GoKarters.Com ___Hobby Forum  
QRZ callsign lookup:

Go Back   GoKarters.Com ___Hobby Forum > Walk With Faith > Gods Word
FAQChatBox Full Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 10-28-2009, 09:16 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default This generation standing here (Mat 16:28)

Quote:
Yes, thank you so much. It helps tremendously.

Another question regarding past/present/future tense of words!

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This is sort of a twofold question.

Can the sentence structure in the above verse be pointing to the actual folks standing there at that time?
Must the sentence structure in the above verse be pointing to the actual folks standing there at that time?

Or maybe a better way to put it is:
Is the verse directly referring to some standing in that very spot at the present time; or is it saying that there will be some standing in that very spot at some time?
It is definitely "some of those who have been currently, at this present time, standing here in this very spot." There is no way to make this a continuing reference to others who may stand here in the future, as the participle ("having stood") has completed aspect (indicating the standing is finished, it is a completed action), while the time given by the main verb is present time ("they are").

There is no doubt about the fact that Jesus was referencing the people standing before Him at that very moment. He is saying, some of you standing here will not die before you see my kingdom established here on earth.

However, contrary to popular opinion, He is NOT referencing the second coming, but the culminating events of the first coming: the resurrection and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Jesus calls kingdom of God that He establishes with His death and resurrection "my kingdom." In other words, Jesus' kingdom made salvation available to all of mankind, started the age of grace, and began the church.

Jesus does NOT call the second coming "my kingdom," but rather, "My Father's kingdom."
  • Matthew 26:29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

    Luke 11:2 And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.
Jesus' kingdom defeats sin and eternal death by making salvation available to all of mankind, starting the church, and beginning the age of grace. The Father's Kingdom finally stomps out sin once and for all, defeats PHYSICAL death, and returns the creation to the sinless state that it was in at the garden of Eden.

BOTH kingdoms are also called "the Kingdom of God" and "the Kingdom of Heaven." So the first "Kingdom of God" is Jesus' Kingdom, and we are living in that one right now. References to the Kingdom of God that are clearly about a believer being in a state of salvation, or about where a saved person goes after death are references to Jesus' Kingdom.

The second "Kingdom of God" is the Father's Kingdom, and that one will be established at the second coming. References to the Kingdom of God were sin will be completely wiped out and the wicked judged is the Father's Kingdom.

Jesus' Kingdom does not END when the Father's Kingdom starts, it continues on forever (since salvation is eternal). Furthermore, the Father grants His kingdom to Jesus and places Him on the throne of David in His Kingdom, so you could say that Jesus rules BOTH kingdoms (or both eventually become His kingdom).

Let me know if you have more questions.

Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-28-2009, 09:18 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default John 1:1 (GOD or a god?)

This is a response concerning the use of "a god" by JW's.




As for the JW's, I've never actually met one who could read Greek. The experts in the field dispute that even their "scholars" know anything about the language. The mistakes they make in translation are mostly learned in the FIRST YEAR of Greek. And John 1:1 is a perfect example of a simple, first year Greek construction that the JW's are flat out wrong about.

Ironically, despite the arguments of the JW's on this verse, it is one of the strongest verses in scripture demanding that Jesus is God. The reason is that while it is true that the absence of the article CAN mean that the indefinite is implied ("a" as opposed to "the"), that is actually a fairly RARE meaning for that word. For the most part, the article is used for grammatical CLARITY and for syntactical precision, NOT for definitive identification.

For many, many constructions, the article serves the purpose of identifying WHICH construction you are using, clarifying the grammatical roles of the nouns and adjectives in a sentence, and frankly, sometimes the use or non-use reflected nothing more than what had become habit in the culture.

In the case of the third clause of John 1:1, the article serves the purpose of identifying the subject and the predicate.

Here is a study I recently wrote on John 1:1:

=========================

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

There are a couple things you need to know about Greek syntax in order to understand what John is really saying in this verse.

First, Koine Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase. The absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal, and doesn't mean anything. It is the INCLUSION of the article in a prepositional phrase that is unusual, and thus, means something.

Thus, the prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" doesn't contain an article, but is STILL properly translated "in THE beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," however, DOES include the article (τον). Since it was proper NOT to include it, the inclusion here MEANS something. In general, the INCLUSION of an article when it is not expected means you are being SPECIFIC (a PARTICULAR individual who is God). In order to fully understand how that effects this verse, we need to go to the last clause.

To understand the implications of the last clause, you need to learn about more Greek syntax. First, Greek distinguished the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. In general, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative case. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative case.

However, there is a strange class of verbs that don't take a direct object, they take a predicate (there are THREE verbs that do this in Koine Greek). This means that you have TWO nouns that are the same case (nominative), where one is the subject, and one is the predicate. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate?

Here are the rules:

1) If both nouns have the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.

2) If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.

3) If ONE has an article, but the other does not, then the one WITH the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate.

So in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not (και means "and"). Thus o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.

When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first, so this is properly translated "And the word was God."

Now, there are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction):

a) The word was a LESSER god than the Father (τον θεον in the previous clause).

b) The word was the father.

c) The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god."

That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason being that since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus its absence must MEAN something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.

The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.

Further, if it does not have an article, the POSITION of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in EMPHASIS (θεος is being “de-emphasized”): λογος is LESS of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can ONLY mean "the Word was a god."

John did NOT use this construction.

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THE God."

That is, the word was exactly the same PERSON as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, NOT two, and there is no trinity. The Father and the Son are nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD. They are NOT separate individuals. There is one God who simply "appears" at times in different forms.

The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause).

Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occuring AFTER λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)."

John did NOT use this construction.

By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and clearly indicated things.

First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος (God), thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father.

