Where to get answers ?

[AntonGoldnagel]

I think that there are basically 2 types of questions we can ask. One is technical, like for instance translations, gramatical issues but also geographical or types of calendars used and many other facts that are needed for correct understanding, scholars are undeniably needed to sort out these questions.

The other type of questions are related to doctrines and interpretations. In this area the scholars and especially theologians have made a complete pig's breackfast of it.
As evidence of this all we need is to point to the thousands of different "Christian" denominations. Christ is not divided is he ? Well, Christendom is !

To get answer to these type of question, ask God or his spokesman, the logo, not scholars or theologians.
We have a personal responsability to worship in truth, when we listen to others, at best, we are accepting their faith, at worst we could be accepting errors.
Faith cannot be delegated to others.

Just my opinion.

 

[Rhema]

scholars are undeniably needed to sort out these questions.

Indeed, and thank you. We are typically reviled by the (can one say peanut gallery?). With regards to calendars, the Qumran Scroll community had worked out their own calendar which is quite fascinating. And translation is always interesting, in that there still are important debates going on, although on must acknowledge that translation is interpretation. Of course issues with Hebrew are most always more difficult to deal with than those with Greek.

The other type of questions are related to doctrines and interpretations. In this area the scholars and especially theologians have made a complete pig's breackfast of it.
As evidence of this all we need is to point to the thousands of different "Christian" denominations. Christ is not divided is he ? Well, Christendom is !

First, as a scholar, I would submit that there are not "thousands of different denominations," but a mere 350, 375 at best when one looks only at doctrine. These "thousands" are mostly organizations of governance that determine who owns the money and buildings etc.

And as far as the divisions of Christendom, one need look no further than Acts 15 to show that it's been going on since day one. Indeed Paul would have felt no need to write the following if it were not an issue to be addressed during his lifetime.

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.​

(1 Corinthians 1:10-17 KJV)

It was a "pig's breakfast" long before we all got involved.

Rhema
(I'd write more, but it might get certain people upset enough to ban me.)

 

[Brad Huber]

I think that there are basically 2 types of questions we can ask. One is technical, like for instance translations, gramatical issues but also geographical or types of calendars used and many other facts that are needed for correct understanding, scholars are undeniably needed to sort out these questions.

The other type of questions are related to doctrines and interpretations. In this area the scholars and especially theologians have made a complete pig's breackfast of it.
As evidence of this all we need is to point to the thousands of different "Christian" denominations. Christ is not divided is he ? Well, Christendom is !

To get answer to these type of question, ask God or his spokesman, the logo, not scholars or theologians.
We have a personal responsability to worship in truth, when we listen to others, at best, we are accepting their faith, at worst we could be accepting errors.
Faith cannot be delegated to others.

Just my opinion.

Religions are divided, the church of God is not (which is comprised of born again christians).

 

[AntonGoldnagel]

I

Religions are divided, the church of God is not (which is comprised of born again christians).

I agree with you.
Gal 5:19-21" ...the works of the flesh]......which are, ..contentions, discords, sects...."
There is however scriptural basis for keeping separate from what one denomination may consider unscriptural conduct perpretated by another .1 Cor 10:21 ...ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.

Another consideration is that jewish followers of Christ were called a sect (Ac 28:22) and the historic example that the Israelite were admonished to keep separate from surrounding religion.

The schisme that is condemned by the Bible is creating division from the true religion (christianity) taught by Jesus, not separatedness from false beliefs.

Instead of finding out where or why Christendom is out of sync with Christ teachings, attempts at a superficial unity is endorsed by supporting efforts such as the ecunemical movement which promotes existing division when it should be condemning it.

I think that the main problem of Christendom is mixing Jesus teaching with philosophy and teaching from man instead of exclusively subjecting themselves to the law of Christ.

 

[Rhema]

born again christians

You don't think Born Again Christians can differ at all in doctrine?

Rhema

 

[Brad Huber]

You don't think Born Again Christians can differ at all in doctrine?

Rhema

Jesus told a religious person that he must be born again. A christian is a follower of Christ. Doctrines are the clearest sign of religion. Not saying doctrines are bad, just that they alone cause the division.

 

[AntonGoldnagel]

You don't think Born Again Christians can differ at all in doctrine?

Rhema

A person that has been made new according to Christ's would agree with him in all things and not be convinced to follow man's doctrines.
Of course just claiming to be born again doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Rhema]

Jesus told a religious person that he must be born again.

Some say "born again" some say "born from above"... Technically it should read "Born from the Beginning."

(LINK to the Liddell Scott)

(LINK to the Aramaic cf. verse 3)

A christian is a follower of Christ. Doctrines are the clearest sign of religion.

What does one follow if one doesn't follow the Doctrines that Christ taught? All that word "doctrine" means is teachings.

There's nothing wrong with doctrine, brother.

They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.​

(Isaiah 29:24 KJV)

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:​

(Matthew 7:28 KJV)

And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.​

(Mark 1:22 KJV)

And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,​

(Mark 4:2 KJV)

Surely you can't be calling Jesus "religious" ??

