happy to hear that I'm not alone in this belief.
Thanks again, Val.
:-)
John |
| 13 |
What would make this allogory? |
Note |
1 John 3:2 |
DocTrinsograce |
Wed 03/4/09, 6:17pm |
| |
Hi, Bibleman12...
We need to take care that we don't put words into people's mouths. Our Lord Jesus tells us that we will give account for every idle word (Matthew 12:36), but none of us will be required to give account for something we've not said. We who take the name of our Lord, will want to properly reflect His character by highly regarding truth, explicitly and tacitly. After all, we care little about being personally justified, but we care a great deal about searching out and clinging to that which is true.
Therefore, I will rephrase your question, "Could you share a bit of what you found in the book that caused you to reject it?"
I'm afraid that I can share but little. I have a difficult enough time remembering those things that are good, true, honest, pure, just, etc. Consequently, I can recall a lot more from Jonathan Edward's "The Freedom of the Will" than I can of Watchman Nee's "The Normal Christian Life" -- even though I read the former before I read the latter. I seem to recall that Nee's exegesis of Romans didn't jibe with orthodoxy. I seem to recall some dualism in his teaching as well. The last thing I recall, is that he stretched his trichotomism into his soteriology in a way that was certainly heterodoxical.
Sorry, but that's about all. A sufficient amount though, that I'd not bother with Nee. Time's too precious.
In Him, Doc |
| 14 |
What would make this allogory? |
Note |
1 John 3:2 |
stjohn |
Thu 03/5/09, 3:38pm |
| |
Hi bibleman
I don't think you've offended anyone. :-)
If may, just slip in here with my two cent's... Though we know from seeing how divisive denominationalism can sometimes be that doesn't necessarily mean it's all or even mostly a bad thing. And though some denominations do go pretty far away from Christian orthodoxy. What we call denominationalism can and maybe should be called Congregationalism. And this often just stems from geographical or cultural differences, rather than big divisions or differences in orthodox doctrine. As long as our doctrines and statement of faith are fundamentally sound and don't stray from biblically based theology, there is little reason we cannot reach out to and get along with other Christian denominations. In our town and in many towns and places around the world many do just that and have wonderful relationships with other Congregations in their area with different names on their shingles, and even communicate and cooperate in loving brotherhood with many of them.
Anyway, I think thats what we mean by painting with a baud brush. We should be careful with our words. The world already thinks we cant get along because of their view of denominationalism,. But as Christians we can most often see it as much less divisive then they do.
John |
| 15 |
Praise Him! |
Answer |
Bible general |
stjohn |
Sun 03/15/09, 10:08am |
| |
--Hallelujah--Hebrew liturgical expression meaning "praise ye Yah" ("praise the Lord"). It appears in the Hebrew Bible in several psalms, usually at the beginning or end of the psalm or in both places. In ancient Judaism it was probably chanted as an antiphon by the Levite choir. In the New Testament it appears only in Revelation 19, where it occurs four times. It was translated in the Septuagint (Jewish Greek version of the Bible made in the pre-Christian period) and became "alleluia" in the Vulgate (4th-century Christian Latin version). The early Christians adopted the expression in their worship services, and it appeared in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and some Protestant liturgies and in hymns.-- Encyclopedia Britannica
--Hallelujah--praise ye Jehovah, frequently rendered "Praise ye the LORD," stands at the beginning of ten of the psalms (106, 111-113, 135, 146-150), hence called "hallelujah psalms." From its frequent occurrence it grew into a formula of praise. The Greek form of the word (alleluia) is found in Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6.--Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary |
| 16 |
Rev 21:6 |
Note |
Rev 21:6 |
Hank |
Wed 03/18/09, 6:16am |
| |
AMO14 - Dear Forum contributor, please look kindly upon my candor, but I fail to see in your concluding remark, i.e., "The Peshitta is Scripture" a valid summation of the points you have attempted to make in your preamble to it, whatever your preamble may be intended to mean and whatever service it may be intended to render to the readers of Study Bible Forum. On the contrary, I cannot help but view them as a series of quantum leaps into the speculative and esoteric at the very best and your summary statment as a non sequitur par excellence. Being keenly aware of my own pitiful shortcomings in ineptness, and blatant ignorance of, the events surrounding the early years in which the New Testament Canon and its textual bases were being formed and finally established (and for centures accepted by orthodoxy), I submit that I may not be entirely alone in my imperfect understanding of such weighty matters. Among what I've managed to garner from various resources on the subject thus far hag been a proclivity for questioning the credentials of others who may claim a more excellent knowledge than I but who are unable to produce much convicing proof in favor of the merits of their position. There are few places, if indeed any at all, reserved on this Forum for the expostion of any view that is not or cannot be solidly founded upon God's written message to man that appears wholly within within the pages of the Holy Bible, which we identify as being and understand and affirm to be the canocial 66 books of the Bible and no other. Inasmuch as this is a Bible Study Forum and nothing else -- nothing less and nothing more -- we restrict the scope and aim of this Forum to abide within the paramaters embraced by the concept contained in the doctrine of sola scriptura. The remrks are not intended to discourage you but on the contrary to challenge you to enter into the spirit and purpose of this Forum in such a way as to benefit your readers and bring glory to God who alone is worthy of our devotion and praise. --Hank |
| 17 |
An Enemy Has Done This! (Matt 13:24-30) |
Note |
Bible general |
DocTrinsograce |
Wed 04/29/09, 5:42pm |
| |
Hi, Vintage...