Second, he pops θεος to the front of the clause, placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the INCREASE in emphasis that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same INDIVIDUAL as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause.

Thus, the absence of the article tells us the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause.

The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: The Word was God!

Now we see why John INCLUDED the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is with a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has clued us in that the Word is not the SAME individual as "The God."

One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and nothing more. λογος is NOT an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh.

That means He did not EXIST prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was an IDEA, a PLAN in the MIND of God. That IDEA became a man.

John makes this interpretation absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God). Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement.

It is equivalent to saying, “My spinal cord, brain cells, and nerves are with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which they could be somewhere else other than with you.

Yet John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by RESTATING it in the second verse:

“And this one was in the beginning WITH (προς) God.”

The words “this one” (ουτος in the Greek) references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses.

Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. By stating TWICE that the λογος was WITH God, John makes it clear that the fact that the Word is WITH God as a CHOICE. It takes a real, living individual to make a choice.

And not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5: “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you prior to the existence of the world”).

John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With the seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain.

John leave us only ONE option: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.

Let me know if you need more information. If you need confirmation, virtually every Greek scholar who has ever LIVED agrees with this assessment of this clause (and it is found in most first year Greek books), so I can give you as many as you need.

Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-28-2009, 09:20 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default by & through faith - Romans 3:30

Quote:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Does this imply a different method?


Good question. It would be very easy, from the English translation, to
get two different methods.

Romans 3:30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

Romans 3:30 επειπερ εις ο θεος ος δικαιωσει περιτομην εκ πιστεως και ακροβυστιαν δια της πιστεως

The preposition "ek" (in red) indicates motion out from an origin (the starting place can be physical or mental). In some fairly rare constructions it can also indicate purpose (although not in this construction). The preposition "dia" indicates (depending on the construction) 1) motion through (a physical place, a situation, an idea - with the genitive) 2) the means by which something occurs ("on account of," "because of" - with the accusative).

This one is linked to the genitive, so it indicates motion.

By using these two together as contrasts, it indicates the starting points, not the methods.

In other words, those of the circumcision are NOT justified by the circumcision, but the faith that they have had from the beginning. The faith in God they have learned from their childhood is what justifies them, NOT their traditions, religious ceremonies, or their race. Likewise, those without circumcision, who are only now beginning the journey of faith are saved by the same thing: faith. Thus, the same thing saves all men: faith. And whether you come from a family that already believes, and thus have been raised from early childhood to believe (coming out from an "origin" or "tradition" of faith) or you have only recently discovered Jesus, and are just now beginning your journey (you are only now learning to live "through" faith), both of you are saved by the same thing: faith.

So it is not a different method, it is a different starting point that all lead to the same place by means of the same thing: faith in Jesus Christ.

Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-28-2009, 09:22 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default AMEN - the best known word in the world

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Amen


Definition -

firm
metaph. faithful
verily, amen

at the beginning of a discourse - surely, truly, of a truth

at the end - so it is, so be it, may it be fulfilled. It was a custom, which passed over from the synagogues to the Christian assemblies, that when he who had read or discoursed, had offered up solemn prayer to God, the others responded Amen, and thus made the substance of what was uttered their own.
The word "amen" is a most remarkable word. It was transliterated directly from the Hebrew into the Greek of the New Testament, then into Latin and into English and many other languages, so that it is practically a universal word. It has been called the best known word in human speech. The word is directly related -- in fact, almost identical -- to the Hebrew word for "believe" (amam), or faithful.Thus, it came to mean "sure" or "truly", an expression of absolute trust and confidence. -- HMM


King James Word Usage - Total: 152
verily 101, amen 51
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-28-2009, 09:23 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default sewest up - Job 14:17

Quote:
Job 14:17 My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity.




The Hebrew language is very visual, and this is what that sentence is conveying (both halves relate to the same action, so it is not two separate but similar actions, as it sounds in English, but rather, two parts of the same action):

"You take my rebellion, and package it up in a parcel (some kind of package that is going to be shipped very far away), then you firmly sew (or glue) the top shut, sealing all my evil inside."

So it is not just about "covering over," but much more. It is about removing them from you, sealing them tightly somewhere they cannot escape, then sending them far, far away where they can never touch you again. Those suckers are GONE!

And it is not just the "sin," but the spiritual rebellion that CAUSES the sin. In other words, God changes your heart and removes your sin. So you become . . . (drum roll) . . . a pure and holy creation!

You might say that God is using a "spiritual FedEx" to send your rebellion and sin so far away that it can never return.

Kind of a cool word-picture, huh?

Hope this helps.

Grace and peace to you all,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-29-2009, 02:00 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default Love (agape)

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is 1) love, 2) joy, 3) peace, 4) patience, 5) kindness, 6) goodness, 7) faithfulness, 8) gentleness, 9) self-control; against such things there is no law.

1) love - (agape - αγαπη): This word was just coming into existence in the first century and only had a loose and general definition of "love." Jesus apparently siezed upon this new, and relatively undefined, word and decided to coopt it to describe a character trait, and corresponding behavior, that He would make central to understanding Christian theology and living a Christian lifestyle. He could not use any existing and well defined word as none existed which adequately explained it. And for good reason: this character trait was a completely brand new concept never before posited by any human religion or philosophy.

Thus, Jesus Himself gave us the best definitions of what He wanted this word to mean. Because Jesus, and future Christians, were responsible for defining this word, its definition is not found within most Greek lexicons, but rather, within the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. There are several words in Greek in which their inclusion in the NT altered or changed their meanings (permanently) from what they were in classical Greek. Since almost all modern Greek lexicons reference classical Greek usage to help define most Greek words, they often contain incorrect (or incomplete) definitions. These words (which altered their meanings from the traditional ones found in classical Greek literature) include (but are not limited to) "love," "grace," "faith," "spirit," "angel," "soul," "life," and "death."