Not saying doctrines are bad, just that they alone cause the division.

I guess I cannot argue with that, given that Jesus said this about his doctrines -

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.​

(Matthew 10:34-36 KJV)

But it's best to not make Luther's BIG mistake of thinking that no sane rational person could arrive at a different conclusion when reading the exact same passage.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

A person that has been made new according to Christ's would agree with him in all things and not be convinced to follow man's doctrines.
Of course just claiming to be born again doesn't mean it's true.

How does one differentiate between "Christ's Doctrines" and "Man's Doctrines"?

There are heartfelt people who cannot even agree on some of the most fundamental doctrines that Jesus taught.

I'd give examples, but they would likely get a lot of people mad enough to get me banned.

Rhema

 

[AntonGoldnagel]

How does one differentiate between "Christ's Doctrines" and "Man's Doctrines"?

There are heartfelt people who cannot even agree on some of the most fundamental doctrines that Jesus taught.

I'd give examples, but they would likely get a lot of people mad enough to get me banned.

Rhema

Perhaps these 7 axioms may help.

Interpretations must always be in harmony with:

1/ Itself
2/ EVERY other Bible scripture.
3/ ALL other Bible doctrine
4/ with God's character.
5/ with the ransom and sin offering
6/ with God's plan and purpose.
7/ with facts (not theories).

 

[Rhema]

Perhaps these 7 axioms may help.

Thank you kindly.

We tend to start with this axiom (though it might just be a tautology)

---------------------------------------

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

(Mark 1:14-15 KJV)

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what JESUS preached, no matter what others might say.

The above is the first of our First Principles.
--------------------------------------------

Blessings,
Rhema

 

[Curtis]

Answers are only the results of questions. If there are no questions there will be no answers.

We have not because we ask not.

 

[AntonGoldnagel]

Thank you kindly.

We tend to start with this axiom (though it might just be a tautology)

---------------------------------------

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

(Mark 1:14-15 KJV)

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what JESUS preached, no matter what others might say.

The above is the first of our First Principles.
--------------------------------------------

Blessings,
Rhema

We tend to start with this axiom (though it might just be a tautology)
Yes, that what I also believed at first, but it's not.

 

[AntonGoldnagel]

Indeed, and thank you. We are typically reviled by the (can one say peanut gallery?). With regards to calendars, the Qumran Scroll community had worked out their own calendar which is quite fascinating. And translation is always interesting, in that there still are important debates going on, although on must acknowledge that translation is interpretation. Of course issues with Hebrew are most always more difficult to deal with than those with Greek.


First, as a scholar, I would submit that there are not "thousands of different denominations," but a mere 350, 375 at best when one looks only at doctrine. These "thousands" are mostly organizations of governance that determine who owns the money and buildings etc.

And as far as the divisions of Christendom, one need look no further than Acts 15 to show that it's been going on since day one. Indeed Paul would have felt no need to write the following if it were not an issue to be addressed during his lifetime.

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.​

(1 Corinthians 1:10-17 KJV)

It was a "pig's breakfast" long before we all got involved.

Rhema
(I'd write more, but it might get certain people upset enough to ban me.)

"It was a "pig's breakfast" long before we all got involved."

That depends what you mean. Of course the introduction to Christianity was chaotic, but I think that the message of the Gospel and the necessary foundation for a serious follower of Christ to build strong, fireproff faith was laid according to plan.
But it was never meant to be easy or a fancy picnic, as you noticed, starting with Jesus speaking in parables, to false brothers and pressure from Rome. Eventually Rome won the battle and the foretold apostasy ran full course exactly as foretold. The battle is still raging, we already know who will win the war, just not when, nor if we will see it. The important thing is we share the knowledge if we can and stay faithful.

 

[Rhema]

Yes, that what I also believed at first, but it's not.

Curious.

I wouldn't mind if you expanded on this a bit more by PM.

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[AntonGoldnagel]

Thank you kindly.

We tend to start with this axiom (though it might just be a tautology)

---------------------------------------

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

(Mark 1:14-15 KJV)

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what JESUS preached, no matter what others might say.

The above is the first of our First Principles.
--------------------------------------------

Blessings,
Rhema

"We tend to start with this axiom (though it might just be a tautology)"

1/ is referring to the fact that the interpretations could be contradicting ITSELF
2/ is adressing a contradiction with the SCRIPTURES.
That's the reason I dont think it's a tautology.

 

[Rhema]

Yes, that what I also believed at first, but it's not.

Ahhh.. okay... that it's not a tautology.
I thought you meant that you didn't agree with the axiom.

Sometimes when I read scripture I wonder how I wound up in pronoun hell.
"He" (he whom)? "That" (that what?)

Here's my most controversial example.

And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.​

(Genesis 14:20 KJV)

Who's the "he"? Who's the "him"? It might not be what you think. (Consider it rhetorical.)

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[AntonGoldnagel]

Yes, it's not always clear and can lead to confusion when one does not make comparisons, try to find understanding from the context or use Strongs numbers.
Of course you know all that,