Of the 33 parables of Christ, how many of them were for people other than the disciples? Two perhaps? Maybe three? If the parables were primarily for the instruction of the disciples, that would lend little credence to your assertions. Even the passage in Matthew 13 (which you cited) regarded the Lord's answer to an explicit question regarding parables from His disciples.
A bit more orthodox approach to sound exegesis of gospel parabolic passages can be found in my post #157835.
In Him, Doc |
| 18 |
An Enemy Has Done This! (Matt 13:24-30) |
Note |
Bible general |
stjohn |
Fri 05/1/09, 8:43pm |
| |
Dear Vintage,
At this point it seems best to simply go over what has been recommend for you by Doc, [who's opinion you respect] to read in post #157835 as apparently you have not taken the time to do so. So I'll be of your service, sir, and just post it hear for you.
SOUND EXEGESIS OF PARABOLIC TEACHING
Definition: A parable is a brief story drawn from human life or nature, not related to an actual event, but is true to life and, concerning the listeners, is given for the purpose of teaching a spiritual truth.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARABLES
1. Parables teach a truth using the technique of similarity or illustration.
2. Parables are usually very short, thus they are intended to be easily remembered.
3. Parables can be described as simultaneously very simple and very complex.
4. Parables use earthly things as teaching instruments.
5. Parables have only one primary point.
6. Parables typically have three parts: (1) the setting (cultural context); (2) a story; and (3) a spiritual application.
7. Parables are intended to teach faithful disciples.
8. Parables are intended to hide the truth from the disobedient.
GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETING PARABLES
1. Study the setting and the cultural background.
2. Read the story in its natural meaning. In other words, take it literally.
3. Determine the one central truth taught in the story. Learn to separate the unimportant details from the important issues. (Note that this isn't always an easy thing to do.)
4. Check to see if Jesus or other Scriptures interpret the parable for you. (Note: If Jesus gives an explanation, don't look any for another!)
5. Check to see if the interpretation or point of a parable is dealt with in a doctrinal section of the scriptures, particularly the epistles.
6. Check with good commentaries. (Note: Be sure to study the parable for yourself first. Don't become too dependent on commentaries. Instead, allow the Holy Spirit to teach you. But use the commentaries to verify that your interpretation is not too far off from what is understood by orthodoxy.)
7. Look for specific applications of the point of a parable to your own life. Apply what you discover to your life in a specific way.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Solid interpretation must ALWAYS precede application. You cannot apply what you do not understand.
Just one more note, Vintage, is that Jesus gave His disciples keys to understanding the parables when they ask Him to explain them. We can also use these same keys to understand the other parables as well. i.e. when we see a man, it refers to the Son of man, which is Jesus, or God. When we see a field, it represents the world. When we see a sower of seeds, that represents God. When we see birds, they represent evil. Try it, it may help you to understand all the parables, not just the ones He [Jesus] specifically interprets.
John |
| 19 |
world vs age |
Note |
Gen 1:5 |
BradK |
Tue 05/19/09, 7:35pm |
| |
Hello nocompromise,
Your statement about the NWT, "the beleif is that the world will not end, it is heaven" may be that held by the Jehovah's Witness, but it stikes me as curious. The NWT is not a translation, but rather a badly done mis-translation- a perversion. No serious, Orthodox scholar places any trust in it as there are no known, credible or otherwise reputable OT Hebrew or NT Greek authorities among the JW's! It is a mis-translation done soley for the purpose of supporting and promulgating their heretical teachings/doctrines!
Speaking the Truth in Love,
BradK |
| 20 |
The Kingdom of God |
Answer |
Matt 11:12 |
DocTrinsograce |
Sun 05/31/09, 3:49am |
| |
Dear Grafted,
I am not convinced that the verses are directly related -- Matthew 11:12 and Micah 2:13 -- except that they both related to Christ. Although the Micah passage is prophetic in nature, referring to the release of Israel from captivity (something still in Micah's future) -- with a bit of a double-vision thing going on referring to the even more future coming of Christ the King.
I have seen people try to make this connection, but I think it is because this verse in Matthew makes people so uncomfortable. I particularly see this effort in circles outside of what I would consider orthodoxy. The plain sense of the passage makes the best sense -- and it is in that way that the old divines of the church exegete the text.
If you want a uniquely thorough treatment of Mattew 11:12, I highly recommend "The Christian Soldier, or Taking Heaven by Storm" by the Puritan, Thomas Watson. It is not easy reading; not because the language is a bit antiquated, but because it takes us before a Holy God, and strips us of the veneer of easy-believism.
In Him, Doc |
| More results... |
|
|
|