With that in mind, let us see how they used the word "agape," and what that tells us about what Jesus wants it to mean.

Matthew 5:43-47 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you . . . For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?"

Luke 6:27-36 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

First observation:

  • This kind of "love" extends to those who show you nothing of love in return, and may even be hostile to you. It is about giving, in a very real and concrete way (including the giving of money with no strings attached). Thus it has no expectation of being returned, repaid, or rewarded, and the full expression of it is NOT dictated by whether or not it is returned in kind. Further, even if the "return" is hateful, ungrateful, mean spirited, hurtful or evil, there is no lessening or reduction in the giving of this kind of "love." It is completely and totally "SELFLESS," with nothing but the wellbeing of the other person as the goal, focus and purpose.
Second observation:

  • This kind of "love" goes beyond our emotions. Since it may be literally impossible to FEEL loving toward a true enemy (say, for example, someone who has just tortured and slain your entire family, as was experienced by the Jews in WWII), this love has something to do with "loving" others DESPITE how you feel about them. This does NOT mean there is no "emotional" element, but rather, that the emotions are made subject to the mind (or more accurately, to the Spirit of God). In other words, this "love" is more about what you DO than about what you FEEL.
Mark 12:30-31 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' "The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

In Matthew, we are also told that Jesus also added this at the end of this statement:

Matthew 22:40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

In another place at another time, Jesus summarized both of THESE commands with one:

Matthew 7:12 "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Third observation:

  • This "love" is all-encompassing. It involves your whole being. It includes what you feel (heart), what you believe (soul), what you think (mind), and what you do (strength). It consumes your person and focuses that person completely on God. But, despite the complete focus on God, such a love is NOT monastic (focused on God to the EXCLUSION of the rest of the world) as . . .
Fourth observation:

  • . . . it ALSO focuses all of that on others, showing them exactly the same kind of "love" that we show and wish for ourselves. This means that the intensity of heart, soul, mind and strength focused on God is redirected by God, and becomes focused on those around us. In fact, we fulfill the command to "love" God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength when we show this new kind of "love" to others completely selflessly.
Fifth observation:

  • This kind of "love," when put into full application, is the summation of everything God has been communicating to the human race over the years. Even more, it is the fullness of everything God wants us to be and to do. In fact, when truly living this love in our daily lives, and showing it without reservation to all of those we encounter, we are closer to God than at any other time, because John tells us . . .
1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

Sixth observation:

  • This kind of love is only available from God. It does, in fact, form the closest thing we have to a one word definition of what and who God is. It is, in fact, an attribute of GOD, not humanity. Since it is only found in God, it is only in turning TO God that we can find it and live it ourselves.
John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another."

Seventh observation:

  • At the first glance, this doesn't seem like a new commandment at all. However, after closer inspection, we see there are two things about it that make it new. First, keeping this in light of Jesus other teachings, we find that WHO we have to love is completely new. Jews were not commanded to love their enemies, only their "neighbors." For us and for them, this would be no problem if WE could define who the "others" are, but given Jesus' previous teaching on loving enemies and such, we realize that GOD gets to define who the "others" are, and THAT makes this completely new (as well as completely impossible without God's help). Second, we find the little addition of "as I have loved you" attached. Now we have an example of someone who went to greater lengths to love us than anyone has ever gone to love ANYONE. The full ramifications of of this command are mind boggling. Paul touches on the extreme lengths Jesus went to in order to love us here:
Philippians 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped*, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

*the idea here is to "cling to something you already own with all your strength to keep it from being taken away or stolen." Jesus did NOT cling to His equality with God, but voluntarily emptied Himself of what He already owned, so that He could pay a price we could not pay. It was only by humbling Himself in this manner that an infinite, eternal God of Spirit could die in physical form.

Eighth observation:

  • Jesus took "loving others" to lengths never even imagined before. He who was eternal, sinless and deathless made Himself mortal, a sacrifice for sin, and subjected Himself to something that does not happen to God: He died.
Which leads to the question, so how far should a person exhibiting this kind of love be willing to go? What is the limit of loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength - and then through God, doing the same with others?

Joh 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends*. "

*this word literally means "loved ones."

Ninth observation:

  • The ultimate expression of this selfless, all encompassing "love" is found in being willing to give your own life for that of "loved ones." And WHO are we supposed to love? Others. All others. Particularly those who hate us and want only to hurt us.
And as Paul points out, this, too, Jesus modeled for us . . .

Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Tenth observation:

  • "Loving others," as the full and complete summation of the message of God to the human race, can be summarized into two elements: giving of ourselves selflessly, even sacrificially, to the point of being willing to die for another - and sharing that which gives us LIFE with each and every person we meet in order to bring LIFE into their lives. In short, "loving" others means being JESUS to this generation.
As we can see, everything we need to know about what "agape" means is found within the teachings of Jesus. Is it any wonder, then, that Paul, having studied these teachings in great detail, was able to sum everything He had learned about agape in the teachings of Jesus. If you look carefully, you will see there is nothing new in Paul's discussion on "love." Each and every point he makes can be found within the teachings of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails;

The best definition of what agape means is found in the teachings of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I cannot define it any better than He already did. If I had to choose one phrase, I'd probably pick "completely giving and selfless love," but even that fails to capture how all-encompassing this word really is.


Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia


NOTE*
Other words will be in following posts.
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-29-2009, 02:02 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default joy

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is 1) love, 2) joy, 3) peace, 4) patience, 5) kindness, 6) goodness, 7) faithfulness, 8) gentleness, 9) self-control; against such things there is no law.



2) joy, - chara (χαρα) - a delighted, unstopable cheerfulness emanating from deep within the soul and having no bearing on circumstances or situations.

This is the noun form of the verb chairo (χαιρω), which means "to rejoice, to shout for joy, to make loud, joyful noises."

Chara emanates from deep within the soul in response to simply being in relationship with God. The implications are that it is the natural, expected result of being in God's presence, and that it so consumes us that we cannot contain it - it must flow out in joyful shouts, in celebration of heart, soul, voice (in song and shouts) and body (in worship, dance, and simple "leaping for joy").

Since chara is an outflowing of our relationship with God, it has no bearing on natural circumstances or outward situations. It is, in fact, a function of grace in that it is not a natural state, nor is it similar to the natural emotion of joy (which is an outflow of our current situation), but is a "gift" from God emparted by the Holy Spirit. This means that we can experience chara while mourning the loss of a loved one, while experiencing a setback in job or career, while enduring persecution or while any other normal emotions are threatening to overwhelm us. How much we do or do not experience chara has nothing to do with our situation, but is a direct result of how close we have drawn to our Heavenly Father. The more we turn to Him, the more His Holy Spirit envelopes us, and the more we are filled to overflowing with HIS joy.



Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-29-2009, 02:03 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default peace Gal. 5:22

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is 1) love, 2) joy, 3) peace, 4) patience, 5) kindness, 6) goodness, 7) faithfulness, 8) gentleness, 9) self-control; against such things there is no law.



3) peace, - eirene (ειρηνη - pronounced "ay-ray-nay") - all encompassing calm, total peace, a complete lack of turbulence.

The OT concept of peace was that peace was a reflection of wellbeing, and being a "man of peace" meant that I would do you no physical harm. The NT concept of peace is much more far reaching; it is not just about what won't happen, but also about what WILL happen - a man of peace will do you no harm, true, but he will also bring calm and safety into your life. As with "joy," this is a state of being that has no bearing on the circumstances or surroundings. The world can be filled with violence and chaos all around, but a person with eirene with be in complete peace to the point that that peace will even rub off on those in close proximity. They will have a calming effect on those around them, and no threats or harm will shatter that peace (in the same way that Jesus stood before his judges in a state of complete peace, and that Paul stood before Gentile rulers and Jewish judges in complete peace).

Peace is an inner state of being that comes from a deep and intimate relationship with God. It is both intellectual (knowing that if God is for us, then ultimately, nothing else really matters) and emotional (the worst that can happen to us is the wonderful reward that we or our loved ones get to stand before the throne and be in the presence of the God we love and serve sooner than we thought).

Peace also tends to manifest itself in that a peaceful person is very slow to get upset, stays calm in a crisis or emergency, is extremely reluctant to harm another (and actually prefers to be harmed rather than harm someone else), expresses joy easily, but anger rarely (is extreme slow to anger). This person walks through life in a bubble of calm tranquility reminisent of Jesus calmly and evenly walking on the water during a huge storm. The bubble doesn't keep people out (as Peter succeeded in walking on the water into Jesus' bubble of calm for a brief moment), it keeps the EFFECTS of situations out.



Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-29-2009, 02:05 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default Meek - shall inherit the earth

Who Shall Inherit The Earth?


"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."
Matthew 5:5

We have no exact English word for the Greek word translated "meek" in this verse. The closest would probably be something like "power under control." This word was most commonly used to describe war-horses. These horses were fierce on the battlefield: so well trained they would ride through fire; they would kick, bite, and trample enemies, and you had to kill them to stop them.

Yet those same horses were under such complete control that when brought into the city, it was not uncommon to see them being petted and fed by children without fear of harm or injury. These powerful, fiercely trained, completely controlled animals were epitome of "meek."
So a believer brimming with the fire of faith, who endures fierce hardships without being rattled or getting mad at God, who speaks with an authority both frightening and charismatic . . . who is also overflowing with God's love, mercy, and tenderness toward each and every person he comes in contact with is "meek." This outwardly gentle person who is not afraid to turn the other cheek, seems to have nerves of iron, never gets rattled by any of life's crisis, regularly reaches out a ministering hand to those in need, and crushes the power of the enemy in his prayer closet is "meek."
Are you "meek"?
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-29-2009, 02:05 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default baptism - poured

Here are the root words for baptism, so that you can see their meaning.

bapto - To cover in a fluid, to dip something into a fluid. General root word used of any kind of dipping of something into a fluid. This word does NOT automatically mean the object is fully covered, but it can only be used of objects that are DIPPED into a liquid (the object is in motion, NOT the liquid). It is NOT used of objects that have a liquid poured on them. It occurs in three verses in the NT (it is never used of baptism, but is the root word for "baptidzo": to baptize).
  • John 13:26 Jesus then *answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He *took and *gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.

    Revelation 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

    Luke 16:24 "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'
Baptismos - To wash or cleanse by dipping in liquid. Used of ceremonial washing, but strictly speaking, does not reference Baptism (some lexicons list "baptism" as a possible translation, and some translations occasionally translate it "baptism," but that translation is incorrect. It means "to be washed or cleansed,' NOT "to be baptised" and is never used of baptism)".

Occurs 3 times in the NT:
  • For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches. (Mark 7:3-4)

    Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about cleansings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)

    By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:8-10)
Both Hebrews references above are translated "baptisms" in some translations, but that is completely incorrect. Both of these verses are about ceremonial and spiritual cleansing, NOT about baptism.

These are the actual words for baptism (first is the verb, second is the noun).

baptidzo - To ceremonially immerse a person, to ceremonially submerge a person. This word is ONLY used of people, and always references baptism. It occurs 61 times in the NT, and not ONE of them imply that water was POURED on the person being baptized.

baptisma means "ceremonial submersion of a person." Submersion does NOT happen when water is poured onto something, only when something is dipped into water. It occurs 22 times in the NT.

The root words mean to submerge or to dip. NOT ONE TIME are they ever used of "pouring" a liquid onto something. Not one occurance of baptisma or baptidzo in the NT implies that the liquid was POURED onto the person being baptized.

Further, despite your claims above, neither baptisma nor baptidzo appear in the septuagint, so one cannot point to that translation as altering their meaning.

However, even when we look at the related words that derive from the these words that do appear in the Septuagint, not ONE of them ever implies that the liquid is poured ONTO an object:

Bapteiv (derived from bapto)- "to drop into, to dip, to plunge"

Occurs 17 times in the Septuagint. Here is a sampling of how it is used:
  • Exodus 12:22 Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. None of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning

    Leviticus 4:6 and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle part of the blood seven times before the LORD in front of the veil of the sanctuary.

    Deuteronomy 33:24 And of Asher he said, "Most blessed of sons be Asher; let him be the favorite of his brothers, and let him dip his foot in oil.

    Job 9:31 yet you will plunge me into a pit, and my own clothes will abhor me.

    Psa 68:23 That your foot may be dipped in the blood of your enemies, and the tongue of your dogs in the same.
baptidzeiv (derived from baptidzo)- "to dip ceremonially, to ceremonially submerge in liquid - symbolically, to be completely overwhelmed by something"

This word occurs twice in the Septuagint:
  • 2 Kings 5:14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

    Isaiah 21:4 My mind reels, horror overwhelms me [literally: "completely submerged into horror"]; The twilight I longed for has been turned for me into trembling.
Note, that not in one single instance are ANY of these words used in a fashion that would justify "pouring liquid onto something" as a translation. In every case, the object was dipped INTO something, or was completely covered by the liquid.

There are completely different words in Greek for "pouring liquid onto or over something."

ekcheo - to make wet by pouring, to shower liquid onto something, to rain. Used 31 times in the NT, never of baptism. Used of the Holy Spirit being poured out onto people, of blood pouring out of a wound, of liquid poured out of bowls, of a person's intestines pouring out of their stomach, and of money being poured onto the ground.

brecho - to wet, to moisten, to make wet by any means. Occurs 8 times in the NT, never used of baptism. Used of objects being made wet by rain, and of feet being made wet by tears.

Bottom line: your entire case that baptisma or baptidzo can be used of pouring water (or any liquid) ONTO someone is completely without ANY support in either the NT or the Septuagint. You can think that some of the instances "could" be interpreted to mean "pouring water" all you want, but you are ALWAYS reading into the text. Not ONE verse actually implies that water was poured. These words mean to be dipped into or submerged under something.

I looked up every single occurance of all the words in both the NT and the Septuagint, and not ONE supported your claim.


Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-29-2009, 02:07 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default women in church

Here is a study on what I consider to be a couple of the most missunderstood verses in the Bible. It will probably be kind of controversial for some, but I feel very strongly about this issue, and I firmly believe that what I present here is the truth.

Submission to Authority - Women and the Church - Wives and Husbands

“There is no distinction between Jew nor Greek, nor between slave nor free man, neither is there between male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him.” (Romans 10:12)

This is the over-riding principle when trying to understand how Christ views believers. When it comes to authority, salvation, gifts, ministries, etc., there are no distinctions between races, cultures nor between women and men. There are, however, relationships in life that place us in positions of responsibility or authority to which we are required to voluntarily respond.

"Let a wife quietly receive instruction with respectful submissiveness. But I do not allow a wife to be continuously teaching, nor to exercise autonomous control over her husband, but to be in quietness. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but his wife who was deceived." 1 Timothy 2:11-14

The above is taken directly from the Greek, emphasizing how it should be translated based on the normal translation rules for these Greek words. First thing to notice, due to the relationship of gune (“woman, wife”) to aner (“man, husband”) in the sentence, particularly the way it is compared to the first husband and wife, they should be translated with the specific "wife" and "husband," not the general "woman" and "man." In Greek, the only way to determine if the words should be specific (husband and wife) or general (man and woman) was context, and the context here points to the specific, not the general.

However, even if one refuses to accept that this is about husbands and wives, the idea that it forbids women from having spiritual authority over men in the church still has problems, as I address below.

When written as it should be translated, you see that this is speaking to the husband-wife relationship, NOT to positions within the fellowship. The assumption underlying this sentence is the culture in which these people lived. In this culture, men were taught in public, and they then had the responsibility to instruct their wives in private. This was not a rule laid down by the church, this is the way the SOCIETY functioned. As with many social issues in Christianity, this was NOT a laying down of laws within the body of Christ, but an explanation of how a husband-wife relationship should function within this specific culture. Remember, Paul told us in very clear terms, within the bounds of morality, to adapt to the culture we find ourselves in so that we may more readily bring those in that culture to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

Our culture does not have the men learning publicly and the women learning privately, so there is less application here to us.

TEACHING

This cultural approach to teaching had carried over into the church, since the people were used to public teaching to be to the men, and the women to receive private instruction from their parents or husbands. That was simply the way their society ran, and so that practice had continued in the church.

In the sentence "I do not allow a wife to continuously teach," our first clue that this is NOT talking about the fellowship as a whole is that it references a WIFE. This is a relationship issue, not a church issue.

The second clue is that the verb appears in the wrong tense. If the prohibition against teaching were absolute, it would have been an aorist infinitive: "I do not allow a wife to teach - ever." Being a present infinitive, it means "I do not allow a wife to teach continuously." Since it was the husbands who were being given the public education, the wives needed to be spending some of their times LEARNING from their husbands. The very choice of constructions, however, indicates the wives DID teach. Paul just says they should not be doing it constantly.

AUTHORITY

Wives are also not allowed to exercise absolute autonomous control over their husbands. The first thing to note is that this is the only place in the NT that this word (authenteo – “autonomous authority that answers to no one, dominating, oppressive authority”) appears. Because it is not used anywhere else in the Bible, we have to go to extra-biblical sources to be certain of its meaning. In classical Greek, it meant someone who was free from the authority of ANYONE, had become a law unto themselves, and exercised a control over those under them that was complete and total, even to the point of being able to decide if those people lived or died. No one could judge what they did, because no one was above them. This was the kind of authority wielded by tyrants, and as a result, this word is always used in a negative sense.

In reality, only God has that kind of authority, but this is a critical point in understanding this word: it is never used of God in the Bible because it has a built in negative implication of “abuse of authority.” The difference in meaning between exousia (the usual word for “authority” in the Bible) and authenteo (“autonomous authority”) is similar to the differences in meaning between “ruler” and “tyrant.” These two words have the same basic meaning, but tyrant includes the additional negative idea of a supreme ruler, answering to no one, who abuses his authority. Likewise, authenteo has the additional idea of someone who answers to no one (or acts like they answer to no one), and thus, begins to abuse their authority.

This is such an extreme word that it really is best translated "absolute autonomous control.” It is equivalent to addressing a congregation and stating, "wives do not have the right to murder their husbands." The most appropriate response to something so obvious would probably be (to borrow from my teen-aged daughter), "No duh!" But since Paul addresses it so seriously, it is almost as though some people might be expected to respond with, "Aw, rats. I thought we did!"

It raises the question, why did the wives have to be addressed about something so extreme?

I can't imagine this statement by Paul being greeted with anything other than stunned silence. I don't know what was happening in that fellowship, but it must have been fairly outrageous for Paul to use such an extreme word (and this is the ONLY place he uses it ever), particularly since HUSBANDS did not have this kind of authority over their WIVES either (masters didn't even have that kind of control over their slaves). Greek has a lot of other words that are much more moderated (such as katexousia or exousia). The only person in the Roman Empire who might be said to have this kind of authority was Caesar (and if used of him, it was considered an insult, not a compliment).

The only thing I can figure is that Paul specifically used this word for the shock value. Something was happening within the fellowship in the way wives were treating their husbands, and Paul intentionally overstated the issue to get their attention. In other words, it is similar to saying "if you hate your brother, you are a murderer" (1 John 3:15). It casts the situation in extreme language to illustrate how important this issue really is.

For some reason, Paul did not feel the husbands did needed to be TOLD this, while the wives did. It is worth noting, however, that it does NOT say husbands DO have this kind of authority over wives, either.

His use of this extreme word, BTW, indicates that wives DID exercise authority, but some had tried to take their authority and become miniature tyrants, dictators who answered to no one and whose words could never be questioned. If Paul had meant they had no authority at all, he would have used a completely different word (the primary word for authority in the NT is exousia).

Those who believe that women cannot exercise authority in the church need to answer the question, why does the bible NEVER say that women cannot have exousia over men? This word has no negative connotations, and it is used of all levels of authority, from soldiers in the military (Matthew 8:9), to the civil authority of human leaders (Luke 20:20), to the legal authority of life and death (John 19:10), to indicate that all authority of any kind comes from God (Romans 13:1), to spiritual authority over demons and sickness (Matthew 10:1), to the spiritual authority of church leaders (2 Corinthians 13:10), to the authority of Jesus over all of creation (Matthew 28:18).

If someone wishes to dispute that this verse is about wives and husbands, the central issues remain the same. Women are forbidden to become tyrants. They are forbidden to exercise a negative, totalitarian type of authority that NO ONE is supposed to use. That, frankly, is about ATTITUDE, not position.

Bottom line, women are NEVER forbidden to exercise exousia, the kind of authority that pastors and teacher and elders have, in the church. Women CAN be in positions of authority.

QUIETNESS

The word translated "quietness" primarily means "quiet tranquility," not literal silence. In other words, it usually references the state of the soul, NOT the state of the mouth.

That is the word used in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12

"For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear that some among you are disorderly, doing no work at all, but are busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet tranquility and eat their own bread."

This was not a command that when you work, you must maintain silence, but pointing out that an undisciplined, unproductive life leads to an inner turmoil that translates itself into a disruptive life, and that person then becomes a disrupting force, a CENTER of conflict, within the lives of all those around them. The opposite of a disorderly busybody was a person of quiet tranquility. That person was a source of STRENGTH to those around them, NOT a source of discord.

In other words, "Get to work, support yourself, and instead of being such a disruption in the lives of those around you, try being a stabilizing source of strength!"

SUBMISSION

Now for "submission." There is no exact English equivalent for this word, so it is always a struggle to translate it correctly. First, let's get the obvious stuff out of the way:

1) it does not mean "obedience." That is a different word in Greek.
2) it does not indicate that someone has control over another person. THAT too is a different word in the Greek.
3) It is never used of forced or involuntary servitude. (You guessed it: different word in Greek).

The best definition of this word might be something like "freely and voluntarily given respect, honor and trust." The underlying idea is actually that the person being so treated has EARNED that respect, and thus deserves to have their authority honored. In many contexts there IS an underlying idea of submitting to the will of another, but it is a voluntary submission that arises from the tremendous respect and admiration you have for that person's wisdom and leadership.

The over-riding concept is NOT about obeying someone, always deferring to their decisions or will, or even of letting them make the decisions. The strongest underlying idea is actually one of supporting, encouraging, or even holding someone up so that they don't collapse. It is mostly about an attitude of respect and honor, not about decision making or obedience.

This is the word used in 2 Corinthians 9:12-13

"For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God. Because of the proof given by this ministry they will glorify God for your voluntary submission by confession into the gospel of Christ, and for the generosity of your contribution to them and to all."

It is difficult to translate properly because we don't really have a word in English that describes the situation where we have so much admiration, respect and trust in someone that we give what they say extra value, sometimes to the point of voluntarily deferring to their judgment over our own, but either way, of always holding them and what they say in the highest regard.

So in the context of wives and husbands, it refers to a situation in which the wives honor and respect their husbands, supporting them and holding them up.

The verb form is hupotasso. One of the best scriptures for illustrating what it means is Ephesians 5:21 "Submit yourselves to one another in the fear of God."

This is something that we can do TO EACH OTHER. If we can do it to each other, it does NOT mean one is superior to the other, or one has authority to make decisions over the other. IT refers to voluntarily giving each other respect, trust and honor, and treating each other accordingly.

Note in Ephesians 5:22 it says, "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord."

First observation: This is speaking to the WIVES, not the husbands. This is between wives and the Lord. It does not say, "Husbands, make sure your wives submit to you as to the Lord." The only role the husbands play in this is in taking the respect and admiration of their wives seriously, and living up to it. What the wives actually DO is none of the husband's business. This is between a wife and God. It is not the husbands responsibility to see to it that a wife does this. HIS responsibility is to love her, sacrifice himself for her, and care for her needs.

The second observation, and the really radical aspect of this is that Paul is saying that wives should consider the LORD having earned their respect on the husbands behalf. In other words, no matter if the husbands have earned it or not, the wives should give it to them anyway as a way of showing their tremendous respect and admiration for God. The Lord is saying, "the general, over-all respect and honor you give your husband should be determined by how you feel about ME, not how you feel about HIM." This is the SPOUSE version of Christ's illuminating statement:

"Whatever you do to the least of these, my brethren, you do to me."
Christ is saying, “When you give respect to your husbands, you are really giving it to me.”

Again, this is NOT about obedience, this is about respect, trust, and honor, and the actions and behaviors that flow out of those attitudes. Contrast this with the verse at the end of this section: "Children, OBEY your parents in the Lord, for that is right." Different word completely. Obedience and submitting are not the same thing.

If there is any doubt as to what this is talking about, notice what Paul says to the husbands. "Love your wives."

No mention, EVER, of ruling over them. Even in the comparison to Christ and the Church, note what is emphasized:

"Husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER; THAT HE MIGHT SANCTIFY HER, HAVING CLEANSED HER BY THE WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD . .. so husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies." Ephesians 5:25-30

It does not say, "as Christ loved the church, and ruled over her . . . " In fact, it doesn't even mention authority, because submission is not so much about authority as it is about respect, honor and support.

Just as Priscila and Aquila were considered "co-workers" in Christ, so all women are equal to men within the body of Christ.

Women in the church

"Let your wives be quiet in the churches, for it is not allowed to them to be continuously speaking, but to be in submissive, even as the law says. But if they desire to learn something, let them question their husbands at home; for it is a shame for a wife to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

The Message translation actually catches the force of this paragraph best:

“Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking.”

Again, this is not about POSITIONS within the church, this is about husbands and wives, and the difference between FREEDOM and LICENSE.

First of all, this is dealing with a situation of service disruption between HUSBANDS and WIVES, not just of women in general. If it is an absolute reference to being able to speak, it means SINGLE women were exempt from this prohibition: only married women had to stay silent (because single women had no husbands to ask at home).

Second, the word translated "to speak" means continuous speaking (present infinitive), as in, being a disruption to the service. It is NOT a prohibition against ANY KIND of speaking (aorist infinitive). What is shameful is for the wives to be disrupting the services by constantly asking their husbands questions, chattering on and on. All of that should be contained and discussed at home.

There is NO prohibition against a woman being a pastor, a prophet, an apostle, a teacher, etc. In fact, there is no prohibition here against women “speaking” in the church. The prohibition is against continuous, disruptive, disrespectful speaking.

Throughout the NT there are several references to women who served with their husbands side by side, prophesied in the fellowship, etc.

Conclusion

Women and men are equal in scripture in God’s eyes. Women are allowed to hold all positions of authority that a man can hold. But women are ALSO required to show respect and honor to their husbands, NOT because of what their husbands have done, but because of what Christ has done. Even if the wives are more spiritually mature than their husbands, wives are NOT to use that as an excuse to become unquestioned rulers in their homes.

Likewise, husbands are required to place their wives ahead of themselves in terms of what their wives need, and to love them wholly and completely, even to the point of complete self-sacrifice, to giving their lives for their wives.

Grace and peace to you all,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-29-2009, 02:09 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default Matthew 6:13 temptation

Quote:
Matthew 6:13

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. NIV

And don’t let us yield to temptation, but rescue us from the evil one. NLT

Which one is better translated?
Neither, really. Although this is the word used for temptation (on the idea that a temptation tests us), in this context, this is more a request to not have to go through trials and testing than temptation.

This is more in line with these verses:

Because you have kept my command to endure, I will keep you from the hour of testing that is coming to the whole world to test those living on the earth. (Revelation 3:10)

Mat 22:1But Jesus recognized their wickedness and said, "Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? (Matthew 22:18)

Grace and peace,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-29-2009, 02:10 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default iniquity (Matthew 7:23)

Quote:
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Some say that the Greek there in the bolded word says 'lawlessness'. They take that to mean that we're still under the law. What's the deal?
Well, they are partly right. The word does literally mean "illegal" or "lawless" or "violation of the law." However, John defines this for us:

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4)

In other words, "sin is lawlessness" means that the word "sin" and the word "lawlessness" are used as synonyms in scripture. Every single time you sin, you are also being lawless.

This does NOT really have anything to do with the law. You see, John says the solution to the problem of sin is NOT in keeping the law, but rather:

No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. (1 John 3:6)

Notice that this bolded part is another way of stating what Jesus said in Matthew 7:23.

BTW, this "no one who sins" is "no one who is engaging in continuous, ongoing sinning" as opposed to "no one who sins, ever." Again, this is a function of the heart, NOT a reference to "any sin that one EVER commits." Those who engage in continuous, ongoing, unrepentant sin have a very hard heart, are not His children, and He will tell them this when they come before Him in the day of judgment.

So this is NOT about being under the law, but about seeking God's grace.

Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-29-2009, 02:11 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default judge not (Matthew 7:1)

Quote:
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. KJV

I've heard that this is bad translation and should read 'condemn' and 'condemned' instead of 'judge' and 'judged'. We will all be judged, afterall.
The word used here (krino) means to come to a DECISION, to decide between two things. It is RARELY used of a "positive" decision ("innocent"), but almost always implies coming to a "negative" decision ("guilty"), and of course, to moving immediately to "sentencing" the person who has been found guilty.

Thus, it really is more accurate to say this word is not so much about "judging" as it is about "passing judgment" upon someone, or even more accurately, the use of this word directly implies that you WILL find them guilty and then condemn them for their crime (whether real or perceived).

So we ARE to "evaluate" situations, and to "examine" the fruit of other people's lives, but in the midst of all of that, we are to give them the benefit of the doubt ("innocent until PROVEN guilty" really is biblical). What we are NOT suppose to do is pass judgment on them and then condemn them, particularly since scripture clearly states that we cannot read their heart.

Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-29-2009, 02:12 AM
Sissy's Avatar
Sissy Sissy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,266
Sissy is on a distinguished road
Default Predestination

Quote:
Actually, the free will versus predestination argument is a disagreement looking for a reason to exist. It is based almost exclusively on a poor translation of a Greek word.

In English we think that predestined means "it has been decided, and there is nothing we can do about it." But that is NOT what the Greek word means.

It really helps to know that the Greek word translated "predestined" means "planned in advance" (as in, God has a purpose for your life), but does NOT imply that what has been "planned in advance" WILL happen. It may happen, it may not. And whether or not it does is a function of free will. We CAN miss God's plan for our lives.

If you want to find God's purpose for your life, you are wanting to find out what He predestined for you. If you reject Him, you MISS what He predestined for you.

I don't think finding God's purpose for your life, and voluntarily trying very hard to fulfill that purpose is all that controversial.

Once you understand what it actually means, free will and predestination are not mutually exclusive ideas, thus there really isn't anything to argue about.

Grace and Peace to you,

Rhomphaia

Quote:
If anyone is interested, I can give you a little more information.

The word translated "predestined" is prooridzo. It occurs six times in the NT (Acts 4:28; Romans 8:29, 30; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 1:5, 11).

It literally means "to mark out a boundary in advance," and in practical meaning, that is "to plan in advance." It is derived from a verb that means "to mark out a boundary," from which we get our word "horizon" (as in, the horizon is the "boundary" or "limit" of how far we can see). The idea of "marking a boundary" has the meaning of "planning" in everyday language from the idea that a plan is something that metaphorically "draws a boundary around, or sets the limits of" our future actions.

The problem is that in ENGLISH, predestined means that what has been planned in advance WILL HAPPEN. There is nothing we can do about it. If God predestines something, it WILL happen.

That is NOT what this Greek word means.

It contains no inherent concept that the plan or boundaries that are drawn in advance WILL happen. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. God has made a plan for our lives, WAY in advance of when we were even born. We can fulfil that plan, or we can reject God, and miss that plan.

Because of the "predestination" versus "free will" argument, most people think the two are contradictory (if one is true, the other cannot be true).

The irony is that "free will" and "predestination" go hand in hand. When God "predestined" us to be conformed to the image of His Son, we are told that He has made a wonderful plan for our lives to be LIKE His Son. We have the free will to accept or reject that plan.

So all "predestined" means is "to plan in advance."

There are times that God predestines (plans in advance) something to happen, and then takes a direct hand in human affairs to make sure it happens as He planned. In the scriptures, these are primarily global events, not the fate of individual lives.

Examples of these would be Jesus coming in the flesh, being condemned to die, dying on the cross, rising from the grave: all for the salvation of all of humanity. An example of the word being used of events in which God directly took a hand is Acts 4:27-28:

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your Holy Servant Jesus, whom You did anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the people of Israel to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose had predestined (pre-planned) to occur."

Those were things that God pre-planned, and then stepped in and took an active hand to make sure they happened as planned (note that it says God's HAND was involved, which indicates direct action on His part), so that humanity could be redeemed. We will see more of that in the end times with the Antichrist, the return of our Lord Jesus, and the establishment of the kingdom of God forever.

If you are reading or have read "The Purpose Driven Life," you are studying how to find out what God has "predestined" for your life, and actually fulfill it. If it were going to happen whether you liked it or not, there would be no need to "find God's purpose for your life."

So when you see "predestined" in the Bible, in your head substitute "pre-purposed" or "pre-planned." That way you do not also include that idea that it MUST occur. If God takes a hand in it, it will occur, if it is left up to your free will, then it MIGHT occur.

May each and every one of you FIND God's purpose for your life, and live it in its entirety.

Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia
.
__________________

Look for the good in people. And let the good in you be visible to them.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shower Chairs
Shower Chairs